 | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
The Airport set,
with 607 pieces, is USD$39.99.
The Amusement
Park set is USD$69.99 and is 1,344 pieces.
Finally, the big set,
Skyline, is
USD$129.99 for 2,747 pieces.
|
SNIP
This is an example of unwise marketing/pricing on the Lego Co.‘s part (IMHO).
To make these more widely accessible, the sets should have been sold per
individual winner (just the pirate ship, just the Statue of Liberty, etc.) to
keep the price less, starting around $10 or $15 (still seems doable to me since
they’e mostly made of small parts & the current prices are MUCH less than
$0.10/piece; AFAIK a good average-I assume Lego is gonna make a decent profit
since the design, CAD & instructions were done by fan designers using small
standard pieces & LEGO Co. is willing to have low price/piece points already).
Lego could have made a series of increasing price point sets like most of their
other lines. Since I’m gainfully employed, I’ll be able to get them all (& I
will), but the fantastic work of the Lego community that resulted in many highly
desirable designs, & showcased Lego creativity at it’s most fundamental best:
BY THE CUSTOMER, may now only be available to (mostly) older, employed Lego
fans. Obviously some AFOL parents will get them for their kids, & kids with
great allowances, will get them etc, but I was really hoping the Lego Co. would
use this opportunity to aggressively market their product to the widest group
possible. I think mor lower priced sets would work better in this capacity &
from the ‘designed by so-and-so individual’ idea of the contest, I was expecting
more individual-fan designed sets. OK, and it would allow me to space out my
most anticipated of this years Lego sets as weekly treats: “Ugh thank goodness
it’s friday, I worked hard this week, time to get so-and-so’s set”...yeah as if
i’d need an excuse not to buy them (all at once for that matter) :)
X-posted to Dear Lego
Jeff
P.S. pleas excuse the grammar & long sentences as it’s late, I’m tired & I
didn’t want to forget to post my thoughts. ‘night
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
The Airport
set, with 607 pieces, is USD$39.99.
The Amusement
Park set is USD$69.99 and is 1,344 pieces.
Finally, the big set,
Skyline, is
USD$129.99 for 2,747 pieces.
|
SNIP
This is an example of unwise marketing/pricing on the Lego Co.‘s part (IMHO).
To make these more widely accessible, the sets should have been sold per
individual winner (just the pirate ship, just the Statue of Liberty, etc.) to
keep the price less, starting around $10 or $15 (still seems doable to me
since they’e mostly made of small parts & the current prices are MUCH less
than $0.10/piece; AFAIK a good average-I assume Lego is gonna make a decent
profit since the design, CAD & instructions were done by fan designers using
small standard pieces & LEGO Co. is willing to have low price/piece points
already). Lego could have made a series of increasing price point sets like
most of their other lines. Since I’m gainfully employed, I’ll be able to get
them all (& I will), but the fantastic work of the Lego community that
resulted in many highly desirable designs, & showcased Lego creativity at
it’s most fundamental best: BY THE CUSTOMER, may now only be available to
(mostly) older, employed Lego fans. Obviously some AFOL parents will get
them for their kids, & kids with great allowances, will get them etc, but I
was really hoping the Lego Co. would use this opportunity to aggressively
market their product to the widest group possible. I think mor lower priced
sets would work better in this capacity & from the ‘designed by so-and-so
individual’ idea of the contest, I was expecting more individual-fan designed
sets. OK, and it would allow me to space out my most anticipated of this
years Lego sets as weekly treats: “Ugh thank goodness it’s friday, I worked
hard this week, time to get so-and-so’s set”...yeah as if i’d need an excuse
not to buy them (all at once for that matter) :)
X-posted to Dear Lego
Jeff
P.S. pleas excuse the grammar & long sentences as it’s late, I’m tired & I
didn’t want to forget to post my thoughts. ‘night
|
As you are, I am a bit disappointed by the range of size TLC have chosen for the
LEGOfactory products (too big - 130$ is just an incredibly high upper limit to
me for a System and “no licence” product) but I think that choice is due to the
fact that’s a ShopAThome exclusive. (and I’m not able to explain more that
reason, it’s just a thought).
I hope in the future to see similar LEGOfactory products on store shelves with
sets on the 100-300 parts range as a very attractive product. I understand
that’s quite impossible as LEGOfactory is a CAD product concept.
I also hope TLC is not making a bad move by encouraging kids to use virtual
bricks with LDD, to use their computer by not printing BIs : in short to
encourage kids not to buy real LEGO bricks.
Didier
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
I also hope TLC is not making a bad move by encouraging kids to use virtual
bricks with LDD, to use their computer by not printing BIs : in short to
encourage kids not to buy real LEGO bricks.
|
Interesting idea, but I’m not sure that I would agree with you.
--off-topic personal viewpoint--
This is a similiar line of thinking to the way that the record industry believed
(still believes?) that digital music and filesharing was going to kill album
sales or even overall interest in music. Ever report that I’ve seen that’s come
back about the reality of the numbers is that filesharing has actually increased
CD sales overall, and certainly interest in music.
--/off-topic personal viewpoint--
Maybe you’re right, but I hope not. My gut tells me that getting kids
experiencing the LEGO brick is a good thing whether it’s virtual or physical. My
gut also tells me that the more that kids play with virtual bricks, the more
they’ll be interested in physical bricks. We’ll just have to see.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
The Airport
set, with 607 pieces, is USD$39.99.
The Amusement
Park set is USD$69.99 and is 1,344 pieces.
Finally, the big set,
Skyline, is
USD$129.99 for 2,747 pieces.
|
SNIP
This is an example of unwise marketing/pricing on the Lego Co.‘s part (IMHO).
To make these more widely accessible, the sets should have been sold per
individual winner (just the pirate ship, just the Statue of Liberty, etc.) to
keep the price less, starting around $10 or $15 (still seems doable to me
since they’e mostly made of small parts & the current prices are MUCH less
than $0.10/piece; AFAIK a good average-I assume Lego is gonna make a decent
profit since the design, CAD & instructions were done by fan designers using
small standard pieces & LEGO Co. is willing to have low price/piece points
already). Lego could have made a series of increasing price point sets like
most of their other lines. Since I’m gainfully employed, I’ll be able to get
them all (& I will), but the fantastic work of the Lego community that
resulted in many highly desirable designs, & showcased Lego creativity at
it’s most fundamental best: BY THE CUSTOMER, may now only be available to
(mostly) older, employed Lego fans. Obviously some AFOL parents will get
them for their kids, & kids with great allowances, will get them etc, but I
was really hoping the Lego Co. would use this opportunity to aggressively
market their product to the widest group possible. I think mor lower priced
sets would work better in this capacity & from the ‘designed by so-and-so
individual’ idea of the contest, I was expecting more individual-fan designed
sets. OK, and it would allow me to space out my most anticipated of this
years Lego sets as weekly treats: “Ugh thank goodness it’s friday, I worked
hard this week, time to get so-and-so’s set”...yeah as if i’d need an excuse
not to buy them (all at once for that matter) :)
X-posted to Dear Lego
Jeff
P.S. pleas excuse the grammar & long sentences as it’s late, I’m tired & I
didn’t want to forget to post my thoughts. ‘night
|
One thought came to mind as to a “Why”- Star Wars minis. There are still, what,
one or two more years left till the Star Wars licence ends? When the Star Wars
line does come to an end TLG will have to fill the store shelves with something
and individual versions of these new designer sets would do the job. It’s just
a matter of waiting, but, hey, I’m just speculating.
Adr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
-snip-
| |
to
keep the price less, starting around $10 or $15 (still seems doable to me
since they’e mostly made of small parts & the current prices are MUCH less
|
-snip-
I’d like to voice agreement with this. Personally, I drop about ~$20 on LEGO
every pay day. I don’t drop more as I can afford more each pay day, and I dont
save up to buy more expensive sets. For me, $20 is the line where I can buy
something without having to save up or as an impulse buy (both online and in
RL). Stuff more than $20, and I’m gonna have to seriously evaluate whether I
need the pieces or not.
If these were in the $10-20 range, I’d have bought one or two a payday until I
had all that I wanted. Now, I’ll prolly grab one and hope the rest go on sale
eventually. Either that or I get hired at a better place ;o)
-Lenny
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
The Airport
set, with 607 pieces, is USD$39.99.
The Amusement
Park set is USD$69.99 and is 1,344 pieces.
Finally, the big set,
Skyline, is
USD$129.99 for 2,747 pieces.
|
SNIP
This is an example of unwise marketing/pricing on the Lego Co.‘s part (IMHO).
To make these more widely accessible, the sets should have been sold per
individual winner (just the pirate ship, just the Statue of Liberty, etc.) to
keep the price less, starting around $10 or $15 (still seems doable to me
since they’e mostly made of small parts & the current prices are MUCH less
than $0.10/piece; AFAIK a good average-I assume Lego is gonna make a decent
profit since the design, CAD & instructions were done by fan designers using
small standard pieces & LEGO Co. is willing to have low price/piece points
already). Lego could have made a series of increasing price point sets like
most of their other lines. Since I’m gainfully employed, I’ll be able to get
them all (& I will), but the fantastic work of the Lego community that
resulted in many highly desirable designs, & showcased Lego creativity at
it’s most fundamental best: BY THE CUSTOMER, may now only be available to
(mostly) older, employed Lego fans. Obviously some AFOL parents will get
them for their kids, & kids with great allowances, will get them etc, but I
was really hoping the Lego Co. would use this opportunity to aggressively
market their product to the widest group possible. I think mor lower priced
sets would work better in this capacity & from the ‘designed by so-and-so
individual’ idea of the contest, I was expecting more individual-fan designed
sets. OK, and it would allow me to space out my most anticipated of this
years Lego sets as weekly treats: “Ugh thank goodness it’s friday, I worked
hard this week, time to get so-and-so’s set”...yeah as if i’d need an excuse
not to buy them (all at once for that matter) :)
X-posted to Dear Lego
Jeff
P.S. pleas excuse the grammar & long sentences as it’s late, I’m tired & I
didn’t want to forget to post my thoughts. ‘night
|
Yes. I agree, and thats not including the fact that they are even more expensive
in the UK. The price per piece might not be high but the sets are just too big.
If each winner was an indiviudual set I might end up buying most of them over a
year or two, but as it is I probably won’t buy any. (however, smaller sets tend
to be bought more on a whim than larger sets, but buying on SaH isn’t really on
a whim like seeing one in a shop and grabbing is. Perhaps its not as bad an idea
as it seems)
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
| |
This is an example of unwise marketing/pricing on the Lego Co.‘s part (IMHO).
To make these more widely accessible, the sets should have been sold per
individual winner (just the pirate ship, just the Statue of Liberty, etc.) to
keep the price less, starting around $10 or $15
|
I have to agree. While I’m delighted with the idea of the lego factory sets and
keen on getting the models that are available, I’m just not liking the prices. I
don’t make a habit of buying $40, $70, & $130 sets. $15-20 sets are more my
speed. Even if I ended up spending the same amount overall, something in my head
is agast at spending $130 on one set, but isn’t at buying 13 $10 sets.
-Jason
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jason Spears wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
| |
This is an example of unwise marketing/pricing on the Lego Co.‘s part
(IMHO). To make these more widely accessible, the sets should have been sold
per individual winner (just the pirate ship, just the Statue of Liberty,
etc.) to keep the price less, starting around $10 or $15
|
I have to agree. While I’m delighted with the idea of the lego factory sets
and keen on getting the models that are available, I’m just not liking the
prices. I don’t make a habit of buying $40, $70, & $130 sets. $15-20 sets are
more my speed. Even if I ended up spending the same amount overall, something
in my head is agast at spending $130 on one set, but isn’t at buying 13 $10
sets.
|
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”... This
seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their systems so they
can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their systems
so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
Tim
|
I work for a publisher here in NYC and one of the requirments from our Editor in
Chief is ‘keeping the sku count low’ (number of different books we produce, not
quantities of each title that we print). I’m not 100% sure this is the
reasoning for keeping the sku count low but, an operating/overhead cost is
worked into the P&L for each book we develop and produce. It is automatically in
there. There is no way to get it out. It includes salaries, rent, employee
benefits, kitchen coffee & milk, etc. If the sku count goes up really high,
operating costs for the year automatically go up with them. So, keeping a cap on
the sku count, keeps operating costs down and within a predetermined operating
budget.
I think this might be typical for all/most businesses.
Jonathan
don’t know where to set FUT.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jonathan Lopes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
Tim
|
I work for a publisher here in NYC and one of the requirments from our Editor
in Chief is ‘keeping the sku count low’ (number of different books we
produce, not quantities of each title that we print). I’m not 100% sure this
is the reasoning for keeping the sku count low but, an operating/overhead
cost is worked into the P&L for each book we develop and produce. It is
automatically in there. There is no way to get it out. It includes salaries,
rent, employee benefits, kitchen coffee & milk, etc. If the sku count goes up
really high, operating costs for the year automatically go up with them. So,
keeping a cap on the sku count, keeps operating costs down and within a
predetermined operating budget.
I think this might be typical for all/most businesses.
Jonathan
don’t know where to set FUT.
|
Having a manufacturing background, and having worked a little ops management..
the more SKU’s you have, the more associated costs you’re going to have (for
example--just boxes alone: -more boxes to design and print--adds money to
product, -more time required to print more boxes, as you have to figure in
setup time for each box run (more cost), -area needed to store those boxes
(still more cost, and can you find the area to store?),
When planning resource allocations, more SKU’s means more variables in the mix
that have to be managed.
When the product is packaged at the warehouse, you then have to store the items
separately as well--again, more cost, and can you find the space?) Then you
have shipping and storage space at retailers’ locations. (Granted, maybe that
part is not a big issue right now for the LEGO factory, but all the others
apply.
There are a lot of other factors, but I wanted to look at a small part, just to
see what that does to costs.
Scott
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jonathan Lopes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
Tim
|
I work for a publisher here in NYC and one of the requirments from our Editor
in Chief is ‘keeping the sku count low’ (number of different books we
produce, not quantities of each title that we print). I’m not 100% sure this
is the reasoning for keeping the sku count low but, an operating/overhead
cost is worked into the P&L for each book we develop and produce. It is
automatically in there. There is no way to get it out. It includes salaries,
rent, employee benefits, kitchen coffee & milk, etc. If the sku count goes up
really high, operating costs for the year automatically go up with them. So,
keeping a cap on the sku count, keeps operating costs down and within a
predetermined operating budget.
I think this might be typical for all/most businesses.
|
I think ones that used fixed burden accounting, yes, but many companies have
switched to variable burden, or even Activity Based Costing. I believe the cost
that LEGO fears lies elsewhere.
FUT trimmed to just lugnet.dear-lego
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
|
It’s not a matter of simply adding more numbers to the system. As was pointed
out elsewhere, each new product brings added complexity to the system, as well
as additional development costs. Designing and printing one box, for example, is
always going to be cheaper than designing two boxes or certainly 10 boxes.
Each time a new product is inserted into the system (not the number only, but
the physical product itself), costs increase from things like distribution,
storage, management, development, quality assurance, marketing, planning... the
list goes on.
With SAH exclusives, we have a smaller market overall compared to, say, retail.
So there’s not as much flexibility to create an unlimited number of products.
Heck, for that matter, we don’t even created “unlimited” product lines even in
retail.
Hope that helps.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
|
It’s not a matter of simply adding more numbers to the system. As was pointed
out elsewhere, each new product brings added complexity to the system, as
well as additional development costs. Designing and printing one box, for
example, is always going to be cheaper than designing two boxes or certainly
10 boxes.
Each time a new product is inserted into the system (not the number only, but
the physical product itself), costs increase from things like distribution,
storage, management, development, quality assurance, marketing, planning...
the list goes on.
With SAH exclusives, we have a smaller market overall compared to, say,
retail. So there’s not as much flexibility to create an unlimited number of
products. Heck, for that matter, we don’t even created “unlimited” product
lines even in retail.
Hope that helps.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
Just looking at shop.lego.com, I find:
- 13 keychains
- 4 pens
- 4 backpacks
- 15 books
- 1 watch
- and 55 ‘other’ - mostly Bionicle shoes, t-shirts, and costumes
Even this listing leaves out tons of other items that can be found in a Brand
Retail store - pencils, erasers, picture frames, basketballs, etc.
Perhaps if TLC were to focus more on its core business - as it is forever
promising to do - there would be more SKUs available for actual LEGO sets.
Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
> <snip>
> Perhaps if TLC were to focus more on its core business - as it is forever
> promising to do - there would be more SKUs available for actual LEGO sets.
I, for one, like some TLC's non-brick offerings. This one sticks out in my
mind:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/bricksland/bricklink/spacecap1.jpg
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
The Airport
set, with 607 pieces, is USD$39.99.
The Amusement
Park set is USD$69.99 and is 1,344 pieces.
Finally, the big set,
Skyline, is
USD$129.99 for 2,747 pieces.
|
SNIP
This is an example of unwise marketing/pricing on the Lego Co.‘s part (IMHO).
To make these more widely accessible, the sets should have been sold per
individual winner (just the pirate ship, just the Statue of Liberty, etc.) to
keep the price less, starting around $10 or $15 (still seems doable to me
since they’e mostly made of small parts & the current prices are MUCH less
than $0.10/piece; AFAIK a good average-I assume Lego is gonna make a decent
profit since the design, CAD & instructions were done by fan designers using
small standard pieces & LEGO Co. is willing to have low price/piece points
already). Lego could have made a series of increasing price point sets like
most of their other lines. Since I’m gainfully employed, I’ll be able to get
them all (& I will), but the fantastic work of the Lego community that
resulted in many highly desirable designs, & showcased Lego creativity at
it’s most fundamental best: BY THE CUSTOMER, may now only be available to
(mostly) older, employed Lego fans. Obviously some AFOL parents will get
them for their kids, & kids with great allowances, will get them etc, but I
was really hoping the Lego Co. would use this opportunity to aggressively
market their product to the widest group possible. I think mor lower priced
sets would work better in this capacity & from the ‘designed by so-and-so
individual’ idea of the contest, I was expecting more individual-fan designed
sets. OK, and it would allow me to space out my most anticipated of this
years Lego sets as weekly treats: “Ugh thank goodness it’s friday, I worked
hard this week, time to get so-and-so’s set”...yeah as if i’d need an excuse
not to buy them (all at once for that matter) :)
X-posted to Dear Lego
Jeff
P.S. pleas excuse the grammar & long sentences as it’s late, I’m tired & I
didn’t want to forget to post my thoughts. ‘night
|
I agree with you Jeff,
These parts are VERY small, paying 5 cents per part for parts that are only a
fraction of the size of 2x4 bricks seems rather pricey. And then grouping the
designs together.... As a town person, I am disappointed that there are NO
actual windows (not the fault of the designers, but of the design database). I
really hate those 1x1 “pigeon holes” that they used for windows in these
designs. I will have to study these designs more to actually see if there are
parts that I am willing to pay the entire set price for, or just wait for them
to filter down into Bricklink.
IMHO, I think that when some of you order these, you are going to be shocked at
how little actual plastic (volume wise) your money will buy. Just because the
sets are a fraction of the usual size, doesn’t mean the price will be
proportionally reduced.
Gary Istok
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
The Airport
set, with 607 pieces, is USD$39.99.
The Amusement
Park set is USD$69.99 and is 1,344 pieces.
Finally, the big set,
Skyline, is
USD$129.99 for 2,747 pieces.
|
SNIP
This is an example of unwise marketing/pricing on the Lego Co.‘s part (IMHO).
To make these more widely accessible, the sets should have been sold per
individual winner (just the pirate ship, just the Statue of Liberty, etc.) ...
|
SNIP
I think the grouping together of designs reduced the company’s risk of getting
left with shelves full of the least popular one. I’m not sure how many of you
buy for parts like I do, but if I were just out for sand green bricks and I
could buy just the statue of liberty set, I probably would. In fact if that
were tru I’d buy at least 10 statues and forget the rest. If lots of people did
that, each with their preference, there could be one or two types that didn’t
sell very well and others that ran out quickly.
I think the company knows that the AFOL community is sufficiently strong for
some people to buy the sets even if there are parts they don’t want, and sell
the unwanted parts on Bricklink.
There’s also the question of the different sizes of sets, since there is a wide
range of amounts of parts even between the ten winning designs.
The scaling of price per piece over the three sets shows what I believed
already, that it’s cheaper in bigger sets, given similar types of pieces. This
agrees with common sense, since the overheads per set are similar, reducing the
company’s costs. $5 in $130 is a lot more economical than $5 in $15!
Lower proportional overheads for bigger sets is also a reason why I want to be
able to buy parts by the 10000 of each type. I’m fed up with paying too much
for small sets when I know it would save both us and the company money for them
to sell parts in much larger quantities to AFOLs. Get rid of the overheads of
fancy boxes with pictures, expensive instructions and advertising literature and
just let me buy plain boxes of parts.
I want to see a list of what parts I could buy by the K8 (~15kg), and the prices
of them. Then I’ll go on a serious shopping spree. Let’s start with bricks and
plates of all sizes in all colours, with a price half that of the current PaB
shop prices. A few of those and we can start building our own Legoland gardens.
Resource the community!
Mark
| | | | | | |
