Subject:
|
Re: [FA] - eBay - Lego CUSTOM: - Unique 4 axle custom Hopper
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 22:12:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2822 times
|
| |
|
|
THE DELAYED POST
Ah -- delays, delays. Much of what I have written here is sort of canceled
out by Larry's previous post and by Todd Lehman's recent post:
"If it were my toy company..." @ http://www.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=736
Nonetheless, I am sharing because I think these concerns are genuine and need
to be aired for things with LEGO Direct to work out. I am not an expert on
anything, and some of you are clearly way ahead of me. But LEGO is not our
toy company, and never will be! We have to ask ourselves: "What does LEGO
want, and what will they do for me to get it?"
Maybe I am just venting...anyway, here it is:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Wilson writes:
> I'll be very interested to see how this goes. It's something I have been
> contemplating doing too. I wonder how TLC will react to this - after
> all, it's competition for them, in a small way. I also wonder about the
> possibility of forming a group or consortium of people who do or want to
> do this kind of thing - a group sales website, for example, would pull
> in more traffic than multiple individual websites.
Actually, it looks like a big reason to NOT cooperate with AFOL on any
specialty item or bulk ordering, if all they REALLY want to do is compete for
marketshare against LEGO with their own, possibly better (I don't doubt)
designs!
I was looking at this hopper Larry made, and even though I am a train novice,
I was impressed. Larry's presentation is slick and professional -- and I hope
that as a 'one-time' thing it may offend no one. But there are hints that
Larry wants to make the hopper an on-going set available for train collectors,
and to that extent it seems like a slap in LEGO's face.
If this had been a parts auction, I wouldn't have bat an eye. But as it is I
too have to wonder at how it will be received by the LEGO eyes that we now
know are watching the newsgroups. And I am getting a better appreciation as
to why LEGO has never contacted AFOL before -- I mean, why should they? While
the parts are hard to come by, we are no threat to the market they dominate --
but through bulk orders that might change. And then what? They have to
compete against the monster they created? Or hire from amongst its ranks to
stop it?
Larry even wants to claim copyright of the design, and as a design only,
perhaps the claim is valid. But if he intends to claim any rights to the
whole set, bricks included, I would guess no way! This isn't like molding
from clay or carving from wood -- its all LEGO bricks, each one says
bloody 'LEGO' right on it! Larry also wants control of the distribution of
the design, but don't we have ready access to an extensive LEGO instructions
scan database? So isn't Larry's position actually hypocritical? "O, its okay
to have LEGO's instruction scans on the internet, just not mine..." Do I have
this right, Larry? Will your exclusive control of this design lapse at some
future point so that we can view it on Kevin Loch's server, or what?
While LEGO had no intention of cooperating with us, I could see Larry's
auction taking place and not worried about it one bit -- a flash in the pan,
and we all would have known it. Suddenly LEGO DOES contact us, and its
suddenly as if we are on our ABSOLUTELY WORST collective behavior. Some of
you are too intelligent for your own, or our -- AFOL, good! I truly believe
that we are coming off as total yahoos, without any sensitivity to LEGO's own
interests. They will not deal with us from a position of taking a loss, only
from one in which they will clearly profit -- then they, and only they, will
make the profits, and we will be able to get the bricks to realize our
building ambitions. Perhaps a third party distribution center will be set up -
- I don't know and niether does anyone else right now. Maybe there is room
for others in the mix, but again no one knows this for sure right now.
If we are to be taken seriously as HOBBYISTS, and not some kind of competition
to LEGO, then it probably needs to mean the end of the 'cottage industry'
mentality. In my own reply to Brad Justus' initial post I stated:
"4. Competition with the Lego collector market through direct marketing of
older set configurations and parts -- and, of course, with TLG to reap the
rewards of this move. (Example: a premium price could be charged for the
rerelease of Guarded Inn, but not at the insane prices the set goes for in the
collector market.)"
And this is not what I wrote originally! I originally wrote "The destruction
of the LEGO collector market..." I toned it down so as to not offend other
AFOL, whose work in the LEGO 'cottage industry' I not only admired, but made
use of for my own hobbyist's needs. I think some of you know that I don't
sell my stuff, although I might do the occasional trade. And I have to admit
that I don't really care who gets the money as long as I get the stuff I want
to realize my own LEGO projects. I thought that's what all AFOL wanted.
If LEGO Direct is going to do what I would do if I were in their position,
then it means a radical break from how us AFOL have been doing business and
acquiring the parts we want. There is no reason for it not to be profitable
on some basis. Some of you are apparently making your living from reselling
parted out set pieces. I think LEGO knows this and have figured out what that
means to them.
In trying to make contact with LEGO, all I wanted was access to the parts.
Now I can see that other ideas have been floating around. And if they can
work alongside LEGO's own plans, no problem. But to the extent that we are
talking about competing with them, BIG PROBLEM!
If I could have gotten what I needed from LEGO Direct, then I wouldn't have
been dealing with Kevin Wilson for the sets he is sending me (may the gods
love him), nor would I have needed Larry Pieniazek (may the gods love him) as
a factor in a deal I made with a Brit some months ago. Thanks guys, and I
mean it, but right now I am thinking of putting you out of the LEGO 'cottage
industry' in favor of working with 'LEGO Direct'-ly, as it were. And right
along with you I won't be needing the likes of Baylit, the Vault, MA#XX,
Auczilla, or anyone else's set or parts auctions or sales sites. Not if in
the future I can deal with LEGO Direct and get what I am looking for!
Moreover, we exist as an online community largely because LEGO left gaps in
its market...
...We had to go to one another to get the stuff we wanted...
...We had to deal overseas...
...We had to make deals that went bad...
...We bid in set auctions...
...We bid in parts auctions...
...We lost stuff in the mail...
...Huge delays existed for receiving stuff from individual sellers...
But if LEGO does indeed begin to fill in the holes in the market they created,
this will ALL likely end. And I hope that LEGO's plans are comprehensive
enough to make it so, and I REALLY mean that too! Then we will be here (on
Lugnet) mostly to exchange building ideas -- and thats about it! Maybe those
plans could be sold without stepping on LEGO's toes -- I am not sure about the
whole thing yet.
Todd Lehman wrote:
> I'm not worried about it. People have been selling custom LEGO models via
> auction for more than 5 years and as long as you don't infringe on any of
> TLC's IP or accidentally misrepresent the models as being official, it's
> really no different in the worst case than if you were some other actual
> toy company selling clones.
Maybe, but that was then and this is now. And LEGO doesn't just sell bricks
anymore, or haven't you noticed? They want a complete line of toys and
products all the way down the list. And maybe making designs is trying to go
head to head with something they want only for themselves. I don't know, and
neither does anyone else on this newsgroup -- or if you do, then enlighten me
and everyone else. LEGO has actually been selling Idea Books, and there are
two new DK books on figures and animals -- probably through arrangement with
LEGO. What makes anyone so sure they aren't going to try shutting down model
designs obviously intended for use with their patented and copyrighted parts?
And I am not sure I understand that last statement at all Todd, -- am I to
understand that LEGO enjoys competition from Best-Lock or Mega Bloks, and they
really miss Tyco's entry into the field?
Todd Lehman also wrote:
> BTW, we should be very careful next Summer and very clear in our discussions
> with LEGO Direct that we desire any bulk purchase arrangements to be free
> and clear of any strings attached which might prevent someone from reselling
> the parts they purchase. Personally, I would boycott any bulk purchasing
> arrangement in which the purchase agreement disallowed resale.
Well, that's bloody great! You boycott it -- I just want to build. Thanks
for nothing! I suspect that they will at least stipulate that we are not
allowed to sell the bricks as sets. Isn't that what they do? Isn't that their
historically primary business?
James Powell wrote:
> I would think that they -might- put a stipulation on that you cannot resell
> directly (Ie auction on E-bay for 3x the money).
Uh huh. Thats what I think too. Sell to a builder, yes -- sell to a
reseller, no! Why would they cut anyone else into a profit they themselves
could realize? I just can't see it.
James Powell also wrote:
> Also, I think that for some parts it will likely still be cheaper to buy sets
> and part them out. I doubt all parts will ever be available, and I would
> expect to be paying a premium for parts from L@D.
Here I hope James is wrong on both counts. What good would it do to buy bulk
and then pay a premium for it? Or are you suggesting a price point somewhere
in between what it would cost to buy the many sets necessary for the number of
said parts desired and a bucket price? Once the parts are available in bulk,
they will lose all rarity -- and thusly individual pieces will lose value.
Its not as though we couldn't still just part out the sets, after all. How
much of a "premium" are you envisioning?
My message to LEGO is that there is a secondary market whose market you could
fulfill entirely. Bulk orders, special items orders, minifigure accessory
packs, discontinued items packs, the rerelease of old set designs. Would any
sane person really pay $300 USD or more for an original Guarded Inn if LEGO
rereleased the set for $50-60 USD? I have seen more than one fool pay a lot
of $$$ for 6067 without instructions or box -- yet, how did they know that the
set was not just built from other spare parts? It probably was...I think
there are four elements alone that are unique to that set (one sign, and three
tudor walls), and if you had them, you could fill in the rest with newer stuff.
At this point I can only hope that we are, in fact, a small enough segment of
LEGO's total market that they will indulge us for bulk and specialty parts
orders just for the good PR and "word of mouth" advertising. Because after
looking over some stuff Larry and Todd have posted on the hopper, I think we
do represent a threat to overall profits if they should sell to us cheaply in
bulk, or even just in bulk.
On the other hand, I can see now that bulk and specialty parts ordering may
never take place, and I'll be back to the online auctions and making parts
requests in the appropriate newsgroups, as usual.
Adults don't know how to just play, they want to make money while they are at
it. And thusly I have stated our undoing as regards a relationship with
LEGO. Its their bricks, its their product; we are the consumers of it. There
is no reason to deal with us in bulk if all we are going to do is compete with
them in the marketplace. They have at last come to us with their hand out in
greeting...and we apparently don't know a good thing when we see it! Do we
want to play or make money through bricks?
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
-- Walt Kelly (although he said it for different reasons, of course)
-- Richard (still the "Angriest Lego Collector in the World" but now adding
AFOL, as a group, to my s**tlist)
P.S. Maybe I am taking it too seriously, I dunno...Larry asked me to post this
thing. I have nothing but respect for anyone I have mentioned by name or by
the name of their auction site. I am not against any of you as such -- VERY
MUCH the opposite is true. I am also VERY MUCH in favor of LEGO Direct
perceiving us a community they would want to specifically market to AND in a
sensible way -- and not just through sets as has been the case for too long a
time. Perhaps this will all work out some way.
P.P.S. If all else fails, I say we form a consortium and make our own line of
bricks -- which when you think about it, is really what some of you want to
do! REALLY! Think about it...and this is not the first time I have suggested
this. Now I have stated what must be the biggest heresy expressed all week!
Note: please excuse any errors in punctuation or grammar, I think most of you
will get what I am saying anyway...I am not an obsessed spell-checker, etc.
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | bulk dynamics revisited
|
| (...) I was speaking for myself only. When I say "Personally, I would boycott..." I mean that I personally couldn't "buy into" it under such a restriction -- to agree to buy bulk under a restriction like that that wouldn't feel morally right to me. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
