Subject:
|
Re: No really - a rational discussion of people selling via eBay?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 May 1999 13:21:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
792 times
|
| |
|
|
Janet Zorn wrote:
> There is no way that anyone, including the owner of TLG, has a
> monopoly on
> certain Lego sets. These durable goods create a very competitive
> secondary
> (previously owned)market - competitive that is with the primary
> (not-previously
> owned) market. If monopolizing a given Lego set is the only way that
> someone
> can be a scalper then there are no scalpers on ebay. Just look at the
> identies
> of the people on ebay selling Technic Space Shuttles. There is no
> monopoly there.
A few comments about hoarding:
- I hope that in some cases, the hoarders get screwed by the
manufacturers increasing production to feed the apparent market. I hope
the manufacturers don't get screwed by overproducing.
- One annoying thing is that in many cases hoarders don't have to worry
about their reputation. Walmart couldn't get away with putting out the
Star Wars toys one at a time at 10x list price.
- I'm not sure how to manage the market without destroying free market,
but certain products, after certain disasters need to be regulated from
hoarding and price gouging (to toss out another imperfect term...)
> :I also don't have a problem with people like Todd who buy a ton
> of
> :sets and break them down to sell parts, again, there is a value add,
> :which costs the seller significant extra effort. If the effort was
> low
> :enough to be able to sell individual pieces at a price which wouldn't
> :drive people away, and all that, Lego wouldn't sell sets. They would
> :sell parts packs and idea books. And we would all be much happier.
> :Unfortuanately, it is almost always cheaper to sell complete kits
> :because there is a real cost for each part number caried in the
> catalog,
> :and each transaction.
>
> I would be very surprised if it were really cheaper for TLG to sell
> pieces
> rather than sets. I think that sets generate more interest than do
> bulk parts.
> That extra interest results in more sales that more than compensates
> for
> the increased costs of producing sets. The extra cost of bulk piece
> sales
> is in the extra cost of handling both sets and separate parts. No
> matter
> who's right on this it is not the main issue in this thread.
I may not have been clear in what I was saying (or perhaps I was making
the point from a different direction), we agree on this one.
> :I wonder how many of the parts packs Lego sells
> :are actually created to increase the production volume of those
> parts,
> :or some other economic reality, rather than altruism.
>
> Given that TLG's profits are off sharply, I hope for all of our sake
> that they
> are not offering any products out of altruism, or we'll all be using
> MegaBloks
> soon. Companies may do altruistic things, but selling products
> altruistically is
> not one of them. Remember that infamous quote from Adam Smith,
> something
> like, "it is not out of benevolence that the butcher and baker supply
> our needs
> but out of a concern for their own self interest." (admittedly a very
> loose
> paraphrase)
Altruism was the wrong word to use here. What I was meaning was I wonder
how many parts packs Lego sells more because of production reasons,
rather than customer satisfaction. Of course, customer satisfaction is
an important part of the reason, otherwise they wouldn't make them.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
