One of my major concerns is the increasing rate of releases for board games in Canada. It struck me one way to look at how often a ‘hit’ product might appear (or at least a decent product) would be to look at our release dates and what we kept in-stock.
I proceeded to pull from our database all the products that had a ‘Year’ indicated in its product information. For the vast majority of products, this would indicate the year it was published (or re-published in a few cases). I then figured out the total number of such products (No. of products added on the chart) and the number of those products still in-stock with us at the time of analysis (late-June 2013) as indicated by the bar graph (no. of products in-stock).
Now, note that the years used is the year the product was published / released generally (as drawn from BGG datasets). So you’ll see items like 1935 and 1947 (Monopoly, etc) in there too – products that were released long before we ever existed.
Once the data was plotted, I also added a ‘Percentage still in-stock’ line graph which gave a % of items that were still in-stock compared to the number of items released in that year and plotted it all. I’ve also added a second data line (the purple) for adjusting for ‘dead stock’. That is, items that are only in-stock because we couldn’t sell them off (or intend to get rid off once they do sell).
If you look at products that we ‘cherry picked’ from 2006 backwards, you’ll see that even though these products were in-demand when we launched in 2007; many have now been dropped from inventory. If you look only at 2007, the year when we started adding products based off what we guessed could sell, that’s 15% or so and likely to continue to drop as demand wanes. Whether it’s because the product is no longer available or because the product no longer has demand, about 15 – 20% of products released a year manage to have any staying power. Within that, probably only 2 or 3 products are consistently good sellers (selling more than 1 copy a year).
Secondly, my concerns about a spike in products seems justified. There’s a huge spike in the amount of products added in the last 3 years (we are only 7 months in for 2013 with the slew of GenCon releases still to be added!). From bringing in 521 products in 2010 in-total, we now have 476 products already in-stock for 2013 and more than 600 added for the year. Just using 2012 numbers, that’s a 57% growth in products. Now, mind you – we’ve added RPGs and miniatures to the site since then; but most miniatures don’t have a year (model years just don’t make sense to add) and our RPG selection while large was also backdated in some cases (e.g. Pathfinder modules that were released before we started adding the line). It’s also worthwhile to note that these aren’t even all the products available – just the one’s we’ve picked to add to the site / bring-in / sell.
Thirdly, the ‘demand’ for products takes a steep fall within 1 year. We drop 50% of products we bring in within 1 year, 60% in 2 years and within 3 75% of all products are dropped. As a publisher, if you haven’t sold off a significant % of your products in a year, you should seriously be considering adjusting your price / having sales because by year 3, you’re not likely to be able to sell it at all.
Curiously, this is by % so in 2007 we have 32 SKUs we feel are wortwhile. For 2008, we have 68 SKUs and 2009 we have 127. If we expect that in 2 years time to see roughly the same number of SKUs being worthwhile, we’d see about a 75% drop in SKUs or us dropping over 90 items.
Limitations of the Data
Firstly and most importantly, while I’ve tried to clean the data; I have to admit I didn’t spend a whole lot of time doing it. I’d guess the % numbers used could be 2 – 3% higher / lower easily.
Secondly, the increasing number of SKUs added and sold can be attributed to:
- our increasing number of RPGs & miniatures
- the increasing size of the market
- the increasing size of our business (i.e. our ability to bring in more stock)
- the necessity to keep whole lines in-stock (e.g. LCG products, minis, etc)
Thirdly, this data is a snapshot in time. It’d be really useful to see the changes over-time which this cannot provide unfortunately. Perhaps next year, since I have the datasets saved now.
Lastly, some might want to draw conclusions that the ‘quality’ of product has gotten better since our % of items and raw count of items are higher than in previous years. I’d be hesistant about drawing that conclusion – it’s too early to tell and moreover, this does not show turn rates; just whether we have an item in-stock. In addition, we often keep products in-stock that might sell 1