To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.legoOpen lugnet.lego in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 LEGO Company / 2928
2927  |  2929
Subject: 
Re: 10152 Update
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.lego
Date: 
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:37:36 GMT
Viewed: 
7894 times
  
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:

<various snippaging>

  
   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.

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 and they did not anticipate acquiring more of that color. I can’t see a lie there. There was never anything stating that they would never run more - just the aside (to AFOLs) that they were using all remaining Maersk blue. Any assumptions of collectibility were made by purchasers, not LEGO - and I can’t see how LEGO could’ve positioned it differently so some people wouldn’t assume collectibility. Unless they didn’t tell the whole truth, of course, in which case they’d be accused of lying by omission.

http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801

From the above post by Jake:

“This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that there is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even the parks can no longer get Maersk blue.

This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home.

I believe this implies “limited quantities” with the implication “get them while they are still available because it will be the last we see of Maersk blue”.

  
   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).

Except maybe Maersk, who’s footing the major bill for the rerun, as I understand it. You may want to have a different set, thereby maintaining the integrity of a “collectible” but that apparently didn’t meet the needs of LEGO’s primary customer for this product - Maersk.

Ideally, yes, but not necessarily so. Even changing the number on the set would have the same effect of preserving the collectibility of the original run.
  
  
   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.

OK then... so the problem is the blue bricks, correct? But above you suggested you’d be happy by LEGO changing the design or set number. Do you mean LEGO recreating a Maersk Sealand set without Maersk blue? I wouldn’t think that would meet the client’s need, personally.

No, the problem isn’t the blue bricks. I am glad that more Maersk blue bricks will be available via this second run. My problem is that the collectibility of an original run MISB 10052 has taken a severe hit due to some (however unintended) misdirection on the part of TLC.
  
  
   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.

I’m not sure what the difference is between the Maersk Sealand, and say, the ISD, or the Wright Flyer. Or any other number of sets.

Because of the stated limited run assertion (with the implication that Maersk blue would no longer ever be available-- “Even the parks can no longer get Maersk blue”).
  
  
   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?

Good question... I personally wouldn’t, were I the owner of that decision. In that case, since the Sante Fe sets are numbered, there’s more grounds for an assumption that they won’t reproduce the same number. But that’s their decision. I’d hope they wouldn’t reproduce set numbers like that. But it’s really a different situation from the generic Maersk Sealand set, IMO.

I don’t think so. In either case specific promises weren’t made, but there was clear implication of the intention of TLC at the time.
  
  
   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 word? I don’t recall LEGO promising that, and I voted. If they did promise, then I’d assume ALL polls are contracts that they would abide by. I’d want to see all results tabulated, and be able to track how well they met their stated obligation.

Come on, Kelly, you are bending over backwards. Would you have even bothered to vote if you knew that TLC had no intention of following through with their plan? What sense would it make to hold a contest if they had no intention of following through with the results. It makes no sense.

   But they didn’t promise.

This is irrelevant in my view. It is about PR.

   Soapbox alert, not directed at any one person, so don’t take it personally, John... but I get terribly irritated when people (anyone) assumes that since somebody asks their opinion, that person (or company) is then obligated to follow the stated opinion. LEGO asking AFOL opinion on color (results of which I heard were virtually 50/50) was a favor to us,

??? Seems like providing input is more like US providing a favor TO THEM.

   and not something a whole lot of companies would do. The way I took it, the poll was to help the decision-making process on future color for the set, NOT to replace the decision-making process.

Tell me how which color scheme a particular set should be (from a choice of 2 given colors) has anything to do with the decision whether or not to rerun the set in a particular color. It is a non sequitur.

   I’m not saying LEGO hasn’t made mistakes, they’ve made plenty. But I don’t see this as one of them.


  
   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...

Then it wouldn’t have been “Maersk Sealand” in the first place. Just “Sealand”.

I don’t follow you there. All I’m saying is that if the set had been produced a year or so ago, it would have used the old gray and brown, and that would have been enough to differentiate it from a newer run that will use the new gray and brown, thus preserving the original collectibility of the first run. But it’s a moot point.
  
  
   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.

I thought it was the blue color that was the problem. If it wasn’t blue in the first place, it wouldn’t be collectible, right?

Maybe I’m missing something that hasn’t been explicitly stated. I can’t see that LEGO lied when they released the set, nor can I see how changed circumstances that led to additional runs of this set implies LEGO is untrustworthy.

When we talk about collectibility, that to me means MISB sets. That is different from buying a set containing a rare color such as Maersk blue with the intent to profit by resale on BL or Ebay. Now, if someone bought a bunch of 10052s to part out Maersk blue, then I would say that these new events are a bit of a bummer for them because it will probably push down the price of Maersk blue elements a bit. But I am not talking about that. That is plain tough luck IMO.

What I am talking about is the value of an MISB set that was implied to be limited. Even if TLC makes a new run as they have stated they are going to do, they could still preserve the limitedness of the original run by simply changing the number on the set of the new run. Does that make sense?

JOHN



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: 10152 Update
 
(...) That's a fair assertion. Being somebody who collects sets to build them, I don't have the mindset that "limited quantities" = "collectible". Again, though, at the time that was written, that was accurate. (...) At the risk of belaboring a (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
  Re: 10152 Update
 
(...) [snip] (...) John, I really don't understand this point. I mean that literally, I don't understand. You may very well be right within this odd-sounding (to me) corner of the collector world. But personally, I fail to see how a simple set (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (19 years ago, 20-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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR