(Close Window)
Topic: Exposure by Tannen's
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Sep 22, 2019 09:14AM)
Paid a visit to Tannen's in NYC the other day and was amazed to see they are blatantly exposing the 100th Monkey principle by having two cards openly displayed on their counter top.

Standards really are slipping.
Message: Posted by: Goldfield (Sep 22, 2019 09:25AM)
🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
Message: Posted by: Philemon Vanderbeck (Sep 22, 2019 04:03PM)
To be fair, didn't the 100th monkey principle first appear as a viral optical illusion on the internet featuring a photo of Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein?

If so, it was "exposed" long before anyone thought of using the technique as part of a magic trick.
Message: Posted by: jimgerrish (Sep 22, 2019 06:37PM)
Https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrJ7FW0BIhd8g0AYOdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0NTg2bDUxBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjI5NDRfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=marilyn+monroe+and+albert+einstein+optical+illusion&fr2=piv-web&fr=yfp-t-s It's the end of magic as we know it!

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrJ4NbmBIhd5CoAeBiJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZ29xY3ZzBHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEc2xrA2J1dHRvbg--;_ylc=X1MDOTYwNjI4NTcEX3IDMgRhY3RuA2NsawRjc3JjcHZpZANCSzdDWERFd0xqTG1UdkVMWFBnOGpneHlNall3TVFBQUFBQzh3YV9mBGZyA3lmcC10LXMEZnIyA3NhLWdwBGdwcmlkA3I5U01LaUNUUmFtT1Nvc1ZBUTVmOEEEbl9zdWdnAzEEb3JpZ2luA2ltYWdlcy5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzQ3BHF1ZXJ5AzEwMHRoJTIwTW9ua2V5JTIwcHJpbmNpcGxlJTIwb3B0aWNhbCUyMGlsbHVzaW9uBHRfc3RtcAMxNTY5MTk1MzI5?p=100th+Monkey+principle+optical+illusion&fr=yfp-t-s&fr2=sb-top-images.search&ei=UTF-8&n=60&x=wrt#id=3&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffineartamerica.com%2Fimages-medium%2Fmaze-of-a-team-of-monkeys-typing-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-yonatan-frimer.jpg&action=close
Message: Posted by: saysold1 (Sep 22, 2019 10:36PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2019, Philemon Vanderbeck wrote:
To be fair, didn't the 100th monkey principle first appear as a viral optical illusion on the internet featuring a photo of Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein?

If so, it was "exposed" long before anyone thought of using the technique as part of a magic trick. [/quote]

To be fair, Chris Philpott took a clever optical illusion and made it into words and into something far more potent and henceforth unseen & unique. He created something brand new.

To be fair, I agree more with Martin that this should not be exposed openly other than to buyers.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Sep 23, 2019 10:36AM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2019, saysold1 wrote:
[quote]On Sep 22, 2019, Philemon Vanderbeck wrote:
To be fair, didn't the 100th monkey principle first appear as a viral optical illusion on the internet featuring a photo of Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein?

If so, it was "exposed" long before anyone thought of using the technique as part of a magic trick. [/quote]

To be fair, Chris Philpott took a clever optical illusion and made it into words and into something far more potent and henceforth unseen & unique. He created something brand new.

To be fair, I agree more with Martin that this should not be exposed openly other than to buyers. [/quote]

I find it incredible, Brett, that anyone who loves our art would think otherwise.
Message: Posted by: Dr. JK (Sep 23, 2019 01:05PM)
I was just at Tannen's two weeks ago and "To be fair" (since everyone else seems to be), I didn't even notice it was there. "Exposure" is a connotatively heavy word - Tannen's is still one of the world's best brick and mortar magic shop with a great staff. What did they say when you spoke to them about it?
Message: Posted by: Stunninger (Sep 23, 2019 03:59PM)
To be fair, Martin and Brett's points are more than fair. Why should the secret be revealed to anyone other than buyers of the effect?
Message: Posted by: Alan M (Sep 23, 2019 04:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2019, Stunninger wrote:
To be fair, Martin and Brett's points are more than fair. Why should the secret be revealed to anyone other than buyers of the effect? [/quote]

That’s a fair question.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 23, 2019 06:59PM)
If I had marketed my HooDoo boxes in such a place I'd be upset if they were exposing the innerworkings of my product. That's just me.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Sep 24, 2019 07:12AM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2019, Dr. JK wrote:
I was just at Tannen's two weeks ago and "To be fair" (since everyone else seems to be), I didn't even notice it was there. "Exposure" is a connotatively heavy word - Tannen's is still one of the world's best brick and mortar magic shop with a great staff. What did they say when you spoke to them about it? [/quote]
If you didn't notice the 100th Monkey cards they either hadn't been put on display two weeks ago or you aren't very observant. They are front and centre in the glass cases.

"Exposure" is a very simple word in magic terms. It means ''publicly revealing the secret of a magic trick'. By having 100th Monkey cards on display, Tannen's are exposing the secret of that effect to anyone who walks into the store. An incredible misjudgment.

To be fair, the way magic and mentalism secrets have been devalued in recent years I'm not surprised some people are coming on here to defend Tannen's exposure of a creator's work. It seems to be 'anything goes' these days.
Message: Posted by: Dr. JK (Sep 24, 2019 07:43AM)
So what did the staff say when you pointed it out to them? I'm interested in their response.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Sep 24, 2019 07:55AM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Dr. JK wrote:
So what did the staff say when you pointed it out to them? I'm interested in their response. [/quote]
If you are interested in their response, give them a call. My private conversations will remain private.
Message: Posted by: Dr. JK (Sep 24, 2019 08:06AM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Dr. JK wrote:
So what did the staff say when you pointed it out to them? I'm interested in their response. [/quote]
If you are interested in their response, give them a call. My private conversations will remain private. [/quote]

:rotf: It doesn't feel very private with a [i]public[/i] post accusing Tannen's of exposure....

I know you wouldn't do this, Martin, but some people would post on the Café for attention without doing the right thing and taking up their grievance with the staff first. I was just wondering what you said to them and if they thought of it the same way as you, but it seems like you're reluctant to share what you said.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Sep 24, 2019 09:03AM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Dr. JK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Dr. JK wrote:
So what did the staff say when you pointed it out to them? I'm interested in their response. [/quote]
If you are interested in their response, give them a call. My private conversations will remain private. [/quote]

:rotf: It doesn't feel very private with a [i]public[/i] post accusing Tannen's of exposure....

I know you wouldn't do this, Martin, but some people would post on the Café for attention without doing the right thing and taking up their grievance with the staff first. I was just wondering what you said to them and if they thought of it the same way as you, but it seems like you're reluctant to share what you said. [/quote]

Spare me your nonsense.

Tannen's are publicly exposing the secrets of a magic trick in their store. I'm publicly exposing them on a magic forum for doing so. That's normally what happens when people expose magic secrets -their exposure is discussed on the Café.

I will always stand against magic exposure and will feel free to discuss it on the Café, regardless of your opinion on the matter. It's bad enough kids and on YouTube exposing secrets; it's sad indeed to see Tannen's joining in.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 24, 2019 09:26AM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Dr. JK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Dr. JK wrote:
So what did the staff say when you pointed it out to them? I'm interested in their response. [/quote]
If you are interested in their response, give them a call. My private conversations will remain private. [/quote]

:rotf: It doesn't feel very private with a [i]public[/i] post accusing Tannen's of exposure....

I know you wouldn't do this, Martin, but some people would post on the Café for attention without doing the right thing and taking up their grievance with the staff first. I was just wondering what you said to them and if they thought of it the same way as you, but it seems like you're reluctant to share what you said. [/quote]

Spare me your nonsense.

Tannen's are publicly exposing the secrets of a magic trick in their store. I'm publicly exposing them on a magic forum for doing so. That's normally what happens when people expose magic secrets -their exposure is discussed on the Café.

I will always stand against magic exposure and will feel free to discuss it on the Café, regardless of your opinion on the matter. It's bad enough kids and on YouTube exposing secrets; it's sad indeed to see Tannen's joining in. [/quote]

Though it's in bad taste, I still don't find them to be as offensive as let's say, Fantasma selling a lost deck routine with the deck that they've basically pass off as their own instead of selling the actual Lennart Green release (Stolen Cards). I'm not exactly sure that what Tannen's did here is exposure to the gen pop but rather possible exposure for people that already knows what the 100th monkey is and what it can be used for (in other words, potential customers). On one hand, exposure is most certainly exposure, on the other hand, Tannen's do tend to sell products better when they tip the workings of products (I've seen them demo in person plenty, so it's most certainly a sales tactic that they do employ, depending on the person demo'ing). In other words, them exposing things I have seen work to the advantage of the creator/publisher of the effect as it ups the chances of them selling the item to a customer (I bought Narcissus pretty much immediately after they showed me the principle and how it worked, I'm n=1 of course, but I've seen plenty of customers come through their doors having things exposed to them and them then pretty much immediately picking up the item that was just exposed to them).
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Sep 24, 2019 09:53AM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:

Though it's in bad taste, I still don't find them to be as offensive as let's say, Fantasma selling a lost deck routine with the deck that they've basically pass off as their own instead of selling the actual Lennart Green release (Stolen Cards). I'm not exactly sure that what Tannen's did here is exposure to the gen pop but rather possible exposure for people that already knows what the 100th monkey is and what it can be used for (in other words, potential customers). On one hand, exposure is most certainly exposure, on the other hand, Tannen's do tend to sell products better when they tip the workings of products (I've seen them demo in person plenty, so it's most certainly a sales tactic that they do employ, depending on the person demo'ing). In other words, them exposing things I have seen work to the advantage of the creator/publisher of the effect as it ups the chances of them selling the item to a customer (I bought Narcissus pretty much immediately after they showed me the principle and how it worked, I'm n=1 of course, but I've seen plenty of customers come through their doors having things exposed to them and them then pretty much immediately picking up the item that was just exposed to them). [/quote]
In which case, Magic stores should be free to leave Celebrity Presage or MOABT on open display to be examined by anyone who wanders in. They should take their wallets out of the glass cases and leave them around for casual passers by to play with them and discover their secrets. Just put their magic books on normal shelves and allow people to read them. Maybe supply some chairs, like normal book shops. After all, as you say, everyone who comes in is a potential customer.

Why shouldn't someone who comes in to buy some beginners magic tricks for their kids learn the 100th Monkey secret while they're browsing?
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 24, 2019 10:13AM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
[quote]On Sep 24, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:

Though it's in bad taste, I still don't find them to be as offensive as let's say, Fantasma selling a lost deck routine with the deck that they've basically pass off as their own instead of selling the actual Lennart Green release (Stolen Cards). I'm not exactly sure that what Tannen's did here is exposure to the gen pop but rather possible exposure for people that already knows what the 100th monkey is and what it can be used for (in other words, potential customers). On one hand, exposure is most certainly exposure, on the other hand, Tannen's do tend to sell products better when they tip the workings of products (I've seen them demo in person plenty, so it's most certainly a sales tactic that they do employ, depending on the person demo'ing). In other words, them exposing things I have seen work to the advantage of the creator/publisher of the effect as it ups the chances of them selling the item to a customer (I bought Narcissus pretty much immediately after they showed me the principle and how it worked, I'm n=1 of course, but I've seen plenty of customers come through their doors having things exposed to them and them then pretty much immediately picking up the item that was just exposed to them). [/quote]
In which case, Magic stores should be free to leave Celebrity Presage or MOABT on open display to be examined by anyone who wanders in. They should take their wallets out of the glass cases and leave them around for casual passers by to play with them and discover their secrets. Just put their magic books on normal shelves and allow people to read them. Maybe supply some chairs, like normal book shops. After all, as you say, everyone who comes in is a potential customer.

Why shouldn't someone who comes in to buy some beginners magic tricks for their kids learn the 100th Monkey secret while they're browsing? [/quote]

We've heard this argument before. We've heard it when the Masked Magician was popular. Did that actually hurt the magic industry (it is a industry)? No.

There's also this thing called the public libraries. It's an entire building filled with publicly peruse-able books and plenty of chairs and tables to sit at whilst reading and sometimes you can find actual magic books in there. There's also the fact that there are magic books available for the public to peruse on the Library of Congress since they have been scanning original copies for archival purposes. https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2010houd11604/?sp=1

Or the fact that virtually every magic shop I've actually stepped foot in has allowed me to relatively freely handle the products and peruse books when they are not shrink wrapped. Maybe because they know me but still, the point you're trying to make is one of principle of the matter so my example applies.

There's also the fact that just because you learned/know a method, it doesn't really mean that you are equipped to perform the effect using the method. Either due to lack of having the required props or simply because all you know is a method with no purpose thus knowing the method is effectively useless.

Btw, I'm partially agreeing with you that perhaps shops should be more secretive with secrets, but at the extent I've seen what you have described practiced (and I've seen it practiced pretty prolifically apart from the Marvin's Magic demo station at places like FAO Schwartz and prior to that Toys R Us, but they are selling to the gen pop rather than magicians so their marketing ploy is in fact the actual secrets for the sake of secrets since that draws curiosity which entices people to buy the products) I don't necessarily think it's something to *** a shop over.

Let's bring it back full circle and look at the Café. Many a times a criticism that is lobbed at releases is the lack of transparency and customers typically are more receptive and buy more from dealers and creators whom are transparent with what they are selling and in a lot of cases it usually does entail revealing a whole lot about the secret (like many of Jaoa's electronic releases which is a prime example, like the Spector Touch, I wish people had better access to the actual gimmicks to play around with and try out on themselves because I think that would actually produce a lot more sales than if they contemplated the purchase in the dark about what they are receiving).

Other examples:

Fool Us
Much of Penn & Teller's career (or this great little bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3vTld5pNlI ).

I think that one of the best written opinions on this topic (the topic of having access to knowledge you did not personally acquire and own nor did you pay for obviously) would be something Ricky Smith wrote not too long ago:

https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/blog/owning-it-life-lesson-407

I think that is the approach that we should actually take rather than constantly fearing exposure. People know all kinds of secrets far and wide, do they do much of anything with the secrets that they know? Usually no, it's more of a collector mentality and the satisfaction comes from knowing rather than using the knowledge thus exposure in the context we are discussing it here in the topic, it can be problematic but mainly more on the crediting and rewarding the creator side of things rather than the exposure ruining magic as a whole because people know how things are done (as we saw with the Masked Magician, it really doesn't affect the market/industry as a whole). For that, I think we should think moreso about promoting the idea of rewarding creators for their work out of principle rather than this fear of exposure which is mostly inconsequential.
Message: Posted by: David Thiel (Sep 30, 2019 05:43PM)
To say that we, as performers, should ever shrug our shoulders at any aspect of exposure because it's common is absurd.

Our profession runs on secrets and is maintained (hopefully) by performers who treat these secrets with respect. Penn and Teller are reprehensible creatures...and so is any other bottom feeding nerd/shop/performer who exposes the secrets that are not theirs to expose. By this I mean that if you've developed your own method/prop, by all means feel free to join the other jerks on YouTube who expose secrets. But if it's not your creation? Shut up and treat it with the respect it deserves.

Very happy (and a little sad) that Martin brought this to our attention.

David
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 1, 2019 09:30AM)
Thanks David. I'm glad some people still get it -and care.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Oct 1, 2019 01:44PM)
[quote]On Sep 30, 2019, David Thiel wrote:
To say that we, as performers, should ever shrug our shoulders at any aspect of exposure because it's common is absurd.

Our profession runs on secrets and is maintained (hopefully) by performers who treat these secrets with respect. Penn and Teller are reprehensible creatures...and so is any other bottom feeding nerd/shop/performer who exposes the secrets that are not theirs to expose. By this I mean that if you've developed your own method/prop, by all means feel free to join the other jerks on YouTube who expose secrets. But if it's not your creation? Shut up and treat it with the respect it deserves.

Very happy (and a little sad) that Martin brought this to our attention.

David [/quote]

What if what you developed is also what you are trying to sell and thus that is your means of profiting from your work, by selling it through a store like Tannen's. What if this exposure actually helps increase the sales? If the purpose is to sell as many units as possible and a great marketing ploy is to also expose it somewhat because the method is so interesting that knowing it is itself a selling point, is the retailer still a bottom feeder? We are talking about products that are in the store for the sole purpose of hoping that it can be sold and the more sold equates to you being more successful at the reason you marketed it in the first place, how do with square that? I'm not necessarily pro or con either philosophy, but just wondering how one would square that if ideology conflicts with purpose (ideology being keeping the secret is of utmost importance whilst purpose being you marketed the item to sell as many of them as possible).

Perhaps you would not allow for that with your own releases but this comes down to a per individual and per release basis does it not?

Also, are P&T truly that reprehensible? After all, look at the amount of exposure they have given to the magic community in terms of positively impacting public perception of magic. Not to mention the vast partnership they've had with Johnny Thompson that one can argue has benefited the community as a whole. It seems like the conflict here is that you have a disagreement of philosophy which is of course completely fair and perfectly reasonable (agree to disagree is a thing after all), but what I'm really getting at here is what exactly is the objectively tangible negative impact here because if we look at the totality of the industry, exposure does not appear to ever impact the industry either that of the performer or those that are in the retail side of things. It's really an interesting question imo.
Message: Posted by: David Thiel (Oct 1, 2019 05:11PM)
You raise some interesting points. I believe that an effect belongs first to the person that created it. When he/she sells it to the community, the secret is actually what is being sold...just like back in the old magic days. In that case I believe it is up to the creator -- and whatever agencies he chooses to market the effect through to respect and protect the secret.

I know Chris P and I very much doubt he gave his permission for his creation to be displayed in this manner. I also would doubt that his bottom line is to see as many units sold as possible. Of course we all expect to make coin on our books and creations. But that's not the ONLY reason we develop them. There's a powerful desire to help the community along in any way possible. Does the community respect the creations and the books written? Sometimes. But the "community" has gotten so large and grown so fast with the aid of the internet that old standards are being thrown away and our most private things are being dragged into the light and exposed.

Exposure is NEVER okay. Never. Not by anyone. That includes P&T -- who are beneath contempt, on the same playing field as the snotty little jerk who posts his pathetic exposure videos on YouTube while sitting in a lawn chair in is mom's basement.

It surprises me that exposure on any level is even a matter of debate.

David
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Oct 2, 2019 07:40AM)
Devil's Advocate: "Exposure on any level" includes every product in the magic industry.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Oct 2, 2019 07:43AM)
Pretty much all online magic shops expose the sw*mi as an example...

always thought the easiest way is just put up a password before you see the images...

though saying that, too many people password protect their site but also give it away in the same breath...

go figure...
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Oct 2, 2019 07:44AM)
You'd be surprised how many people can't figure out a password that's right in front of them.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Oct 2, 2019 09:22AM)
Dunno if I would!

But if it works, then...good!

We shouldn't have to hand hold...
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 2, 2019 09:48AM)
[quote]On Oct 2, 2019, IAIN wrote:
Dunno if I would!

But if it works, then...good!

We shouldn't have to hand hold... [/quote]

A bit of hand holding is surely permissible? Even after 40 years I still have to stop and figure out how many 'n's' there are in Anneman...Anemann...Annemman....

Let's call him Ted.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Oct 2, 2019 09:54AM)
[quote]On Oct 2, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
[quote]On Oct 2, 2019, IAIN wrote:
Dunno if I would!

But if it works, then...good!

We shouldn't have to hand hold... [/quote]

A bit of hand holding is surely permissible? Even after 40 years I still have to stop and figure out how many 'n's' there are in Anneman...Anemann...Annemman....

Let's call him Ted. [/quote]

Same problem I've had when that's the password. Every time. LoL.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Oct 2, 2019 04:22PM)
Magic Shop perusers are generally potential buyers.
If an effect is complicated enough to build or print, then perhaps a hint at the modus is acceptable.
Exposing partial secrets in a store to magicians who'd have to shell-out to actually perform an affect is a far cry from juvenile youtube knobs.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 2, 2019 09:54PM)
[quote]On Oct 2, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
Magic Shop perusers are generally potential buyers.
If an effect is complicated enough to build or print, then perhaps a hint at the modus is acceptable.
Exposing partial secrets in a store to magicians who'd have to shell-out to actually perform an affect is a far cry from juvenile youtube knobs. [/quote]
In what way does having 100th Monkey cards on open display constitute revealing "a partial secret"? It exposes -entirely- the secret of the effect. What's "partial" about it?
Message: Posted by: Mark Timon (Oct 3, 2019 07:11AM)
Come on, grow up. In which century are you living? No one gives a damm about the secrets of mentalism . If someone really were interested, they will find out anyway. Concentrate your efforts in making your show more than a bunch of clever routines. Mentalism is a performing art.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Oct 3, 2019 08:22AM)
[quote]On Oct 2, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
[quote]On Oct 2, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
Magic Shop perusers are generally potential buyers.
If an effect is complicated enough to build or print, then perhaps a hint at the modus is acceptable.
Exposing partial secrets in a store to magicians who'd have to shell-out to actually perform an affect is a far cry from juvenile youtube knobs. [/quote]
In what way does having 100th Monkey cards on open display constitute revealing "a partial secret"? It exposes -entirely- the secret of the effect. What's "partial" about it? [/quote]

I'm not specifying a particular trick. In the space and context of selling magic the exposure is contained to magicians with purchase-power. Nobody eats the samples at Costco and goes home to make the dishes from scratch. Well, normal people.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Oct 3, 2019 09:30AM)
Here's a further question. What about our magic apps? You know, the professional calibur ones many of us have purchased and have been using. Such as Wikitest as well as the Stranger? The method is obviously the app. The ad-copy basically gives anybody who reads it all they need to know as to how the effect works (you use the app, the app is literally the method). We obfuscate the method by presentation. So wouldn't the Narcissus cards on display at Tannen's be the equivalent of this? Essentially it's security via obscurity. For the apps one would have to know what to search for. For Narcissus at Tannen's, one would need to know Tannen's exists and go into the store and hope that it's there to see it. They would also need to know what they are looking at or else it's nothing other than a cool optical illusion. Like you need to be in a situation where you need to nail something to realize what a hammer and nails are for. Both examples (app and Narcissus) demonstrate exposure of method but without context and both are hidden via obscurity. Actually, come to think of it, the apps do give context since the description tells you what it is :P

I actually have always had a problem with the magic apps having very clear and explicit descriptions and have used them with the thought of I hope this thing is buried in the app store all the way on the very bottom of all the free to play games, etc. in the app store.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Oct 3, 2019 10:02AM)
Retailers need to move product.
They've already paid the creator for the units, so the hard-fact is the creator has no further input in the transactions.