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.
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
|
|
|
|
