UK's Largest Specialist Video Games Retailer Enters Administration 172
RogueyWon writes "The GAME Group, owners of high street chains GAME and Gamestation, which between them account for a large majority of the UK's specialist games retail market, have entered into administration. In the hours following the Group's entry into administration, hundreds of stores were closed and thousands of staff made redundant. While some of the factors behind the Group's downfall, such as stores located too close to each other and overly-ambitious international expansion, were likely unique to the UK-based company, other factors, such as price competition from supermarkets and online retailers, as well as a reliance on a fickle pre-owned games market, may have wider application."
In Australia... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure what GAME uk's demise means for the australian game line, but i keep wondering how they *STAY* in business. They are consistently higher then everyone else simply for price.
Consider their biggest competitor in the retail market is probably a place called JB hifi, and in shopping centers they're often so close (physically) together that you can see the big tags advertising their price for games (Specially up coming and new release ones). Yet, GAME au's prices are always more expensive.
When they go out of business in AU, I will not be supprised. I've bought games from them (but only second hand ones, and at most 3 - typically jbhifi is cheaper for those as well). But AU's model can be summed up in 3 links:
http://www.game.com.au/diablo-iii/pc-games/DIABLO3PC [game.com.au]
http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/game/pc-games/diablo-3/654000 [jbhifionline.com.au]
http://www.game-lane.com.au/pc-mac-games/2782-diablo-iii-3-pc.html [game-lane.com.au]
To me, in AU, its not "how did they go out of business" its "how do they stay alive?".
Re:Gak, the Britishisms in that article were too m (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It works with some competitors (Score:5, Insightful)
While they are both Outdoor equipment/clothing retailers Blacks and Millets were aimed at very different markets. Millets was aimed squarely at family campers and casual hikers, whereas Blacks was more specialised and aimed at serious hikers, campers, climbers etc. The seperate stores allowed them to target their stock and marketing at their particular markets more successfully.
This kind of differentiation is important when you have very disparate groups of customers. Serious hikers/campers/climbers are pretty snobby about their gear so the product ranges they demand are higher end and higher price, the kind of stuff that puts off casual shoppers.
Of course in the end both stores have suffered from the prevalence of big warehouse style outdoor equipment stores that have cheaper prices and enough space to effectively service both markets. Millets is now effectively dead and Blacks is seriously struggling.
Re:Gak, the Britishisms in that article were too m (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, look at the terms themselves.
If you (or your job) has been "made redundant", it means - quite literally - that they no longer have a use for you. It doesn't matter what version of English you speak, that's the meaning of the word. It may not specifically state that would mean losing your job, but the context is there and useful - and differs from "being sacked/fired" quite significantly. It wasn't that they sacked you, they didn't need you any more. It was NOTHING you did wrong. You were simply redundant to the business. We even use terms like "redundancy money" where the business compensates you when it stops your contract because it *COULDN'T* find a use for you any more.
And to "enter administration". That means that some process has taken over to administer the business. Not bankruptcy, because we have that word too and that wouldn't be administration of the business but a final "winding up", but someone is there to administer things - presumably because they can't do it themselves.
Though the terms are not clear-as-day, they are no worse than any other English phrasing and at least hint at what they mean (I'd expect most people to understand them by the context they are used and the inference of the meaning of the words). I don't see why you can't pick up those words from context, to be honest, or just from their meaning - especially when I spend a LOT of my time looking up what the hell certain Americanisms mean because they're not at all obvious (John Doe? Really? You can't just say you don't know their names?).
Company enters Chapter Whatever? What the hell does that mean. The fifth amendment? Eh? Which one's that? What does it say? Amendment to what? Do the other 4 take precedence?
Although the answers are easy to find, they aren't anywhere near easy to infer just from the context given. English is one of the most poetic, cross-culture, verbose and diverse languages. Use it and the facilities available within it, and people can infer what you mean. Numbering everything is only logical if everyone has a reference list of what those numbers refer to and memorises it. But the word "redundant" is present and means the same in both languages - it's just a particular instance of it that doesn't fully explain the implications of your "redundancy" but that the context does.
Don't even get me started on navigation in America. Xing-Ped (Someone had to TELL me what it meant, and that it was "backwards" and I only speak English!) and 49th/50th/51st/52nd street drive me mad. It's abuse of language where it's not necessary, no imagination, nothing to make anything or anyone stand out and not using meanings have been attached to words for centuries.
Re:Gak, the Britishisms in that article were too m (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that, look at the terms themselves.
If you (or your job) has been "made redundant", it means - quite literally - that they no longer have a use for you.
We call that "laid off" on this side of the pond. Quite different than just "laid", I assure you, and they're both different from "laid out", which might also involve lying down, but I always say, make love, not war. Lay offs are when a business needs to reduce its workforce. There are a lot of rules and regulations about how its done. The natural tendency is to get rid of the deadwood as cheaply as possible, but there are significant rules designed to keep things "fair". I've been on both sides of the lay off process, at least half a dozen times. One time we laid off my whole division, so I've even laid myself off.
. . . especially when I spend a LOT of my time looking up what the hell certain Americanisms mean because they're not at all obvious (John Doe? Really? You can't just say you don't know their names?)
Not to be confused with John Deer, John Handcock, Johnny-come-lately or Dear-John or just a plain John, which has several meanings, none of them particularly flattering, or even doughboy, although even you Brits ought to recognize that last one. And over here Johnny is just a friendly name for a guy named John, or sometimes any bloke.
The fifth amendment?
Not to be confused with the Fifth Amendments, although truthfully I've never quite understood the difference between Parliament and Funkadelic. And lots of people smoke Parliaments, although that's probably NOT what P-Funk was smoking.
49th/50th/51st/52nd street
Do you *really* want to go down that road? At least NYC was laid out (mostly) by people who actually SPOKE English, whereas London, for instance, was laid out by blokes who spoke SPOKE A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE ENTIRELY. And they burnt the town to the ground every few centuries and changed everything, but kept all the same road names. I mean, have to actually LOOKED at a map of London? I bet there are tourists who've been lost in there for YEARS.
And by the way, you've got your own share of odd terms. Over here a sleeping policeman is actually a sleeping policeman!
Don't get your knickers in a twist or throw a wobbly. I'm not trying to be cheeky or even twee. We could argue about 'maths', 'plasters', amongst' , 'paracetamol', 'petrol' or a bunch of other words in inverted commas, last of all, zed, for heaven sakes.
Let's forget all that and just stay mates. And by that I mean pals and not any sort of hanky-panky. Sure, we had our disagreements every now and then, and actually burning the White House was a bit beyond the pale, but we've got your backs and you've got ours. US and UK, BFF.