 | | Re: Article text
|
| (...) Sets in the $90+ range sell in such small quantities that most stores won't even stock them, which is why TRU can get away with jacking the price another $10 over MSRP. Comparing a $300 toy to a similar $90 toy is simply a matter of scale. The (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Article text
|
| (...) The store only sells merchandise. If it's not selling then somebody is doing a pretty poor job of marketing it. That would be... oh, yea the guys with the weak shoulders... Hogwarts was expensive to produce because of the licencing fees. (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Article text
|
| (...) That's not always true. Ever heard of something called the Law of Supply and Demand? Demand has dropped because all of the people who absolutely had to buy it did. Then the people who kinda had to buy it did. Then the people who sorta wanted (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Article text
|
| (...) Of corse I've heard of supply & demand. I'm the first to admit the castle sales slowed. That left Lego with two choices... 1)redesign the set 2)increase the demand. One of these choices is signifgantly more costly. Since they are whining about (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Article text
|
| (...) Both cost considerable amounts of money. In fact, I'd be surprised if designing a new Hogwarts didn't cost significantly less than a huge advertising campaign would (and anything less isn't going to have the impact that you seem to desire). (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| |
