I've worked as an inventory manager for the last 3 years and have 12 years in retail stores.
I may not know a hell of a lot about business managememt, however I do know about inventory, and based upon what they decided, sounds to me that they are having a hard time keeping people interested in their card game, which in turn will see less sales and less stock. Meaning that the value of everything for consumers is going to fluctuate, and how does someone deal with paying higher for a card they cannot get in card packs?
It makes sense now why we have cards like Pikarom, it's to get more consumers into the game who don't understand it and can be competitive right away.
Unless of course they rid themselves of the cardboard based cards and go solely online as a transition to another product then yeah this decision makes even more sense.
I'm guessing they make huge margins on these cards, seeing how cheap cardboard is and they can resell packs and boosters to collectors, however I can't see them losing money to a card game, unless their player base is going.
But whatever works.
Firstly, manufacturing and retail are very different. However, since you are an inventory manager in retail, you should be aware that most business (especially in retail) operate using a JIT (just-in-time) ordering system; meaning products are only ordered or manufactured when demand is there and stock is low. Pokemon on the other hand, during the XY era, appear to have manufactured many more products (i.e. boosters) than was required at the time. This means that they have had them in warehouses for years at this point; hence why we still get XY packs in brand new products. As others have pointed out, this dissatisfied a lot of their consumers, and often (at least in my case) resulted in opting out of buying new products. Most prominent examples I can think of for me are the Guardian's Box (the one with Lele) and the Kanto tins . Both, I was willing to buy, but after seeing the amount of out-of-rotation, old XY packs in both products, I ended up opting out of buying them.
Therefore, I assume, their new strategy was put in place to avoid another situation like this, where we'd still be getting Crimson Invasion packs in products near the end of the Sword/Shield era. Rather than due to what you seem to think is lack of demand. The thing is, demand is there, clearly, 2018 and 2019 have been great years for the TCG. However, they did not use JIT, rather they overstocked and were left with tons and tons of dead stock. Who suffers? Mainly their consumers, aka us. Like you point out, they probably have great profit margins, so to them the monetary cost may not be that great (although keep in mind, like I said before, every day that a product spends in a warehouse or on a shelf not sold, is money being lost), but they have to get rid of the products still. And rather than selling them for cheap (which would not be a wise decision) or destroying stock (which is unethical), they went the route of including them in new products, which leads to dissatisfaction among consumers which in turn leads to less sales of products (apart from boosters and booster boxes, etc.).
So the only logical strategy to avoid that in the future is to stop
over-manufacturing. And your point about people having to pay extra for out of print cards is simply ridiculous; Computer Search has been out of print for years, its price has been high for years, yet people are
not demanding for them to start printing that again are they? So how is Unbroken Bonds going out of print any different to that? What about first edition Base Set? That's out of print, Charizards go for thousands, again, how is this different?
Not really, if you can supply your demand and have more for more people than you have a good business. If your worried about inventory... then maybe it's time to look at something else.
See, in your earlier post you made a point about supply and demand, yet I'm not entirely sure you get the point of it... Supply and demand is about striking the perfect balance between the two, not about surpassing demand. This post contradicts itself, as you make the point of meeting demand (as they clearly did, and more with XY sets), yet you try to use that point to illustrate that over-supplying is good for business, when it clearly is not.
Sorry about the long post anyways, I hope I'm clear in what I'm trying to say.