PDA

View Full Version : ECON 101 - for Affiliate Haters. Have you thanked an affilate today?


Bubmack
03-09-2004, 04:20 PM
OK..the crying about affiliates making your rake higher is just ridiculous and I thought I would try to change the general warped perspective on this topic.

In a free market, price (or rake in the case of poker)is determined by supply and demand. Now the affilaite is paid a commission for the people that he/she signs up. That is a marketing cost for this business....which is clearly not a component of the supply and demand function.

Adam Smith may not know how to play AK suited when confronted with a three bet preflop...but he would certainly set you clear on this matter.

It would be silly to believe that Party sets it rake based on some sort of expected realization of profit. "well we need to raise the rake because we have all of these affilaites" The rake will be determined by setting it to what the market will bear. When rake is raised, revenues will increase per player but simultaneously a reduction in volume will occur. Managing this trade-off is basically what determines price. Effective management is a responsibility of the company. Some of you have called this greed...I call it smart business.

So when Party raised the rake they estimated that they would make more from the players that remained than they would lose from the decrease in voloume. And guess what...they were right...voloume didn't slip at all. So from a business perspective...it was an excellent decision.

In fact, you can probably expect to see additional rake increases if players dont care. Everyone complained about the rake increase, but no one left.

AS you can see, this whole decision and analysis is outside of the of the affiliate commission. It is all about the demand for their product relative to the substitutes.

So if you want the rake to be lower, change sites and make your buying habits more sensitive to rake hikes.

LOL...ask Choice how that low rake deal is going for them. Doesn't really work does it!! Dont expect rake to be lowered by the sites with strong brands. They would rather compete on marketing, software, and image...things that do affect the bottom line. Party Dominates marketing and image...so as such, expect their price/rake to be the highest.

Now this may make you say "huh"....But I would contest that the only affect the affiliate has on the rake decision is positive for the player. Why? Because...for every dollar increased in rake...Party will only realize a % of this amount. This would mitigate the additional revenue per player for rake increases. So maybe you should than your local affilaite for keeping your rake low!

Bubs

Ruddiger
03-09-2004, 04:27 PM
yawn

Bubmack
03-09-2004, 04:30 PM
boringly simplistic /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Jim Easton
03-09-2004, 04:51 PM
Yet so few seem to understand it.

Well done, Bub.

Cubswin
03-09-2004, 04:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That is a marketing cost for this business....which is clearly not a component of the supply and demand function.


[/ QUOTE ]

so what your saying is that marketing doesnt seek to increase demand? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

J.R.
03-09-2004, 05:07 PM
That is a marketing cost for this business....which is clearly not a component of the supply and demand function.

In the short run the supply curve for an individual firm is the same as the short run marginal cost curve above the average variable cost curve, in the long run the supply curve for an individual firm is the marginal cost curve above its average long run total cost curve.

Cost is THE prime component in each individual firm's supply curve. You won't make/produce it if it costs too much. You started off on a flawed assumption.

AS you can see, this whole decision and analysis is outside of the of the affiliate commission. It is all about the demand for their product relative to the substitutes.

Online poker is not perfectly competitive, and Party has market power and some degree of price control, so Party's profit maximizing point lies where its marginal cost intersects marginal revenue, not where supply (marginal cost) equals demand, but in each situation marginal cost drives supply. This of course assumes ATC is less than marginal cost at the point of intersection between marginal cost and marginal revenue, which is the case here.

When rake is raised, revenues will increase per player but simultaneously a reduction in volume will occur. Managing this trade-off is basically what determines price.

But profit is revenue minus cost, so with lower costs, greater profit. There is a somewhat symbiotic relationship here in that demand is driven in part by Party's marketing costs, but cost is a factor in any firm's profit maximization.

Either way, you are correct in that the real issue is the inelastic demand for play on party. There is no substitute for a fishpond.

Bubmack
03-09-2004, 05:23 PM
I think that is debatable. I dont know that advertising increases demand. The demand is already there...although options are made known to those interested. WPT has definately shifted demand to the right...im not sure if those little commercials inbetween the show has made more individuals willing to play poker online. Not to be confused with making people aware that online poker is available.

At any rate...this would be the case for all marketing options and not just the % rake plans offered to affilaites. If you look at it like that...i think most people are in favor of marketing the industry although it could possibly increase the rake a bit.

Bubs

Bubmack
03-09-2004, 05:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In the short run the supply curve for an individual firm is the same as the short run marginal cost curve above the average variable cost curve, in the long run the supply curve for an individual firm is the marginal cost curve above its average long run total cost curve.

Cost is THE prime component in each individual firm's supply curve. You won't make/produce it if it costs too much. You started off on a flawed assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not an Economist...but...I believe this is the case in perfectly competitive markets...when additional profit can not be realized over cost. So we supply at cost since we can not extract anymore from the market. We are no where near this type of market and as such, the supply curve does not equal cost. If what you say is correct, party poker would be essentially breaking even after reimbursement of inputs like time, risk and other intangibles.

Furthermore, much of what you are speaking of refers to goods that carry an increased cost to manufacture after the initial economies of scale. I dont think Party's cost structure would follow that logic, since each new customer, at least from those referred by affilaites, is fixed or decreasing...not rising.

But once again...i am not an economics expert...so I dont want to get into that much detail. However, I can say from the perspective of pricing, the rake allocated to the affilaite has very little effect on the overall pricing decision.

Bubs

J.R.
03-09-2004, 05:49 PM
However, I can say from the perspective of pricing, the rake allocated to the affilaite has very little effect on the overall pricing decision.

This is correct. Cost does effect price, but the effect of cost on pricing (the rake) is negligible when compared to the effect of such great inelastic demand. In reality Party has not yet realized 1) the extent of its market power and 2) the inelasticity of demand for its games and has set the rake too low, as painful as that may be for us.