On October 24, 2003, five prominent veteran eTopps participants met with senior Topps officials to present a vision of a reformed eTopps market intended to promote Topps' sales and increase eTopps' value to its participants. On November 18, a white paper prepared prior to this meeting was released broadly to the eTopps community and has been the subject of intense discussion, both laudatory and negative, on the community's message boards.

My fellow members of eTopps Clubhouse have asked me to critically and independently evaluate the white paper proposal developed by Leo Klein (bearabull), Patrick Hussey (crimsondynamo), Mike Masinick (masinick), Mike Clark (ronin), and John Gast (TLV). My only credential for doing so is being a dedicated eTopps collector for nearly two years, though I represent less than 0.009 percent (that is, less than one-hundredth of one percent) of the current total market cap. My experience, financial investment, and strategic insight pales in comparison to the five white paper authors, who each have participated in eTopps since its early days, self-report a cumulative 7 percent financial stake in eTopps, and have contributed greatly to the analytical thinking of the community. But, like them and many other participants, I have committed even more time, interest, and reflection than money to eTopps. I want eTopps to survive and thrive because I profit tremendously from my enjoyment of the program even if I do not profit financially.

Eliminating Shipping Fees

Another popular proposal is that eTopps eliminate or reduce shipping fees. Current shipping fees per card are very high for a single or few cards, and add up quickly if getting many cards or a full set. The proposal suggests free shipping, especially for full sets or once-a-year offers.

Conceptual soundness: A

Free or reduced shipping costs will help increase IPO sales and participant value in several ways. First, some contend that a higher percentage of cards being in hand will reduce supply and increase prices of in-port cards. Whether this makes much difference in price is unknown since ultimately the same number of cards are available and, to date, a relatively small portion of most cards (likely less than 10 percent) have been taken in hand. Second, having more eTopps cards available in hand will increase traditional cardboard card collectors’ awareness of the program as eTopps cards are more widely seen at card shows and card dealers. It is hoped that the high quality of the cards, placed into plastic slabs even before being handled, will attract more traditional card collectors to the program. Finally, some new eTopps members may be scared away when they purchase their first cards and realize that they have to pay a high fee to have the card shipped to them. Also, the White Paper’s suggestion that the seal on in-hand cards be modified to state that the card is 1 of xxx (representing the card’s print run) is excellent and would help highlight the relative scarcity of eTopps cards.

Feasibility: B-

Like the buyback, this popular proposal poses financial difficulties for eTopps. While the White Paper suggests that the current shipping fees may be a “profit” center for eTopps, free or dramatically reduced shipping will cause the opposite problem and reduce revenues for eTopps. The associated costs include having a worker retrieve the card from the storage facility, put it in the plastic slab with a seal, pack it, and ship it. Topps deserves credit for the current packing (other than sometimes missing baggies) and timely shipping of cards, and it would be unfortunate to have lower quality packing or slower shipping if fees are reduced. Topps should better calculate what its actual costs are for shipping and base its fees so that there is no profit or loss. That will likely still result in a higher per-card cost for single cards than for larger orders, but hopefully will result in a net reduction in current shipping fees. When calculating its cost for shipping, Topps should also offset any costs of storing cards since shipping more cards to owners would reduce both storage space and the insurance risk in the event of a catastrophic fire or burglary.

Web Site Redesign

The White Paper proposes a number of web site enhancements for eTopps.com. These include making the page compatible with more web browsers without resizing or scrolling, reducing the load time, cleaning up the design, and better monitoring the message board.

Conceptual soundness: A

The White Paper’s analogy of the eTopps web page being like a traditional merchant’s storefront is appropriate. To be an effective sales tool, the web page should be readily available and easily viewed by all users, particularly new users. While I have adjusted to the idiosyncrasies of eTopps.com I still often get error messages when I move between eTopps pages. Additionally, it is hard to find announcements, such as for contests or news, since they run down the left-hand column of the front page, often below screen level. In contrast, announcements on CardTarget.com are notably highlighted on top of the page. The new obscenity controls on the message boards are too blunt to be effective, censoring legitimate words like “Classics” and even my original username based on my last name.

Feasibility: A

I am the first to admit that I know little about web design. Thus I cannot speak expertly on these proposals’ feasibility. But these suggestions seem to be basic to any good web page. It is particularly embarrassing that CardTarget, a web page peripheral to eTopps itself and presumably with a budget a fraction that of Topps, has a cleaner, faster-loading, and more intuitive web page.

Strict Policy Enforcement

The White Paper also proposes strict enforcement of violations of eBay policy regarding eTopps. To a large extent, the only current policing of violations such as shilling, non-payment, or non-transfer of cards is posting suspect eBay IDs on the message boards so that anyone happening to read it can elect to block the ID. The White Paper proposes that eTopps make public examples by terminating violators’ eTopps accounts and shipping their cards to them at their expense.

Conceptual soundness: A

While violations are relatively infrequent, there are enough to frighten many eTopps users, especially newer ones. Since in many cases there is little enforcement by eTopps, eBay, or PayPal, rectifying abuses can be very difficult. While eTopps has traditionally said that these issues are eBay’s problem, effective enforcement would enhance eTopps’ credibility, reassure new users, and help retain participants who are victimized by problematic buyers or sellers.

Feasibility: B-

eTopps will need to use caution in enforcing policies since some allegations of abuse have been proven false. People whose accounts are terminated and/or liquidated will demand explanations and often provide legitimate or false excuses. This will lead to an administrative burden for adjudicating accusations and justifications that eTopps thus far avoided. Perhaps initial violations should result in a strict warning e-mail with the potential for appeal. Subsequent violations or serious violations that are substantiated could then result in a temporary freeze of the account in question. This would be followed by shipping cards to the violator if costs are paid. Otherwise, if shipping costs are not paid within a period such as 60 days, more stock for the catalog!

Concluding Thoughts

The White Paper represents a major effort by several eTopps participants to improve eTopps and make it more viable in the long run. While in most cases the response to the White Paper has been very positive, some readers have criticized that some ideas were recycled from postings on the eTopps message boards and elsewhere. However I am unaware of any serious proposal that has so comprehensively and clearly catalogued these ideas and integrated them in an overall vision for reform. Others complain that there was not an open public discussion of the proposals before presenting them to Topps managers. However, the consistency of the proposal and presentation would not have been possible if it were based on collecting recommendations posted by the larger community; such a process would more likely have resulted in either the lowest acceptable common denominator or a haphazard litany of random ideas. A few have questioned the self-interest behind the authors’ motivation, but the self-interest most clearly reflected was a sincere attempt to promote the eTopps community’s common good. A few have also pointed to a few editing or grammatical errors in the White Paper. However the style is generally at a professional level, simple, and reflective of the volunteer spirit of the authors. The White Paper was not intended to be a glossy sales pitch, a strident manifesto, or an amateur diatribe. It is a tool to engage a serious discussion of eTopps’ future with Topps executives and now the community at large. The White Paper’s format and style serves that purpose well. Thus, in my personal evaluation, I give the White Paper an overall A- for the concepts proposed and a B for the feasibility of the proposals. In addition, the authors deserve an A for their effort and execution, and an A+ for stimulating the eTopps community in a healthy debate on the future of the program.

Part 1 - Expanded Fantasy Games & Redesigned Catalog

Part 2 - Print Run Floors & Buybacks