(continued from page 28)
..
I see a real willingness on the part of the manufacturers to work .
That reflects a complete ignorance of the entire industry.
There are far more coin jams in the coin entry than with
the coin mech itself. So , if that's the case , why are we
staying with the standard coin entry? I saw a mech at a
trade show a couple of years ago that was tremendous . It
would push out a swizzle stick or anything else that was
put into it. But apparently our manufacturers took the
attitude that there was no way they were going to use it.
Another thing, it might sound like a small item, but
on our pinballs, it would help to have the size of the
rubbers under the plastic. If we have that, it's much
quicker for a man to refurbish the top of the playfield
because , even though it may be in the book, the books do
get separated from the games. We always try to keep
them with the game , but it doesn't always work out like
that. Besides , it's much easier if you can look right there
instead of having to look it up in a book. Little things like
that can cut down our service time drastically.
What manufacturers have to realize is our operating
costs are excessively higher today , percentage-wise, than
what they were years ago. And today the operator is
looking to cut his costs. The problem is that, during the
boom, everybody was hustling to get games out; and
nobody was worried about operating costs. But, with
revenues dropping in half, all of a sudden , we're worried
about these operating costs. And the manufacturers can
help in this area. I should point out I see a real willingness
on the part of the manufacturers to work . I think it's to
the point where everybody realizes there's a problem. The
manufacturers aren't doing very well, and a lot of
emphasis has to be put on lowering our operating costs.
Pinballs have to take in real good money to get beyond
cash flow . And operators have to pull together because
right now operators are running the business. It's an ideal
time for us to let the manufacturers know what it's going
to take to pull this thing together, what the operators'
needs are ; so we can get back to the point where every-
body is making money again .
PLAY METER: At the AOE open forum, the Operator/
Manufacturer Alliance meeting, you were a panel
member and said then that standardization could also
help an operator with bookkeeping. Could you elaborate
on that?
ERICKSON: If manufacturers would standardize
bookkeeping, it would make it easier for operators to
adjust their games to get the maximum return out of
them. That would make it easier for us operators to get
that 30-40 percent increase in collections I was talking
about before. Also, by cutting down on generic defects,
they could cut our operating costs by five to ten percent.
Now, what we need, as far as bookkeeping functions
in our games, are our totals. And these should be the
same for every machine. For that reason, it's very advan-
tageous for all the manufacturers to get together. I like
the idea of using all the displays with the systems they
have. They can have it where it would scroll, or they can
have it where it will read total dollars, total plays, total
percentage of replays. That first function would have all
our totals . From there , we could go further down where
maybe on the second level we would have our replay
level , and that would be followed by the percentage of
replays at that level. Also, our bookkeeping should be
structured so that one function is not resettable; so we'll
have a cumulative total in bookkeeping since day one.
Our second function will be everything that has to be
reset. It has to become something where we hit one
button and all our cumulative totals, except that one, are
automatically reset. That would afford an operator an
easier way of doing things.
PLAY METER: But all these changes you're talking
about. Aren't they going to translate into higher manu-
facturing costs and that into higher equipment costs?
ERICKSON: Most of them are just a one-time software
change, and that's really very minimal. As for some of the
other suggestions , about standardizing components , if
we can get away from this problem of having to
warehouse a lot of different components for every
different manufacturer, everyone comes out ahead. But
we need greater cooperation from the manufacturers for
this to happen. The operator has to be in a position where
he can cut his costs. And , until we get to that point, we're
going to have the problem of the manufacturers com-
plaining that we're not buying enough games and the
operators saying they can't afford to buy new games
because excessive operating costs are making it
uneconomical to buy new equipment. Quite frankly, I
think we're beginning to take some positive steps. I see a
real willingness on the part of the manufacturers. So I'm
looking forward to things becoming increasingly better. •
I think it's to the point where everybody realizes there's a problem.
50
PLAY METER. June 1 5, 1985