What was the percentage of price increase and BOM decrease via cost cutting in 2015, 2016 and 2017?

In 2015 you could buy a NIB Stern pro for $4200
in 2016 you could buy a NIB Stern pro for $4800
in 2017 you could buy a NIB Stern pro for $5400

I would guess that BOM went down a couple hundred each year?

That along accounts for 20% or more change each year.

Also in that time they have a few big cash grabs like the BM66le and SLE stuff.

This to me in evidence of how mush more they are charging for a cheaper product and less about increased sales.

Sorry, typo. Corrected now. Yeah prices have steadily risen by approx 600 the past few years.

Gotta love when you can't actualy form a logical deduction to make an inverse case as part of a discussion, so instead you just take something out of context, remove all the data, and try and spin it. I know you are a Stern fanboy, but this tactic is akin to someone so iggnorant that they don't understand difference between weather and climate, so they attempt to say a cold snap means global climate change does not exist. Sad that this discussion tactic has become so common in our idiocracy society.

If you are incapable of making basic deductions using data and observations, then kindly stay out of the conversation rather than misquoting or being willfully iggnorant to try and spin a falsehood. If you actually want to come to the table with some data and logical reasoning then let us know and I would enjoy continuing the conversation.

Stern games in 2015...

WWE $4200 (actually think some people got this for $4k)
Kiss $4300 (some were still getting them for $41 or 4200)
GOT $4500 (plenty got them for $4200-4400)

Wasnt GOT the start of a price increase and late in the year?

Either way, I am correct and games were $4200 (or less) in 2015. The point being that Stern has raised prices ~$600 YOY

this is both sad and stupid. I am not sure I can bring things down to your level...

Since prices have gone up (indisputable fact) and they claim revenue has gone up, then it is really easy to sell fewer games for more money per game and increase revenue...

You have to also acknowledge the evidence that sales qty have gone down; look at the reported pinside numbers you ignored/spun the quotes from the other thread.

If you sell fewer games for more money, then you can still increase revenue... The question is if they are increasing profit or still holding the 90% of market share they claim.

If you also keep BOM steady (or more likely decreased based on what those paying attention see in games) then you increase profit also.

Pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that on average Stern is selling fewer # per title. They are counter acting that by decreasing cycle time to try and put out more titles each year. They are cutting corners on QC, BOM, etc... and increase price to try and recoup profits. They are very smart and savvy at this business. I personally think they may have pushed the decreased quality and increased BOM a bot too far. I look forward to what comes from them and how they react as I think good things could and will come from that.

I think it is funny that you think I am a Stern hater when I own more Sterns than the majority of collectors... Hell I own 10x the number of Sterns that you do... lol...
(I dont mean that as a pissing contest. Just pointing out that for being such a hater... I sure do own a bunch of Sterns.)

What i list on pinside is a small snippet of my full collection.

Nah, i just don't feel it necessary to list all my games on pinside.
Largely got sick of one stalker that would not leave me alone about wanting to buy a few games so i changed how and what I list publically to avoid the hassle.

That is cool. I don't care. Lol

Most obvious answer...
Private companies can say whatever they want to try and sway perception... it is not like Stern has a track record of being super honest.

Second most obvious answer...
I was quoting pro price increases. do the math on prem, LE, of course VE, and of couse the SLE invented prices and get back to me. Pretty easy to make up some more %. That shoukd take care of the supposed increase in revenue.

Anyone that looks at the numbers on any of the various tracking websites should be able to come to the same conclusion... they are for sure averaging fewer games per title. they may have sold more games by decreasing cycle time, extending sale time, and vaulting. For sure they now have the ability to batch build and swap the line quickly. Keep in mind the line is mich more effeciant with simplified assembly of the spike system. Only have the wire of a yugo now...

I am yet to see any evidence of this (I know they claimed it). I see the new facility as re-geared specifically to do batch runs and be more versatile so they can switch between games. Despite what they said, I see that their plan was for the ability to run multiple games in stages at the same time and build to demand. It all seems a plan for flexibility and space to have more titles staged at the JIT strategy as orders come in in batches.

The factory itself was way underused last I saw. I know they were bringing more things in house and taking over the back space last year. It appeared to be running a similar clip to the old factory just more things being done in house rather than sub contracted.

All I know for numbers is that all the publicly reported stuff on sites like here, which show that sales per title are less. Esp evident with ones they likely thought were going to be blockbusters but fell flat (i.e. SW).

Really my whole interest in this topic is that I dont find what they say to be entirely truthful (I dont think any individual outright lies, but I do think they like to bend the numbers to tell the story they want; most companies do this esp private ones that can legally) and I think it is exciting to see what they will do next to evolve to the ever changing market, new competitors, and limited NIB $$$ in the hobby. Stern has always been able to evolve with the changes to still make pinball. I think those pressures can sometimes bring about new, fun, and innovative things.

Do you have an explaination for the relative numbers recorded on collector sites such as pinside which show that while it may be prevalent on route, it is overall a bust? What data we have at minimum can be comparative to other games...

I think your fandom and ownership is possibly making you a bit out of touch...

I am not making up anything. I happily give stern props when they deserve it.

I am making logical deductions based on the pinside and other website data. Pinside is if anything an accurate reflection of the typical pinhead and even moreso weighted to those that tend to buy NIB sterns. PInside is pretty decent data and if you look over the trends frm the past few years then you will see what others are seeing.

I am using the data available. IT is not perfect but it at least allows for relative comparisons even if not pure numbers.

I think people alter game reviews because they feel it has an impact on perception, value, or whatever...

I don't think people purposefully are not listing games in their collection to make it 'appear' SW is sellng poorly...

it is a minority of the pin head population but is for sure indicative/ representative of the larger populous.

1. that it is the minority since about 1 out of every 10 pinheads I know actually frequents Pinside to lurk. That means the majority may visit but done really use it, so pinside appears to be the minority of total pinhead population. There are also pinheads I dont know of course but I assume they are non pinsiders or not active at all.

2. that is it a representative sample of games owned since even the lurkers tend to list their collections in some form and compared to non-pisiders the collections are similar (i.e. newer collectors have lots of newer games and older collectors tend to have a variety.

If you also watch the # of each title ebb and flow over time you can start to piece together how a game sells over time.

not sure what data you are looking at???

There are 4 AFM game options listed in the database. The original and the LE remake are the primary ones and the only ones in the rating categories so what most will select.

AFM Original has 841 owners plus over 100 locations
LE Remake has 227 owners plus 25 locations

The remake "special" has 46 owners and a handful of locations
The remake "classic" has 12 owners and a handful of locations

Using these as relative comparisons it is really nice data.
1. We can see that approximately 1/3 of the total claimed production run thus far of the remake are accounted for in pinside data
2. We can see that clearly the LE remake is the most popular, the special edition next, and the classic model a far last
3. We can get an understanding of where people see the value (the LE) and also still see that Pinside captures the upper crust of collectors that are fine with blowing more cash on a Special edition
4. Interestingly the Original AFM is accounted for approximately 1/3 of the original production run in Pinside data also

This is all very solid data for social science self reported data. Keep in mind that there is incentive to report accurate data as individuals like to use their collection to keep track of what they own and show it off. Locations like to report accurate data as Pinside is often used for advertising and locating games to play.

you got one thing right...

For some people (those that dont work with big data...), it is apparently impossible for them to make any sort of reliable conclusions, even if just making relative comparisons...

lol