Subject:
|
Re: Bricklink frustration
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:57:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1344 times
|
| |
|
|
Quoting David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com>:
> In lugnet.general, Jennifer L. Boger wrote:
> > The largest issue I've always seen with this was that the amalgamated • carriage
> > fees would very quickly pile up.
>
> Bam.
>
> > overall your cost of transport would be so high that it potentially • wouldn't be
> > worth it. The cost of effort might, I suppose, as time = money and what • not,
> > however with the delays in shipping everything twice, waiting for one or • two
> > potentially slower sellers holding up the *ENTIRE* order. etc, etc etc.
>
> Yep. In my experience, AFOLs are generally interested in saving more, not
> spending more. There are a bunch out there who *will* pay more, but in
> general,
> I think your average AFOL would much rather spend the time doing it
> themselves
> rather than getting a middleman.
Ok, so now we've also got the issue of near zero demand. *IF* demand was higher,
costs could be split through multiple orders from the same original sellers,
potentially. I would say that your average AFOL working on a project is also
probably pretty eager to receive parts, and wouldn't want to wait at *least*
twice as long to get them.
> > I never found a good way to fix this.
>
> Only thing I can think of is to have genunine colsolidated sellers.
> Effectively,
> have sellers send their entire inventory to a single seller, who physically
> keeps the combined inventory of multiple sellers in stock, and handles them,
> reimbursing sellers when their parts are sold. Saves a lot on shipping, and
> makes for a lot less legwork. But ultimately it suffers from similar issues,
> plus a couple new ones:
>
> - Shipping overhead still costs much money
Bam.
> - "I got consolidated 2x4's from multiple sellers. Whose did I sell?"
> (probably
> solved by proportional reimbursement)
Or by agreement, or by incentives, who knows, this is figureoutable.
> - Sellers no longer have direct access to their inventory
Updating said inventory would become the job of the middleman, after shipping
costs, etc.
> - Middleman now is doing all the sorting, packaging, etc, instead of the
> actual
> sellers, so, overhead still exists (although not as much as doing it on a
> per-order basis)
See above, etc.
I guess while I love the *IDEA* the demand isn't high enough, the costs too
exhorbitant, the time probably not worth it, the effort monstrous. Again, I
never was able to figure out a good way of doing it.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
| (...) Bam. (...) Yep. In my experience, AFOLs are generally interested in saving more, not spending more. There are a bunch out there who *will* pay more, but in general, I think your average AFOL would much rather spend the time doing it themselves (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
