Odd Day

Today was an odd day at our field.  It was the first day of our 2 for 1 Wednesdays, we are hosting every Wednesday during July & August.  It came just two days after a big sale we had this past long weekend (It was Canada Day July 1, so virtually the whole country had Monday off as well), so we had a feeling it would be a slow day.

We were right.  Only 15 people showed up, not one of them renting.  That’s very unusual for our field, although the gear owner numbers having been increasing over the years, with a smaller percentage of our customers renting (the number of renters is not decreasing, just the percentage).  I’m not overly concerned about the small numbers and the fact that we lost money today.  We’ll make up for it on other days.  That’s just the way it works in business sometimes.

I did not actually work today as I had overseen Monday’s and Tuesday’s games, so it was my business partner’s turn today.  But I did take a look at the pictures that he posted to our Facebook page tonight.   You can see them here:  https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.411769118858710.79310.160099750692316&type=1   What stood out for me was the number of pumps the gear owners were using and how many of the gear owners that weren’t using pumps, were using 50 round hoppers, with no visible pod packs carried.  Yeah, there were two or three players there with 200 round hoppers and look like they had pod packs as well, but the vast majority didn’t.

It makes me proud to know that with our policies we have created a field where most people choose to shoot lower volumes.  We have no rate of fire restrictions other than no full auto or ramping.  We don’t limit the amount of paint players can carry on the field (except our refs who are not allowed to carry pods of extra paint as they get paint at a discount and it would not be fair to others who do not get the discounted price).  But people choose to shoot less paintballs.  People also choose to come to our field more than any other field on Vancouver Island, by a good margin.   It’s not because we are the cheapest.  We’re not.  It’s because of the atmosphere.

When own gear players choose to take out only 50 paintballs in a 15 minute game, you can be reasonably sure they are not going to go hog wild on other players.  It’s rare when you hear strings of high ROF paintballs during one of our games.  I hear it when I play at other fields all the time, but at our field, I only hear it occasionally and only for short durations.  Because of that, our customers tend to have fun, on any given day, even on days when there are no renters around.

Three Strikes...You're Out!

I wrote the following on another site (View From the Deadbox) as a response to someone whose opinion I respect who suggested the industry hasn't/hadn't done enough to promote tournament paintball, but instead pushed "warlike" recreational paintball too much.  Since I haven't posted much here because I'm getting lazy (or too busy, you choose), I thought I would throw it up so y'all don't think I'm doing nothing at all.  Here goes:

I’m not sure what else you wanted the industry to do. You certainly didn’t expect Tippmann and the like to abandon their very profitable business of supplying their customers what they demanded did you? If you did that was just wishful thinking. The industry has always made efforts to supply a broader market. Abandoning non-competitive type play for competitive type play will never happen. Product lines expanded and many, many fields opened with tournament type only fields and many others added tournament type fields to their mix. When I went into the business, the buzz I heard everywhere was that the future in paintball lay in speedball. This was 2001. I fully intended to go into the speedball market (who in their right mind would want to miss out on a shifting trend?), as were most of the other fields in the area. My competitors were actively recruiting players from the “rec” business to join the fun on the speedball fields (the owners themselves were heavily involved in tournament play, so it was their passion). But in the end, after all their efforts, they could never attract enough participants to make it a viable business, it was always a sideline that they had to inject funds into (rather than take funds out of).

Now, had all us field owners abandoned their “rec” businesses completely and speedball were all that was offered, then sure, competitive paintball would have grown more, although most would just be playing “rec” paintball on speedball fields, but we would have also alienated a huge portion of the market that does not want to play on small fields, with extreme rates of fire, and large numbers of paintballs. What (intelligent) industry would abandon a large part of their customer base to try to convert them into customers of their other product line and in the process alienating (losing) many of them? We don’t see cheap fast food restaurants closing, in hopes that everyone will start eating at high end restaurants.

If the “sport” of paintball wants to grow, then it needs to concentrate on its product. Competitive paintball, although using similar equipment as recreational paintball, is a totally different business, with a totally different product, and totally different demands of their customer base. Tournament type paintball needs to stop thinking about converting rec players, but needs to concentrate on creating something that enough people want to take part in, and more importantly, can afford to take part in. If you want to create “Demand”, which is what you are trying to do, then you need to “Supply” what people might want at a price they feel is worth spending.

I agree that a lot of people want to play sports and I believe there is a much bigger demand for competitive style paintball than is currently being supplied to. I know many, many “rec” players that tried to get into the competitive paintball scene, only to be jaded, mostly by the cost (although that is not the only issue). The product that is being supplied at the cost demanded of the customer, can’t keep those customers, even though they dearly want to play the “sport”. I’m sure we all know many people like that.

The problem I see with the evolution of tournament paintball, is that field owners tried to build a product based on “volume”. However, the “volume” was paintballs, and not customers. They figured if they could get everyone shooting more paintballs, they would sell more paintballs and make the whole thing profitable. That whole concept has three very basic flaws though. First, as you sell more, the price goes down, so the field owners end up making the same or maybe even less per customer. Second, supplying a product based on extreme rates of fire, eliminates a very large portion of the population. Third, those that are willing to take part, because of the high volumes of paint necessary, even though relatively cheap, need to spend a lot of money compete. Now you’ve created a product that only a small percentage are willing to take part in due to the extremity level, is very costly for those that do want to take part, and is not profitable for those supplying the product. Three strikes....you’re out!

Even Playing Field

Can we play serious competitive paintball in the woods?  I was pondering this after someone asked elsewhere if there will ever be any serious competitive leagues played on woodsball fields.

Team sports need to be played in an environment where both competing teams have, as close as possible, the same advantages and disadvantages.  The term, "even playing field" comes to mind.  Can a natural setting like a forest area ever be truly equal for both teams?  I think not, and if not, how serious can we take the competition?  How much did the variance of the field, play part in deciding the victor?

A game like soccer is played on a fairly level field, both sides of the field identical and the only real variable on any given day could be the direction and strength of the wind (which can affect the game considerably) and the location of the sun.  Could competitive soccer be played on naturally formed sand dunes?  Sure, but we would definitely take it a lot less seriously, so why bother?  Can we play some recreational soccer on naturally built sand dunes?  Sure, it might even be a lot of fun, but don't ask me to spend a lot of money and time practicing and take it very seriously.

Excellence in Sports

It occurred to me recently that just about all sporting events are about striving to find the most talented and skilled athletes taking part in the sport competing at the time. The Olympics are probably one of the best examples of singling out the best athlete at that particular time in a particular sport. The winner of the men's 100 meter run is touted as being the fastest man on the planet (at that time) and there is a good chance that it's true. There is always a small chance that there is some unknown person somewhere that could run faster, that has just never trained for events such as that, but the odds are slim. If there are naturally talented athletes, usually they themselves will know it and get involved in the sport they are talented in or someone else will notice them and push them in the right direction. If a particularly young talented soccer player for instance plays with his friends in the park and is totally dominating because of his superior talents and skills more than likely someone will notice and suggest he play organized soccer. Once in organized soccer, if he is truly exceptional, he will rise in the ranks and maybe one day will be surpassing Beckham's benchmarks.

The point I'm trying to make that most sports attract and mold talented athletes so that they rise to the top of their sport. But it gets more difficult with sports that utilize technology (equipment) or need an abundant amount of supplies to participate. A poor native in Kenya can be pulled from his village and has a shot at becoming the world's best marathon runner. But the chances of someone from that village the world's best Formula 1 driver are pretty slim, although there might be a person in that village that has all the right instincts and co ordinations required.

How does this relate to paintball? The skills of paintball players are getting better. This is most obvious in the competitive paintball scene. Today's competitive paintball players are much more athletic and have much better skills than those of yesteryear. There was a time when anyone that had the money and inclination could compete at the highest level of paintball. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily at the top of their game. Today you are not going to be playing in the PSP Pro division unless you truly are good enough to be there. Lower divisions will still let you basically play at higher levels than you should, but overall with ranking systems in place players are playing at levels close to where they should be playing (with others of similar talents and skill levels).

So does that mean that paintball is seeing the best athletes playing paintball as good as it can be played today? I don't think so. The high costs associated with the game is keeping too many people out of competing. I know at our recreational field we have many players playing recreational paintball who would probably do very well in competitive paintball. Some of them excel in other sports because they are great athletes. Some of those same players have tried competitive paintball, and although they did very well at the levels they competed at, and would most likely keep advancing, they drop out. Mostly due to the cost. The financial cost and the cost in time. If you are married and possibly have a family, chances are high level competitive paintball is not going to work for you. If you have ambitions to go to University, chances are high level competitive paintball is not going to work for you. Even if you are just a regular guy that wants to achieve something in life like buy a house or have a career, chances are high level competitive paintball is not going to work for you. To play high level competitive paintball and even to get to relatively high level competitive paintball, a player needs to be extremely dedicated (probably true in any sport), but also needs to be satisfied with living in perpetual poverty and giving up most other things in life that many of us want (family, house, career, etc.). That's a huge sacrifice required with basically zero chance of any kind of financial reward, even if a player becomes one of the top ranked players in paintball.

Those talented players I see at our recreational field that could possibly become great competitive players, won't. They won't because they choose to not even try. They know the sacrifices that are needed and aren't willing to make them. So the competitive paintball we see today, although played at a much higher skill and talent level than yesteryear, is still a long shot from what it could be if the truly best athletes in the world were taking part and I don't think that will change. For that to change, the prohibitive cost to participate would need to be alleviated (which it won't) or the reward at the top would have to become so great that enough people would make the sacrifices needed in the hopes of reaching the top. This also will most likely never happen. But even if the reward at the top was extremely high, that Kenyan villager, or even the lower class Torontonian, although they might have the perfect natural talents and co-ordinations to become the best paintball player in the world, chances are they are not going to have the finances available to get there. But it would attract a much wider spectrum of players willing to make the sacrifice and overall, high level competitive paintball would be played at a considerably higher level than it is today.

Rules and Common Sense

2012 PSP Galveston tourney play saw a player perform a DMW (Dead Man's Walk). There's a thread over on PBN with lots of the expected debates and comment. (http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=3771758) You can go check it out if you like. There's even video from what looks like a marker cam that seemingly proves the player executing the DMW was never shot and never indicated that he might be eliminated by calling out or raising either of his arms anywhere close to shoulder level (his arms were hanging down at his sides).

The play was legal. There is no rule that says a player cannot walk in the open on a field. DMW's are not executed much anymore these days. In general, players playing tournament ball are "helped" off the field with some extra paintballs, or shown some "extra love" once they have been eliminated. For the record, I hate bonus balling. I think it greatly hurts the growth of our sport. I hate it on tournament fields and even more on recreational fields. If a player at our (recreational) field purposely bonus balls another player, that player will not be returning to our field for a while, or possibly ever.

The player executing the DMW did not break any rules of the game. Was he playing paintball in the spirit of the game? Of course not. Paintball (at least tournament paintball) isn't about theatrics. It's about physical ability and skill. There is no way rules can be written that would specifically disallow a DMW. Refs would need to make subjective decisions as what is and isn't a DMW and rules should eliminate as much as possible the need for refs to make subjective decisions.

But there are rules in place that deal with DMW's. If a player calls himself out or raises his hands above his shoulder, he has indicated that he is out and can no longer engage in play and must make his way off the field to the dead box. There is no gray area there. It's black and white. However, many players will call themselves out (some don't even do that) and walk off the field without raising their arms. These players are often "helped" off the field. Most often there is a lot of noise during play that players will not hear a player call himself out. If that player than moves out of his bunker without having his arms in the air, he has no reason to complain if he gets a few balls coming his way. However, if the player has one or both of his hands raised high to indicate he is no longer in play, he should not be shot at, especially if the first thing that exits the bunker is his raised marker. If he then gets some extra love, the player that shot him should immediately be called out by a ref. There is not much gray area for the refs to get lost in. But refs choose all the time not to pull the offending bonus ballers. It's "part of the game". But should it be part of the game?

Other sports try very hard to protect the health and safety of their participants. The NHL regularly changes rules in the spirit of making the game safer. More importantly, refs are given the mandate to make calls that are seen as an attempt to go beyond regular physical play with an intent to injure. For instance, a player may body check a player along the boards. It's done many times during a game. But if a player deliberately hits another player with an obvious intent to injure, especially if hitting from behind, the offending player is penalized, often times with suspensions lasting several games and financial penalties (fines). The NHL refs obviously have to make some subjective decisions, but without eliminating physical play completely, that can't be helped. The onus is on the checking player to check in such a manner as to not deliberately try to injure another player. For the most part, it seems to work. Overall the objective is to make the game safe for players competing and obviously that is in all the stakeholders best interest. It's good for the players and it's good for the league.

Competitive paintball has rules in place. The DMW in Galveston will undoubtedly strengthen the desire to "help" players off the field. In my opinion, in competitive paintball, if a player is walking on the field without his arms raised to indicate he is out, he should be shot. It's not a difficult thing to lift your arms. However, if a dead player is shot while his arms are raised in the air, players from the other team should be pulled. Consistently. There is no reason not to pull offending players. If a player argues that he did not see the dead player's raised arms...too bad. The onus should be on players to make sure players they are shooting at are indeed alive. It doesn't make sense to have rules in place and not enforce them, especially when they are hurting the sport.

Eliminated players should raise their arms and keep them raised until they are off the field, and players shooting dead players with their arms in the air should be pulled. Every time. Common sense. Enforcing these common sense rules will only help the sport grow. There is no negative side to the enforcement. I don't think players are going to stay home because they are not being bonus balled and I don't think players have an argument when they get pulled for bonus balling. If players stay home because they don't like getting pulled for bonus balling. Good riddance. The sport will be better off without them. Let's let common sense prevail in the spirit of the game.

Who do you ask?

Just about all businesses and industry try to expand their market. The best way to expand a market is to match products and/or services more closely to what the potential consumers want. Paintball is no different, whether it's recreational or competitive paintball (I separate the two, because for me, there is a big difference between the two. They are both paintball, but other than that, they are unique enough for me to consider them to be two different products, likely to attract two different demographic sets, with relatively minor overlap).

So how should a product or service be changed to expand a market? How does one find out what changes might entice new customers to buy your product? Who does one ask? If, for instance, McDonalds Restaurants wants customers, who are currently not coming to their establishments, to start walking in their door, how should they go about doing that? Would it make sense to hand out questionnaires with each meal purchased? That would provide information from existing customers, and would have little relevance for those that have chosen, for whatever reason, not to make a purchase.

If a paintball field operator or competitive league organizer is trying to improve the experience for the people taking part, he/she should probably ask the people taking part. On the other hand, if he/she is trying to attract new (more) people to take part, he/she should probably be asking those that aren't taking part yet. Both are important obviously. Alienating existing customers by changing a product/service to satisfy only new customers needs to be avoided. On the flip side, making the ideal product/service for existing customers, with no consideration about the effect that will have on potential new customers would be just as bad, if not worse (virtually every business/industry needs new customers to survive).

The internet, through basically instant communication, makes it very easy to gather information from existing customers in our industry. It's a great tool to have. But getting opinions from people that aren't yet, and aren't any longer customers, is much more difficult. I suspect many business operators and tournament organizers take the easy route.

Overpriced

There is a thread titled "Most Overpriced Place You've Played" in the Recreational players Talk section over on PBN. It was started close to 3 1/2 years ago. It resurfaces regularly, so one could make the assumption that it is a relevant topic for many people. Mostly it consists of players submitting where they play paintball and how much it costs. Almost all the complaining is in regards to paintball prices, rather than entry or air.

But what does "overpriced" mean? When a product or service is priced at a certain level and there are enough customers buying at that level, does that not make the pricing acceptable? For instance, if a restaurant was selling $100 steak dinners and is booked up well in advance, has the restaurant overpriced their meals? If a clothing manufacturer sells their jeans at $80 each and there are hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of people buying them, are the jeans overpriced? If Skirmish Paintball is selling paintballs at $99/case and there are hundreds and hundreds of visitors every week, has Skirmish overpriced their product?

Paying what a business has priced their product or service at, assuming there is competition for the business, is a customer's choice. I don't regularly eat out at $100/meal restaurants. I've never spent $80 on jeans. But there are plenty of people who do. Do I think they are foolish? Yeah, probably a little, but it's their choice.

In my opinion there are only two instances when something is "overpriced". One is when there is no competition and a company can wilfully choose to price something for much more than it needs to be priced, just because they can. This rarely happens in a free market system, as when others see how much money someone is making, there are others who get into the market and compete to get some of the action. That generally brings prices down to a more realistic level.

Other than that, if a business overprices a product or service, it usually means they will not sell much of that product or service. If the business does it with enough of their product/service, they are usually a business that won't be around long. Overpricing means that the price is too high for the value of the product or service in the eyes of the consumer. An overpriced paintball field could theoretically be one where players are paying $40 total for entry/air/a case of paint, if the value is not there. On the flip side, if players are paying $70 for entry/air/ and a bag of 500 paintballs, but everyone is leaving with smiles on their faces, and the field is seeing hundreds of customers every week, the prices the field is charging may be perfectly legitimate.

It's always about value. Product pricing is just one element of the value.