 | | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
(...) The biggest issue as I see it is probably the fact that it's not worth the primary seller's time in this example. The point of them instigating a minimum order is so that they don't have to deal with stuff that's "not worth their time". But (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
Quoting David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com>: (...) The largest issue I've always seen with this was that the amalgamated carriage fees would very quickly pile up. Not only would the buyer pay for the first shipping fee to the middleman, but then the (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
(...) Bam. (...) Yep. In my experience, AFOLs are generally interested in saving more, not spending more. There are a bunch out there who *will* pay more, but in general, I think your average AFOL would much rather spend the time doing it themselves (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
Quoting David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com>: (...) Ok, so now we've also got the issue of near zero demand. *IF* demand was higher, costs could be split through multiple orders from the same original sellers, potentially. I would say that your average (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
