Subject:
|
Re: LD's Auctions (Re: Going once, going twice, sold!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:04:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
764 times
|
| |
|
|
"Rick Clark" <jrclark@nospam.aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3CAAC42B.3000608@nospam.aol.com...
> Mario Ferrari wrote:
>
> > I totally agree with Suz, and find this very disturbing. These are items
> > whose "rarity" is totally artificial, coming from a planned commercial
> > operation rather than from actual market movements, and IMHO this is a
> > violation to the rules.
>
> A violation of which rules? Doesn't a numbered, limited edition of
> anything automatically *create* rarity? Seems to me that most numbered,
> limited editions don't even offer the #1 unit to the public, preferring
> to give it to the president of the company, or the designer, or some
> such. Doesn't that connote an actual (and non-artificial) rarity?
>
> > Is this the marketing strategy with which TLC plans
> > to increase its presence on the market? What should we expect next?
>
> Hopefully, more risk-taking and innovation that will keep them from
> going stagnant. To my mind, LEGO Direct has been batting between 950 and
> 1000. Also, please do not confuse TLC with LEGO Direct. The former is a
> corporate behemoth, which seems be having trouble getting things right.
> The latter is a skunkworks, which seems to be having trouble getting
> anything wrong.
>
>
> > I could agree with this auction only if the money went for some charity, • but
> > this isn't clearly stated anywhere.
>
>
> Do you mean you would still feel LEGO Direct's behavior was
> inappropriate, but at least they were doing something wrong for a good
> cause?
>
> I thought LD has been very clear from the start that the first few
> numbered sets would be auctioned off on ebay. Why wasn't there any
> outcry prior to this? My impression was that since noone spoke up,
> everyone thought that this was a good way to distribute these sets.
>
> But maybe I'm the one off in left field. Wouldn't be the first time...
> ;-)
Rick,
I admit my fault here: I didn't know this was their original plan, and
didn't realize it was clearly stated from the beginning. This doesn't
justify my reaction, I should have read the story from the beginning. When I
said a "violation of the rules" I was wrong, I thought that they had
declared to sell directly all the numbers and then had changed their mind.
My apologies to all (including LD) for my over-reactive post.
All that said, I still don't like this way of doing business, and still
would prefer they don't directly auction items on ebay. I admit they have
the right to, but I don't like it.
Ciao
Mario
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
38 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
