Thursday, July 1, 2010

Scenario Slump

Picking up on yesterday's post--if it's true that scenario is also showing some decline in participation--the larger point is that the industry's shift toward scenario as a marketing strategy is not a fix. At most it's a delay (which is also why some companies are less interested in marketing strategy than they are new markets) even if the present result is greater outreach to the scenario community. If the economic malaise is going to impact every facet of the game--and I'm certain it will--then PBIndustry marketing schemes are only marginally relevant at best.


Reiner Schafer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reiner Schafer said...

Shifting priorities in marketing from tournament play to scenario play was never a good long term strategy. At least I never thought it was and I had no problem pointing it out several years ago when the trend was starting. Big game scenario play is only attractive to the avid paintball player who can handle large amounts of players on a field shooting large amounts of paint. Basically it was just a genre being marketed to those that were already playing to rekindle their interest in paintball. Something else to do for those that got discouraged and couldn't get past the "Wannabe Tourney Player" stage. It's not a venue for beginner players, so it does very little good long term.

I pointed out right from the start that scenario play will not be the saviour for paintball. It may have delayed, and probably will still help for a while to keep what's left of PBIndustry where it currently is. But the natural attrition rate will continue to whittle away at both scenario and tourney play (although I think tourney play rate has probably approached close to the equilibrium of new players joining/players leaving - but that's just a guess with no quantifiable data to back that up)

Anonymous said...

you gonna post on mao's layout?

Missy Q said...

Who said Scenario was the saviour of paintball?

It was 85% of the market before, and its still 85% of the market, maybe 90%.
That wasn't supposed to save anyone, it's just that people started to realise that if they want to sell more product, they need to make it for 85% of the market instead of just for the 'onepercenters'.
This decision may have saved some companies in paintball, or not, but who thought it was going to 'save paintball'?

Baca Loco said...

Are you saying the Rec portion of paintball is only 14% or are you lumping the Scenario kids in with the rec types? There's certainly crossover. Or are you identifying Scenario as a subset of Rec?

I don't think I said anything about saving paintball. That's actually not a particular concern. My point was that the across the industry move to target scenario for the latest marketing efforts doesn't reflect any new ideas or thinking, in fact, just the opposite. It's the same old thing just redirected.

Reiner Schafer said...

Missy Q must be lumping everything not played on a speedball field as scenario paintball. There is a lot of gray area in definitions and a lot of crossover. We play recreational paintball. 15 minute games and each one has a mission (or scenario) but I don't consider what we do "Scenario Paintball". But I could see how some might call it that.

As far as te "saviour of Paintball" phrase goes, I could have been a little motre clear. The comment had more to do with what seemed to be the trend for PBIndustry starting a few years ago, when the shift of focus went from tourney play to Scenario, or Milsim. Obviously this shift happened because it helped save losses in sales. Many fields also jumped on the bandwagon and larger "Scenario Games" sprung up everywhere. Some of us field owners realized, even when the shift of focus was just getting noticed, that the shift would do little to attract new blood (players) into the game. It's not that it didn't attract a little new blood (and still does every day), but it's just that it is minimal, only slightly more than what gets attracted into tourney play every day. But when you subtract the attrition rate, the net growth may still be negative.

J-Bird said...

i think the problem is that the industry has crossed mil-sim with scenario and rec, all three of which are separate imo.

a player that is looking to play a mil-sim game is going to look for something different than your family of 4 that wants to play in the back yard. Likewise, a scenario player most likely wont want either of those.

Reiner Schafer said...

It's all a little fuzzy. Milsim for me is a type of gear coupled with a style of play. Some scenarios are based on military history. Obviously milsim fits in nicely with those scenarios. But Milsim players can play their style in virtually any rec play, short of speedball. Is Milsim out of place when the scenario is Alice in Woderland? Probably, but that doesn't mean that the milsim guys can't play head to head with the Mad Hatter and Alice.

I've had Milsim units play at our field playing their style during games like Capture the Flag and Attack and Defend amongst pump players, renters and guys shooting electros. They never seemed to do very well, but I think they had fun. They actually wanted to make our field their local home field. All we had to do was reduce the price of paintballs for them and they guaranteed us they would shoot lots of it. Boy, were they barking up the wrong tree.