Subject:
|
Re: Bulk Sets (was: Re: How about "Technic Tubs" ?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Oct 2001 04:27:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2789 times
|
| |
|
|
"aeon" <aeon15@home.com> writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Thomas (T. J.) Avery writes:
> > In lugnet.dear-lego, William R. Ward writes:
> > > I'm pretty sure they were intended to compete with MegaBlox which had
> > > been producing similar tubs at similarly cut-rate prices. Lego's 3033
> > > (just about?) completely annihilated the competition. Now that there
> > > is no competition for that (I don't think MegaBlox makes them anymore)
> > > Lego can safely discontinue the blue tubs, which were probably not
> > > profitable at only $19.95 (when you include the costs of distribution,
> > > etc.).
>
> Lego has stated that 3033 is NOT a loss leader. (meaning it's profitable).
I've heard that too, but I suspect they are just talking about
production costs. ABS is cheap, and there's no retooling needed to
make basic bricks. So from that end it is certainly profitable. But
when you include the distribution costs, I'm guessing it's very close
to break-even if not a slight loss.
TRU must have paid less than $15 for them, probably around $10. They
are kind of heavy, with the sturdy plastic tub and all. They're also
bulky, as they are mostly air. Transportation and warehousing costs
would be unusually high for that set. Lego's profit can't be more
than a buck or two, if that. Compare it to regular sets, where they
probably make a decent percentage of the sale price as profit. Maybe
it's technically profitable, but it's not *as* profitable.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
