Subject:
|
Re: LD's Auctions (Re: Going once, going twice, sold!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:31:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
611 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LD's Auctions (Re: Going once, going twice, sold!)
|
| Allan Bedford wrote (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 9-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
38 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
