Ratjoy.com » Forums » EoS Newbie Station » Oops - Ignore this
You need to register or login to post a reply.
Oops - Ignore this
|
M Burch RJ: Farmerbob CO: Farmerbob Post Rating: -1 + / - Total Posts: 151 Karma: 14 Joined: Sep 2, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 14, 2013 (Last edited on Apr 16, 2013) I have been advised that I misunderstood what Store Efficiency means. I will have to experiment but I'll start a new thread if need be, please let this one fall off the front page.
|
|
Paul Jikanski RJ: Paul Jikanski CO: Paul Jikanski Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 194 Karma: 41 Joined: Jan 19, 2013 |
Posted on Apr 14, 2013 Correct me if I'm wrong here. But that would actually be very counter productive.Sales efficiency is divided by each item on your store shelves. When you have 8 items being sold, you have 100% efficiency divide by 8 items, so each item only gets 12.5% of your selling power. If you were to only have 4 items being sold, you would only have 80% efficiency, but only divided by 4 items, so each item would have 20% selling power as compared to the 12.5% if you have each shelf stocked. If you only sell 1 item your store has 65% efficiency, but that's totally dedicated to the 1 single item giving it the full 65% selling power, which would generate much more sales/revenue as compared to if you have 7 other random items on the shelves that sold 3 items per day for not much money. Store efficiency could be synonymous with selling power. But keep in mind that it's divided by the number of items the store sells. The more items, the less selling power each item actually has. |
|
M Burch RJ: Farmerbob CO: Farmerbob Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 151 Karma: 14 Joined: Sep 2, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 15, 2013 I thought that each "slot" for sales is considered against the size of the store, completely independently of the other slots, and the store size is recalculated downwards if there are not a full set of items on the shelves?If you are correct, I'll definitely need to do some rewriting :) |
|
Brent Goode RJ: BB Goode CO: BB Goode Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 506 Karma: 180 Joined: Apr 5, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 15, 2013 I believe Paul is correct.
|
|
Christopher Fowler RJ: W. T. Snacks CO: Sirkh Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 71 Karma: 36 Joined: Aug 11, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 16, 2013 I can confirm that Paul is correct, though I understand it in simpler terms due to my crippled brain having some difficulties with word-based languages - the more products you have in stock the fewer individual units of those products you will sell, and vice versa. Therefore I think you would gather more profits faster and perhaps in a larger quantity over time if you drop those electronics and instead just focus on what you produce. Do correct me if I'm wrong though, as it's 12:27 AM where I am at and in the past thirty-eight hours I've gotten perhaps maybe two hours of sleep.
|
|
M Burch RJ: Farmerbob CO: Farmerbob Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 151 Karma: 14 Joined: Sep 2, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 16, 2013 Wow, retail without loss-leaders :) I'll scrub this suggestion then!
|
You need to register or login to post a reply.