| |
>
> ...Related to Magic though was the big disaster they had with Antiquities (at
> least I think it was Antiquities), where the distribution of cards was not
> random. Apparently someone at the card plant screwed up and the sorting didn't
> work out the way it was supposed to.
>
> ...This kind of sorting/randomizing is a big part of any "collectible" product
> like the Bionicle masks... so perhaps we are just seeing an example of it
> (specially since LEGO does not have much history in the random/collectible
> aspect of distribution)...
>
> ...The other thought is that they may be solving the "random" aspect of it by
> rolling out parts of the line at different times (which IIRC Decipher did with
> one of their CCG lines... its a bad way to "randomize" the selection, but it
> does work). So maybe we just haven't seen the distribution of the other colours
> yet?
> ---
> wubwub
> wubwub@wildlink.com
> www.sitcatsit.com <-- a guy and his cat
> www.wildlink.com <-- the wildlinks
>
> < INSERT HUMOROUS TAGLINE HERE >
Actually the handling of Magic in the early days carries a few messages that
I think Lego might do well to study carefully.
The problem with Antiquities was an over-abundance of common cards and poor
planning of how they would be inserted into packs. The result was that
people would open up packs and get 2 of the same common card in a pack of 8
cards (6 commons). In response to this, Wizards of the Coast offered to buy
back common Antiquities at (I think) fifteen cents each.
The other big problem they had was with the very next expansion, Legends.
The sheets of uncommon cards were split in half, and entire cases (not just
boxes or packs) were packed containing only half the uncommons. The result
was that a store (or collector) could buy a case or more of Legends and
never see half the uncommon cards. To fix it, Wizards allowed people to send
in a batch of uncommons for one side and request cards from the other side.
The other interesting thing is how the control of information evolved over
time. In the early days of Magic, the sets were simply released. No
information was given about rarity or even what cards were in the set. The
only source of this was individuals or groups who compiled it themselves.
Soon, Wizards starting releasing official card lists, eventually doing it
even before the cards hit stores. Later, they started putting small numbers
on the cards (e.g., 33/145). They also started putting a color code on the
card to tell you if it was common, uncommon or rare.
So what might Lego learn from this?
1. Publish a complete lists of the masks, indicating rarity. Anybody who
cares should know exactly what they have a chance of getting in a pack. From
some of the comments on this list, doing this could have prevented a world
of bad feelings among your customers.
2. If indeed the mix is as bad as some people say, consider a trade-in
program or some other action to correct it.
3. If it's feasible, find a way to indicate set completion (like the card
numbers) and rarity on the mask. This benefits kids who might otherwise get
ripped off trading a rare mask for a common one they just hadn't seen yet.
This happened a lot in the early days of Magic and gave it a bad reputation
for some people.
Kurt
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
