| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
>All,
>
>It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I announce the new LEGO
>Auctions! Check out the new area of the online LEGO Shop at
>http://shop.LEGO.com/eBay.
>[snip]
>- We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
>0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
(!!!) whoah. This strikes me icky.
Didn't the top response to polling on this at lego.com suggested the
same?
Who will receive the money generated? LD?
(LD will certainly benefit in plenty of other ways...)
I don't know much about limited editions, but, it seems kinda broken to
have held those sets back from real customers when they were advertised
as 10,000 available.
Sorry, but, I've just never seen this kinda thing.. I've probably just
been in the dark - I'm not a collector - but it disturbs me to see LD
generating their own collecting interest. I know we could all
consciously choose to not bid, but that's unlikely to happen (esp. given
what you've got the power to offer).
:-[
:-\
-Suz (who's rummaging for her S@H catalog now)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Jardine writes:
> I'm curious about the previous nine items sold by seller 'lego-direct:'
>
> http://cgi2.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=lego-direct
>
> All nine items are no longer in ebay's database.
These were one time charity auctions that we posted shortly after the
September 11 tragedy, as money raising effort for the Red Cross and Twin
Tower Fund. You may remember that there were some large display mini-figs,
couple of sculptures, and a Behind the Bricks tour of LEGOLAND California
(which included a custom bust sculpture of the winner).
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Senior Producer
LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
When do we get to bid on Kjeld's nightstand? I need some place to put my
book. : )
|
|
| |
One was a Statue of Liberty set (I paid almost twice retail, but it was for a
good cause).
One was a white-jacketed display minifig (there were 6 auctioned in all, 3
different kinds).
I can't believe I account for nearly 1/4 of the auctions to date ;-)
BTW, JAKE, if you offer display figs again - get some WIMMIN! I need a
redheaded ponytailed minifig to represent my wife ;-)
Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Jardine writes:
> > I'm curious about the previous nine items sold by seller 'lego-direct:'
> >
> > http://cgi2.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=lego-direct
> >
> > All nine items are no longer in ebay's database.
>
> These were one time charity auctions that we posted shortly after the
> September 11 tragedy, as money raising effort for the Red Cross and Twin
> Tower Fund. You may remember that there were some large display mini-figs,
> couple of sculptures, and a Behind the Bricks tour of LEGOLAND California
> (which included a custom bust sculpture of the winner).
>
> Jake
>
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Senior Producer
> LEGO Direct
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
"Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com> writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> > All,
> >
> > It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I announce the new LEGO
> > Auctions! Check out the new area of the online LEGO Shop at
> > http://shop.LEGO.com/eBay.
> > [snip]
> > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
>
> (!!!) whoah. This strikes me icky.
>
> Didn't the top response to polling on this at lego.com suggested the
> same?
>
> Who will receive the money generated? LD?
> (LD will certainly benefit in plenty of other ways...)
>
> I don't know much about limited editions, but, it seems kinda broken to
> have held those sets back from real customers when they were advertised
> as 10,000 available.
>
> Sorry, but, I've just never seen this kinda thing.. I've probably just
> been in the dark - I'm not a collector - but it disturbs me to see LD
> generating their own collecting interest. I know we could all
> consciously choose to not bid, but that's unlikely to happen (esp. given
> what you've got the power to offer).
>
> :-[
>
> :-\
>
> -Suz (who's rummaging for her S@H catalog now)
I totally agree with Suz, and find this very disturbing. These are items
whose "rarity" is totally artificial, coming from a planned commercial
operation rather than from actual market movements, and IMHO this is a
violation to the rules. Is this the marketing strategy with which TLC plans
to increase its presence on the market? What should we expect next?
I could agree with this auction only if the money went for some charity, but
this isn't clearly stated anywhere.
Mario
|
|
| |
Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> > All,
> > It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I announce the new LEGO
> > Auctions! Check out the new area of the online LEGO Shop at
> > http://shop.LEGO.com/eBay.
> > [snip]
> > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
>
> (!!!) whoah. This strikes me icky.
> Didn't the top response to polling on this at lego.com suggest the same?
Icky that a company would auction their own products? How so?
> Who will receive the money generated? LD?
Why wouldn't they?
> (LD will certainly benefit in plenty of other ways...)
Is that a bad thing?
> I don't know much about limited editions, but, it seems kinda broken to
> have held those sets back from real customers when they were advertised
> as 10,000 available.
My catalogs don't seem to mention anything about how many were produced,
nor how many will be available.
> Sorry, but, I've just never seen this kinda thing..
You've never seen a company auction off a one-of-a-kind product? Or
never seen LEGO do it? As noted earlier today, LD has held nine other
similar auctions already.
> I've probably just
> been in the dark - I'm not a collector - but it disturbs me to see LD
> generating their own collecting interest.
Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
any of those options.
The auction method gives everyone a fair market chance to purchase what
many feel is a highly desirable set. Additionally, it gives LEGO Direct
some additional hard data that it can show to LEGO Corporate, showing
that they are doing things right (the fact that in the first twelve
hours of a ten day auction, the set has been bid to nine times its
original value, should prove to be quite interesting to the suits at the
home office).
So did I totally miss your point, or do we just see things differently?
Rick C.
|
|
| |
I guess I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of not 'discussing' on LUGNET here
- I try only post to get information out to the public and to praise
creations - but here goes.
In lugnet.lego.direct, Rick Clark writes:
> Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> any of those options.
I totally agree.
> The auction method gives everyone a fair market chance to purchase what
> many feel is a highly desirable set. Additionally, it gives LEGO Direct
> some additional hard data that it can show to LEGO Corporate, showing
> that they are doing things right (the fact that in the first twelve
> hours of a ten day auction, the set has been bid to nine times its
> original value, should prove to be quite interesting to the suits at the
> home office).
Yep. I think its obvious LEGO Direct is doing well as it is. If they
weren't, we wouldn't see all the cool newer stuff like the Super Chief to
begin with. If LD was doing things wrong and not right, how would they have
gotten the funding to go out on a limb and design a totally new product like
that? LD has their act together, IMO.
I think what upsets me and offends me much more than these auctions is
seeing members of this community slam LEGO for this. If I were the one who
posted this announcement after working hard on the program, I'd be a bit put
off. I have no idea how Jake or others at LEGO Direct feel about it, but
I'm speaking from my own perspective. I hope they let it roll off and focus
on what they do best.
We as a community should be wanting to work with LEGO, not slamming them.
Slamming's different than constructive criticism. The latter is good for
learning from shortcomings, the former doesn't build either side up. I
offer honest constructive criticism as well as I take it. But I see
publicly slamming LEGO here as counterproductive and terribly embarrassing
for this community.
-Tim (who probably won't stay in a long discussion about this, if one happens)
|
|
| |
Mario Ferrari wrote:
> I totally agree with Suz, and find this very disturbing. These are items
> whose "rarity" is totally artificial, coming from a planned commercial
> operation rather than from actual market movements, and IMHO this is a
> violation to the rules.
A violation of which rules? Doesn't a numbered, limited edition of
anything automatically *create* rarity? Seems to me that most numbered,
limited editions don't even offer the #1 unit to the public, preferring
to give it to the president of the company, or the designer, or some
such. Doesn't that connote an actual (and non-artificial) rarity?
> Is this the marketing strategy with which TLC plans
> to increase its presence on the market? What should we expect next?
Hopefully, more risk-taking and innovation that will keep them from
going stagnant. To my mind, LEGO Direct has been batting between 950 and
1000. Also, please do not confuse TLC with LEGO Direct. The former is a
corporate behemoth, which seems be having trouble getting things right.
The latter is a skunkworks, which seems to be having trouble getting
anything wrong.
> I could agree with this auction only if the money went for some charity, but
> this isn't clearly stated anywhere.
Do you mean you would still feel LEGO Direct's behavior was
inappropriate, but at least they were doing something wrong for a good
cause?
I thought LD has been very clear from the start that the first few
numbered sets would be auctioned off on ebay. Why wasn't there any
outcry prior to this? My impression was that since noone spoke up,
everyone thought that this was a good way to distribute these sets.
But maybe I'm the one off in left field. Wouldn't be the first time...
;-)
Rick C.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> I guess I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of not 'discussing' on LUGNET here
> - I try only post to get information out to the public and to praise
> creations - but here goes.
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Rick Clark writes:
> > Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> > more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> > alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> > either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> > or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> > opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> > any of those options.
>
> I totally agree.
>
> > The auction method gives everyone a fair market chance to purchase what
> > many feel is a highly desirable set. Additionally, it gives LEGO Direct
> > some additional hard data that it can show to LEGO Corporate, showing
> > that they are doing things right (the fact that in the first twelve
> > hours of a ten day auction, the set has been bid to nine times its
> > original value, should prove to be quite interesting to the suits at the
> > home office).
>
>
> Yep. I think its obvious LEGO Direct is doing well as it is. If they
> weren't, we wouldn't see all the cool newer stuff like the Super Chief to
> begin with.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, I don't see it as being "obvious". One
would have to see the balance sheet to say that (I wonder who audits the
accounts?).
> If LD was doing things wrong and not right, how would they have
> gotten the funding to go out on a limb and design a totally new product like
> that? LD has their act together, IMO.
Hardly out on a limb - a limited production run set which fits in well with
existing themes and markets. In my view the early sculptures were higher
risk products for LD.
>
> I think what upsets me and offends me much more than these auctions is
> seeing members of this community slam LEGO for this. If I were the one who
> posted this announcement after working hard on the program, I'd be a bit put
> off. I have no idea how Jake or others at LEGO Direct feel about it, but
> I'm speaking from my own perspective. I hope they let it roll off and focus
> on what they do best.
...selling product.
>
> We as a community should be wanting to work with LEGO, not slamming them.
> Slamming's different than constructive criticism.
Everything I have read has been constructive criticism.
> The latter is good for
> learning from shortcomings, the former doesn't build either side up. I
> offer honest constructive criticism as well as I take it. But I see
> publicly slamming LEGO here as counterproductive and terribly embarrassing
> for this community.
Objectively considering Lego's actions makes us stronger.
Scott A
=+=
Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet?
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=scotta
"A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable
man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (GBS)
=+=
>
> -Tim (who probably won't stay in a long discussion about this, if one happens)
|
|
| |
"Rick Clark" <jrclark@nospam.aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3CAAC42B.3000608@nospam.aol.com...
> Mario Ferrari wrote:
>
> > I totally agree with Suz, and find this very disturbing. These are items
> > whose "rarity" is totally artificial, coming from a planned commercial
> > operation rather than from actual market movements, and IMHO this is a
> > violation to the rules.
>
> A violation of which rules? Doesn't a numbered, limited edition of
> anything automatically *create* rarity? Seems to me that most numbered,
> limited editions don't even offer the #1 unit to the public, preferring
> to give it to the president of the company, or the designer, or some
> such. Doesn't that connote an actual (and non-artificial) rarity?
>
> > Is this the marketing strategy with which TLC plans
> > to increase its presence on the market? What should we expect next?
>
> Hopefully, more risk-taking and innovation that will keep them from
> going stagnant. To my mind, LEGO Direct has been batting between 950 and
> 1000. Also, please do not confuse TLC with LEGO Direct. The former is a
> corporate behemoth, which seems be having trouble getting things right.
> The latter is a skunkworks, which seems to be having trouble getting
> anything wrong.
>
>
> > I could agree with this auction only if the money went for some charity, • but
> > this isn't clearly stated anywhere.
>
>
> Do you mean you would still feel LEGO Direct's behavior was
> inappropriate, but at least they were doing something wrong for a good
> cause?
>
> I thought LD has been very clear from the start that the first few
> numbered sets would be auctioned off on ebay. Why wasn't there any
> outcry prior to this? My impression was that since noone spoke up,
> everyone thought that this was a good way to distribute these sets.
>
> But maybe I'm the one off in left field. Wouldn't be the first time...
> ;-)
Rick,
I admit my fault here: I didn't know this was their original plan, and
didn't realize it was clearly stated from the beginning. This doesn't
justify my reaction, I should have read the story from the beginning. When I
said a "violation of the rules" I was wrong, I thought that they had
declared to sell directly all the numbers and then had changed their mind.
My apologies to all (including LD) for my over-reactive post.
All that said, I still don't like this way of doing business, and still
would prefer they don't directly auction items on ebay. I admit they have
the right to, but I don't like it.
Ciao
Mario
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> I guess I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of not 'discussing' on LUGNET here
> - I try only post to get information out to the public and to praise
> creations - but here goes.
Welcome back.
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Rick Clark writes:
> > Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> > more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> > alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> > either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> > or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> > opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> > any of those options.
>
> I totally agree.
Me too. (although I sent a copy of MTW-4001 to the executives at Skyline
Chili, I put #01 up for bid, just as I always do with new sets)
> > The auction method gives everyone a fair market chance to purchase what
> > many feel is a highly desirable set.
Exactly. The alternative that Rick gave of having some 7 year old get it
would be no fun at all. In lieu of running a (skill based?) contest to give
the items away, holding an auction is the fairest possible way to allocate
scarce resources.
We should be happy that we got a chance to bid (and I'm counting my pennies
and re-evaluating how much this set is worth to me, I may yet bid again) on
it instead of it going to someone who won't appreciate it at all. We KNOW
whoever wins it will certainly appreciate it (to the tune of 400 USD or
maybe quite a bit more!!!), that's for sure.
> > Additionally, it gives LEGO Direct
> > some additional hard data that it can show to LEGO Corporate, showing
> > that they are doing things right (the fact that in the first twelve
> > hours of a ten day auction, the set has been bid to nine times its
> > original value, should prove to be quite interesting to the suits at the
> > home office).
Indeed. AND the overall success of the F7 and of the other recent items in
the LD refreshed train line prove that realism sells. Further, I bet Jorn,
the designer who did these (after being forced to do the 4559 and 4561 and
other recent sets by corporate) is pretty darn proud of what he was allowed
to show off, too. He's like a race horse that was forced to haul the milk
wagon. :-)
> Yep. I think its obvious LEGO Direct is doing well as it is. If they
> weren't, we wouldn't see all the cool newer stuff like the Super Chief to
> begin with. If LD was doing things wrong and not right, how would they have
> gotten the funding to go out on a limb and design a totally new product like
> that? LD has their act together, IMO.
Ditto ditto. What must frustrate LD to no end, though, are the minor slip
ups that production seems to keep making. It seems like each set they
release recently has had obvious wrong parts that LD had to correct at
significant expense. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd theorise that
someone in Billund is sabotaging them. But I can't believe that to be true.
> I think what upsets me and offends me much more than these auctions is
> seeing members of this community slam LEGO for this. If I were the one who
> posted this announcement after working hard on the program, I'd be a bit put
> off. I have no idea how Jake or others at LEGO Direct feel about it, but
> I'm speaking from my own perspective. I hope they let it roll off and focus
> on what they do best.
Ditto ditto. But I'll go further, I think they ARE doing just that. Letting
it roll off, and focusing on what they do best. Go ahead and slam them,
detractors, and know that you're causing personal hurt to good people inside
LD, but you're not going to ultimately affect things. LD will triumph and
turn TLC around, whether you help or hurt the effort.
> We as a community should be wanting to work with LEGO, not slamming them.
> Slamming's different than constructive criticism. The latter is good for
> learning from shortcomings, the former doesn't build either side up. I
> offer honest constructive criticism as well as I take it. But I see
> publicly slamming LEGO here as counterproductive and terribly embarrassing
> for this community.
Yep.
> -Tim (who probably won't stay in a long discussion about this, if one happens)
Responders, please feel free to redirect as needed, as per charter,
lego.direct is not intended for long debate but I'm not sure whether sending
this to o-t.debate is the right place. I've said what I wanted to say and
will try to be less long winded should I respond.
|
|
| |
On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 03:03 AM, Rick Clark wrote:
> Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> > > All,
> > > It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I announce the new LEGO
> > > Auctions! Check out the new area of the online LEGO Shop at
> > > http://shop.LEGO.com/eBay.
> > > [snip]
> > > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
> > (!!!) whoah. This strikes me icky.
>
> Icky that a company would auction their own products? How so?
No, icky that:
> > It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I announce the new LEGO
> > Auctions! Check out the new area of the online LEGO Shop at
> > http://shop.LEGO.com/eBay.
> > [snip]
> > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
> > Who will receive the money generated? LD?
>
> Why wouldn't they?
I can imagine many potential reasons why LD wouldn't rcv the profits,
but my question was meant literally.
> > (LD will certainly benefit in plenty of other ways...)
>
> Is that a bad thing?
No. Well, I think that's up to subjective judgement. But, assuming your
question was aimed, at least in part, at me.. I'm not sure how I feel.
Seeing the recent post has altered my impression of LD, and TLC. But I'm
with Mario in what he said here:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=4273
> > Sorry, but, I've just never seen this kinda thing..
>
> You've never seen a company auction off a one-of-a-kind product? Or
> never seen LEGO do it?
Either one. (In *all* honesty)
I don't follow the processes of collecting; nor have I heard of this
exact scenario via happenstance. I'm aware that I may be unusual here,
which is why I also wrote this:
>> I've probably just been in the dark - I'm not a collector -
BTW, I've never bought anything through eBay.
> Not sure I see what you find disturbing.
me either.
Maybe in a few days I'll feel less disturbed. Then I could assume that
some of it came from my shock and ignorance.
> The alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001.
The likelihood of Joe receiving number 0001 would not be random. But I
do see how the likelihood of you gaining possesion of the model could be
lessened.
> He either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered
> tile; or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001;
> or he opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really
> like any of those options.
Your fictional account wouldn't upset me, but I'm sure that has to do
with my not being a collector. :-)
From my perspective: when I first heard of the set's release, my
excitement was mostly about the building instructions. I think it's a
beautiful model. Also, I was glad to see TLC continuing to release train
sets because I hope to buy more tracks and stuff in the future.
I'm very happy that the new model continues to be available because I
can't afford to buy one right now. I may buy one later, but I wouldn't
care if it had an assigned number or not. I'd -certainly- want the
pleasure of playing with it, which makes me like your Joe character.
> So did I totally miss your point, or do we just see things differently?
I'm not sure I was trying to make a point, but we do see things
differently. And that's "okay" :-)
I was more curious as to whether or not there's a large number of
readers here that feel as I do, and I wanted to make my feelings known.
But I appreciate your perspective too. I see your points about fairness
for collectors and LD's keeping their interests in mind.
-Suz
|
|
| |
On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 03:54 AM, Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> Yep. I think its obvious LEGO Direct is doing well as it is. If they
> weren't, we wouldn't see all the cool newer stuff like the Super Chief
> to
> begin with. If LD was doing things wrong and not right, how would they
> have
> gotten the funding to go out on a limb and design a totally new product
> like
> that? LD has their act together, IMO.
For the record, I feel that LD makes brilliant marketing moves. And with
the Super Chief, they are carving out a whole new market. It's
impressive to watch.
> I think what upsets me and offends me much more than these auctions is
> seeing members of this community slam LEGO for this. If I were the one
> who
> posted this announcement after working hard on the program, I'd be a
> bit put
> off. I have no idea how Jake or others at LEGO Direct feel about it,
> but
> I'm speaking from my own perspective. I hope they let it roll off and
> focus
> on what they do best.
I too hope LD employees don't take consumer comments personally.
> But I see publicly slamming LEGO here as counterproductive and terribly
> embarrassing for this community.
I don't see 'public slamming' going on here so much as I see honest
consumer reaction, which is largely what this newsgroup is for.
-Suz
|
|
| |
This reminds me of the current practice of theatres selling the best seats
at the prevailing scalper price.
The profit goes directly to the producer that way.
-Erik
happy with A0941 or whatever it was.
|
|
| |
I don't normally post my comments in threads like this (I like to stick to
gears and wires and sensors and stuff like that), but once in a while,
there's the urge to add my 2c worth.
LD is in business to make money - all businesses are! The ones who intend on
sticking around that is.
They could have priced the Super Chief set higher and still watched them fly
off the shelves I think. But they didn't. I suspect they used their "normal"
set pricing procedure to set the price.
They obviously knew that certain key numbers of the limited edition run
would have inherent value and I don't blame them one bit for "cashing in" on
that value. After all, I suspect these early numbered sets would just have
bounced around ebay or some other buy and sell scheme until they reached
premium price, putting money in the pockets of people who just happen to
have been lucky enough to get them. That would be no more or less than a
lottery and I don't see LD being in the lottery business creating winners
and losers.
So they decided to keep the cash themselves. Good! Does it mean that there's
a few more hundred dollars in the kitty for LD to show up at fan events like
BricksWest or BrickFest. I hope so!
I appreciate their continuing interest in us AFOLs, and if limited edition
auctions are a the way to keep them interested and help fund that interest,
that's fine with me.
JB
|
|
| |
I agree with you Suz, I don't like this idea. It's not like Lego doesn't make
enough money selling through normal channels, why inflate the price of an item
by auctioning it? If they start doing this with all sets, I have a feeling
they are going to believe ALL their sets are worth that amount and we'll see
the cost of lego rise needlessly. Instead, auction some of those jr'ized
sets, see the real value... 0.00 I feel they are just testing to see how
rabid collectors are, and what they can charge them in the future for sets
that are built with real bricks. While they continue to jr'ize the rest of
the lineup, forcing us to buy the higher priced items at auction to get decent
parts.
I don't think this at all. I accepted the auctions to help 9-11, I thought
Lego was doing a good thing there. This.. I don't believe as being a good
thing.
Tamy
"Suzanne D. Rich" wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 03:03 AM, Rick Clark wrote:
> > Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> > > > All,
> > > > It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I announce the new LEGO
> > > > Auctions! Check out the new area of the online LEGO Shop at
> > > > http://shop.LEGO.com/eBay.
> > > > [snip]
> > > > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > > > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
> > > (!!!) whoah. This strikes me icky.
> >
> > Icky that a company would auction their own products? How so?
>
> No, icky that:
>
> > > It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I announce the new LEGO
> > > Auctions! Check out the new area of the online LEGO Shop at
> > > http://shop.LEGO.com/eBay.
> > > [snip]
> > > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
>
> > > Who will receive the money generated? LD?
> >
> > Why wouldn't they?
>
> I can imagine many potential reasons why LD wouldn't rcv the profits,
> but my question was meant literally.
>
> > > (LD will certainly benefit in plenty of other ways...)
> >
> > Is that a bad thing?
>
> No. Well, I think that's up to subjective judgement. But, assuming your
> question was aimed, at least in part, at me.. I'm not sure how I feel.
> Seeing the recent post has altered my impression of LD, and TLC. But I'm
> with Mario in what he said here:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=4273
>
> > > Sorry, but, I've just never seen this kinda thing..
> >
> > You've never seen a company auction off a one-of-a-kind product? Or
> > never seen LEGO do it?
>
> Either one. (In *all* honesty)
>
> I don't follow the processes of collecting; nor have I heard of this
> exact scenario via happenstance. I'm aware that I may be unusual here,
> which is why I also wrote this:
>
> > > I've probably just been in the dark - I'm not a collector -
>
> BTW, I've never bought anything through eBay.
>
> > Not sure I see what you find disturbing.
>
> me either.
>
> Maybe in a few days I'll feel less disturbed. Then I could assume that
> some of it came from my shock and ignorance.
>
> > The alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001.
>
> The likelihood of Joe receiving number 0001 would not be random. But I
> do see how the likelihood of you gaining possesion of the model could be
> lessened.
>
> > He either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered
> > tile; or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001;
> > or he opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really
> > like any of those options.
>
> Your fictional account wouldn't upset me, but I'm sure that has to do
> with my not being a collector. :-)
>
> From my perspective: when I first heard of the set's release, my
> excitement was mostly about the building instructions. I think it's a
> beautiful model. Also, I was glad to see TLC continuing to release train
> sets because I hope to buy more tracks and stuff in the future.
>
> I'm very happy that the new model continues to be available because I
> can't afford to buy one right now. I may buy one later, but I wouldn't
> care if it had an assigned number or not. I'd -certainly- want the
> pleasure of playing with it, which makes me like your Joe character.
>
> > So did I totally miss your point, or do we just see things differently?
>
> I'm not sure I was trying to make a point, but we do see things
> differently. And that's "okay" :-)
>
> I was more curious as to whether or not there's a large number of
> readers here that feel as I do, and I wanted to make my feelings known.
> But I appreciate your perspective too. I see your points about fairness
> for collectors and LD's keeping their interests in mind.
>
> -Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tamyra Teed writes:
> I agree with you Suz, I don't like this idea. It's not like Lego doesn't make
> enough money selling through normal channels, why inflate the price of an item
> by auctioning it? If they start doing this with all sets, I have a feeling
> they are going to believe ALL their sets are worth that amount and we'll see
> the cost of lego rise needlessly. Instead, auction some of those jr'ized
> sets, see the real value... 0.00 I feel they are just testing to see how
> rabid collectors are, and what they can charge them in the future for sets
> that are built with real bricks. While they continue to jr'ize the rest of
> the lineup, forcing us to buy the higher priced items at auction to get decent
> parts.
>
> I don't think this at all. I accepted the auctions to help 9-11, I thought
> Lego was doing a good thing there. This.. I don't believe as being a good
> thing.
>
> Tamy
Too bad, isn't it?
When I read about the Lego direct auctions, I was a bit skeptic at first
about the whole concept. If you think about, look at Disney Co. They do the
same thing with their products. I remember checking out Ebay once, and they
were selling all sorts of colectables, notes "exclusive" or "unique" by
Disney@ebay auctions, and the prices were absolutekly crazy. In my mind, I
bet Disney has hundreds more in their so called "vaults". Is it me, or is
Lego trying to capitilize on this very same concept?
If this were to test how anxious collectors are to get valuable sets, than
I'm not exactly surprised about it. What's getting me, though, is that Super
Chief deal. Wouldn't the president of Lego own the first one off the press?
Why is this suddenly being sold off? Is it just me, or is this some sort of
scam?
Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here, but please excuse me if I'm a bit of a
skeptic. :)
Just my two brickz...
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet No. 1112
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Rick Clark writes:
> Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> any of those options.
From http://shop.lego.com/eBay/ : "Train model assembly is required."
So the box gets opened anyway (which to me seems a weird requirement, which
is hard to verify)
As for some 7 year old obtaining it, no matter how WE look at it, LEGO is at
heart still a toy, primarily meant for children for them to play with.
IMHO it would have been fine to simply mix up the first sets with the
rest... this auction indeed looks bad to me, unless they use the money they
raise with it for some charity project.
Jan-Albert van Ree
|
|
| |
[start Suz reflecting..]
I haven't thought about Mattel in a while, but, I used to wish TLC had
something like the Barbie Collector's club because every so often I hear
of a doll that's called a "Collector's Request" or some-such. I don't
know Mattel's process, but I think the concept is cool, and now we kinda
have that via LD (re-releases for ex.).
Another thing I liked about Mattel's Barbie marketing was their online
"Build Your Own Barbie" tool (though it was much cooler in 1999). I
wished I could make a custom minifig via lego.com and order it. Brad has
told us we'll have some things like that in the future. Today we're
getting 'mock-customization' [1]
[end Suz reflecting..]
Mattel's nice Collector Barbie dolls are prohibitively expensive for me.
[2] I always hope to find dolls at little cost and of high quality, but
usually I settle for just the little cost part. So, that's one method
for companies to separate the users from the collectors... Maybe I'd be
happier if LD had called the new set "For Collectors Only," delayed
their availability, and not held this auction. Maybe in the future, as
Tamy began to suggest, the price will be much higher. Then it'll be more
obvious to me what I'm not supposed to buy (else I screw up things for
the collectors).
;-)
BTW, the fictional 'Joe' character, mentioned earlier in the thread,
makes me think of kids who buy Happy Meals. I saw collectors in line
with me at McDonald's when they had Beanie Babies for sale. I know
that's different. I just wanted to throw my thought out there.. BTW,
it's my understanding that BB were only sold via small, private
retailers so they'd seem more collectable. Hmm, now wouldn't *that* be
cool...
:-D
Well, TLC (via LD) auctioning their own stuff on e-Bay still looks
cheezy to me. Sorry, but, that's how I feel. Lump it together with how I
feel about many of their other 'new directions.' [3]
-Suz
[1] term for a shopping service that looks like mass-customization, but
isn't. Like the train cars at LD.
[2] Don't tell anyone, but... [whisper] I sometimes buy Barbie stuff.
But only the dolls of "Barbie's friend," called Kira. OK, well, maybe
also a few of those $25 ones to get the high quality outfits... Yes, I
play with them. In fact, I like for them to have articulated limbs, so
I'll pull Kira heads off and place them on articulated doll bodies I buy
on clearance.
http://www.baseplate.com/mavica/kira/onscale.jpg
[3] Before anyone jumps on me.. I know TLC and LD can do whatever they
want. I know the community has benefited. I know they need to make
money, etc. I'm just a pathetically nostalgic AFOL regarding some things.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
>
> (!!!) whoah. This strikes me icky.
I don't find it icky at all. I'm rather greatful to have an opportunity
to buy one of the first numbered sets. What's wrong with that?
KL
|
|
| |
<snip>
> I'm not sure I was trying to make a point, but we do see things
> differently. And that's "okay" :-)
>
> I was more curious as to whether or not there's a large number of
> readers here that feel as I do, and I wanted to make my feelings known.
> But I appreciate your perspective too. I see your points about fairness
> for collectors and LD's keeping their interests in mind.
>
> -Suz
I agree with you, Suz. There is an uneasy feeling in my stomach. The reason
why is because throughout the years, despite feelings to the contrary, LEGO was
always first and foremost about PLAYING.
This is the first step towards LEGO as COLLECTIBLE, something you buy in mint,
keep sealed, and hope it goes up in value. I know there are a lot of
collectors out there who do just that, and thats fine I guess. But I always
like the idea that LEGO the company didn't care about that sort of thing, that
they maintained the utopian ideals of playing and having fun.
But as long as they are still selling regular old sets, with regular old pieces
apt for playing and having fun, then I don't really care what some collector
nut is spending on his lego. I rest assured that TLG will not mistake what
some will pay for legos is what most will pay, thus keeping prices down.
peace and freedom
-lenny
http://www.crimethinc.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matt Hein writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tamyra Teed writes:
> Too bad, isn't it?
> When I read about the Lego direct auctions, I was a bit skeptic at first
> about the whole concept. If you think about, look at Disney Co. They do the
> same thing with their products. I remember checking out Ebay once, and they
> were selling all sorts of colectables, notes "exclusive" or "unique" by
> Disney@ebay auctions, and the prices were absolutekly crazy. In my mind, I
> bet Disney has hundreds more in their so called "vaults". Is it me, or is
> Lego trying to capitilize on this very same concept?
>
> If this were to test how anxious collectors are to get valuable sets, than
> I'm not exactly surprised about it. What's getting me, though, is that Super
> Chief deal. Wouldn't the president of Lego own the first one off the press?
> Why is this suddenly being sold off? Is it just me, or is this some sort of
> scam?
Well, I doubt Lego does do stuff like that... But I guess if he wanted to,
the President could probablly snatch the 400+ dollars in revenue ONE of
these Auctions would bring...
> Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here, but please excuse me if I'm a bit of a
> skeptic. :)
Aren't we all? :-)
> Just my two brickz...
>
> <<_Matt Hein_>>
> Lugnet No. 1112
Well in general, I have to agree. I hope Lego dosn't get any ideas doing
this... It would be really a shame if they figured that we (well, not me,
I'm twelve) could afford the high prices of bids, and sell the stuff we want
that way (via ebay). I would hate it if a few limited editioned Message
Intercept Bases were on bid for $1,000+ and Lego sold 150 piece sets for 30
dollars normally...
ughhh..
John Kruer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> I don't find it icky at all. I'm rather greatful to have an opportunity
> to buy one of the first numbered sets. What's wrong with that?
>
> KL
I agree with you Kevin. Considering how much money LEGO lost up through
2000, I think they deserve a chance to make an economic comeback by any methods
necessary. After all, they are a business, and the purpose of a business is to
make money.
If people really want a Super Chief that badly, then they can settle for
one of the other 9,990 sets available. They've all got the same pieces anyway.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> > All,
> >
> > It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I announce the new LEGO
> > Auctions! Check out the new area of the online LEGO Shop at
> > http://shop.LEGO.com/eBay.
> > [snip]
> > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
>
> (!!!) whoah. This strikes me icky.
>
> Didn't the top response to polling on this at lego.com suggested the
> same?
>
> Who will receive the money generated? LD?
> (LD will certainly benefit in plenty of other ways...)
>
> I don't know much about limited editions, but, it seems kinda broken to
> have held those sets back from real customers when they were advertised
> as 10,000 available.
>
> Sorry, but, I've just never seen this kinda thing.. I've probably just
> been in the dark - I'm not a collector - but it disturbs me to see LD
> generating their own collecting interest. I know we could all
> consciously choose to not bid, but that's unlikely to happen (esp. given
> what you've got the power to offer).
I am quite confused by the overall reaction to this. I see what LD is doing as
the perfect sales model to make both collecters and builders happy. They have
even eliminated the dealers/scalpers for the good of us all. The builders can
get as many unnumbered* sets as they can afford at normal prices. The
collectors get a fair shot at obtaining what they want and the money goes to LD
not some dealer/scalper. Now if the builders could not get sets at normal
prices I would see a problem, but that is not the case. So what is the
commotion about?
-Mike Petrucelli
*Only the first production run of 10,000 was numbered.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, David Gregory writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Loch writes:
> > I don't find it icky at all. I'm rather greatful to have an opportunity
> > to buy one of the first numbered sets. What's wrong with that?
> >
> > KL
>
> I agree with you Kevin. Considering how much money LEGO lost up through
> 2000, I think they deserve a chance to make an economic comeback by any methods
> necessary. After all, they are a business, and the purpose of a business is to
> make money.
While the purpose of a business may be to make money (not the only purpose,
but it doesn't matter), whatever LD makes from these auctions will hardly be
a blip on their financial radar. It's more of a marketing stunt, allowing
LD to expose themselves (eek!) to the people who buy LEGO on eBay without
knowing about Shop at Home. (Like the people who used to pay around $50 for
a blue tub when they were still available through S@H.)
> If people really want a Super Chief that badly, then they can settle for
> one of the other 9,990 sets available. They've all got the same pieces anyway.
I kind of have an issue with the fact that when ordering a Super Chief, the
impression was given that you could be lucky and get one of the low numbers.
Now I have to wonder if in a few months numbers 10-20 will be up for auction.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jan-Albert van Ree writes:
> From http://shop.lego.com/eBay/ : "Train model assembly is required."
>
> So the box gets opened anyway (which to me seems a weird requirement, which
> is hard to verify)
I think what they're trying to say is that "The locomotive does not come
assembled as shown, but instead, one needs to build it in order to have the
nice looking display model shown here." This is different from the
stand/tracks, which come pre-assembled. I guess this is like many non-LEGO
items that you buy, and it says on the box "some assembly required".
I doubt they intend to try to force people to actually open it and build it.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with LEGO auctioning off the first
serial numbers of a limited edition product. I'd much rather see LEGO make
$500+ on the #0001, than some opportunist who buys it for $40, and then
sells it on ebay the next day for $500.
I'm sure it irks LEGO that some MISB sets like the 5571 Black Cat/Giant
Truck and Metroliner (before it was re-released) are being sold for at least
double their original price on eBay and Bricklink. The profits then go
straight into the seller's pocket, instead of LEGO's.
Then again, I could be way off, since I am not a collector. I buy LEGO to
open, build, admire the finished model, and take it apart to build some MOCs.
Just my .02 CDN$ worth.
John
|
|
| |
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> I am quite confused by the overall reaction to this. I see what LD is doing as
> the perfect sales model to make both collecters and builders happy. They have
> even eliminated the dealers/scalpers for the good of us all. The builders can
> get as many unnumbered* sets as they can afford at normal prices. The
> collectors get a fair shot at obtaining what they want and the money goes to LD
> not some dealer/scalper. Now if the builders could not get sets at normal
> prices I would see a problem, but that is not the case. So what is the
> commotion about?
That penultimate sentence got me thinking. . .
Now, the fact is that there are, and have been for some time, parts that
builders could not get at "normal" prices. Lugnet readers hear about
these often when people report on their trips to Legoland parks. I speak,
of course, about the bulk bricks---see, e.g.,
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=25787
http://news.lugnet.com/legoland/?n=230
Unlike the Super Chief, these parts are often *not available* to normal
builders---unless they happen to live in SoCal, or are willing to buy an
airplane ticket to buy Lego. Historically, it's been up to middlemen to
try to effectively distribute these parts to the people who want them.
Now, perhaps, LD will be interested in meeting the needs of builders
everywhere[1] via Ebay or some such venue, rather than leaving such
matters up to luck or "connections".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWS Garrison
tgarriso@math.purdue.edu
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~tgarriso/
[1] People did notice that lego-direct (on Ebay) does ship globally, yes?
This is in marked contrast to S@H (as I'm sure AFOLs from Africa, Latin
America, Asia, and those parts of Europe which TLC considers unimportant
will tell you).
|
|
| |
It's almost impossible for me to skip over this debate(?) without saying
something.
Rick Clark has nailed this directly on the head. In my opinion he is 100%
correct. What is so wrong about Lego Direct selling these 1-10 Santa Fe
Trains, especially on eBay? Absolutely nothing. In fact, Lego Direct is
FINALLY catering to the collectors. A majority of the people complaining
are those that happen to do some collecting. I would do almost anything for
the #1 Santa Fe. I completely agree with Rick when he said that he doesn't
want it to end up an everyday persons house where it may very well become
neglected with no one knowing where it went. Or the fact it could become
destroyed. Shoot, give this set to someone who will take care of it,
someone who will proudly display it, someone who can say that "I have THE
first Santa Fe Lego Train ever made!" That's something that is a complete
rarity.
Does no one understand the meaning of Limited Edition? If something is
Limited Edition it is almost immediately a rarity. Look at 1593. This set
was thought to have never existed...especially MISB. Why is that? Because
it was LIMITED. Therefore, the set goes for $2000+ or whatever it was on
eBay the first time we see it. Why haven't I seen a 1525 Semi Truck, some
of those Ferries, 1952 Milk Trucks, etc.? Because they are LIMITED.
Obviously a person is going to pay big bucks for the first "thing" ever
made. Cars are a perfect example. I have a GMC Typhoon. I have no idea
what number it is, but a few thousand were made and were only made in 1992
and 1993. However, the 1st one ever made is sitting in a museum and is
worth thousands and thousands of dollars. 300 MV Agusta Senna motorcycles
were made in Italy and 50 are in the U.S. To have 1 of 300 bikes in the
world is quite amazing but so is to have 1 in the U.S.
To have the first Santa Fe Lego Train ever made in the
world...hmmmm...pretty incredible personally. I love the display, the
signed original box, everything...I say WAY TO GO LEGO! Lego did say that
10,000 Santa Fe's would be available, but what is wrong with setting 10
aside for (possibly) the collectors who have spent much of their life around
Lego and have been with them for as long as they can remember? The way I
look at it Lego is thanking the collectors and are giving us the FIRST
opportunity to own a REAL collectors item. It is the COLLECTORS who are
going to try and win these first 10. If someone thinks Santa Fe models 1 -
10 aren't collectors items you're wrong. Heck, even the DISPLAY is
rare...only 10 authentic displays in the world?!?!? Come on!
As for Lego selling on eBay...GREAT MARKETING! Keep it up. Millions are
now using eBay and it has become a word used almost everyday in many
households. So many companies are selling their products on eBay. Even
celebrities get involved in charity auctions. To be associated with an
internet powerhouse like eBay is quite an accomplishment. For a company to
sell their item on eBay...gee...god forbid! Lego is enhancing it's name by
doing this. Why did Lego join with Steven Spielberg and Shell to create
Lego sets? Why did Lego team up with MLS? It's just another fabulous
marketing technique. Lego is creating a bigger name for itself.
Rick...I applaud you! What Lego is doing is extremely exciting, especially
for me. There's nothing I have enjoyed more than seeing Lego bring back
sets like 6067, 4547, 4558, create the 3739, and obviously the Santa Fe
train. Lego is on the right track again. I hope to be one of the extremely
lucky ones to have one of the first 10 Trains ever made.
Keep it up Lego Direct, Brad, Jake, everyone else who is involved in
this...GOD I LOVE LEGO!!!!! :-)
Brendan
> > > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
> >
> > (!!!) whoah. This strikes me icky.
>
> > Didn't the top response to polling on this at lego.com suggest the same?
>
>
> Icky that a company would auction their own products? How so?
>
>
> > Who will receive the money generated? LD?
>
>
> Why wouldn't they?
>
>
> > (LD will certainly benefit in plenty of other ways...)
>
>
> Is that a bad thing?
>
>
> > I don't know much about limited editions, but, it seems kinda broken to
> > have held those sets back from real customers when they were advertised
> > as 10,000 available.
>
>
> My catalogs don't seem to mention anything about how many were produced,
> nor how many will be available.
>
>
> > Sorry, but, I've just never seen this kinda thing..
>
>
> You've never seen a company auction off a one-of-a-kind product? Or
> never seen LEGO do it? As noted earlier today, LD has held nine other
> similar auctions already.
>
> > I've probably just
> > been in the dark - I'm not a collector - but it disturbs me to see LD
> > generating their own collecting interest.
>
>
> Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> any of those options.
>
> The auction method gives everyone a fair market chance to purchase what
> many feel is a highly desirable set. Additionally, it gives LEGO Direct
> some additional hard data that it can show to LEGO Corporate, showing
> that they are doing things right (the fact that in the first twelve
> hours of a ten day auction, the set has been bid to nine times its
> original value, should prove to be quite interesting to the suits at the
> home office).
>
> So did I totally miss your point, or do we just see things differently?
>
> Rick C.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Rick Clark writes:
> Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> > > All,
> > > It is with great pleasure and enthusiasm that I announce the new LEGO
> > > Auctions! Check out the new area of the online LEGO Shop at
> > > http://shop.LEGO.com/eBay.
> > > [snip]
> > > - We will be auctioning Santa Fe Super Chief locomotive sets #0001-
> > > 0010 over the next few weeks, starting with #0001.[snip]
> >
> > (!!!) whoah. This strikes me icky.
>
> > Didn't the top response to polling on this at lego.com suggest the same?
I'm pretty sure it indicated a negative response as the top overall opinion.
This in itself is disappointing as it makes you wonder who's getting and
reading the data coming in from the polls.
> > I don't know much about limited editions, but, it seems kinda broken to
> > have held those sets back from real customers when they were advertised
> > as 10,000 available.
Here's another spin on that very thought.
The auctioned sets now come with the very cool display setting. Couldn't
the company have offered that item as a separate set? Isn't is feasible
that they might have sold a display stand to 25% or maybe even 30% of those
folks who bought one of the locomotives? Wouldn't that have made them more
money than whatever amount will be brought in on eBay?
As it is now, the other Santa Fe sets now seem almost incomplete without the
possibility of even ordering the background for them. I'm sure the eventual
10 owners of the eBay sets will really enjoy displaying (or storing for
later resale) their Santa Fe's. But wouldn't it have been better to open up
an item like this to the entire market, thereby making thousands of LEGO
fans happy.... not just 10?
> > I've probably just
> > been in the dark - I'm not a collector - but it disturbs me to see LD
> > generating their own collecting interest.
If it were truly a 'Limited Edition' product, wherein the materials,
resources or time needed to make it were in short supply, then I can see
some sense in auctioning them off. As it stands, this is purely a marketing
gimic. The perceived collectability is entirely artificial.
> Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> any of those options.
Then the easiest option was the one that LEGO didn't use. Don't number
sets. Don't create artificial demand for what was already an amazing set.
They didn't need to pretend that these were limited, they just need to make
sure that they follow up the Santa Fe with an equally well designed set.
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford wrote
> The auctioned sets now come with the very cool display setting. Couldn't
> the company have offered that item as a separate set? Isn't is feasible
> that they might have sold a display stand to 25% or maybe even 30% of those
> folks who bought one of the locomotives? Wouldn't that have made them more
> money than whatever amount will be brought in on eBay?
First, as has been said, it's unlikely that the eBay offering is about
money.
Second, I'm not sure LEGO does production runs of anything for less than
10,000. Your suggested production run of 3,000 is way too small, I'd wager.
> As it is now, the other Santa Fe sets now seem almost incomplete without the
> possibility of even ordering the background for them.
Er, incomplete? What? It's a great model, but too bad it doesn't have a
two-dimentional background? I would'a given it a 10, but as it is, it's
a 4...
> I'm sure the eventual
> 10 owners of the eBay sets will really enjoy displaying (or storing for
> later resale) their Santa Fe's. But wouldn't it have been better to open up
> an item like this to the entire market, thereby making thousands of LEGO
> fans happy.... not just 10?
I rather like the idea of the custom background being unique. I could
certainly build my own similar background if I were so inclined. Tan
bulk bricks are currently available.
> If it were truly a 'Limited Edition' product, wherein the materials,
> resources or time needed to make it were in short supply, then I can see
> some sense in auctioning them off. As it stands, this is purely a marketing
> gimick. The perceived collectability is entirely artificial.
Hm. what about limited edition, numbered lithographs?
http://www.doors.com/door_mem/museum/litho.html
Limited edition DVDs?
http://www.dvdcc.com/cgi-bin/reviews/reviews.pl?action=showit&rev=miblimited
Limited edition Macintoshes:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1997/q2/970319.pr.rel.mac.html
Limited edition Barbie dolls:
http://www.wowdolls.com/limited.htm
How about limited edition, "collectible quality" phonecards?
http://www.phonecardworld.co.uk/
I don't think the materials, time, or resources to make any of these
products were in particularly short supply. That doesn't make them less
collectible. To my mind, the designation "collectible" can be applied to
anything, can't it? I mean, cards, marbles, rocks...
The entire premise of collectibility (IMO) is that a thing can have
value beyond its intrinsic worth. Whether that value comes from
sentiment, rarity, or some other source has no bearing on the matter.
Someone who has no collections of anything may not be able to understand
this. But if you do have a collection (of anything), how is its
perceived collectibile value not artificial?
> > Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> > more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> > alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> > either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> > or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> > opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> > any of those options.
>
> Then the easiest option was the one that LEGO didn't use. Don't number
> sets. Don't create artificial demand for what was already an amazing set.
> They didn't need to pretend that these were limited, they just need to make
> sure that they follow up the Santa Fe with an equally well designed set.
I don't know. I would say that the quick sellout of the 10,000 numbered
sets shows pretty clearly that there is a demand for LE numbered sets.
You seem to be suggesting that LEGO not try new innovative ideas, for
which there is a strong demand. I would disagree with that. I would
encourage LEGO to continue persuing new and innovative market opportunities.
Rick Clark
Happy owner of two numbered (and as yet unregistered) Santa Fes, and
envious non-owner of the very first Santa Fe unit.
|
|
| |
> This is the first step towards LEGO as COLLECTIBLE, something you buy in • mint,
> keep sealed, and hope it goes up in value.
Since a true collector won't open the box, it follows that it doesn't matter
what is in the box (because they will never know, as opening the box reduces
its value). So to realise its value, the collector must believe without proof
in the contents of the box and believe that others will believe without proof
even more (and hence pay even more) in the future. The level of faith involved
is quite frankly incredible.
In those circumstances, I wonder why Lego is providing a display stand for the
set. It sounds like they should have provided a display stand for the mint
box!
Furthermore, if the box is opened (doubtless, through some hurricane, cat
fight, train disaster, etc) and it is revealed that the box doesn't contain
the #1 Sante Fe, then, in the mind of the collector, it is that even rarer
thing: a misprint. Then the set probably sells for even more, being the only
known example of a #1 Sante Fe with a misprint.
Kerry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Rick Clark writes:
> I don't know. I would say that the quick sellout of the 10,000 numbered
> sets shows pretty clearly that there is a demand for LE numbered sets.
How did you determine these sales were due to the "limited" nature of the
set, and not due to the excellent quality of the set?
Once you have established that, suppose Lego were to release a "limited" set
every month -- do you think the appeal of the "limited" sets would sustain,
in that case? (My experience in various toy markets for a few years
indicates a "No" answer.)
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Leonard Hoffman writes:
> This is the first step towards LEGO as COLLECTIBLE, something you buy in mint,
> keep sealed, and hope it goes up in value.
Well, actually no. The first instance of lego as a collectible would simply
have been people keeping sets in a collectible condition (which has been
going on for quite a while). Another previous instance of TLC marketing
things in this manner would be the bionickle masks. I expect there are
other examples as well.
> I know there are a lot of collectors out there who do just that, and thats
> fine I guess.
People can, of course, do anything they like. And I am with you in that
bricks are for playing with. The only collector issues I want to ever
concern myself with when it comes to lego have to do with the condition of a
single element -- esp. if I am paying some absurd secondary market price for
said item.
But marketing to collectors is a different thing altogether. Such marketing
tactics create needless hype and can have negative repercussions. Sure,
short-term benefits of stronger sales and such might be realized, but longer
term people often just get burned -- and that creates longer term bad PR.
If you don't believe me just look at the last 10-15 years of comic book
marketing techniques.
I also think that there is something dishonest in selling a limited edition
of an item, the most desirable numbers of which have been withheld from
public consumption -- or withheld with the specific intent of capitalizing
on collector speculation at a later time. That pretty much stinks from top
to bottom.
I did a quick google of some collectible terminology that tlc uses for
marketing purposes and came up with the following:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.geocities.com/televisioncity/set/8681/terms.html
Hard to Find/HTF: This is an item that you can find in auctions or stores
but not every day. This is what the vast majority of "rare" items really
are. Usually there are plenty of the item around, it's just hard to find one.
LE/Limited Edition: In todays market this is beginning to be meaningless.
It should mean that a set number of items are produced and then no more. A
lot of new items though are marketed using an unscrupulous tactic. For them
LE means that it is made for a certain time. This means that the collector
will have no idea of the true edition size and for these items it is almost
always a large number.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's worth noting that the s@h catalogue almost always has some item or
other marked "hard to find" -- but if you can pick up the phone and just
order it, how rare does that really make the item? Only an idiot would fall
for that kind of tactic. That's right up there with $4.99 being less that
$5.00...a smart buyer always conceptually rounds up and thinks of tax and
shipping besides.
I am not sure if this new train set is the first "Limited Edition" TLC has
produced, but in the main the concept is worthless if the limitation is
anything over perhaps a few hundred. You can well imagine that the concept
is further diluted by continuing to produce the same item as an unlimited
edition. Comic book publishers did all the same stuff (for all I know they
may still be doing the same idiot things today) -- but in the end you just
piss off the buyers that thought they were going to realize some profit for
their speculative purchases. Sure, sometimes it works -- often it does not.
Some future sellers may be lucky enough to find an even "bigger fool" than
themselves to sell their stuff to, but many will not be able to do so.
Buyers should generally stick to buying things that they will actually use.
Sure, one can be careful of an item and maybe someday some profit might be
realized on a well-cared-for item -- but it's tough to discover the sure
things in this category. Basically, it's anyone's guess which items will or
won't be collectible.
Here's a good one: lego 375 yellow castle eBay Item # 1720302909 --
currently at $50, didn't sell a short time ago for $107 and was relisted.
What does it mean? It means the buyer wants more than the market value of
the set than the last time the hammer fell. Is he misguided in his
valuation of the set? Probably. But, if he is patient long enough he will
undoubtedly discover a bigger fool than himself to sell the set to...
Short anecdote about collectibility: Many years ago I spent approx. $225 on
what was a rare and difficult to find illustrated edition of "Hamlet" --
it's only flaws were due to it having been rebound due to age, as a
consequence it was missing two endpaper designs and a cover decoration. Last
year I bought the same book online with the original cover and in FAR better
condition than my previous purchase for about $125. What does it mean? It
means that the internet has taken the mystique out of the collectible item
-- if you want it, you can probably find it on the internet. And probably
for a LOT LESS than what everyone thought it was worth before. The problem
was always putting the seller and buyer together -- and now the solution is
a commonplace appliance in most western homes: a web enabled computer.
What a great definition BTW:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mystique noun . An aura of heightened value, interest, or meaning
surrounding something, arising from attitudes and beliefs that impute
special power or mystery to it
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Point being: there is no mystery about buying lego. It's just little
plastic bricks, folks! Don't be fooled into thinking it's anything more or
less than just that...sadly, there will always be the idiots around driving
up prices and speculative ardour around everything and anything.
Apparently, the TLC marketing dept. doesn't know the bottom when they have
reached it. This is it, people! A multi-national corporation bilking
children with empty collecible schemes for limited edition sets and masks in
all colors. They should be so proud of themselves...
Lastly, I am REALLY glad that Suz noticed these auctions and posted about
them. And Kerry has it 100% correct -- her post was hilarious and I assume
it was written tongue firmly planted in cheek.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Rick Clark writes:
> Allan Bedford wrote
>
> > The auctioned sets now come with the very cool display setting. Couldn't
> > the company have offered that item as a separate set? Isn't is feasible
> > that they might have sold a display stand to 25% or maybe even 30% of those
> > folks who bought one of the locomotives? Wouldn't that have made them more
> > money than whatever amount will be brought in on eBay?
>
>
> First, as has been said, it's unlikely that the eBay offering is about
> money.
I agree. I would be really happy if someone would explain what the eBay
offering is really about.
> Second, I'm not sure LEGO does production runs of anything for less than
> 10,000. Your suggested production run of 3,000 is way too small, I'd wager.
Isn't the actual number of 10 of these sets an even lower production run. ;)
In all seriousness, I may not have described my theory correctly. Let me
elaborate. My thought was that this background/display set could have been
released along side the Santa Fe as an add-on item. Given that I already
think the Santa Fe should not have been a 'numbered edition' I believe the
two sets (both well realized) would have sold in steady numbers for a
reasonable amount of time. I'm suggesting that you wouldn't sell the same
number of backgrounds because many people might not want to display their
kit, but rather play with it. Or break it down for parts. Or they bought
one to display and others to use otherwise. So that's where I'm suggesting
that the number of backgrounds you could sell would be only a percentage of
the locomotives themselves. Indeed this would always be a small production
run, but then why not give something new a try?
> > As it is now, the other Santa Fe sets now seem almost incomplete without the
> > possibility of even ordering the background for them.
> Er, incomplete? What? It's a great model, but too bad it doesn't have a
> two-dimentional background? I would'a given it a 10, but as it is, it's
> a 4...
I think it's a fantastic model, please don't get me wrong. I think this set
represents some of the best design work to come out of LEGO in years. But I
find it odd/silly/worrisome that folks got all bent out of shape over which
of 10,000 numbered sets they were going to receive, only to have the company
turn around and release an even *more* limited series..... that of sets 1 -
10 which include the background that the others don't.
> > I'm sure the eventual
> > 10 owners of the eBay sets will really enjoy displaying (or storing for
> > later resale) their Santa Fe's. But wouldn't it have been better to open up
> > an item like this to the entire market, thereby making thousands of LEGO
> > fans happy.... not just 10?
> I rather like the idea of the custom background being unique. I could
> certainly build my own similar background if I were so inclined. Tan
> bulk bricks are currently available.
I have a decent little LEGO collection. But... I have not nearly enough
tan, brown or grey bricks to build anything even close to that background.
And not previously being a train fan, I don't even have that piece of track
upon which to display the locomotive when I buy it. That is my thinking
behind selling the background kit; for people like me for whom this may be
their first LEGO train set.
> > If it were truly a 'Limited Edition' product, wherein the materials,
> > resources or time needed to make it were in short supply, then I can see
> > some sense in auctioning them off. As it stands, this is purely a marketing
> > gimick. The perceived collectability is entirely artificial.
> Hm. what about limited edition, numbered lithographs?
> http://www.doors.com/door_mem/museum/litho.html
>
> Limited edition DVDs?
> http://www.dvdcc.com/cgi-bin/reviews/reviews.pl?action=showit&rev=miblimited
>
> Limited edition Macintoshes:
> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1997/q2/970319.pr.rel.mac.html
>
> Limited edition Barbie dolls:
> http://www.wowdolls.com/limited.htm
>
> How about limited edition, "collectible quality" phonecards?
> http://www.phonecardworld.co.uk/
Great research, I won't belittle it by snipping. You've pointed out some
good links.
But I think you missed my point. :)
> I don't think the materials, time, or resources to make any of these
> products were in particularly short supply. That doesn't make them less
> collectible. To my mind, the designation "collectible" can be applied to
> anything, can't it? I mean, cards, marbles, rocks...
That is exactly the problem. It can easily and artificially be applied to
anything.
The phrase has become a cheap, gimicky and overused marketing term which is
frankly beneath the high standards that LEGO sets for itself.
As an example of a limited edition product:
A person who makes leather wallets in their basement as a part-time activity
can more genuinely produce 'limited edition' products. They can only turn
out so many each year, they can only get so much of the specific fine
leather they require and may only product a few dozen of a particular design
before moving on to something different. These are limited edition products.
The only thing limited about LEGO's Santa Fe was the amount of time they ran
the molding machines to make them. Which, as it turns out, wasn't as
limited as first thought, since more unnumbered sets are apparently to be
produced. This is an artificial planned creation of a perceived
collectibility. All I'm saying is that as a customer I find this kind of
low-brow marketing to be substandard compared to the way in which LEGO has
previously sold their products.
> > > Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> > > more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> > > alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> > > either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> > > or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> > > opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> > > any of those options.
> >
> > Then the easiest option was the one that LEGO didn't use. Don't number
> > sets. Don't create artificial demand for what was already an amazing set.
> > They didn't need to pretend that these were limited, they just need to make
> > sure that they follow up the Santa Fe with an equally well designed set.
> I don't know. I would say that the quick sellout of the 10,000 numbered
> sets shows pretty clearly that there is a demand for LE numbered sets.
> You seem to be suggesting that LEGO not try new innovative ideas, for
> which there is a strong demand. I would disagree with that. I would
> encourage LEGO to continue persuing new and innovative market opportunities.
I have strongly encouraged LEGO to pursue new activities and marketing
avenues in the last few years. But releasing a 'Limited Edition' is really
more limiting a market than expanding one, isn't it?
The efforts put into manufacturing this pseudo limited edition would have
been better coming up with long term plans on how to carry forward the
momentum created by such an outstanding set. I've said it before, I'll say
it again, "This set didn't need this cheap gimic to sell well."
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
[snip]
> I'm suggesting that you wouldn't sell the same
> number of backgrounds because many people might not want to display their
> kit, but rather play with it. Or break it down for parts. Or they bought
> one to display and others to use otherwise. So that's where I'm suggesting
> that the number of backgrounds you could sell would be only a percentage of
> the locomotives themselves.
I would disagree here. With the good part assortment in hard to get colors,
that background would no doubt sell very well. Not to display the engine but
to cannibalize for parts. (I know Allan, you do not buy just for the sake of
parts. I assume that is why, despite suggesting people will break down the
engine for parts, you did not think of that.)
[snip]
> The efforts put into manufacturing this pseudo limited edition would have
> been better coming up with long term plans on how to carry forward the
> momentum created by such an outstanding set. I've said it before, I'll say
> it again, "This set didn't need this cheap gimic to sell well."
Well I made my initial reaction to the comotion clear here:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=4294
What I wonder is, maybe they are planing to "carry forward the momentum" as you
suggest. (hoping and praying) Only time will tell though. You are totally
right about TLC not needing the gimick to sell this set well.
> All the best,
> Allan B.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
| |
> The phrase has become a cheap, gimicky and overused marketing term which is
> frankly beneath the high standards that LEGO sets for itself.
>
> As an example of a limited edition product:
>
> A person who makes leather wallets in their basement as a part-time activity
> can more genuinely produce 'limited edition' products. They can only turn
> out so many each year, they can only get so much of the specific fine
> leather they require and may only product a few dozen of a particular design
> before moving on to something different. These are limited edition products.
>
> The only thing limited about LEGO's Santa Fe was the amount of time they ran
> the molding machines to make them. Which, as it turns out, wasn't as
> limited as first thought, since more unnumbered sets are apparently to be
> produced. This is an artificial planned creation of a perceived
> collectibility. All I'm saying is that as a customer I find this kind of
> low-brow marketing to be substandard compared to the way in which LEGO has
> previously sold their products.
This is very true. However, the REAL concept of the Limited Edition has to
be taken into consideration. The example you gave is not a "real" limited
edition. Sure, there were only a few dozen of the same design made. That
is true. But the real concept comes in the number. The Santa Fe is 1 of
10,000. That is documented. I have an Action NASCAR diecast that is 1 of
624. That is documented because I have the COA. All MV Agusta Senna
motorcycles come with a document stating what number and why it's special.
It's documented. The wallet example doesn't work because that is more of a
hobby example than a limited production run. For the most part, everything
that is limited edition comes with some form of document stating WHY or HOW
limited it really is. Is that correct?
Therefore, the only thing limited about the Santa Fe train is the fact that
it comes with the document stating what number you have and the personalized
stickers.
Brendan
|
|
| |
"Brendan Coughlin" <Duck360198@aol.com> writes:
> Therefore, the only thing limited about the Santa Fe train is the fact that
> it comes with the document stating what number you have and the personalized
> stickers.
That's not correct. The document just says that you have a limited
edition, not what number. And the stickers are not personalized.
There is a *printed* tile that is personalized, however, with a unique
number from 1 to 9999 for each set.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
|
|
|
