The Community Perspective on Reselling

tamamahm

LegoFanTexas said:

rocao said:

I think an underlying fundamental that determines where people fall in the reseller debate is compassion. First, let me be clear that I'm not saying resellers lack compassion. But what seems to vary is instances where it is felt, and to what degree.

Let's take the case of Minecraft shortages in the run up to Xmas last year. The reality of the shortage was that it affected everyone wanting the set: children, adult collectors, and resellers alike. Anti-resellers latch on to the situation where children are being deprived of the joy of a present. They seem to view this rather concretely and feel empathy, whereas some resellers approach this more abstractly saying the beneficiary is hypothetical and thus remain unattached. Resellers also have suggested that a parent will simply pay more if the desire is great enough, or buy a different present. I think both perspectives have merit, and there is a whole spectrum between, and I think that's why we have so many differing views.

Earlier this month I was making the rounds of Target clearance aisles. I didn't find much at the first couple stores but finally found 3x Mines of Moria for 50% off. As I was putting them into my cart, a middle aged man turned into the aisle hurriedly with an empty shopping cart and saw me. It was immediately clear to me that he was also there looking for clearance LEGO. He asked me in a somewhat crestfallen tone if I was going to buy all three. I told him "I was planning to... but you can have one." Were I not approached, I would have bought all three and not thought any more about it. It's quite certain that if I had left any, someone else would buy them, so I was opting to benefit rather than leaving it for someone else. So it would seem that, for me, compassion changes my behavior when presented with a real person rather than a hypothetical person.

In talking with the person at greater length, it turned out that his involvement with LEGO is similar to mine. He is a collector, builder, and reseller. He told me about his Amazon storefront. He told me that he was doing the same circuit of Target stores, and had gotten to each of the other stores just before me, so he actually manged a decent haul. All of a sudden, I didn't feel any empathy for him. Nothing had changed; it was still the same set at a $40 discount. But his usage was now known, and since he was effectively just asking that I hand over money, had I known, I probably wouldn't have.

Great story, thanks for sharing. I very much feel the same. I have done exactly that, shared sets in the isle with parents who are just looking for 1 of this or 1 of that, while I'm taking everything else.

So what's the difference between a hypothetical person and the real person in front of me? The real person in front of me is (usually) a parent looking for a deal on LEGO for their kid (very often the kids are with them).

If I share the set, odds are it will go to that kid. If I just leave them on the shelf, odds are they'll go to the next reseller in line. That may or may not be true everywhere, but I know it is here, I know I compete with other local resellers who do the circuit as well as I do, so frankly "Little Timmy" is likely to miss out regardless because multiple resellers are picking the stores.

I am just catching up with the last few hundred posts, but this stood out.

I had a similar experience as rocao, in that an individual I ran across was a very nice person. We were waiting to see if the employees were going to discount anything further that morning. After talking with her I realized she s a reseller, and was trying to conceal that fact, and trying to gain info from me. When I went to another Target later, I heard employees talking about this same individual and that she called about the markdowns, and how she comes in every year and buys a ton of stuff.
It was interesting to see how my perception changed.


In addition, LFT raises a very interesting point I have not thought of, and one that is coming more true around me. I generally buy one and leave the rest on the shelf. Lst year with the mine deal, I bought one for my nephew and left the rest. I went to a different walmart to pick-up one for my son. The first store was wiped by two hours later. I did not want to wipe the first store out in case a mom came in looking for one for her kid, but yeah... A reseller probably did grab them.

Crowkillers

mathew said:

prof1515 said:

The philosophy for buying and selling and just plain observing is simple. I'll just say it again with an addendum to cover potential conflict.

Buy early. Buy online. Shut the f up.

No problems if everyone followed this formula.

What happens when the box isn't mint?

I was wondering that too since it seems like many of the 41999 boxes were damaged from polybags, but checking on Ebay, it doesn't seem to matter as the damaged ones are getting the same money as the non damaged ones..

pvancil27

Crowkillers said:

pvancil27 said:

So you are advocating they change their entire business model to change the behaviors of a fringe minority.

Is it really a minority though..? I know quite a few people that have sets stockpiled in waiting...

If every single brickset member had a re-sale pile, we would still be a fraction of a percent of Lego's market. So yes, fringe minority.

wrangler6915

LegoFanTexas said:

Yes, that was very early on... I've since done quite a few deals here, on better terms, since no one was going to take the deal I offered you back then. :)

After all, my most recent offer was to trade FB and DS at retail price for retired sets for their current Bricklink value, same condition.

That is a pretty darn fair deal if you ask me, no fees and full current value trade. :)

Not quite the "fair deal" you assert to have provided. I was looking for a DS for trade, and you did of course offer one up...but would only trade for retired sets or current sets such as minecraft/technic that were hard to find and that you could re-sell. That's fine to set paremeters. But don't say it's a pretty darn fair deal, because you were not willing to take just any sets that have retired or just any current sets even if the bricklink value equated to the same $399.99 MSRP for the DS (who would ever buy at that value anyway?...but I digress).

You wanted a deal that would allow you to clear out inventory (i.e. you made a mistake/miscaluculation and bought too much or too early) of sets that you acquired at a discount. Yeah, I'll go out on a limb and postulate there is no way that you paid full MSRP plus tax for a room full of DS sets, particularly since you noted that "It was $247 delivered after redcard discount. Yea, that deal was hard to beat." in this forum. So, what you wanted was $400 worth of sets that were either rare and likely to command a premium or retired sets whose value was known and achievable. $400 minus $247 comes to $153...minus 15% paypal/shipping still nets $130, which is more than a 50% return on the initial $247.

It's fine to set a deal up like this, but c'mon...claiming it's "fair" is kinda a stretch. Someone can either pay full retail at $400 from Lego/TRU/Etc. or pay you $400. Either way, they spend $400...but neither you nor a retailer paid $400 to acquire it. So, either way, there is a profit made. Now, I don't know any store that claims to be "fair" in that they are seeking to make a profit. Re-sellers are generally also trying to profit. In this case, you are just transferring the potential profit from the retailer to reseller.

Plain and simple, you want to make a profit...which again is fine, but you can't then really claim "fairness" can you? Just my opinion, but that's taking some pretty grand liberties with the use of "fair"

Crowkillers

If that is the case, then why would TLC even be concerned with resellers..?

princedraven

^ Because some of their actions muddy their brand. Of course some of TLG actions muddy their brand too, but that is their prerogative.

prof1515

mathew said:

prof1515 said:

The philosophy for buying and selling and just plain observing is simple. I'll just say it again with an addendum to cover potential conflict.

Buy early. Buy online. Shut the f up.

No problems if everyone followed this formula.

What happens when the box isn't mint?

What does that have to do with it? I didn't say you had to buy just one. If mint is what you want, then look for a reseller who can confirm the quality of the box for you before you lay down the money. Thanks to modern technology there's really no obstacle to finding something if it exists.

LegoFanTexas

pvancil27 said:

So you are advocating they change their entire business model to change the behaviors of a fringe minority.

No, I'm pointing out that it is within TLG's power to do something about it and that all the pretty words and PR is just a bunch of hot air designed to make collectors and casual fans feel that TLG is "doing something" when they really aren't.

Frankly, if I was in TLG's position, I'd want resellers working with me and leaving the retail shelves alone, it also would give me some measure of control over the resellers since they would have something to lose by ignoring me.

Carrot and stick works well, stick alone does not.

margot

Coolsplash said:

I am a reseller as well a small one to be honest. I do flip for a quick buck, but being part of the community I try to help my brethren out as much as possible as that is what a community should do.

Wow, I'm curious now about the message you sent me about wanting me to get you spares of all my the deals I got from Walmart and you mentioned twice that this would be "for personal use". Glad I ignored your request since I'm guessing personal use meant personal use to sell and make a buck.

eta your request:
I am looking for these for personal collection:

Superman Black Hero Escape-$5
X-wing -$20
Bat cave-$35
Attack of the Wargs-$10
Sith Interceptor - $49
Goblin King battle-$30
Mines or Moria -$30
Stunt plane -$5
Weathertop

cheshirecat

Crowkillers exhibit number 1, minecraft. TLG did well from that set but they also got a lot of complaints and will have put off a lot of rare/first time buyers. TLG only get one chance to make a good first impression to potential buyers and with minecraft that was often bad, either thriugh stock availability or money for a small box from a reseller.

LegoFanTexas

rocao said:

I could ask you: "Serious question... do you always disregard what you're told when it suits you?" But that's insulting, so I won't.

Yes, except when I don't. :)

rocao said:

Did you read my analysis on the indicators for what number would be sufficient, and the additional constraints that might have resulted in the 20k production? It's more thorough than anything else I've seen presented. Feel free to counter it, but please at least have something to support it other than just saying they should have known it was not enough.

I missed it, can you point to the post number?

rocao said:

You can't point to how the set is performing after its release and say that is a concrete statement by TLG that they want the sets to go to resellers.

I never said they *wanted* the sets to go to resellers, I'm saying they *should have known* they would go to resellers.

Just like they should know the show exclusives go to resellers (mostly).

rocao said:

You can say "They should have known better", but that doesn't mean their stated intent is a ruse, and they are acting in an opposite manner. What it means is that they failed in achieving their intent.

No, I'm going to disagree with you here... I do believe that is exactly what it means, their intent is to see the aftermarket rise and thus make all of their products seem more valuable.

It is called the halo effect, it is the same reason Dodge makes the Viper, VW makes the Vyron, etc... those cars make no business sense, but they sure improve the host company's image.

20K copies of a set like this makes no sense, other than to create a huge price increase and buzz.

After all, we're still talking about it, it ended up on SlickDeals, didn't it? The amount of exposure this set gave TLG is priceless, it makes the whole product line look better, Technic even more so.

pvancil27

LegoFanTexas said:

pvancil27 said:

So you are advocating they change their entire business model to change the behaviors of a fringe minority.

No, I'm pointing out that it is within TLG's power to do something about it and that all the pretty words and PR is just a bunch of hot air designed to make collectors and casual fans feel that TLG is "doing something" when they really aren't.

Frankly, if I was in TLG's position, I'd want resellers working with me and leaving the retail shelves alone, it also would give me some measure of control over the resellers since they would have something to lose by ignoring me.

Carrot and stick works well, stick alone does not.

So you are saying if you where Lego you'd be a little more liberal with allowing small dealers to set up direct accounts? If so, I actually agree that that might solve SOME of the issues. But you yourself have said that when big box retailers offer 30-50% off that price is below wholesaler accounts. How would you prevent them from doing what they are doing now? And how would that prevent re-sellers from buying limited stock items like 41999 from their retail stores and other outlets like TRU/Amazon?

mathew

prof1515 said:

mathew said:

prof1515 said:

The philosophy for buying and selling and just plain observing is simple. I'll just say it again with an addendum to cover potential conflict.

Buy early. Buy online. Shut the f up.

No problems if everyone followed this formula.

What happens when the box isn't mint?

What does that have to do with it? I didn't say you had to buy just one. If mint is what you want, then look for a reseller who can confirm the quality of the box for you before you lay down the money. Thanks to modern technology there's really no obstacle to finding something if it exists.

Your philosophy that if you "Buy Early. Buy Online. Shut the F Up." is flawed then. For example, buying online does not guarantee a mint box. In fact I would argue that the only way to guarantee a mint box is to go to a brick and mortar store so that you can carefully examine the boxes. Try doing that with a brand new, limited edition set.

This reminds me of the fiasco last year when people were complaining about their Death Star sets from Walmart having shipping labels stuck to the box. They were getting a helluva' deal on an expensive set, but also expected white glove treatment.

cheshirecat

^^ and in a few posts hell explain he only wants to pick the good sets, the exclusives etc. so despite being a small reseller he wants better terms than the big stores with massive orders and bricks and mortar stores...

Lootefisk

LegoFanTexas said:

Crowkillers said:

A strict limit will not stop it entirely, but it will most certainly help it...

This is true... what would stop it... not to beat a red doodad horse... is to make a whole lot more than 20,000 of them...

All Lego would have to do would be to take pre-orders for something like 41999 to at least appear like they care about the casual customer. Take orders for a month or so and everyone that wants it gets it. As it is the 20,000 Limited Edition is nothing more than a publicity stunt/experiment to gain attention and determine if this is something to pursue in the future.

Crowkillers

cheshirecat said:

Crowkillers exhibit number 1, minecraft. TLG did well from that set but they also got a lot of complaints and will have put off a lot of rare/first time buyers. TLG only get one chance to make a good first impression to potential buyers and with minecraft that was often bad, either thriugh stock availability or money for a small box from a reseller.

Yeah, I know, this is exactly why I was as shocked as I was on July 31st when my buddy from Australia said that there was a 2 per customer limit of the 41999... I was also shocked at how cheap the boys down under were getting the sets for a change, which was a good thing, because I have quite a few friends over there... :)

LegoFanTexas

wrangler6915 said:

Not quite the "fair deal" you assert to have provided. I was looking for a DS for trade, and you did of course offer one up...but would only trade for retired sets or current sets such as minecraft/technic that were hard to find and that you could re-sell.

If you're going to call me out, I'll do the same.

I was specific when I stated "retired sets", I even said so in the post you just quoted.

It doesn't serve me in any way to swap one current set for another, why would I bother?

wrangler6915 said:

But don't say it's a pretty darn fair deal, because you were not willing to take just any sets that have retired or just any current sets even if the bricklink value equated to the same $399.99 MSRP for the DS (who would ever buy at that value anyway?...but I digress).

Nonsense, it is a perfectly fair deal.

First, it doesn't matter what I paid for my DS. Some of them I did pay full retail for, I've had 6 in my inventory for 2 years now, bought at the LEGO store for full price.

Second, some sets are recently retired that forum members got for 50% off or more. I'm not asking for them for what they paid, I'm asking for current market value. I did more than a dozen trades with people on this forum, mostly for just that stuff, clearanced items that I am not near.

The value for someone else in this deal is that they picked up sets for 50% off and I'm giving them perhaps 75% of the RRP, thus they are making 25% on their investment without any fees. On a DS, that is the same as getting it for $300, which is doable, but not very often.

So if you have a Walmart near you that does a great clearance, pickup $300 worth of sets and trade them to me for a DS. Instant 25% off discount. Helps you save $100 and helps me clear out stale inventory.

---------

Example:

#8092 - Luke's Landspeeder - lets say you found these a few months ago for $12.50 (which is what Walmart clearanced them for) each.

They are currently going for $25 on Bricklink. Ok, I'll give you that value, doubling your money without having to sell them 1 at a time.

$400 for a DS translates into 16 Luke's Landspeeders.

In that case, your out of pocket cost was $200 for a DS.

Yes, you can sell them 1 at a time for $25, but I'll trade a DS for 16 of them today.

And you think I'm being unfair with that deal? Really?

Crowkillers

I may not be 100% correct here, but I am almost positive that Lego was selling these 41999 sets at a loss... Thinking back to last fall when everything was coming out about them, I could have swore that it was mentioned that these were being produced as a negative sale for Lego, which also may explain the 20,000 limit... Not to mention it conflicting with their 9398 set..

Perhaps this is why they wanted to get them off of the shelves so quickly and didn't enforce stricter purchasing rules...

TheLoneTensor

rocao said:

tensor said:

This particular point has gotten lost in the shuffle, and @jasor beat me to it (doh), but something to remember is this. Assuming all is true, that is.

1) LFT broke guidelines, both known and hidden
2) Lego said "don't break those guidelines or we'll ban you"
3) LFT stopped breaking guidelines
4) Lego banned him
5) LFT appealed (a couple times)
6) Lego said "sorry, no can do" (a couple times)

If the string had stopped at 3, then you have every right to swarm him for being a hypocrite for buying 6. However, it didn't stop at 3, which means he was unfairly barbequed*, and now he's supposed to have continued loyalty to the company that barbequed* him? I know if someone barbequed* me, I'd be much less likely to respect anything they had to tell me.

Funny, I meant to respond to this, too, but was trying to right a sinking ship.

I said this at the time, and I think it bears repeating.

Purchasing from [email protected] is not a right, it is a privilege. It is a privilege extended by LEGO and they can terminate it at will if it is justified. A retailer banning a reseller has been ruled as legal and justified countless times in court. The information is available if you do a websearch. Examples of unjustified revocation are instances of prejudice such as race, religion, sex.

Because LegoFanTexas fell in line to observe the guidelines, does not mean that [email protected] was obligated to continue the relationship. They had previously identified him as a reseller, obtained verification from him, and at a later time decided that they no longer wanted to accept his business. This is their right.

Sure, I get it's a privilege, and I get that they had every right to ban him even though he fell into line. They have the right to ban me even though I did nothing (that I know of). They have the right to ban anyone they want for any reason for the most part. But honestly, what they did was d**kish, regardless of how "right" they may be, and to expect someone who was so barbecued to continue to respect their future wishes is really unrealistic.

prof1515

mathew said:

Your philosophy that if you "Buy Early. Buy Online. Shut the F Up." is flawed then.

No, it's not. Here's why....

mathew said:

For example, buying online does not guarantee a mint box. In fact I would argue that the only way to guarantee a mint box is to go to a brick and mortar store so that you can carefully examine the boxes. Try doing that with a brand new, limited edition set.

Sets in stores typically are handled a lot more and receive a good deal more wear and tear (or as it's also known for obvious reasons, "shelfwear"). With limited releases, the odds of finding a mint condition set at a brick-and-mortar store are even fewer since they have a much smaller number of them. Hence the best strategy is to look online and request as much information as possible including a good number of photos to ensure and confirm the box condition before buying. Be very specific and honest with the seller and don't hold back informing them that you require their word and will hold them to it on box condition as part of the deal.

That said, you are taking my comment out of context to apply to a more specific situation. The average person buying Lego is not looking for mint-condition box quality. As a result, simply buying one online at the earliest possible time is completely satisfactory in achieving their goal. The problem arises not from that strategy but rather from people *NOT* employing it. They wait, they try to find the sets in stores and they try to find discounts. Doing any of that is a good way to forfeit your chances of finding one.

mathew said:

This reminds me of the fiasco last year when people were complaining about their Death Star sets from Walmart having shipping labels stuck to the box. They were getting a helluva' deal on an expensive set, but also expected white glove treatment.

I don't buy Lego from eBay, WalMart or Amazon. I only buy it from Lego Shop-at-Home and occassionally from Entertainment Earth (as they have a mint guarantee) though I prefer Shop-at-Home and they account for over 95% of my orders.

pvancil27

tensor said:

rocao said:

tensor said:

This particular point has gotten lost in the shuffle, and @jasor beat me to it (doh), but something to remember is this. Assuming all is true, that is.

1) LFT broke guidelines, both known and hidden
2) Lego said "don't break those guidelines or we'll ban you"
3) LFT stopped breaking guidelines
4) Lego banned him
5) LFT appealed (a couple times)
6) Lego said "sorry, no can do" (a couple times)

If the string had stopped at 3, then you have every right to swarm him for being a hypocrite for buying 6. However, it didn't stop at 3, which means he was unfairly barbequed*, and now he's supposed to have continued loyalty to the company that barbequed* him? I know if someone barbequed* me, I'd be much less likely to respect anything they had to tell me.

Funny, I meant to respond to this, too, but was trying to right a sinking ship.

I said this at the time, and I think it bears repeating.

Purchasing from [email protected] is not a right, it is a privilege. It is a privilege extended by LEGO and they can terminate it at will if it is justified. A retailer banning a reseller has been ruled as legal and justified countless times in court. The information is available if you do a websearch. Examples of unjustified revocation are instances of prejudice such as race, religion, sex.

Because LegoFanTexas fell in line to observe the guidelines, does not mean that [email protected] was obligated to continue the relationship. They had previously identified him as a reseller, obtained verification from him, and at a later time decided that they no longer wanted to accept his business. This is their right.

Sure, I get it's a privilege, and I get that they had every right to ban him even though he fell into line. They have the right to ban me even though I did nothing (that I know of). They have the right to ban anyone they want for any reason for the most part. But honestly, what they did was d**kish, regardless of how "right" they may be, and to expect someone who was so barbecued to continue to respect their future wishes is really unrealistic.

I wasn't going to point this out, but we also have heard only LFT's version. It's possible he was told they they were not going to sell to him because ofwhat he did. He has "re-worded" things on this forum to sound better, so it is not out of the realm of possibility he made it sound like they asked nicely and he did what they asked as opposed to being told its done and not stating it that way.

LegoFanTexas

pvancil27 said:

So you are saying if you where Lego you'd be a little more liberal with allowing small dealers to set up direct accounts?

Yes...

pvancil27 said:

If so, I actually agree that that might solve SOME of the issues. But you yourself have said that when big box retailers offer 30-50% off that price is below wholesaler accounts. How would you prevent them from doing what they are doing now? And how would that prevent re-sellers from buying limited stock items like 41999 from their retail stores and other outlets like TRU/Amazon?

The discount offered to ITDs isn't large enough, that is the first problem. It is 30% on most products, but then you have to pay shipping. The discount is larger on Duplo, Creator, Technic, and a few other items, but even then it isn't enough. Normal retail markups are 100%. I have no doubt that Amazon/Target/etc. are paying, net, about 50% of RRP for most of what they buy (probably more for exclusives like DS). 40% off would work, but the current 30% isn't enough.

My first rule would be "no selling above RRP for current sets". Once a set is marked as retired on the [email protected] site, fair game. Before then, sell at RRP. This is legal if you have a contractual agreement, it is not if you don't.

Of course I'd love to tell TRU that as well, but TLG has no real power to do that, TRU is too big a customer.

My second rule would be, "no clearing retail shelves of current product". Order it direct from us like everyone else. This rule of course would get broken, but at least there is some enforcement that can be done, and those people who really break it can be expelled from the program.

My third rule? I'd simply tell everyone up front when sets are retiring. I think it is a mistake to make that info secret. If I, as a ITD, know that XYZ sets are retiring in 6 months, I can plan my ordering to have enough stock at retirement without clearing shelves two weeks before Christmas.

There are thousands of casual resellers, but not nearly as many serious resellers. Get the bigger ones in-house and a lot of problems can be controlled.

wrangler6915

^
@LegoFanTexas

Dude, c'mon! You sent me a PM:

"Current sets need to be something I can sell.

I'd of course take Minecraft, or store exclusives, or Technic, anything that isn't available everywhere."

Please don't portray me as making stuff up. And my point remains valid that you're not attempting to help people out by setting up a "fair" trade...you want to make a profit, which is fine. I'm just saying to call a spade a spade, and not try to twist things around like there is some hidden social agenda to better the world's collectors of Lego's.

But, re: your Walmart example, are you now saying you'd trade 16 landspeeders for a DS? How about a stash of Zurgs or PoP? If so, than I'll eat crow...

jasor

tensor said:

rocao said:

tensor said:

This particular point has gotten lost in the shuffle, and @jasor beat me to it (doh), but something to remember is this. Assuming all is true, that is.

1) LFT broke guidelines, both known and hidden
2) Lego said "don't break those guidelines or we'll ban you"
3) LFT stopped breaking guidelines
4) Lego banned him
5) LFT appealed (a couple times)
6) Lego said "sorry, no can do" (a couple times)

If the string had stopped at 3, then you have every right to swarm him for being a hypocrite for buying 6. However, it didn't stop at 3, which means he was unfairly barbequed*, and now he's supposed to have continued loyalty to the company that barbequed* him? I know if someone barbequed* me, I'd be much less likely to respect anything they had to tell me.

Funny, I meant to respond to this, too, but was trying to right a sinking ship.

I said this at the time, and I think it bears repeating.

Purchasing from [email protected] is not a right, it is a privilege. It is a privilege extended by LEGO and they can terminate it at will if it is justified. A retailer banning a reseller has been ruled as legal and justified countless times in court. The information is available if you do a websearch. Examples of unjustified revocation are instances of prejudice such as race, religion, sex.

Because LegoFanTexas fell in line to observe the guidelines, does not mean that [email protected] was obligated to continue the relationship. They had previously identified him as a reseller, obtained verification from him, and at a later time decided that they no longer wanted to accept his business. This is their right.

Sure, I get it's a privilege, and I get that they had every right to ban him even though he fell into line. They have the right to ban me even though I did nothing (that I know of). They have the right to ban anyone they want for any reason for the most part. But honestly, what they did was d**kish, regardless of how "right" they may be, and to expect someone who was so barbecued to continue to respect their future wishes is really unrealistic.

and, also to add to that: There is a commonality in opinion that if someone doesnt respect the wishes of TLG, they should respect the wishes of the community. That's a lot to hang on to one person, once they've done the "right" thing already with little positive outcome.

Conversely, there is an "entitlement" syndrome for some AFOLs in the community, where everyone needs to get what they want, always at RRP, within the parameters of the rules, and all will be good in the world. It's just not true. I wish it was. Believe me, if I have a chance to help someone at a store get the CMF they want, give a kid a head's up on a good set my family has, caution a parent of potential savings from one store or the next...I do it (and gladly).

If I see an opportunity to further my own cause...I do it. Human nature is a beast. I doubt there are very many AFOLs that have not benefitted personally in some way in their hobby, without a negative impact on someone else. Does it feel GOOD? Not unless you're a bit "dickish." Does it happen? You betcha.

"Only Sith deal in absolutes and ultimatums"

dougts

mathew said:

This reminds me of the fiasco last year when people were complaining about their Death Star sets from Walmart having shipping labels stuck to the box. They were getting a helluva' deal on an expensive set, but also expected white glove treatment.

Oh come on, that is ridiculous. there is a hell of a lot of gulf in between "white glove treatment" and "we're not even going to put the product in a box". People weren't expecting mint - but they were expecting normal shipping/delivery standard. And you know that, you are just trying to create a straw man here.

Crowkillers

wrangler6915 said:

If so, than I'll eat crow...

Hey now... XD

LegoFanTexas

Yes, I will trade 16 Landspeeders right now for a DS.

Which PoP sets? some are better than others.

What is a Zurg? That Toy Story thing? Bleah! :)

Heck, I still have a stack of Portal of Atlantis sets, but I'd take those in trade. There are very, very few exceptions to the rule, but of course there are some.

For example, I'm not interested in used sets, I received several offers for those.

wrangler6915

Crowkillers said:

wrangler6915 said:

If so, than I'll eat crow...

Hey now... XD

Sorry...how about humble pie then? Or is there someone named "humble" here?

pvancil27

LegoFanTexas said:

Yes...

Ok, I'm on board with you here.

LegoFanTexas said:

The discount offered to ITDs isn't large enough, that is the first problem. It is 30% on most products, but then you have to pay shipping. The discount is larger on Duplo, Creator, Technic, and a few other items, but even then it isn't enough. Normal retail markups are 100%. I have no doubt that Amazon/Target/etc. are paying, net, about 50% of RRP for most of what they buy (probably more for exclusives like DS). 40% off would work, but the current 30% isn't enough.

You understand 30% is the standard discount and big box retails negotiate larger discounts because the volume makes up for the margin? If you offer them to everyone at 50, Wal Mart is going to come with a we get it for 65% under RRP or you lose the shelf space. And they HAVE done that to companies.

LegoFanTexas said:

My first rule would be "no selling above RRP for current sets". Once a set is marked as retired on the [email protected] site, fair game. Before then, sell at RRP. This is legal if you have a contractual agreement, it is not if you don't.

How would you stop people from just buying and sitting on current set then? Or would you? If you wouldn't, couldnt that be construed as Lego simply helping to stock the secondary market?

LegoFanTexas said:

Of course I'd love to tell TRU that as well, but TLG has no real power to do that, TRU is too big a customer.

Same reason they and Wal Mart and Target and anyone other large box store gets a larger discount.

LegoFanTexas said:

My second rule would be, "no clearing retail shelves of current product". Order it direct from us like everyone else. This rule of course would get broken, but at least there is some enforcement that can be done, and those people who really break it can be expelled from the program.

And how would you enforce this?

LegoFanTexas said:

My third rule? I'd simply tell everyone up front when sets are retiring. I think it is a mistake to make that info secret. If I, as a ITD, know that XYZ sets are retiring in 6 months, I can plan my ordering to have enough stock at retirement without clearing shelves two weeks before Christmas.

I think that is reasonable for the most part. I think they are kind of doing that with the "retiring soon" tags. But I think it's also a fluid situation. As a business, if you plan to make 200000 red doodads and suspend production in 18 months, if you sell them fast, make a second run of 200000 and still see them selling well in 18 months, smart money is on continuing production. I think this is why FB is still here, it just sells too well to kill off. If you announce a retirement date it could bite you in the ass. Now if you wanted to mark sets on a sales list in a manner that says "This is your last chance to order this set" then that would be a little more reasonable IMO

LegoFanTexas said:

There are thousands of casual resellers, but not nearly as many serious resellers. Get the bigger ones in-house and a lot of problems can be controlled.

Problem is a lot of the really large ones got large because they ignored rules to begin with. I think (read: opinion) you'd find keeping the local systems in line harder then you think Gov. Tarkin.

I actually think it could help some of my issues that most people dont agree with (the Clearance clearing by mass resellers for example) but there are other issues that will come up. As Cheshirecat said, how would you handle the ones who want to order only large quantities of what they consider winners but want nothing to do with say TLR or Chima.

Hardrada

LegoFanTexas said:

Example:

#8092 - Luke's Landspeeder - lets say you found these a few months ago for $12.50 (which is what Walmart clearanced them for) each.

They are currently going for $25 on Bricklink. Ok, I'll give you that value, doubling your money without having to sell them 1 at a time.

$400 for a DS translates into 16 Luke's Landspeeders.

In that case, your out of pocket cost was $200 for a DS.

Yes, you can sell them 1 at a time for $25, but I'll trade a DS for 16 of them today.

And you think I'm being unfair with that deal? Really?

Well, you just said not so long ago that items should be evaluated at their current worth, not how much they were bought for. So in the above example value-wise you get the better deal. Because the 16x Landspeeders' secondary market value is 400 USD, but the Death Star's isn't. As it's still widely available in retail it can regularly be had at some discount. Don't know whether -20% is realistic (it probably is with some patience) but I'm sure -10% is.

So you get the better value while your trade partner gets the convenience of getting rid of several of his smaller sets in one go for a somewhat lower value (-10-20%).

LegoFanTexas

Hardrada said:

Well, you just said not so long ago that items should be evaluated at their current worth, not how much they were bought for. So in the above example value-wise you get the better deal. Because the 16x Landspeeders' secondary market value is 400 USD, but the Death Star's isn't. As it's still widely available in retail it can regularly be had at some discount. Don't know whether -20% is realistic (it probably is with some patience) but I'm sure -10% is.

So you get the better value while your trade partner gets the convenience of getting rid of several of his smaller sets in one go for a somewhat lower value (-10-20%).

You have GOT to be kidding me...

Really, there is just no pleasing some people.

You're just arguing to argue at this point.

DS does go on sale sometimes, but it isn't on sale today. Right now it will cost you $400 to get one, unless you can point to a current link, right now, where it is for sale for less.

chuxtoybox

What I'm personally finding scary about this thread is that I find myself agreeing with a lot of things that LFT is saying! LOL :}

Hardrada

LegoFanTexas said:

You have GOT to be kidding me...

Really, there is just no pleasing some people.

You're just arguing to argue at this point.

DS does go on sale sometimes, but it isn't on sale today. Right now it will cost you $400 to get one, unless you can point to a current link, right now, where it is for sale for less.

No, I'm not kidding you. I didn't say it was an unfair trade, only that you get more value out of it. Monetarily at least. I even mentioned the convenience of the other party which might be considered 'value', too. (And make the trade beneficial for your partner as well.)

And what does it matter whether DS is on sale at this very second unless it's an emergency and one needs it right now? Realities are that current, widely available sets can't really be sold at RRP by resellers only somewhat below and hence their secondary market value is lower than RRP. Basically that's what my reply was all about. I just wanted to point out that the worth of DS currently is not its RRP. Do you not agree with that?

When someone offers you 400 USD worth of retired sets for a DS I'm sure they don't think that they got 400 USD value for it but more like that it was an okay trade as though they could have gotten the DS for say 330 USD and sell the sets at 400 USD the convenience of getting rid of their sets at once was worth it.

LegoFanTexas

pvancil27 said:

You understand 30% is the standard discount and big box retails negotiate larger discounts because the volume makes up for the margin? If you offer them to everyone at 50, Wal Mart is going to come with a we get it for 65% under RRP or you lose the shelf space. And they HAVE done that to companies.

30% isn't normal in retail consumer goods. Electronics would be the one great exception, but almost everything else, 50% is standard.

I didn't say 50% off, I said 40%, leave the 50% to Walmart.

If they have to leave it at 30%, then have discount tiers. If I spend $100K, it is 33% off, 250K, 35% off, $1M, 38% off, 3M, 40% off, etc. (just example numbers)

pvancil27 said:

How would you stop people from just buying and sitting on current set then? Or would you? If you wouldn't, couldnt that be construed as Lego simply helping to stock the secondary market?

Of course I wouldn't try and stop them, that is really the whole point.

There are sets that I would sell at current retail if I was a ITD, there are others that I'd buy to hold for later.

The key is that I would get out of the shelf clearing business, that takes a lot of time and effort to do right. I'd much prefer to order directly from TLG.

pvancil27 said:

And how would you enforce this?

That is a conversation (and then some) unto itself...

One way is checks and balances, inventory tracking, business income tracking, etc. In return for a larger discount, some of my business information (including sales and income, what sold and when and for how much) can be shared back to TLG.

pvancil27 said:

I think they are kind of doing that with the "retiring soon" tags. But I think it's also a fluid situation. As a business, if you plan to make 200000 red doodads and suspend production in 18 months, if you sell them fast, make a second run of 200000 and still see them selling well in 18 months, smart money is on continuing production.

Maybe... maybe not... it depends on what TLG's relationships with its retailers are...

Perhaps there could be a 6 month notice, no dates until TLG has decided that 6 months from X date, a set is going away.

So right now, there would be no date for Palace Cinema for example, it is too new. However, if FB really is going away this Christmas, by now I'm sure TLG knows this, they could announce it.

American Girl does this and it works well for them.

pvancil27 said:

Problem is a lot of the really large ones got large because they ignored rules to begin with.

What information do you have that makes you think this?

Two years ago my local LEGO store was happy for me to shelf clear on Black Friday, took every last Emerald Night and Imperial Flagship, there were no limits then.

pvancil27 said:

I actually think it could help some of my issues that most people dont agree with (the Clearance clearing by mass resellers for example) but there are other issues that will come up. As Cheshirecat said, how would you handle the ones who want to order only large quantities of what they consider winners but want nothing to do with say TLR or Chima.

Clearance sales are not the same as taking all the Minecraft sets 2 weeks before Christmas.

After Christmas clearance sales are generally fair game because the stores WANT you to take it all. I have had the toy dept manager at Walmart bring me carts, help me load, and help bring it all out to the truck, she was ecstatic that I was making her life easier.

That is in no way, shape, or form, breaking the rules. :) you might not like it, but if the store dept manager actively helps me take it all, you can't say I'm doing anything wrong.

As for the "winners" and "losers" issue, it would be reasonable (and normal) to require ITDs to buy at least a little bit of everything, but the truth is some sets sell FAR better than others.

Keep in mind that orders need to be placed about 2-3 months in advance, and sets marked as retiring in 6 months need 4-5 months advance ordering, so TLG has plenty of time to make what is being order and not make what isn't being ordered.

After all, TLG itself has said they have the ability to change what they are producing in just 10 days, so 4 months notice should be plenty of time to produce to demand.

wagnerml2

pvancil27 said:

So you are advocating they change their entire business model to change the behaviors of a fringe minority.

Whether its a minority or not, TLG group's resurgence can be partially linked to the aftermarket value of their product. This is why they are succumbing more and more to the "exclusive" or "treasure hunt" approach. These types of products have both the collector and the re-seller salivating which creates the precise feeding frenzy TLG is aiming for.

@Legofantexas's example of the re-release of CC and GG is partially tongue in check because he knows it will never happen. Lego can ill-afford to mess with the aftermarket as the aftermarket value is what is partially driving their record profits.

Dad

cheshirecat said:

Dad said:

cheshirecat said:

Dad said:

I just can't see where the animosity comes from towards resellers. The haters talk about it as though it is a license to print money. Resellers will experience many lows. Bad judgement causing them to have money tied up in sets that don't retire, or sets that don't increase in value. Late night trips to clear the clearance isle to find someone got there before you or there was never anything to be had in the first place. Damaged stock, unscrupulous buyers etc.

Do people really expect them to leave the golden goose sat on the shelf just so anyone who wants one won't miss out?

take 41999 as an example, unless we assume that all those buying them on ebay are resellers investing then there are people being made to pay well over rrp for a set that would almost certainly still be in stock if not for resellers, and quite likely if not for resellers breaking the two limit. further dont cry and whine if lego ban you and then turn around and break the limit at the first opportunity. Buy as many FBs or DSs as you like, theres enough to go around, minecraft sets at christmas? if you cant see why some might see that as distateful then i genuinely pity you.

Then also dont spoil the hobby for others by turning every thread about a new set being released into a simple comodity, thats an exageration but with 41999 it certainly felt like that. This is a fan\collectors site and just like some like to collect sealed boxes, many have a real passion for the product opened or sealed and seeing it portrayed as just a means to make money withun hours of it being released will and does upset/annoy some people.

i think kevs point earlier about the response that ticket touts would get on a music fans site is spot on, some of us may seem like haters but compared to what that respinse would be were probably angels. to be clear im not a hater, my view has been modified by discussions like these.

@ Cheshirecat, Ok I see the relationship to the ticket touts and you have your opinion and others theirs but please don't pity me... My issue is that some of the people and if I am honest I am looking at you here, but am not meaning to single you out, think that it is quite acceptable to buy multiples of a set that are on offer with the intention of trading them with others. And I really cannot see how that is any difference whatsoever to buying for resale.

The outcome is still the same. Someone, somewhere does not get the chance to obtain that item because you bought multiples for your personal gain. The sets you are trading them for are not available on offer so you have bought them to enable you to get the sets you wanted 'on offer' You are indirectly making money from buying multiples by saving money. Would you agree?

And for the record I have no problem with either, I just find it hypocritical when people draw the line just in front of where they consider themselves to stand.

This might shock you but I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was wrong before and can now accept that there is even sone good in resellers doing that. There is a service, there is value added and there is also risk on the resellers part. If it's discounted it's been widely available so those that want it should have it already.

Hey, and I respect you for saying that. The only thing I disagree on ( sorry ) is that resellers provide a service. I resell and I think I offered to help you out with a #9516 ? But, frankly, it did suit me. There was going to be no profit in it but I had grabbed too many of them and I was travelling near to where you are so I thought of you.

BUT, I resell for financial gain, that is the sole reason and I think any reseller who claims they provide a service are kidding themselves. The only way I justify some of my actions to myself is ' that I put the effort in ' Just being honest here.

I actually think you guys who do more of the trading provide a better and certainly a lot more ethical service .

Pitfall69

Crowkillers said:

wrangler6915 said:

If so, than I'll eat crow...

Hey now... XD

That's funny.

As to being fair. @wrangler6915 It doesn't matter what you paid for a Lego set or ANY item. If I got an extra Lego set on my birthday or whenever, I got it free, correct? Does this mean I should trade you my set and get nothing in return because I paid nothing for it? Have you ever seen "Barter Kings"? If you haven't, then maybe you need to take a look because they never pay cash for anything. They take an item and advertise it and see if the person has something in value they can trade for. Example: They have a $500 fishing reel and eventually keep trading up until they get a $15,000 Horse Trailer or something like that. So, what you paid for an item has nothing to do with anything.

With the current economic situation here, a lot of people are bartering for items they want. If you have a you couch that you don't need and paid $500 for and you need a tent for a trip that is only worth $200. You would trade the couch for the tent.

The same can be said for garage sales. I had a guy that said he paid $100 for the box of Lego that he had for sale. I offered him $20. He got loud and I walked away.

LegoFanTexas

And it works both ways... It was actually SSD that was $254 delivered, DS has not been below $289

And since Luke's Landspeeder was $12.50, how about we do at cost trading?

$289 / $12.50 works out to 23.2 copies of Luke's Landspeeder. Yes, I like that deal better. :)

cheshirecat

@Dad sure your reason might not be to provide a service but there is one.

chuxtoybox

prof1515, (if you read this, but anyone can respond)

From what I'm understanding you like to collect sealed sets that are in as NM condition as possible. What is your view on graded Lego sets? It seems to me that a collector such as yourself would benefit from sets sealed and graded like comic books are. I am not arguing or attacking you. You have shown me yet another aspect of Lego enthusiasm that I never knew of and I have learned MANY different aspects of Lego from Brickset, which is why I love it!

cheshirecat

^^ and how have i ended up trying to persuade a reseller of the communal benefit of reselling? how did that happen!?!?

jon_k

The hate, for the want of a better word towards re sellers will never go away, as the fact is they are there to make a fast £/$, and that`s it, its plain and simple economics, they see an opportunity and the result is something that had a RRP is suddenly inflated to a price they see fit, they remind me a lot like touts..

To try have a reasonable conversation with a re seller in my opinion is a waste of time, as they may have what your looking for and you are going to have to dam well pay it if you want it, or weigh up is it really worth what they say, who knows..

I dont think TLG should tell us when sets are going to be retired, just let the series run its course .

Still this debate will run and run,


Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power

wagnerml2

I've gotta get out of here and get some work done. This dumpster fire of a thread has consumed the majority of my day. WHYYYYY???? I will NOT hit the refresh button for at LEAST an hour.

Dad

cheshirecat said:

^^ and how have i ended up trying to persuade a reseller of the communal benefit of reselling? how did that happen!?!?

I've absolutely no idea!

Hardrada

LegoFanTexas said:

And it works both ways... It was actually SSD that was $254 delivered, DS has not been below $289

And since Luke's Landspeeder was $12.50, how about we do at cost trading?

$289 / $12.50 works out to 23.2 copies of Luke's Landspeeder. Yes, I like that deal better. :)

I'm a bit confused. Is this a reply to one of my posts? Because I don't see the connection. (But I don't see any other posts to which it might apply better.)

pillpod

I think it might've been an addendum to pitfall's post (above LFT's).

Pitfall69

wagnerml2 said:

I've gotta get out of here and get some work done. This dumpster fire of a thread has consumed the majority of my day. WHYYYYY???? I will NOT hit the refresh button for at LEAST an hour.

Liar!!!

LegoFanTexas

wagnerml2 said:

I've gotta get out of here and get some work done. This dumpster fire of a thread has consumed the majority of my day. WHYYYYY???? I will NOT hit the refresh button for at LEAST an hour.

I have to call you out here for something that I feel crosses the line.

Posting something that was in a private message onto the public forum is, at the very least, very tasteless...

I have flagged that for the admins, we'll see what they say. I almost never do that, but really, stuff that I sent you privately is not subject for public consumption. There is an expectation of privacy in something called a "private message" sent between two people.

Even if it isn't harmful in this case, it is not a habit that should be started and needs to be stopped.

Pitfall69

Posting exerpts from private messages is completely wrong. I just saw the post. It got lost in all the other nonsense.

pvancil27

LegoFanTexas said:

30% isn't normal in retail consumer goods. Electronics would be the one great exception, but almost everything else, 50% is standard.

I didn't say 50% off, I said 40%, leave the 50% to Walmart.

If they have to leave it at 30%, then have discount tiers. If I spend $100K, it is 33% off, 250K, 35% off, $1M, 38% off, 3M, 40% off, etc. (just example numbers)

30% is Lego standard though. (Or rather it's what you stated as the standard so I am going with that.) Without seeing their sheets, i can not say if 40% is unreasonable or not. I know they have tended to not shift production to China to reduce manufacturing costs which could explain the lesser discount. The issue remains the same with Wal Mart, if you discount product for others, they expect a greater discount by a set amount. They have told companies before you are going to give us this discount/change your packaging type/size or you lose the spot. It wouldnt shock me if you dropped the regular discount to 40%, they would expect you to drop theirs by 5-10% as well.

That said, I don't think a tiered system is a bad idea, so I'm with you here.

LegoFanTexas said:

Of course I wouldn't try and stop them, that is really the whole point.

There are sets that I would sell at current retail if I was a ITD, there are others that I'd buy to hold for later.

The key is that I would get out of the shelf clearing business, that takes a lot of time and effort to do right. I'd much prefer to order directly from TLG.

You would, but I also really do believe you that you are a huge lego fan still. Problem is most large re-sellers are not. So the shelf clearing probably would not stop because they are going to go clear other items. And the chances of them going "Leave the lego, I have a direct account" is slim, because they will use your logic of "If I leave it, another re-seller will take it."

LegoFanTexas said:

That is a conversation (and then some) unto itself...

Yes, it really is, but I think in general it's worth looking at at it's basic level in terms of this line of thinking.

LegoFanTexas said:

One way is checks and balances, inventory tracking, business income tracking, etc. In return for a larger discount, some of my business information (including sales and income, what sold and when and for how much) can be shared back to TLG.

Now you are talking about having to have a staff to scan the secondary market looking for abnormalities. But even then, a smart re-seller will not make it obvious. If you buy 10 41999's for example after TLG tells you you can order 4 direct, you won't list 14 on your website or Amazon store if you are not a dope. You sell them on ebay under a second name. There is also no way to keep track local sales short of them reporting true numbers, but if they are willing to break the rules to earn more, what is there to make you think they won't doctor their books.

LegoFanTexas said:

Maybe... maybe not... it depends on what TLG's relationships with its retailers are...

And those relationships dictate a lot of what TLG does. Small retailers and ITDs just get whats left.

LegoFanTexas said:

Perhaps there could be a 6 month notice, no dates until TLG has decided that 6 months from X date, a set is going away.

So right now, there would be no date for Palace Cinema for example, it is too new. However, if FB really is going away this Christmas, by now I'm sure TLG knows this, they could announce it.

American Girl does this and it works well for them.

We both agree there should be some warning of some type. Just the how is a little different. I wouldn't set a retirement date as much as "This is YOUR last chance to order sets X, Y and Z." But if Wal Mart says "we still want set X for next christmas, you are not looking bad for setting a false retirement date.

LegoFanTexas said:

What information do you have that makes you think this?

MOST (not all) large business get the way they are by aggressive business practices. Wal MArt is a great example, they were a solid retailer on par with K Mart until the 80's When the kids took over they started aggressive expansion and a business model built on destroying their competition. This grew the Super Wal-Mart concept that has taken over. They got a large enough market share that they can now bully distributors into what they want. In this case I am purely speculating on that logic.

LegoFanTexas said:

Two years ago my local LEGO store was happy for me to shelf clear on Black Friday, took every last Emerald Night and Imperial Flagship, there were no limits then.

And that's why I softened my opinion on the shelf clearing and as such have not used it as an argument. I PERSONALLY still think it's greedy, but it's not wrong by the rules set forth.

LegoFanTexas said:

Clearance sales are not the same as taking all the Minecraft sets 2 weeks before Christmas.

Completely agreed

LegoFanTexas said:

After Christmas clearance sales are generally fair game because the stores WANT you to take it all. I have had the toy dept manager at Walmart bring me carts, help me load, and help bring it all out to the truck, she was ecstatic that I was making her life easier.

That is in no way, shape, or form, breaking the rules. :) you might not like it, but if the store dept manager actively helps me take it all, you can't say I'm doing anything wrong.

Yep, you are right. I can question the ethics of it, but not the legality. And I will assume questioning the ethics is a debate that neither of us want to get into again. THAT is where opinions wouldn't change.

LegoFanTexas said:

As for the "winners" and "losers" issue, it would be reasonable (and normal) to require ITDs to buy at least a little bit of everything, but the truth is some sets sell FAR better than others.

But would the requirement to purchase "loser" sets outweigh the ability to purchase winners directly? Or rather would the potential losses or overhead costs make the benefit of a direct account not worth it. Again, remember, if LEgo produces 50000 red doodads, and Wal-Mart orders 48000, TRU 10000 and small accounts 5000, The small accounts are the one's getting no red doodads. But they will get the 1000 purple and blue doodads that they just had to order. which brings me too...

LegoFanTexas said:

Keep in mind that orders need to be placed about 2-3 months in advance, and sets marked as retiring in 6 months need 4-5 months advance ordering, so TLG has plenty of time to make what is being order and not make what isn't being ordered.

After all, TLG itself has said they have the ability to change what they are producing in just 10 days, so 4 months notice should be plenty of time to produce to demand.

True, but it costs money to change production, in terms of time and labor. So they try not to for the most part to keep costs down. I would assume their 10 day quote is an extreme situation. As we saw with the Minecraft thing there is still a delay.


Overall I agree that LEgo letting non B&M seller accounts to get set up could solve some of the issue, but I also think the fact they don;t allow lego re-sellers to set up accounts (IE they don;t want to be the sole product) is a pretty strong statement about where they put re-sellers on their hierarchy.

I do think this has been a solid discussion though.