Here is a chance to get a second entry in the March contest. Just leave a comment and you've got a shot at winning the 72 count retail box of 2011 Topps this month.
Is the Topps monopoly a failed experiment or have they lived up to the responsibility of being the only licensed producer of baseball cards? Do you think the lack of licensed competition has improved or degraded the quality of their products? Do you even think it matters?
I humbly await your opinions. (Actually, I'm probably asleep, but I still look forward to reading what you have to say)
Even though it's a monopoly, they still have to make the sets look good in order for us schlubs to buy it.
ReplyDeleteWell you may have opened Pandora's Box with this topic so I'll try to keep my comments breif!
ReplyDeleteI think the Topps monopoly was a failure from the get go. It has caused nothing but complacentcy from Topps because they are the only show in town.
Since I work in a manufacturing facility, I know that not every single unit (read: card) that comes off the line is going to be perfect. That being said, there will be mis-cut cards, and imperfections with products. Even though this is true, I have never seen so many badly cut or badly damaged cards as I saw in 2010 Topps product.
There is a solution to this "monopoly" though. MLB and the MLBPA should allow 3 or 4 licenses but limit the amount of product that each company can produce. Say 7 or 8 different products a calendar year. We would stop seeing so many reused pictures, worthless relic cards, and gimmick junk being made.
Topps can make some great cards-they've shown that in the past. But they can also make horrible ones (see Chrome, 2010). If you knew you were the only card company that was licensed to make baseball cards, which would you choose? Yeah, Upper Deck had 1000-card series', but at least they kept Topps on their toes.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm still hoping that my luck holds out. Come on, randomizer (or whatever you're going to use to choose the winner.)
fail, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteTheir quality of products has gone down as well as their customer service levels.
and now we're stuck with the same old, same old, for who knows how long.
Topps seems to be steadily improving. But I do miss all the zaniness of having multiple companies. We got so many wild designs out of multiple designers, and once someone thought of something cool, others would emulate and improve on an invention. That's a piece of cardboard evolution that is sorely missed. Consider what Upper Deck's answer to those diamond parallels might have been. Or what would Donruss do in response to the MCG? We'll never know, at least on the baseball side, and that's too bad. Competition is always good. And even if Topps makes good products, how long can they maintain momentum without a lap horse?
ReplyDeleteI think it's a fail - not because of the 2011 Topps product (I for one really like it), but because competition drives a brand to be better. I'm worried that Topps is going to stop striving to be better and just become complacent.
ReplyDeleteIt's also a fail because as someone who just got back into the hobby, I've basically been relegated to only buying 2011 Topps (which is good for them). I pick up my packs at Target or a local sporting goods store, and they don't stock much. I'm anxiously awaiting some new sets (A&G) to be released so that I can pick up those and diversify my 2011 spending habits a little bit.
It's March 1, and I'm disappointed that I only have cards from one 2011 set. In years past, there would probably have been 5 sets out by now.
I think Topps has failed, based on the quality control issues that many have seen during the past few months. IF it wasn't for the quality issues I would say yes. The MDG and Diamond cards redemption programs were experiencing problems in the first day they went live (did no one test this thing). There have always been products and designs that people like and don't like, and that is based on each individual. I don't think it really matters about competition, if the problems are due to cost cutting then nothing will change that.
ReplyDeleteI'm still buying cards, but only because I'm a junkie. I don't think Topps has done a great job with quality or customer service since they became the only rights holder.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually trying not to think, it makes my head hurt!!!
ReplyDeleteI also actually think the failure here is from MLB itself. To tie your product to on exclusive outlet is doomed to failure.
A one designer concept does not give the consumer enough variety to spice up their buying experiences.
Although I do like Topps cards for the most part, there have been some other card designs that are very nice as well, I dare say, even superior to Topps.
I happen to agree with Justin too, "Topps can make some great cards-they've shown that in the past. But they can also make horrible ones (see Chrome, 2010)." sometimes they even put them in the same set!! ie Last year's Topps Town inserts, and the Bazooka Joe inserts from Opening day.
The only way to beat a monopoly is to break the addiction and quit buying cards. Yeah, that'll happen!!
Consumers always get screwed when there's a monopoly. "Either buy this product or nothing at all" isn't a way to keep people happy.
ReplyDeleteI heard they switched their printing company that led to the Chrome production errors. If this is true, this was a misstep among others (cutting) that did not seem to be addressed. I also think they have way too many products that overlap, and I think this is generally confusing.
ReplyDeleteI do think that they need at least one MLBP-licensed competitor. They're not completely competitor free, with a lot of companies doing creative baseball stuff. MLBP has the power to do this and should. They don't need to open the floodgates, but they ought to consider one more competitor. I think it would be good for the hobby and good for fans.
The only Monopoly I like is the Parker Brother's Board Game. Competition is needed. It is what fuels the fire, to get better than your competition.
ReplyDeleteI miss upper deck. I like the 100 card sets they had the variety I could get. I like having a choice
Is it a failed experiment? - yes.
ReplyDeleteHas it degraded quality? - yes.
Does it matter? -I think so, judging from the comments here so far, and from countless other blog posts I've seen since the new monopoly. I think there many collectors with preferences as to what types of cards they buy. Me, I prefer the retro/vintage style cards like Heritage and A&G, as well as the Topps standard set. I can't afford the high end stuff, Bowman's too heavy on draft picks and prospects for my liking, and I'm not crazy about the shiny chrome/platinum stuff. Last year I would have loved to buy Goudey or Masterpieces - if only Upper Deck had been able to produce them.
It's a fail but sadly I'm not sure it matters.
ReplyDeleteThe monopoly is not really good, I don't think many people would dispute that. We like having more options and monopoly gives us less.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I personally think Topps has done a good job over the last two years. I really like the design, photography and inserts from 2010 and 2011 Topps products and will continue to buy them regardless of the monopoly.
Quality control is another issue, and as I don't have as much first hand experience as others (I'm just getting back into the hobby) I'll have to withhold judgement (although if people say that quality has gone down I am inclined to believe them).
A monopoly hasn't broken Topps dependence on recycled, lazy designs, homages to their glorious past, and fake throwbacks. On the other hand, we still buy their products, so who's to say it's a failure?
ReplyDeleteI don't like monopolies because I like variety. But really, I can't see much of a difference between Topps now and Topps in 2008 when Upper Deck was around. Topps is Topps. There's good stuff, there's bad stuff.
ReplyDeleteI think MLB is more to blame than Topps.
Failed monopoly? No. Lazy monopoly? probably
ReplyDeleteI think competition would put more drive into Topps to create better products. However, I do believe that Topps is doing a fine job of trying to improve its product for all collectors. For every person who hates a ToppsTown card there is a kid somewhere who found a way to be closer to baseball and card collecting.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it matters. Most card companies, licensed or not, have become lazy and throw out whatever product they think will sell the most boxes at their particular price point. I've rarely seen a dirty "game-used" relic so those seem somewhat lame and auto's lose their luster when there's 10,000 of them out there per person. I'm kind of "meh" about the whole licensing issue at this point.
ReplyDeleteI keep buying their cards, so for me to say Topps failed I would be hypocritical. In all actuality, I think Topps stuff has been getting steadily better (overall) each of the last three years. 2009 was ok, 2010 was pretty good (I don't buy chrome so that disaster didn't affect me) and now 2011 looks quite strong with the base set being nice, Gypsy being intriguing, and a new design for Ginter...and that's just what we know about right now.
ReplyDeleteOther than less sets to chase I haven't even noticed UD was gone...
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't think they care, as long as the money keeps coming in.
ReplyDeleteAs far as whether competition had helped...all the companies tried to outdo Upper Deck and for a while, it looked like there were several different versions of an Upper Deck set.
But then again, I miss the days of ripping wax (not mylar), seeing cards with cardboard stock and getting a slab of gum that could be used as a ninja star.
Signed,
A guy who once worked for the (monopoly) cable company
The lack of competition has absolutely hurt the market. Topps went from using gimmicks to drum up interest in their product and now they are overloading the products with them for no real reason, in my opinion at least.
ReplyDeleteWell, I will go against the grain a little and call it neutral. It has it's good qualities and bad qualities.
ReplyDeleteTHE GOOD - saves me money from buying 10 sets from 2-5 different companies...as a team completist i appreciate that somewhat
The 60s-70s had some good cards when Topps was the only game in town
THE BAD - when quality suffers on a set or two it is much more noticeable and annoying
The 60s-70s had some very bad design too when Topps was the only game in town
In some ways, it's definitely a failure. They are doing alot of things that provide "fake value" in packs by including too many insert sets in the base product, and it seems like the quality isn't that great. If they had competition, I think they'd be influenced away from this.
ReplyDeleteThat said, in some ways it's nice that Upper Deck isn't also producing ~15 releases a year for a total of ~30. I'd rather see 8 or 9 from each company - then I could collect Topps and Upper Deck base and pick one or two others.
I don't think the monopoly has been a failure on Topps' part. They have been fairly innovative over the past year, though of course, their customer service has been poor to middling. The same can be said of Upper Deck and Panini, who have licenses in the other major sports.
ReplyDeleteI think the real loss is to the collector in the sense that there will be less anticipated variety. How many iterations of Bowman are there to fill up a license? The real concern is that over a multi-year basis the brands get stale or worse, too expensive. 2011 is shaping up to be just a hair under the Stras-mania of 2010.
In the end, we collect what we like as long as we feel it's valuable to us (except for Topps high-end, which does not tend to maintain value)
I do think it is a failure. Topps has gotten lazy with their product beacuse what other choice do we have? People will continue to buy it because we all need our fix of the cardboard. I want to see a simple set that is appealing to the eyes with out all the extra garbage in a pack of cards. That's why I've resorted to begging other people for extra Mariners cards from the new sets. I would like to be able to collect other cards from other brands to put in my collection.
ReplyDeleteI think flawed is a more appropriate word than failed. Topps puts out a lot of great stuff, but they often take shortcuts in so many ways. Utilizing the same picture of a guy on numerous cards year after year, sticker autos and the like.
ReplyDeleteI certainly miss Upper Deck though, they put out a ton of beautiful products.
I hate the monopoly. Competition is always better. Period. But we are stuck with it, so might as well keep collecting the bits of cardboard we all love.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's failed, but I think Topps sees that they need to step up big this year or that word "fail" will be tossed around more. The have already got some good pub with the flagship set, Gypsy Queen is getting some hype and everyone is dying to get there woodies with the Heritage due out in 2 weeks. And now there is the much applause for bringing back Allen & Ginter, which looks pretty strong looking at the inserts. I think they are already well ahead of where they were at this point last year.
ReplyDeleteI can't see a difinitive answer either way. I think Topps products were very good in the last couple of years so I was happy to buy them. I also feel that perhaps due to the lack of competition they may have paid less attention to quality control which we all know really have suffered in the last few years. I do like the idea of more then one licensed company for the sheer sake of variety and anybody who has read my blog knows I like variety.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the contest.
Topps has been around for a long time. Thank God For That!
ReplyDeleteRemember the good old days when there were multiple companies, but those companies just put out one product a year? Things were simple, and there was competition.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the idea of anybody having a monopoly. Don't get me wrong. I think Topps produces some decent products. But I'm a capitalist. Let's have some competition nd let the people decide which product is best by voting with their wallets.
ReplyDeleteI have to answer this in a couple of tiers.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, if there has to be a monopoly, I'm glad that it went to Topps. I'm miserable when it comes to basketball cards because Panini is the only game in town and they're chucking up bricks and airballs. Before any baseball collectors complain about Topps, talk to a basketball collector about Panini.
Second, I like the look of most of the Topps cards since the monopoly has started. They aren't resting on their laurels in that department.
It does seem like they've had to make changes to try and save money after paying mountains of gold bouillon to Major League Baseball for the exclusive license. That drop in quality has set off a chain of events that has dragged down customer service (which I had mostly raved about prior to the monopoly). Once one bad thing happens, the slightest hiccup in the Million Card Giveaway (bad condition, shipping charges) or anything else like that and it feels even worse than it normally would because you've already soured on the brand.
I don't know if they know it, but I don't think that Topps is doing themselves any favors by owning the exclusive license. It brings a lot on animosity with it. I wonder if when all is said and done if they'll think that it was worth it especially when sets need to be released just to break even to fulfill quotas. I'd like to ask the exact same thing to Panini.
Topps bores me. As an autograph collector, I always liked UD because they put more back-up catchers and relief pitchers in their sets than Topps does. If a player doesn't have a card, it is kind of hard for me to get a signed card from them.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people claim that Topps is being lazy or don't care now that they're exclusive, but I believe a lot of that is on us. The Chrome bendy (which didn't bother me at first, but now I see it), the MCG overload, etc all get overanalyzed because the monopoly turned Topps into an enemy of the collector of sorts. I think collectors want them to fail enough that MLB will allow someone else to step in to compete.
ReplyDeleteI started collecting in 2010 essentially, and I love not having to worry about multiple manufacturers as a player collector. It's tough to keep up with just Topps.
I agree with Night Owl. I don't see much difference in terms of products or approach these past couple years, looking back. I think Topps is making steps in the right direction, but customer service does need to improve (don't know how it was before, but I'm guessing the same). So does web presence. Junk the site and hire someone that can rebuild and update that thing.
We've seen the MCG and Diamond Giveaways, which brought a spark to the hobby and may have pulled people in. That's not being lazy. We saw on card autos on Chicle, Heritage, A&G and will on Gypsy Queen, so they may be listening there too. I don't think it's complacency. I think it's baby steps when people are expecting leaps.
--Jon
for the most part I think it's a fail. Topps doesn't even have to try and people will buy their cards, me included. Love the McMillion and Diamond Givaways as that makes buying packs more interesting. Guess we'll wait and see what this year holds
ReplyDeleteI dont particularly care for it because I feel like they have put out some crappy redundant products. See Topps Tribute, and also Bowman Chrome (total waste of space)
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I do really like is that it spreads out the calendar... at least for the first 6 months of baseball card season (Feb to July) It seems like there is 1, maybe 2 card releases a month. I kind of like that, it gives you time to focus on the set if you are a set builder, or player collector. And I think it increases the value of your cards if you are an ebay seller, as there is a prolonged interest in the last set released.
Just my opinion though!
Lack of competition almost always breeds laziness. We are seeing that with the endless inserts and parallels. To truly see how Topps will respond to being the only game in town, we will have to wait for the 2012 designs.
ReplyDeleteI wish Upper Deck was back because I miss sets like Masterpieces. To be honest, Upper Deck kind of got lazy with their base set in the last few years so I don't miss that. Topps at least takes risks with their design - Upper Deck just slapped full bleed photographs on their cards. 2010 wasn't the first year they didn't use logos on the front.
ReplyDeleteBut where Upper Deck did shine was the other sets. With Topps, you have the flagship, and A&G, and...that's about it. Everything else is either not worth collecting or out of my price range. If they fix the quality control issues with Chrome, maybe I'll consider that in 2011. But given my luck with the sparkly cards, I'm not holding my breath.
Short answer: I don't like the monopoly because UD isn't producing baseball sets anymore. But I don't miss the UD base set.
I don't think it is a failure, but I definitely think they have dropped the ball. The monopoly was the perfect time for them to showcase what they could do for baseball, and they haven't. The state of their website alone is testament to how they haven't taken the reins.
ReplyDeleteCall me crazy here, and I'm no fan of monopolies or exclusives by any means, but I'm thinking that Topps, as a company, realizes they took a beating from a PR perspective last year, and are putting a little more effort into the products this year. We've got a better base set (a few too many inserts, but the base is solid), they photography and colors on the samples of Heritage I've seen are both improved, and they've managed to do something new with Ginter, too, which a lot of us were betting against. I still think they need to focus their products better (no company should have more than a dozen active brands for one sport, period) and we've all heard or made the complaints about their customer service and quality control (and Chrome is the worst production mistake I've ever seen), but I think they have as well. I'm in favor of more companies having licenses in the near future, but I also think Topps is going to continue to step up their game this year and address some of our complaints.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it matters as much to Topps. I have a feeling that 2011 Topps would be 2011 Topps with or without competition.
ReplyDeleteBut it does make us see the cards in a different light, and that's where it affects Topps. Before we could pick and choose what we wanted to collect, or what we wanted to avoid. Now our hands are tied in terms of baseball, and that's dangerous. We like choices!
I would like to see a return to more lower-priced cards, but competition wasn't providing that either.
ReplyDeleteCompetition is good for all. In the case of Topps I don't think competition would change a thing.
ReplyDelete2011 Topps Series 1 is great! The photography is excellent, plenty of inserts, and higher end 'hits'. But Competition is always a good thing. Without it, Topps could easily become complacent and produce tons of crap. just my two cents.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe a monopoly can ever truly live up to the sole responsibility of being the only producer. If you have sole control over an industry, what reason do you have to improve, make changes, etc. I think we have seen this with Topps in recent years. The high end stuff prices the lower guys out of the market for the truly sought after items and they provide such poor customer support and manufacturing that they leave much to be desired.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, in the end, it doesn't seem to matter. we keep buying their products.
I'm of the view that competition is good. The whole Allen and Ginter thing last year was an example: no originality. I would not have bought one pack of A&G had Goudey still been around.
ReplyDeleteThey are going downhill. I hoped it wouldn't show so soon, but it has. Too bad.
ReplyDeleteTopps will eventually fall into complacency the longer they retain their monopoly. So far I still like most of the cards, but when they make different sets which just have a different border, that is a sign of going downhill.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to the first two questions is "no" to each. I don't think Topps has "failed" in that they seem to have found a way to get their hooks in people with the giveaways the past two years. (It makes me wonder what kind of excuse they can come up with for next year, though.) However, they have not lived up to the responsibility of a sole licensee because they are not producing products that represent all collecting interests. They haven't really produced anything like what any of the other manufacturers put out and they seem content on just releasing the same products year after year with minor variations and cutting things that don't work without coming up with new ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe base set, for what it is, works even though I wish they would take at least one more year off from the white border design. The lack of competition has really hurt the variety of products and featured players as many figured it would.
They got us by the nuts and can produce whatever they want. We'll still buy their crap.
ReplyDeleteCompetition always makes things better... but there were way too many card companies and sets. It would be nice to get another big player back in the game. Fleer or Donruss would be great.
ReplyDeleteContest closed.
ReplyDelete