Recently, in comparing the feel of older clays to Paulsons, somebody commented that modern Paulsons are more than 50% plastic. Whether it’s true or not, and how modern chips feel isn’t really relevant to the question, it’s just what got me thinking.
And now I’m going on a tangent before even addressing the question, but we know Bud Jones plastics cost more than Paulsons and I’ve always wondered why. I’ve always assumed it’s just because plastics last longer. That they sell clay Paulsons for cheaper and for less profit because they’re more of a consumable - they have to be replaced more often. If you sell clay to a casino now, you’ll sell them more in 5 years or so when they wear out. But if the plastics last forever, GPI needs to make more profit on them up front.
Those assumptions are all based on my assumption that clay chips are cheaper to produce than compressed clays. And if that’s true, maybe I’ve answered my own question - maybe GPI pushes clay Paulsons to insure future replacement sales. Because otherwise, why not just streamline the business and produce only the plastic chips which are cheaper and easier to produce (presumably) and can be sold for a higher profit.
Do we really believe that American casinos prefer clays? Obviously most of us prefer clays, but we’re a bunch of freaks. I doubt the typical casino player gives a hoot, and I have a hard time believing that casino execs choose clay because they prefer them or because they think the players prefer them.
Or maybe my assumption is wrong, and Paulsons are actually cheaper to produce than plastic Bud Jones?
And now I’m going on a tangent before even addressing the question, but we know Bud Jones plastics cost more than Paulsons and I’ve always wondered why. I’ve always assumed it’s just because plastics last longer. That they sell clay Paulsons for cheaper and for less profit because they’re more of a consumable - they have to be replaced more often. If you sell clay to a casino now, you’ll sell them more in 5 years or so when they wear out. But if the plastics last forever, GPI needs to make more profit on them up front.
Those assumptions are all based on my assumption that clay chips are cheaper to produce than compressed clays. And if that’s true, maybe I’ve answered my own question - maybe GPI pushes clay Paulsons to insure future replacement sales. Because otherwise, why not just streamline the business and produce only the plastic chips which are cheaper and easier to produce (presumably) and can be sold for a higher profit.
Do we really believe that American casinos prefer clays? Obviously most of us prefer clays, but we’re a bunch of freaks. I doubt the typical casino player gives a hoot, and I have a hard time believing that casino execs choose clay because they prefer them or because they think the players prefer them.
Or maybe my assumption is wrong, and Paulsons are actually cheaper to produce than plastic Bud Jones?
