Subject:
|
Re: [FA] - eBay - Lego CUSTOM: - Unique 4 axle custom Hopper
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 01:43:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2801 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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.
It doesn't to me.
If LEGO wants to release another hopper train car, they will be
able to do so, at a price that Larry will not be able to match.
If Larry manages to establish a booming business in hopper cars,
selling them in the thousands (very unlikely), it will just demonstrate
to LEGO that they need to make more sets like that.
And each set Larry sells will be made with LEGO pieces, bought from
LEGO, who will profit.
>
> 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?
THey will not charge such cheap prices for bulk parts that any one
of us could seriously compete with them selling prepackaged sets in
a toy market fraught with ruthless price competition. Anyone selling
custom models will be filling a niche market that LEGO currently
does not fill, and that LEGO, if they wanted to, could fill, with
sets that will be more affordable.
And, again, anything sold will be made with parts bought from LEGO,
who will profit. They *will not* sell to us at a loss. You can
depend on that.
> 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.
That's what most of us want. The people who sell LEGO in our community
do it largely to fund their habit. I can not imagine that Larry is going
to make enough money selling hopper cars to quit his day job.
As an AFOL I am excited about the idea of buying customized sets. People
have been doing this, off and on, for quite a while. We have quite a
talented pool of designers amongst our midst. I would be thrilled to pay
$200 for a big castle from one of the premier castle designers in our
community. It would not stop me from buying LEGO's castles (I'm
a castle completist).
>
> 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!
I haven't seen any convincing arguments that we will be able to compete
with LEGO in any appreciable, threatening way using bricks that
they sell to us.
> 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!
I buy from fellow collectors only to fill in gaps in my own
collection. That will not change. I doubt that LEGO direct is
going to suddenly rerelease every castle and space set they ever made.
> 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...
I post to the community because I like to talk about LEGO. The buying
and selling, while a bit addictive and compelling, plays a very minor
role in my participation in the community.
The "cottage industry" does indeed thrive around gaps that LEGO
has left, and that's fine. LEGO will not be able to fill in all those
gaps. Most specifically in terms of old out of production sets, but also
selling custom-made sets, and piecing out sets to sell elements not
offered in bulk.
To the extent that LEGO will not completely fill all gaps
in our hobby (how could they?) the "cottage industry" will
continue to let people finance their hobby by working within the
hobby they love. Fine by me. If I don't want a hopper car, I
won't buy one.
> But if LEGO does indeed begin to fill in the holes in the market they created,
> this will ALL likely end.
No. It may take the wind out of the piece resellers. It won't eliminate
the need completely.
> And I hope that LEGO's plans are comprehensive
> enough to make it so, and I REALLY mean that too!
That'd be great, but it won't happen. They simply cannot afford to
fill every need.
> > 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?
They attach no such stipulation to their current line of toys. Nothing
prevents me from buying from Shop at Home and then auctioning off the
item on EBAY.
They should not attach any such stipulation to offerings that come from
LEGO direct, either.
> 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.
If there's a profit to be made (if someone manages to find a way
to repackage LEGO's offerings in such a way that LEGO winces at
the lost revenue opportunity) (what loss? THey $old us the bricks!!),
they can move in and end that business by offering the service
themselves.
For example, LEGO could pay someone full time to purchase and
auction off old sets. It'd be silly, but they could do it.
They won't bother. It's small potatoes.
Having an active, zealous fan community on the internet will only
make them more money. As more kids surf the net and see the awesome
things we build, they'll want to buy more sets or more pieces to
try to do the same thing. Any teen who might be outgrowing LEGO
who comes across the AFOL community on the net has a fair chance
of picking up a lifetime addiction. We extend their marketing
efforts. They know that. That's why they want to have dialog
with us.
>
> 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?
I may want the 6 pillar elements that come from the Bat Lord castle.
I may need hundreds of them to build something awesome.
The set may be available for $50 on clearance somewhere. But that's
six elements in a $50 set. That's about 8 dollars apiece.
Anything LEGO charges less than that will make the element less expensive
for me to buy. Say they charge a dollar a piece for those columns,
for something that costs them 10 cents to manufacturer. I buy
several hundred, I have bought in bulk "and paid a premium for it" but I
save dramatically in terms of the pieces I would have been forced
to buy.
LEGO will not price their bulk bricks so cheaply that you could
go and more cheaply buy the pieces yourself to make the same
model that is offered in a prepackaged set. You won't be able
to "cut out the middleman" to buy the pieces to make your own
x-wings for less than Walmart sells them. That is the premium
they will charge.
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?
No, not a price point between those two price points. They will price
bulk parts above both of those points, for everything beyond the most
basic of bricks ... which, if you're lucky, they MIGHT price at or below
bucket prices.
> 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?
Not every element produced in every color produced
will be available for purchase.
> 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?
It's fine by me if LEGO finds a way to fill this need. The "retrostation"
was wonderful. Rerelease the same set, in red rather than yellow. If I
did not own a metrostation, I would have bought a retrostation. If LEGO
wants to tap into our small but burgeoning market for old sets by rereleasing
them, great. They can do so, and offer them in their Shop at Home
direct mailings or on the web and will sell many hundreds of times more
than any AFOL would be able to manage to sell (selling a "competing" design
with more limited distribution and more limited marketing at a higher price).
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.
Fine by me. Parts are fungible. I bought the unique parts for the
guarded inn so I could make my own. I would not feel guilty about
selling it as a "guarded inn" if I had original instructions or a
box to go with it. And I would note in my auction or trade notice
that it was a "refurbished" model, in case some wonk cares.
> Adults don't know how to just play, they want to make money while they are at
> it.
One out of a hundred (or thousand) of us has the industry of a Todd. Or
a Larry.
> 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?
You would deny me the freedom to buy a custom castle set if someone
wanted to offer me one, if it was made of elements the creator had
bought from LEGO Direct. I resent that. If someone's got some
cool castles to sell me, I want to buy them. I will still buy LEGO's
castle offerings. And even if I didn't, the custom castle I bought
would be made with elements that LEGO sold *at a profit*.
> 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.
Surely it will. That's Brad Justus's job mandate, apparently.
Sell more LEGO. Enlist our help and cater to our desires enough
to extend the brand.
>
> 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!
[eyes agog] you'd rather Larry create his own competing line of
bricks rather than buy parts from LEGO (which they will only sell at
a profit). That's insane! Think that through. LEGO will profit
from the pieces they sell via LEGO direct (or, at the very
worst, they will sell at a loss as a marketing effort to help
prevent kids from outgrowing LEGO so they'll keep buying sets -
either way they profit. Anyone who turns into an AFOL buys more
LEGO for himself than he ever had bought for him as a kid).
A clone manufacturer takes sales away from LEGO in a way that a
custom model maker will *never* be able to do.
It's not a zero sum game. For a custom model maker to win, LEGO
does not need to lose. LEGO wins, too. They sell the pieces used.
They benefit from happy fans who will buy more stuff from them
in the long run. (A fan who gets tired of LEGO does not profit them
any. A happy LEGO collector is a purchasing LEGO collector.)
And the fans win by having more cool things to buy as we
get to take advantage of the creative industry of the most motivated
designers.
--
jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
