Subject:
|
Re: 10152 Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 00:20:39 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
7596 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
After reading the various whining about “broken promises” in this thread,
remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk
wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side effect
is, there’s enough left over for more sales to the public. LEGO looks at the
fact that this was a very good seller...
|
But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been such
a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased them as
collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought in mind.
| |
What part of that reasoning makes you think LEGO would need to think twice
about re-releasing it to the public? It’s an absolute no-brainer, as far as
I’m concerned. The company made business choices based not only on their own
bottom line, but they also tried to offer something they thought a small
percentage of their consumer base would appreciate. I find that encouraging.
|
I don’t think anyone is complaining that there will be more of these sets in
order to purchase. It was the fact that consumers were led to believe that the
color maersk blue would never again be produced and thus the sets containing
that color would have value beyond their face value. I think the whole matter
would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the number or somehow
made the new run tangibly different from the original. This would require
minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those who were really hoping
for the dark blue version, which may or may not appear).
| |
Many people are looking at it from the standpoint of “LEGO is producing
collectibles, so they need to honor the implied promise of limited
availability.” Does LEGO look at their products that way? I don’t know, but I
doubt it.
|
If they had never said that Maersk blue would be gone forever after the last
run, I don’t think people would have any expectation of limited availability.
Therein lies the rub.
| |
Bricks are a commodity that they sell to people willing to buy
them. They don’t position them as collectibles[1] for the most part. And
even if they did, the only ones bothered are the speculators or people
looking for a reason to get upset with the company.
|
Generally speaking, yes, but in this case we are not talking about any random
set.
| |
Circumstances changed, making it possible for them to produce more of a
product that sold well.
|
Consider this scenario: BNSF now wants TLC to reissue the Sante Fe locomotive
numbered sets from 1-10,000 and they are willing to pay handsomely for them to
do so. Now, TLC never made any promises that they would never do this. Should
they?
| |
The only bad part is if they can’t produce different
colored versions of the set in the future - and at that, there was never any
guarantee that that would happen anyway. They asked AFOLs to pick some colors
out of courtesy to us.
LEGO asking our opinions is not an entitlement for AFOLs to expect special
treatment.
|
Well, I think you are on thin ice to defend TLC here. They clearly implied that
the winner of the color contest would be produced in that set. Yeah, things
change, but does that mean that TLC necessarily doesn’t have to keep their
word? It’s called integrity. “My word is my bond” and all of that stuff.
| |
What if LEGO made the decision to not release the new set to the public,
although they could’ve?
|
For what possible reason? Thinking it would be a big seller but deciding not
to offer it would be sheer lunacy. They are a business. Whoever would make
such a decision would be an idiot and should be sacked from the company for
incompetency.
| |
The same firestorm of criticism, certainly. There was
really no way for the company to please everybody in this.
|
Not so, as I explained above. The answer is quite simple, really. Actually,
it’s too bad that the first run didn’t use classic gray and classic brown. Then
the point would be moot as well...
| |
So they made a
decision that earned them maximum profit, helping the bottom line.
|
Not “maximum” profit. Changing the set number or some such thing would achieve
that.
| |
Everybody who thinks that’s a bad thing, by all means, the clone companies
welcome you with open arms.
|
If it were true, which it isn’t.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) I agree. They should make one with the containers in the old light grey. Maersk wouldn't know the difference, the AFOL collectors would be happy and TLG would get rid of those extra unsold old greys. (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Yes, I understand - but did LEGO position it as a collectible? Officially, on their web site? I never read it that way. Jake's post (I could dig it up if it matters) clearly laid out that they were running the last of the existing Maersk blue (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) If you purchase something at full retail, as a collectable, then someone's P&L statement is going to look pretty good. If enough people do that, then there has been created a 'demand' that had more to do with the profit motive than the desire (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Thanks for the update, Jake! After reading the various whining about "broken promises" in this thread, remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side (...) (20 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX) !
|
257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
