I was honestly surprised by the way the results turned out as 26 people (54%) of respondents didn't feel the card companies owe, us, the consumers, the customer, and their target market anything to insure the future value of our purchases. If this small sample actually reflects collector sentiment on a larger scale, why the fascination with book value, true secondary market value, the question of of how much something is worth and so on?
Now understand, I can make an argument for both sides of this. While it would be nice, and far too altruistic, to believe that given the amount of money people have spent on 2010 Bowman as of late, that Topps would help secure those market values, at least to some degree, by limiting the amount of Stephen Strasburg content in their remaining product schedule.
On the other hand, The Topps Company, is a business. They make a commodity and are in business to generate as much revenue and profit as possible and at the end of the day if the commodity they produce manages to attain some level of collectibility based on the hype and initial performance of a young phenom pitcher than so be it. In addition, it is fully their right and fiscal responsibility to actually capitalize on a player's market demand by using him to sell as much product as physically possible. That is why I voted "No". That was my logical, right brain response, but in all honesty, my heart would vote "Yes".
So regardless of which way you voted, what was your reasoning?