Valken Army Mobilizes

As the regulars know Mr. Curious keeps his (over large left) ear to the ground when he's not creeping dark alleys or peeping through grimy windows into smoke-filled rooms. Well, yesterday's stampede nearly deafened him. With his head still ringing (and in between fits of laughter) he itemized the deployment of the Valken army from friendly media resource to retail and sales agents all the way down the line to scenario team players unleashed in a coordinated attempt to raise as much hell as possible--and incidentally position themselves as the aggrieved as well as the friend of the little guy. (The irony of which is lost on those who don't know their PB Industry history.) Why is Roger Delta-Tango cursing out the PSP on Facebook when he and his cronies spend less time outside of the woods than Bigfoot?
My point isn't that there aren't any paintballers out there sincerely put out by the PSP decision not to allow Valken paint sales. There surely are. But that's not all there is to it. The effort was orchestrated from start to eventual finish. (Nor is this a first for the PB Industry other than how rapidly and vociferously the onslaught came. Gotta love social media.) My other point is that it's one thing to be justly upset and another to simply play the fool.
That said VFTD does not mean to minimize the "real world" result. The impact at ground level is that there are some competitive teams out there that won't have the cheaper paint available to them or they will choose not to play in the PSP. And that is a lose lose for both the teams and the PSP.
However, the reality of this situation goes deeper. It's origins are part of the industry's hothouse history and long-standing animosities. On the field all of us are players. Not necessarily equals but all players. Off the field there are a lot fewer players and it is frequently difficult to determine just what game they are playing.

Mailbag Extra: Deep Water Edition

Where's the Hydrotec paintballs and the 50 cal issue at now?


This is two separate questions and I expect to have more info related to small ball soon so today's extra is about HydroTec. (Another mailbag question came over the transom recently that got me digging into something else that might provide some answers soon.)
If you've been following HydroTec you know (from tweets & their website) that they continue to stall while claiming to be working away diligently on things like paint seams and color combos, etc. Which is probably true but there is also speculation that there are other, primary causes at work. Around the time of the public disclosure of the HydroTec water-based paintball project there were rumors that one or more of the major paint suppliers would likely file suit against HydroTec if for no other reason than to impede their delivery to market. In the case of KEE the rumors swirled around the past employment of Mr. Ronnie Bayless who worked, in the past, on a number of paintball-related projects for R.P.Scherer and others. The rumored wedge was something on the order of proprietary knowledge and systems belonging to KEE via RP (included in the purchase/merger of PMI & National) given that Mr. Bayless was (then) employed by HydroTec.
The latest rumorology claims KEE never filed suit against HydroTec but did present them with a cease & desist order. Further the latest rumors claim Mr. Bayless no longer works for HydroTec but just when that relationship was severed (if in fact it has been--the website gives no indication it has) remains unclear. And finally rumors hint at a growing dissatisfaction with HydroTec's progress, or lack thereof, from a principle investor that VFTD reported last year was rumored to be Kraft Foods or a subsidiary company. VFTD has not confirmed that rumor but it continues in play in the deep background.
HydroTec is nearly a year behind their originally announced roll out date of January 2011 with no end in sight.

Pushing Paintballs

Is there a new paint war coming? Calm down. I'm not suggesting there is or isn't. I'm just curious. For awhile the big boys played consolidate and gobble up some of the old paint makers; X.O., JT, Archon and Zap and whoever else. [Severe called it quits.] All the while the conventional wisdom plead poverty on behalf of the surviving paint manufacturers--which in Procaps' situation seemed to have some merit but there are/were other issues (Pulse litigation, etc.) beyond simply making and selling paintballs. Regardless, the North American market was whittled down to a couple primary players and all the while we continued to hear paint manufacturing was in dire straits as nobody had two nickels to rub together 'cus the prices were too low. (Price to whom?--but that's another post.) Meanwhile paint is being made in China, India & Europe among other places. Does our market settle down leaving RPS and Draxxus to split the market? Au contraire, despite the apparent failure of numerous other paint manufacturers all of a sudden we have a horse race again. Valken is pushing paint in a big way but not manufacturing. GI Sportz is cranking out paint and is looking to make a big splash and scoop up market share at a record pace. And even HydroTec remains in the game though their recent delays--despite re-tooling explanations--leaves their impact uncertain. Are all these people nuts or are we looking at some sort of paint Renaissance? Or will there be a bloodbath or will everybody be able to get along and survive or even thrive?

One other thing. Look at how it's being done. In recent years paint sponsorships have been sinking faster than fabled Atlantis because we are told the value of high profile teams and players is no longer an effective method of marketing, if it ever was. GI apparently disagrees. They made a strong push to deliver the best paint at last year's World Cup and have built on that success by signing 4 top pro teams along with an aggressive program of league sponsorships. Valken hasn't jumped on the team sponsorship bandwagon but they are all over league sponsorships as well. Meanwhile DXS seems to have opted to back a single horse in the big time sponsorship sweepstakes by supporting Impact but that still reflects a move away from past practices. And the KEE peeps, while retaining a few pro teams with paint deals, have countered with both nationally announced sponsorship options for divisional teams as well as some other, related sponsorship options primarily aimed at divisional teams that were presented to retailers in their network end of last week-ish via email.

It looks to me like the new (old) kids on the block are building their new brands the same way everybody else once did. Are they making a mistake? Is there another way to go? A better way to go? Or were the previous entrenched paint makers figuring they no longer needed to compete and let their sponsorships dwindle as a consequence?

On a Positive Note

Despite the doom and gloom and general air of desperation surrounding major league paintball positive things continue to happen with all the leagues making moves. (If everybody started to say competitive paintball was okay, doing just fine, we're all happy to play; would it make a difference?) Once again I have something positive to say about the Millennium Series. I know, it's weird, right? But I can't help it. Have you seen the Paris venue for the first event? It really is a Paris venue. If the surface is flat, which it ought to be, it's nearly ideal. On the other hand there remains the questions surrounding all the empty CPL spots and licenses for the locked divisions and far those numbers may (continue to) decline. Camp Carnage (fourth last season in SPL) have agreed to go CPL and the MS is also attempting to be proactive behind the scenes but no word how that's working for them yet.

The PSP announced yesterday new affiliates league(s) under the resurrected banner of the AXBL--which was discontinued in the Northeast a year or two ago. It returns under the leadership of new commissioner Steve Rabackoff playing in both the Atlantic Coast region (Maryland, etc.) and in Texas. The new AXBL leagues will play some version of Race 2 X (apparently), use the PSP rulebook and APPA registration. It wasn't announced if the AXBL will continue as in the past as competitors for the Richmond Cup.
What I'm curious about though is taking a peek behind the curtain. In the press release Steve does mention working with Louis Dalesio, commish of the CXBL (and owner of PBL Action Sports in Canada.) It used to be the CXBL & AXBL were DXS sponsored series with, if I remember correctly, distribution thru PBL. Since Steve now works for GI Sportz I expect GI will be the AXBL paint sponsor. Will the CXBL follow? If so it's another blow to DXS as GI Sportz continues to make inroads with high profile distribution deals.

The Lazy Slacker Re-post of the Week

This week's post was originally posted in November of 2008 and was titled, Pro Ball Blues. (Still is, actually.) It's about the state of paint sponsorship at the pro level and the toll it was taking. I thought it might be of re-newed interest on a couple of counts. Having gotten used to pro team attrition (sorta) I wonder what the numbers and teams look like if you go back to say, 2007 and add it all up. Between then and now who's gone, who is new. What teams have managed to carry on and what is the likelihood of any real continuity among the pro ranks?
Then there's the changed paint manufacturing situation with GI Sportz, Valken & HydroTec in play. Do their arrival on the scene alter anything? GI Sportz is making some moves. Valken is supplied by GI and HydroTec hasn't managed a rollout of product yet despite the hoopla. My prediction is that there may be more paint available this year but if there is it will go to the haves and won't help the have nots at all. (Although it may be GI Sportz relationship with Shock that keeps them a viable team. Just a guess.)

Predicting Procaps' Future

Wondering what will happen in the wake of Procaps loss of the Walmart contract? For one informed take, look here. Leaves me wondering if Richmond is more likely selling off what he still owns or looking to buy back what he doesn't.

In the News

Saw this item over at the Big Bullet. It's an interesting twist on the tourney norm, if it even qualifies as a tourney format. Whatever it is it's an intriguing hybrid and I'll be looking forward to see how it works out as it could unite all kinds of ballers behind a fun, flexible competitive format.

More news on the HydroTec paintball front too thanks to the Catshack. (Litter is not optional.) In an interview that recounts elements of the conversation instead of verbatim quotes it sounds like the new paintball may be underweight compared to current 68 cal paintballs. Depending on the variance it's unlikely to be a big deal except in the competitive arena where an underweight paintball could be at a performance disadvantage. And in discussing pricing it sounded like it may end up closer to current paint prices than a lot of the rumors have suggested even though no actual pricing was given. Something to keep an eye on anyway.

Paintball Wars: Is Armageddon on the Horizon?

People in general, not just paintball peeps, tend to believe what they want to believe and further tend to rationalize those beliefs by choosing to selectively believe only the information and/or data that supports their pre-conceived ideas. That appears (in many instances) to be how the battle lines are being drawn in this latest round of the paintball wars. Some are discounting the new water-based paintball and some are latching on to it like a kidnapped child, suddenly and unexpectedly, returned to its family.

Can HydroTec deliver? What happens to the marketplace--and the current manufacturers (of old tech paintballs)--if a new, better and cheaper paintball is introduced? What happens to Paintball? That's the multi-million dollar question.

The Players: the old guard (everybody making the traditional paintball including the return of Richmond Italia.) Includes KEE, DXS and a surprising number of smaller manufacturers around the world despite the North American corporate consolidation efforts (ZAP, X.O., etc.) and companies like GAP & Severe closing down. The new kid on the block, HydroTec (particularly with the rumored support of Kraft Foods) instantly gains credibility--though the proof is in the as-yet-unseen, untested product.

The Game: roughly speaking it's market share, at least for the big players. They have, by and large, gone the route of competing by price (and the economy of scale) although it's not even close to being that simple. Paintballs produced in Asia & India do have a production cost edge certainly on North American manufacturers and probably on Eurokids as well. But proximity matters in terms of shipping costs, currency exchange rates and even the delivered quality of the product. As does high end quality in a portion of the market and the effective reach of a manufacturer's distribution arm. What it amounts to is there are a myriad of factors involved beyond just making paint. The important thing to keep in mind is that in today's paint market there is a balance between quality and cost and the competition over sales is predominantly by price.

The Outcome: Whether HydroTec will kick off a new, hot paintball war is dependant on the quality of the new paintball--from shell consistency, breaking characteristics, marking ability, etc.--and the wholesale pricing structure. That, and their ability to deliver product in a timely manner. Let us assume for the moment the new paintball is as advertised; the functional equal of current paintball tech at something in the neighborhood of half the manufacturing cost. That would put HydroTec in the driver's seat but still leave some wiggle room for the old guard.
How would HydroTec play it? I had assumed the big players would look for opportunities to file lawsuits in hopes of delaying or inhibiting a HydroTec rollout. One source reasonably close to the situation doesn't think there's any room for legal maneuvering. I'll believe that when I don't see it. Basically HydroTec will have two ways of playing this. They can take on the established players by undercutting their best prices and still make a profit as they build a distribution network. And/or they can establish their superiority and then be open to negotiate licensing agreements, perhaps with flagship manufacturers in key regions around the world.

The Fallout: Again, assuming the new paintball is as claimed a variety of things are likely to result. It could be a real boon for competitive paintball where cheaper paint could have a real impact on a player's and/or team's ability to compete. It will almost certainly force the old guard's big players to try and match the technology. It's an open question if HydroTec can "protect" a water-based paintball--as opposed to patenting the process--but it leaves the potential for a small window of opportunity to the old guard. In the meantime even a brilliant success from HydroTec will take time to build up its manufacturing volume and distribution network which is where the old guard's big players find that window of opportunity; in the time it will take for HydroTec to take control of the market. Regardless of how HydroTec works out (or doesn't) the same basic tensions will continue to exist between wholesale cost and end user customer cost. A cheaper case of paint at the wholesale level eases some of the pressure on higher volume retailers and could allow for improved margins but as with the promises of small ball when the retailer benefits that savings isn't, for the most part, passed on to the customer. Or, if the savings are passed along to the customer the current debate over how the local field should operate will continue unabated. To say nothing of what happens to established PBIndustry giants if they can't compete with the new paintball.

Hopperball

Since the ubiquitous Faction (raehl) seems to be engaging in a quiet crusade to promote the notion of hopperball (and some people are easily led astray) I've decided to devote a post to the subject. On its face it may seem simple and self-evident. If the problem is the cost of paint in the volumes required then the solution is to require less. Much less. Now the typical baller is likely to respond, "That's stupid." But what they really mean is it's different and I don't like different. (Which sums up the majority of thought behind most of the objections to any proposed changes.) But that isn't a particularly good argument.

In fact I'm not going to argue against hopperball. In certain applications. If some bold tourney promoter wants to try and use hopperball as an introduction into competitive paintball or as a variant of beginner tourney play I see no reason to object. (Of course it isn't going to happen. See reaction of typical baller above.) But if it did ... it wouldn't solve all of competitive paintball's problems but it might have some utility. So my first suggestion to Faction if he is actually serious is let's see hopperball succeed on some level, any level. Convince somebody somewhere to play hopperball and see what happens. Otherwise it's a pointless endeavor in which you are advocating, for whatever reason, swinging the pendulum all the way back in the opposite direction.

The implication I do want to address is that hopperball is the answer for competitive paintball. Because it isn't--unless we are willing to dramatically alter the way the game is played. Once upon a time--stop me if I've told this story before (good luck with that)--I participated in a practice where we decided to use pumps. This was prior to the introduction of the format-formerly-known-as-xball so the result wasn't immediately predictable (as it ought to be today.) One team came up with the crazy idea that armed with pumps the other guys couldn't control lanes or put enough paint into the air fast enough to deter a really aggressive offensive push so when the whistle was blown for the first game that team just ran down the field and overwhelmed the other side in seconds. You see, while much of the movement vs. firepower conversation has gone the other way in recent years it works both ways. Too little firepower and you can't contain or control movement at all. For highly skilled players in our present format hopperball would initially invite trainwreck paintball but it wouldn't last long because the outcome would be too random to be acceptable for those focused on winning. In very short order changes in style of play would be made in order to have more control over results. And these changes would be guided by a commonplace concept; scarcity.

A hopper full of paintballs (and no more) puts a premium on their use that doesn't currently exist (even though players can, and do, occasionally run out of paint.) A hopper of paint dramatically alters risk/reward in how that paint is used compared to current practices. It would re-prioritize the game's skill set to focus on fundamentally defensive skills like accuracy and snap-shooting. (Yes, those are defensive skills even if they can be used in conjunction with offensive efforts.) And the scarcity of paint would also change game tactics. The ultimate priority would be to limit the use of your paint to only the highest reward type situations and this would drive a large number of teams to re-embrace a defensive posture wherein the opponent comes to them given that field position would no longer play a critical role in success. (For the simple reason that superior positions are superior largely because of the available firepower.) In fact proximity in a hopperball environment would only invite an aggressive attack because the capacity to defend against it won't exist. The end result is slow, pot-shotting points with teams and players seeking to avoid as much risk as possible in order to enhance their odds of winning.

Hopperball would certainly "solve" the paint bill problem but at what cost to the game? Is that really a trade-off anyone wants to make?

The .50 Caliber Solution?

If you were expecting (and are disappointed not to see) 'Return of the Pro Loser' posted today as per the schedule you haven't been hanging around VFTD for very long, have you? Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. (And, no, that isn't a dungeons & dragons reference.) I make schedules meaning to keep to them but stuff happens and this is just a wee bit more topical at the moment. 'Return of the Pro Loser' will just get bumped to next week's schedule so you can breath a sigh of relief as you now have something to look forward to. Some more. Again.

Since the first "official" announcement about the coming .50 caliber solution was posted at P8ntballer--see, ' The Revolution Begins' below for the link--much of the dialogue has focused on the paintballs themselves and the unsubstantiated performance claims sorta being made. While all that is vaguely interesting (if you're a physics geek) I think it misses the point completely. I don't think it matters a whit if the small ball does exactly as claimed or not. (What matters is whether it's profitable for the manufacturers.)

Of late the biggest concern to both the industry and competitive leagues is a stagnant and/or declining player base from the heyday of a few short years ago. The blame has generally been assigned to cost (paintball is expensive and competitive paintball is even more expensive) and out-of-control rates of fire turning the basic game's fun factor into a fear factor. (Does the decline compare to the appearance of low-priced, high-performance markers?) Part of the latest response has been to cap ROF and steadily reduce that cap in order to encourage the use of lower limits across the board.

The GIMILSIM press release states, "The new era of 50 calibre paintball means cheaper paint for the paintballer, it means hundreds more paintballs in the loader, it means thousands more balls in your pots, it means a more accurate flight path, it means it shoots further and all this with the same marking characteristics as the original 68 caliber balls." Earlier in the press release the cost of participation is mentioned as an impediment to building the player base and seeing a healthy tourney environment restored. The idea being cheaper paint necessarily makes for cheaper paintball and more affordable paintball widens the potential player pool.

Here is where my interest--and questions--begin. Isn't cheaper paint in some respects counterproductive to the whole ROF limitation idea? (I suspect the answer to that is cheaper needn't encourage the use of more paint but that's really just a dodge, isn't it? Even if it's true to some extent it's like putting a limit on ice cream sundaes and then announcing the price of ice cream is going down.)

But more than that is the claim of cheaper paint to the end user, the customer, you, the player. It doesn't necessarily follow even if production costs are reduced. Here's the dealio as it currently stands: big paint companies are struggling to make a profit in today's market. Keeping it simple there are 4 factors involved; cost (to produce & sell), price (to retailer), volume (of sales) and margin (profit per unit sold). What the manufacturers need is a margin in sufficient volume to make their current woes go away. Reduced cost would be a good start but it doesn't follow that all costs (or prices) throughout the system drop as well. Part of the answer to that would be in pinpointing where the real problem is for the manufacturers. Odds are it's a combination of the 4 factors complicated by the debt load a couple of them are carrying. What margin would be sufficiently profitable given the current volume of sales? Will the small ball provide that or more? The point is simply this: Cheaper to manufacture doesn't automatically translate into cheaper for you and I to buy.

Admittedly there is lots we don't yet know and there is no reason to pass premature judgment on the 50 cal small ball just yet but at the same time it's no time to swallow the hype either. Even if it proves to be a better paintball will Paintball's problems suddenly disappear? I doubt it.

And to close (for now) here's some additional almost-on-topic food for thought. A) Paint is as cheap as it's ever been for the average customer. B) The advent of Xball saw the volume use of paint go through the roof in competition. C) the average age of the typical Xball player is younger than ever. D) Older players have more disposable income. E) If the ROF restrictionists are correct does it really make sense to make greater volumes of paint available for less than is the current standard? (Assuming the small ball will actually be cheaper.)

Burning Question

This edition of Burning Question is a two-parter. If you are so far outta the loop it leaves you confizzled look here.

What is a roller? (Hint: within the paintball industry.)

What could it mean if a number of paint manufacturers all bought enough new rollers to service all their paint-making machines? (My apologies for the technical lingo.)

Mr. Curious

Mr. Curious has come up with one that has me scratching my head. And, no, it's not psoriasis and the kids are too old to bring home head lice--or come home at all. Anyway, all we heard in the off season was one theory or claim after another about how the paint producers got in the fix they're apparently in. From the relatively insignificant volume of paint tourney players shoot in the grand scheme to how ROF was being lowered to save paint or about how prices are too low or too few peeps are shooting too much ad infinitum. About the only thing everybody agrees on is that the paint producers are in a fix.

Mr. Curious wants to know why paint manufacturers keep sponsoring leagues if it's a losing proposition.

Nearly every league of any consequence is sponsored by one or more of the paint producers. Is it a self-destructive urge they can't resist? An inability to re-think the old ways of doing things? A desperate fear that their brand needs to be front and center even though the old media is gone and tourney ball shoots a negligible percentage of paint produced?

Mr. Curious doesn't get it and neither do I. What do you think?

Return of the Burning Question: What Paint?

Hit the title link to check out the original post--or just go down the page a few posts. No thanks to you slackers I have a few answers to the original burning question: How competitive can a small scale operation be in terms of cost per ball?
The answer is: not very. And you wouldn't believe the seamy underbelly that is the world of paint manufacture. Okay, it's not exactly Sin City but there are shenanigans a-plenty.
The word is that cost of materials is fairly standard with perhaps a slightly higher cost in Asia. That is easily offset by substantially lower labor cost and the economies of scale necessary to be competitive require between two and four operating systems (encapsulator, dryers, mixers, etc.) so it would be tough, if not impossible, for a small producer to compete successfully. This leaves everybody else in the position of requiring x-volume of sales in order to make their basic economies pay off which is fine in a growing (or even static potentially) market but leaves the industry very susceptible to relatively modest declines and in a panic over any prospect of serious declines in total sales volumes.
As to what's going on in the industry here's a peek: a well known company is, and has been, for sale for awhile and even as the asking price has gone down there are still no takers. Another manufacturer, part of a larger paintball company, is at risk of being shut down or divested if it doesn't show a profit soon. Another manufacturer tied to pharma production may be separated from the pharma group and expected to be profitable on its own--or else. Add to the mix the fact that not all paint under a particular label was necessarily produced by that manufacturer and that your white box can almost literally be anything the making and selling of paintballs is not for the feint of heart.
That leaves me wondering a couple of things as it relates to pro paintball sponsorship. If a company was to sponsor or partially sponsor a league would the volume required make a dent in the economies of scale and perhaps be worthwhile to manufacture simply on that basis even if the return didn't improve the bottom line? And, would there be sufficient perceived value for a Chinese company to come in and be a Big League sponsor in order to overcome market resistance and perceptions about quality?
Next time there's a Burning Question I expect a bit more help from you slackers so consider yourselves on notice.

Pro Ball Blues

This is in response to a comment in the earlier post, Paradigm Shift? (posted below). For some helpful context read Paradigm Shift? before reading this.

The comment that inspired this post asked if it was possible pro players might have to start paying for things, like paint. I'm going to use the NXL situation but it's not just an NXL problem. PBReserve has reported on related factors in recent months like Procaps getting tough regarding overages, the Procaps / Archon (Zap) merge--which effectively took the Zap brand off the market--and the rumor GAP may consider closing up shop. (While other unsubstantiated rumors suggest at least one paint maker is currently on the block.)
The NXL began the season with 12 teams and finished with 10. Is it coincidence that the two that dropped out were Procaps teams? Maybe. I don't know but I do know a little something about pro teams and paint usage.
This past season the NXL had 3 factory teams and 9 independents. You could argue that either Infamous and Aftershock were both factory or neither were so I split the difference. You could also argue a better distinction is franchise / non-franchise--in which case you'd be wrong. End of the day what matters here is money and the motivation to spend it.
Two indies crashed and burned before season's end. Of the remaining independents 2 are shoestring operations that survived last year's team losses getting by on the minimum and 3 others have a single principle benefactor. None of them, including Dynasty, got the level of sponsorship you think they got--although Dynasty, as the only legit brand among the indies, was head and shoulders above the rest.
So how much paint do they use? I'm gonna keep the numbers simple and the totals low. Each event every team plays a minimum of 5 matches. Figure 20 cases a match. Since the prelims got screwed up the last two events let's skip Sunday usage altogether and call it even. The result is 200K per team per event or 1 million for the season. For practice let's say 2 a month at 50 cases per (and that's low paint usage for a typical two day practice.) The result is another 2 million balls. There's 3 million balls used in one league based on very modest numbers and MOST of the NXL teams didn't get 3 mil or more freebies this past year. Now start your calculations for those teams playing both leagues and it isn't hard to see that something is going to give.
Does this mean pro players are gonna have to start paying for stuff? In some cases it probably will but there are still a couple of problems with that scenario. One, it simply transfers the cost from team to players and Two, the majority of pro players are chosen on their ability to play, not pay. As it stands now if the pro game is too expensive for the current teams it's going to be too expensive for the players and simply shifting the burden likely means pro ranks populated by wealthier, not better, players. Alternatively some mix of costs might work for some teams and players but doesn't do anything to address the larger issues.
(Incidentally, this is why I recommended last year in the off season that field layouts NOT be released prior to events. The reasoning was it would force teams to find alternative, less paint intensive ways to prepare, among other virtues.)
What it is going to boil down to is what value does PBIndustry and the Big Leagues place on the pro game--as it exists now--and can they afford to keep it alive as the pinnacle of competitive paintball? My view is the current system will not sustain the current teams and the current environment does not promote the creation of new pro caliber teams to take their place. Which is why I'm advocating looking for creative ways to change the system.
Of course it could be we'll all just have to take our lumps. Long term the game isn't going anywhere even if some of us lose out in the short term.
Happy happy joy joy

Paradigm Shift?

The paint situation looked bleak and bleaker where we left off in the last post, Paint It Blue, but here's a thought for all the big leagues – (and the paint guys?) to consider. In keeping with the Pro Circuit concept what would happen if the NXL (or the NPPL repping the pro division) worked out a deal for an official paint sponsor of the league to provide paint to all the competing pro teams during the event(s)? Or if that seems too daunting and costly what if the individual events were offered up to paint sponsors? Draxxus sponsors the Chicago Open, for example. The sponsor can't lose whoever wins and gets the value added of associating the brand with pro paintball, not just a single team. Within that framework there also exists some creative ways to structure the deals that might be beneficial during the difficult period coming. The potential advantages are both practical and competitive. With everyone shooting the same paint there's no advantage or disadvantage on the field; it would be a big plus for teams struggling in a reduced sponsorship environment while leaving teams free to pursue alternatives for practice; it would instantly justify the current entry fee structure (in the NXL) and it would be a step toward legitimizing the NXL brand as distinctive from the PSP (which may have real relevance in the future and was a goal in the original formation of the league.)
Would the result be a better, more stable model?

Paint It Blue

The post I'm not a seismologist was about the kerfluffle coming for the paint manufacturers. (I've decided I don't much like the word, crisis, as the urge is to use it so often lately it begins to have the same force as the threat of terrorism color code of the day so from now on unless it's an actual crisis kerfluffle will stand in for the possibility of destruction, chaos and the imminent imploding of the known paintball universe.) The later post monopoly 101 was about the ongoing dialogue considering the prospect of the MS (and possibly) the PSP restricting event gear sales and usage to league sponsors only. What intrigues me about this pair of posts is what conclusions might be drawn from information already in hand. (That, and I get to rehash in greater detail topics already commented on because I never know when to stop.)
This off season's paint sponsorships will go a long way to predicting the viability of the pro game and teams for next season. Sponsorship was down last year and if the rumors and restructuring have any validity availability is likely to tighten further.
The current practice – restricting brands available to league sponsors – for selling paint at events would seem to make the case for extending that policy across the board. But it doesn't, not when examined in any detail. For starters paint is unique in that it's meant to be used up. Like buying a hamburger. Or keeping it to paintball, batteries. Your purchase assumes consumption and has no long term consequences. Unlike virtually everything else you might buy in order to play the game. Even so, paint choice isn't irrelevant and is frequently simply tolerated by non-sponsored teams who are more price sensitive than brand sensitive. And the current practice must raise the price of any case of paint regardless of how reasonable it may seem because the vendors have to not only cover their ordinary expenses but also the premium the league charges. And at this point in time that is becoming prohibitive for the vendors – end of the day their wallet is bare, too. The larger problem is the old economies are failing to apply anymore. As everyone gets squeezed it becomes harder and harder to make the process, at any stage, profitable.
Instead the place Big League paintball finds itself is with the leagues facing unpredictable but almost certainly tougher times (think Richard Harris in A Man Called Horse) in the immediate future in part because of the precarious position of the paint manufacturers. In an environment where mid-sized and small vendors struggle to justify participating in Big League paintball instituting sponsor only restrictions across all paintball related gear sales and use is suicidal folly. The rationale with paint was to justify the promotion charging the paint manufacturers for the right to sell at the event. [The leagues can't charge the sellers for the right to sell if somebody who doesn't pay can sell, too.] Not only won't that work to improve league revenues with respect to gear it will drive all but a handful of heavily invested vendors away as well as some (probably significant) number of teams and players beyond the likely losses from the economic downturn. Beyond that it will raise the bar on future participation to a prohibitive level that will keep business and teams away.
Among other things it badly misjudges the current market trends and the value of participating in Big League paintball at every level.

Kay, I think that (hopefully) dead horse has been thoroughly and sufficiently beaten.

I'm not a seismologist

but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. (I'm working on a new kind of blog ad here. Kinda like product placement in movies and on TV. No ugly sidebar click ads, just unobtrusive mentions in the blog content. Pretty slick, huh?)
Didn't watch the presidential debate. Didn't need to. It's the Commie or the Crank. And they call this democracy? On the other hand there is a silver lining to the current economic crisis. Whoever gets elected is gonna be severely constrained in the amount of additional damage they can do. That's today's happy thought. And, no, it's not off topic 'cus I'm gonna tie it all in to paintball.
The experts in Washington (who bear a remarkable resemblance to the cretins responsible for the credit crisis) have assured us that a 700 billion dollar infusion of liquidity into the market will get the wheels of industry rolling again. Yeah, right.
The whispered word from a smoke filled windowless room in the aforementioned Holiday Inn Express (cha-ching!) is Paintball could be facing its own liquidity issue, as in paint. It's said the margins are so small these days and with costs everywhere in the system fluctuating almost daily and the dollar in the dumper it's putting a major squeeze on the manufacturers. Are we due for more consolidation in paint production? How do you feel about shooting Chinese paint? (And did you know the subject of Chinese paint makes peeps in some sectors seethe with rage? It does.)
If you're disappointed in the lack of details keep in mind paint is the life blood of the game and its availability, price and quality have a big impact. Paint is the canary in the coal mine of paintball fitness. (Wow! That metaphor made even me cringe.)

Limited Paint

One of the lost comments to the ROF post suggested not worrying overmuch about actual ROF and instead limit the amount of paint. (That's my paraphrase and may not represent precisely the commenter's intent. Whatever.) Both in tourney play and recreationally. In tourney play this could be done by fiat and in rec play the suggestion was to do it by price. There are a few reasons why this isn't the best option in either case but my interest here relates to tournament play.
A brief observation: All tourney paintball is limited paint. Limited to what a player chooses to carry on the field. In 10-man days I never carried fewer than 12 pods. Nowadays you seldom see more than 7 though one of my guys likes 9. Either way there is a limit.
And, in point of fact, there is absolutely nothing keeping players and/or teams from shooting as little paint as they want. There is a PSP D1 xball team where nobody carries more than 4 pods and most of them only 2 or 3. Their choice. Nobody is making anybody shoot "lots" of paint unless you want to say the nature of the game demands it. (And if you go that route you have to be willing to say that any significant change in paint allowed would also alter the nature of the game.)
Of course what is meant is an intentionally restrictive limit that is enforced on everyone. Which is okay and probably even commendable as an introductory tournament format in say a 3-man or even 5-man rookie and/or young guns level event. Even beyond that I'm not going to object, given that all tourney paintball is limited in fact (if not by rule) except to point out what should be obvious. Namely, that any change made to "fix" a specific problem tends to be of greater significance than anyone intends, expects or prepares for. I'm not even saying that change is necessarily a bad thing given competitive paintball's relative youth–and considering some of the things I've advocated--but if the peeps who make these decisions are serious about their responsibility to the game it's the sort of thing that shouldn't be done without taking the time to consider the possible ramifications.
Think of it as Baca's Rule #11: Don't Screw With The Game Unless You've Got A Damned Good Idea What The Result Will Be.
Limited paint in broad application across the tournament spectrum would be a game altering factor and this is where I have some serious reservations. The same is true of factors like field dimensions, number and shape of props and certain features of layout design that have all influenced the way the game is played. As has the technology. I won't detail here the ways I think limited paint as a standard would alter (and in this case probably diminish) the competitive game as all I'm shooting for with this post is to encourage keeping the Big Picture in mind when looking at ways to "solve" problems. [I'll do something on how the game changes us soon which will include volume of paint in play.]