Tragedy of the Commons

Warning: This is gonna be boring paintball stuff along the lines of past boring posts like the ones here, here & here. Oh, and this one, too. (The Econometrics of the Commons series) If you missed them count yourself fortunate or, if you are a glutton for punishment or a junior member of the Marquis de Sade Club enjoy. Basically the series called out PBIndustry. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

This post is covering some related territory--hence the title--and is intended to be the introduction to the posts I've been meaning to get around to on the PSTA. Within the overlapping frontiers of social & political sciences and economics 'tragedy of the commons' normally refers to the inability (or unwillingness) of individual actors to act cooperatively with respect to common or shared resources--often within a closed or semi-closed system. [This, btw, is the general area of study of the recent Nobel prize award given in economics.] Or the uncommon result when they do act in concert. Bored yet? I'm just getting started.

Anyway, it seemed to me there were potentially some interesting parallels in a small, emerging market--like paintball. (There are also some very significant differences, too.) For example, Texas Gulf Coast shrimpers have behaved certain ways based on finite fishing beds--and have been a prime area of this sort of study--but is it either appropriate or rational for PBIndustry to have behaved in similar ways? And they have--and, no, I'm pretty sure it wasn't either appropriate or rational even though it worked for a few (or seemed to work, as the case may be.)

Without getting too bogged down however the simple point is to set a baseline for PBIndustry and my baseline, as expressed in past posts, and restated here is that they have screwed the pooch more often that not. And the past conduct of PBIndustry is my prism for looking at the PSTA, its goals and purposes, and its future plans. This doesn't mean I am opposed to the PSTA or disbelieving of their claimed intentions. Only that, in my estimation, the PSTA will have a lot to overcome both externally and internally. Can the PSTA actually accomplish positive for paintball results? Will the PSTA succeed where PBIndustry has failed in the past? Or will the PSTA, despite every good intention, fail because PBIndustry can't seem to avoid the 'tragedy of the commons'?

It will be interesting to hear what the PSTA's current goals are and how they intend to go about achieving them. Of course I will probably have a thought or two on their prospects in light of past history. And I will flesh out future thoughts within the 'tragedy of the commons' framework throughout the upcoming PSTA posts.

The Econometric of the Commons: Sign Posts

Part Four of a four part series. Has a certain symmetry, doesn't it? And yes, I'm just filling some space. You see, there's plenty more to be said on this topic but I'm losing interest. Like the rest of you. Besides, PBIndustry(?) has got the PSTA up and, hmm, running? So there's a start.
Instead of doing a recap and an outline for laying a foundation–-which was the original plan–-I'm simply gonna suggest a few sign posts for PBI to consider keeping in mind as the process moves forward. What should happen and what should the development of the PSTA look like if it's on track? (And by 'on track' I'm taking some liberties since I mean on track as I think it ought to be. You may, of course, have a different opinion. Which is, as has already been established in the sidebar of this blog, a position you may want to reconsider.)

Signs Your Industry Trade Assoc. May Actually Serve Your Whole Industry
1. trade assoc. has a defined and enumerated mission statement and/or purpose
2. operation and function of the trade assoc. is transparent (and I don't mean invisible.)
3. open to all legitimate members of the industry
4. provides an opportunity and methodology to give voice to all the members
5. actions taken / choices made are consistent with the association's charter / mission / purpose

Right. That'll get the party started. And by all means, if you've got any additional ideas, feel free to post 'em up in comments.

The Econometric of the Commons: Been There Done That & the PSTA

Here's Part Three and I solemnly swear to keep it shorter than the previous parts. There have been expos, trade shows, advisory committees, steering committees, commissions, networks and associations and all that remains is a couple of out of date websites. From the PBI side there was the Paintball Product Manufacturers Association. Impact? Nil. From the front lines of fields and local retailers there was the Paintball News Network. Impact? More inclusive was the World Paintball Commission which appears to have been an if we build it they will come kinda effort. But nobody showed up. Old news, ancient history. Today there is a new push being made with the Paintball Sports Trade Assoc. But just what is the PSTA?
The past is littered with failed attempts but attempts at what? Were they really sincere efforts to engage PBI in a united effort? If they were and failed from apathy perhaps the current environment will have grabbed PBI's attention.
Do you recall from a couple years ago when the NPPL and the PSP were sounding off about world league federations? Did you like the sound of it? Where is it today? PSP even included federation talk on their website. Where is it today? My point isn't that PBI has had lots of good ideas but failed to follow through–my point is that all the federation talk wasn't what it seemed to be. The purpose was to compete with the other guy. The accomplishment of the stated goal was incidental. You oldsters will remember the space race of the 50's and 60's. The results have had a widespread impact on all sorts of things but the primary motivation was a competition between superpowers. Same with the world federation talk. And as soon as one side lost the other lost interest.
Which brings us back to the freshly minted PSTA and their scheduled shindig with the PB Extravaganza Dealer Trade Show. Is this the beginning of a unified face for paintball or is it just another B-to-B event? In the comments to Part One pbi man invoked SGMA and gave out the PSTA's website so anyone interested could follow up. SGMA (Sporting Goods Manufacturers Assoc.) is primarily a relationship (to retail) and lobbying entity. Will they have a useful contribution to make? I expect they will. But if the PSTA ends up being a mini-SGMA it will have forfeited an opportunity. If that's all that happens it will be an improvement over the present but there are other ways it could go. Why isn't the PSTA prepared to sign up, right now, today, all legitimate members of PBI and welcome them on board? And they already have a Board of Directors? As a natural cynic that looks like the recipe for exclusivity, not inclusivity but hopefully I'm mistaken. It could be I'm just impatient.
Anyway, if you'd like more info check out Warpig and send any queries you have to the PSTA .
Additionally the latest PR from the PSP wants y'all to know Paintball Events Unlimited LLC (you will see them at the Warpig presser) and Paintball Extravaganza (them too) will have a booth at Cup. Maybe you unacknowledged members of PBI should ask them if they want you to join them or be their customers. Just saying.
And if you'd like to do a comparison check out the WPC site.
Could be now is the time to start heating up that tar.

[Update: my html sucks but all the links are now working as intended.]

And the big finish–
Part Four: Making Moves
UPDATE: I've changed it to Sign Posts

The Econometric of the Commons: Productive Competition and Unproductive Competition

Aight, kids, here's Part Two.
With the first post up less than 6 hours it was suggested to me that I must be looking to be run outta paintball on a rail after being liberally tarred and feathered. I want to say categorically that wasn't the plan. So save your tar and feathers and don't bother going to Home Depot and picking up that rail.

Once upon a time there were 3 paintball fields located around a major metropolitan area. (Everybody loves a story, right? Well, you're getting one anyway. This one is more of a fable really–a story with a moral. And pay close attention because there will be a quiz at the end.) 2 of the 3 fields were model operations. The third was a fly-by-night, next thing to pirate paintball, make some quick cash dealio. Imagine you own one of the model operations. Now imagine that in the next year 1000 people who have never played paintball before will play one of those 3 local fields. Here's the twist: You get to decide which field they play at it except it can't be yours. What do you do?
The single overriding characteristic of all paintball that drives every aspect of the endeavor at every level is the player. Singular. Yes, it's an aggregate of players that eventually makes the difference between success and failure in a given circumstance but thinking about the players as a group is misleading. The thing that matters is a quality all players share. The player plays the game when and where the player chooses to play. The player is a free consumer of paintball. I know, no duh, but think about it for a second. Besides the obvious it means the player can't be coerced and the paintball market in total is made up of the pool of players. I know, another no brainer when you stop to think about it but it's important nonetheless. For PBIndustry (everybody with fields, stores, factories and the materiel components of events) this means they are all selling to the same pool of players--and, the players are a freely self-identifying association.
So how did you divvy up the 1000 players? If you sent any of them to Blackbeard over at Pirate Paintball–BZAAPPP! You lose. Thanks for playing and don't let the door hit you on the way out. As an isolated situation it may seem like a tough call no matter what choice is made but it really isn't. The 1000 players aren't yours. (Yet.) So those players don't affect your bottom line. (Today.) But if you send them to pirate paintball for bloody welts, eye patches and machine gun massacres what percentage ever play again? And how many haven't-tried-it-yet players do they sour afterwards because of their experience? Now if you sent them all to the other model operator you know the 1000 players were far more likely to have a positive, safe, fun day of paintball. And the likelihood is a much higher percentage become repeat customers. And as repeats you now have an opportunity to compete for their business.
The other guy's loss isn't your gain. Players choose. The first goal all PBI hold in common is getting the non-player to choose to play. When they become a player is the time you compete for the choices they make.
A couple of factors have blinded PBIndustry to the merits of operating in common. Manufacturers tend to be wholesalers primarily dealing with retailers so are one further remove from the player and are in day-to-day competition with the other manufacturers for market share and indirect sales. (Let's skip what happens when manufacturers become retailers for now.) Retailers are local and tend to see the other guy's success as their loss. And of course when things were good there's little incentive to make that extra effort and take on extra work.
Additionally, the calculation everybody is determined to make is where do I lose on this proposition. Not what do I gain, but what's it gonna cost me? What advantage am I giving up? I'm not gonna argue cost or rate of return or shrinking margins. What I will say is this: operating in common where it serves everyone's interest doesn't alter the competitive environment except to acknowledge that everybody's life blood is the player base and building and sustaining that base is something that none of y'all can do as effectively alone as cooperatively.
To date the bulk of the energies expended by PBIndustry have been aimed at selling to more of the existing players than the next guy. Which, on its face, isn't unreasonable. What it does however is cede a significant avenue of potential growth to random happenstance or at best the skill of each local field and store. Grow the player pool and there's more market for everybody. Which is another no brainer and not news to anybody. And yet--

Part Three: been there done that & the (next wave) Paintball Sports Trade Assoc.

The Econometric of the Commons or What the Hell is Wrong with Everybody?

Here's the deal. I'm trying something different. I'm gonna start with the punchline and if (or when) you disagree then you can read the reasons why I'm right and you're wrong or you can skip that part completely and continue to deny reality. Hey, if it's good enough for Congress ... (Although I'm inclined to think Congress isn't so much denying reality as imagining they can alter reality by ballot.) I'm also gonna break the post into sections. This is Part One.

Warning: Conceptual Stuff ahead. Boring and uncool. Devoid of rumor and gossip.

PBIndustry as a whole has failed to act on significant opportunities to improve the economic environment in the past and the time is rapidly approaching when this failure could have dire consequences and ought to be addressed. I can't tell you why this failure has occurred and it's all the more baffling because PBI(ndustry) is well aware of the concept I'm about to promote and aspects of its utility and yet only a few piecemeal efforts seem to have been made.
The idea is simple. That PBI shares a large proportion of all things paintball in common and it would be beneficial to PBI to acknowledge that fact and then act on it.
It begins with Standards & Practices. (See prior posts for related commentary, search by label) S&P is shorthand for a system of general agreements consented to by PBI (broadly) and accepted as beneficial to paintball and all its participants. S&P has internal and external applications as well as overlapping applications.
Here's an example: goggles. PBI that makes and sells goggles compete over looks, comfort and ease of use--not safety. There is an industry standard for safety set by the ASTM. There are liability and practical reasons. Safety standards as judged by an impartial authority minimize liability and assure that no reputable PBI is poisoning the well with unsafe, inferior equipment. This is a common interest.
Why does this matter? It is going to become increasingly important that PBI take the necessary steps to implement S&P as the working foundation for building and maintaining (sustaining) the paintball marketplace. And by paintball marketplace I mean every aspect of the infrastructure that makes playing paintball possible.
The reason this is, in my view, a necessity is because a contraction is coming, not simply the previously unexpected plateau of a couple of years ago. [The contraction I'm referring to is a real decline in the Pool of All Players. (All Players is defined by raw numbers and frequency.) That contraction will be precipitated by a widespread economic contraction.] The duration of the contraction as it affects PBI may be influenced by actions PBI can begin to take now. And related to that is the experience of not being prepared to take an active role in the development and maintenance of the paintball marketplace which has already caused a few members of PBI to reconsider their future strategies and which I'm advocating should be held in common.
S&P is the first step because it begins the process of general agreements that will provide stability for the more wide ranging and proactive possibilities (which I'll get into in future installments.) It is, after a fashion, baby steps in cooperation, trust building and shared goals and values. S&P would also serve to provide a baseline universal guarantee to customers and create membership value within PBI. S&P would also be a hurdle to potential start-up PBI.
S&P would also begin the conversation about the future of paintball and include a wider circle of participants.

Part Two: productive competition and unproductive competition

Divided We Fall

Aight, here's some late night (or early morning) ramblings after an evening of reviewing the continuing crisis over the bubbles and the bailout I'm ratcheting things down to the level of paintball where the supreme stupidity and cupidity of the Keynesians and the criminals isn't going to cause a global "correction." (The only "good" thing is that a lot of that grostesquely leveraged debt along with billions upon billions of increasingly worthless greenbacks sit in foreign banks and was institutionalized by foreign governments which will mitigate the short term pain some.) Enough of that.
The likely effect of this economic upheaveal on competitive paintball isn't a net positive. (That's the sort of linguistic spin that when offered in a British accent [non-Cockney] implies massive understatement.) The tourney marketplace as a whole is going to experience decline pretty much across the board as may every other aspect of paintball. It begins to close the window on Pacific Paintball sooner than I previously expected and force some crucial decisions on them for '09. PSP will see around a 30% drop (at worst I hope) next year over the course of the season if it remains a national multi-divisional series. Now would be the time to buckle down and at least get the classification rules in order to make the league as user friendly as possible. If you thought sponsorship sucked this year just wait. If NASCAR sponsorship is suffering the environment is tightening. (That's a scary thing if you're hoping for a piece of that pie but it may also signal an opportunity if you know how to go get it.) The current business model standard is going to take a beating in '09 too. Even Eclipse. It's coming.
I'm beginning to think this would be a very propitious time to start making serious moves. Paintball needs to be positioned to deal with the short term and to take advantage of the long haul. I think all of us with no say in the matter support PBIndustry Standards & Practices as do some of PBIndustry. It's gotta happen and stick if paintball is going to get anywhere.
The other thing I'd like to see change is the fragmentation of paintball; tourney, rec, scenario, etc. Clearly everybody has different interests and reasons for playing their type of paintball and I'm not advocating a Hands Across the Speedball Field moment but as I'm in the mood for unifying around common purposes why not the players too?
I'm working on some ideas but if you've got an idea or three let's hear it.