Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
When I followed the link to the article, I got a 'warning' lightbox telling me I needed to 'upgrade' from firefox to IE.
Kind of put me off reading the article, but guess I will.
Good article, like the comments about how they conciously dont develop new pieces for the AFOL sets. V pleased to hear that.
Not sure sure about high end sets not being impulse buys though :)
Interesting also that "Part of the attraction is that they're a very high-touch product."
The most interst bit actually is when Jamie says "buyers are also coming to understand .... Lego, meanwhile, tends to retain its value .... If you can think of so many other things you can buy in the world for $500, how many of them will you still have in five years?" he says. "You can go on eBay and see that a Lego set you had 10 years ago is at least worth its value today, if not more."
So essentially, Jamie is acknowledging that the resale value is part of the appeal. Very interesting given some of the discussions we've had recently about whether Lego would re-release stuff if it risked undermining the resale market. The answer would seem to be "Not if Jamie gets his way" (and he must hold some high level of influence given that he hard to persuade them to start the modular line which is obvioulsly successful for them).
Re-releasing the UCS MF for example would remove the crazy high prices of the resale market but the inherent value of the bricks would still be there plus still some collectability (sp?) - at about the original rrp or even slightly higher.
I don't believe any exec at lego wouldn't look at the current price of the MF and not think that they either did a bad job marketing it, under produced it or were too quick to EoL it. If they found a container full of them they would certainly sell them, can't imagine anyone would disagree with that, would it be so different to produce a few more?
Re your other points, I guess at this point I should refer you to the other discussion, but I can't find it! It was about the possibility of re releasing cafe corner and covered these types of points in a lot of depth.
I read the article like cheshirecat, that as more and more AFOLs come out of their dark ages, start families, spend more disposable income, LEGO has sustained its inherent value, in contrast to the majority of electronic gadgets becoming obsolete and junky. 'If you can think of so many other things you can buy in the world for $500' - the $500 is referring to the CDN price for the Death Star. I think he acknowledges that heck, LEGO is expensive, but it is such a good brand/toy that you can build, play, and store it away, and come back years later to see that its monetary value (sentimental value is impossible to price) is still much the same. Can you say the same for your first gen iPod?
I think LEGO is much too busy looking forward to what's next and new and fun than to concern themselves about the appreciation of past sets.