Subject:
|
Re: 10020 limited to 10000 sets or not?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:00:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
556 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Martin writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> > > I understood it as Mark did. Personally, after 10,000, I rather see a
> > > *different* engine run of 10,000 and have the Super Chief go out of production
> > > for a while
> >
> > The sooner a LEGO Direct item becomes unavailable, the sooner that item
> > begins to show up on eBay at inflated prices. Isn't that one of the things
> > LEGO Direct was supposed to help stop?
> >
> > I am personally against any sort of 'Limited Edition' products. They only
> > reward people with immediate buying power and don't always end up with true
> > fans. I believe in the long run the company would do well to keep this
> > terrific set in production as long as possible. It is a good ambassador for
> > their products and their image.
> >
> > I'm not a train fan in the least, but I'll be buying one of these sets for
> > my desk at work.
> >
> > > (based on the fact that LD can only have so many different sets in
> > > production at any given time)
> >
> > If the sales for this division continue to be strong, I suspect this
> > artificial limit of how many sets they can release could be raised or
> > eliminated.
> Just because somebody has ready money to spend, doesn't mean they aren't
> true Lego fans.
Agreed. And conversely, not everyone who spends a lot of money on new LEGO
sets *is* a fan. This is just a personal beef of mine, not the way that
LEGO should do business.
> Besides, Lego isn't in the business to sell to "true fans".
> They are in it to make money. Yes, they have high ideals.
Or rather they *had* high ideals.
> But without a
> doubt, Ole Kirk Christiansen started the company to feed himself and his
> family. Everyone working at Lego likes to get paid at the of the day.
I totally agree. Which is why all my business cards read "Idealistic
Crusader" and not "Toy Company Executive". I'm a sentimental customer; not
representative of the general buying public.
On the flip side of that, understand that every comment I make about LEGO
(be it good or be it bad) is intended to express feelings I have about how
the company could be better. How they could make more money. How they could
employee more people. They have had losses over the last few years. The
first in the company's history. I think now would be a good time for them
to get all kinds of suggestions, not just from their core fans.
> Since you are buying one just to stick on your desk, one might argue that
> you are not a true fan, and shouldn't buy one. ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist
> that one!
Joke noted.
But actually the fact that I'm planning on buying even one train set is a
sincere compliment to the company and the designer of this engine. I am not
a train fan. Couldn't care less about trains. I don't own a single train
element or set from any time in LEGO's history. But I like this set. I
like it not because it's a cool train, but because it's a cool LEGO set. It
reinforces my belief that the company CAN produce high quality,
well-designed sets. And when they do, I will buy. When they don't, I won't.
> I also hope that they continue to make the Super Chief. But the answer to
> that question in solely in the consumers hands.
And that was exactly my reasoning behind not setting out to make a product a
limited edition. The music industry tried this in the mid-1990's. For a
time, you could hardly walk into a music store without finding limited
edition packaging, numbered box sets, low production runs etc. But did
those factors alone sell the discs? No. In fact, many music fans became
jaded and eventually saw it as the marketing tool it is. A good CD will
always sell. The better the CD, the more you can sell over months and even
years. A LEGO set isn't that much different. A well-designed set will sell
over and again for years on end. A poorly designed set won't sell at all,
no matter how few you make.
My point?
Push the company to create and release more high quality sets like this one.
This is a great piece of LEGO modelling. That should be noted, and made
clear to the company in good sales figures. But making it limited, simply
for the sake of making it limited, runs the risk of some fans never seeing
one in their own hands. It's my hope that this thing sells out quickly and
that the company switches to a non-numbered regular issue.
Bottom line?
I hope they sell LOTS. It's good for them, it's good for LEGO fans.
> Stack that against the buying power of the AFOL
> community and you can imagine just how small our buying power is compared to
> the kids or parents buying for kids. I would be surprised if AFOLs were
> responsible for more than 1% of total sales. Especially since we seem to go
> for the bargain buys.
I wouldn't know. I have never met an AFOL in real life. ;)
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 10020 limited to 10000 sets or not?
|
| (...) Just because somebody has ready money to spend, doesn't mean they aren't true Lego fans. Besides, Lego isn't in the business to sell to "true fans". They are in it to make money. Yes, they have high ideals. But without a doubt, Ole Kirk (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.trains)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
