The Community Perspective on Reselling

dougts

@SirKevbags
I certainly believe it, and I think most of us here do. What we dispute is what LEGO is hoping to try to accomplish, and their actual ability to do so.

I'd also add that it isn't like these discounts were hugely easy to come by or could even possibly amount to a large amount of discounted stock in reseller hands. You had conventions once per year per city, and a pretty limited supply of exclusive stock on hand. At my store, maybe 100-150 total exclusives sold during convention discount per year. this is a drop in the bucket of reseller stock, and the reality is most of that was NOT going to resellers do to limits. You had Lug Showcase discounts - 5 items per month per store. This is 50-100 per year, depending on how many exclusives were bought and how many collaborative builds were done. And again, most of these were already going to non-resellers. One store/opening master build event per store per year, with 20 or so volunteers. Again, limited to stock on hand. Ok, so now you are up to maybe 300 exclusives per store per year sold at one of these disounts - worst case. And we know at least half of these, likely much more, were going to consumers (AFOLs), not into the reseller market.

So, the number of discounted exclusive sets that could possibly have gotten into the reseller market over the course of the year would be absolutely *DWARFED* by the number of discounted exclusive sets sold by Amazon, TRU, Target, Walmart, etc. orders of magnitude difference.

In fact, the opportunity for abuse to happen in the employee discount arena is much much higher than it would be through the various limited opportunity AFOL discount programs. Now, there is obviously a built-in penalty for abusing the emplyee discount program, but it would be difficult or impossible to enforce, and among thousands of store employees, it is certain to have been a regular occurrence.

It's no doubt that someone high up at LEGO is having a major fixation on stamping down reselling, but that doesn't mean all the various "fixes" being put in place are logical, or even going after the major source of the problem. Perhaps that is why they are trying the "kill them all" approach. But if they can't get the big 4 to stop discounting the exclusives, they really aren't going to accomplish anything other than hurting AFOLs and/or shifting sales from LBR to other retailers.

LegoFanTexas

dougts said:

What we dispute is what LEGO is hoping to try to accomplish, and their actual ability to do so.

^ This, in a nutshell...

vitreolum

rocao said:

I don't know the exact law, but businesses have the right to refuse service as long as they aren't based on discrimination (race, religion, appearance, etc).

If you do a web search, I think about 50 million hits will show you this is the case.

Yes, every business has the right to choose their customers, but that is applied differently. They have the right to refuse selling to a customer, but not to take legal action against a customer for buying it AFTER selling the product. So all they can do based on that is what they already did, ban some resellers from their store.

The same way a bar can refuse to serve a drunk customer, but cannot sell him a beer then throw him out.

LegoFanTexas

rocao said:

I don't know the exact law, but businesses have the right to refuse service as long as they aren't based on discrimination (race, religion, appearance, etc).

In general, yes they do.

However, the reality is that enforcing such restrictions is nearly impossible.

All such enforcement ends up doing is hurting your good customers.

---------

As an side... I totally understand why there is a limit of 2 on #41999, being a limited edition set, but I don't understand why there is a limit of 2 on Ewok Village or Sydney Opera House, which TLG can make an unlimited number of both.

First, the problems of resellers with #41999 are totally self-inflicted by TLG, if they didn't expect resellers to swarm over it, then they are incompetent.

Second, they should know that there is an overseas market, I know a local reseller who buys up exclusives and ships them to Hong Kong, China, etc... He does that because TLG has created a market for it due to their pricing and regional supply policies.

Again, that is within the power of TLG to correct.

So really, TLG is just sleeping in the bed that they made. All of their problems are correctable by changing their policies of pricing and production, almost none of them are correctable by the actions they are currently taking.

Crowkillers

dougts said:

@SirKevbags
I certainly believe it, and I think most of us here do. What we dispute is what LEGO is hoping to try to accomplish, and their actual ability to do so.

Great Point

Lego can sit back and enjoy watching people pay $100's of dollars over the retail price of their product that they just released... What other building toy(or other regular) toy company can also say that..?

SirKevbags

@dougts I agree with you. People attending afol events, spending time and money to produce showcase models to promote the brand were not reselling on mass. The purchases made were a drop in the ocean. That only makes it harder to stomach though when were told its being taken away because of reselling.

dougts

LegoFanTexas said:

As an side... I totally understand why there is a limit of 2 on #41999, being a limited edition set, but I don't understand why there is a limit of 2 on Ewok Village or Sydney Opera House, which TLG can make an unlimited number of both.

I make this point all the time. New items, limited supply items, and sales/clearance items - limit them by all means. But once your inventory and restocking outstrip demand, why wouldn't you sell me 10 of something at full price? That's just - kind of insane. I can't think of other companies that do that

LegoFanTexas said:

Second, they should know that there is an overseas market, I know a local reseller who buys up exclusives and ships them to Hong Kong, China, etc... He does that because TLG has created a market for it due to their pricing and regional supply policies.

Oh they know. And I actually think it's the overseas reselling they are really targeting here, since they don't want to give up their super margins in those places.

LegoFanTexas said:

Again, that is within the power of TLG to correct.

exactly. They just did this with the Australian market by lessening the price discrepancy and offering free shipping. Boom, they immediately kill off the resale to Australia trade (at least on single non-bulk sales). They could do this in other regions too if they really wanted to.

LegoFanTexas said:

So really, TLG is just sleeping in the bed that they made. All of their problems are correctable by changing their policies of pricing and production, almost none of them are correctable by the actions they are currently taking.

This

Pitfall69

Wow. I missed a lot. Reading through all of this I have gathered a few things:

People will have their views and nothing we do or say will change their views, at least in this forum.

Everyone has a different moral compass. We all come from different countries and different upbringings. Laws are different from country to country. What is illegal in Germany may be legal in Spain. Here in the US. Laws differ from state to state, county to county, city to city, town to town. To expect to agree on everything is insane.

As far as circumventing limits and buying up Lego on clearance; one would have to judge each scenario on a case by case basis.

If @Legoboy, @rocao and @LegoFanTexas message me to pick up some sets at a Lego store because they are unable to and the store manager tells me there's a limit of 2; who do I give the second one to? Do I circumvent the limits to aquire 4 sets so we are all happy?

If I am at a clearance shelf and the same people ask for me to get them a set on clearance and there are only 4 left; do I clear the shelf or do I leave one? What to do?

I can't go through life worrying about every decision I make. I will go crazy. Life isn't fair and I don't think it is meant to be.

dougts

SirKevbags said:

@dougts I agree with you. People attending afol events, spending time and money to produce showcase models to promote the brand were not reselling on mass. The purchases made were a drop in the ocean. That only makes it harder to stomach though when were told its being taken away because of reselling.

which makes the decision all the more illogical. "We want to stop reselling, and we think we are going to do it by keeping a couple thousand discounted sets a year out of the resale market" Okay...

Legoboy

^ ....and I was doing so well not coming in here. What you have to call on me for?

Pitfall69

@Legoboy because that's how I roll ;)

nkx1

rocao said:

I don't know the exact law, but businesses have the right to refuse service as long as they aren't based on discrimination (race, religion, appearance, etc).

If you do a web search, I think about 50 million hits will show you this is the case.

Refusing "service", which in this instance is actually selling someone a product, is a separate concept from selling your product to someone and then suing them for reselling it. I was referring to the latter.

In any case, it's probably not worth our time further discussing this hypothetical scenario, as Lego hasn't made any attempt to sue resellers at this point (at least that I'm aware of). I just wanted to point out that, just like LFT highlighted, suing individuals is a lot easier said than done, and it probably wouldn't be worth the effort in this case for a myriad of reasons.

Legoboy

^^ Stop it! My counter has just reset....again! I did at least have 'one' for a second.

Crowkillers

Lego would first have to have each set box stamped "Not for Resale"

SirKevbags

I was vocal back in January within the LUG about how unjust the decision was. I must have said five pages back we were caught in the crossfire. Despite the stupidity of the decision though it was made and the reasons given as justification are not going to do anything for positive opinions towards resellers.

rocao

Let's not get too sidetracked about the removal of exclusive discounts since there's already an active thread for that. The reason it was mentioned was because the perception is that rules are being enacted that affect the entire community that were the result of a subset of it, and even people outside the community.

TLG is definitely in the process of hearing our vocal protest to this plan. It remains to be seen if they will observe any financial protest.

But, if the rule, no matter how poorly constructed it is, was a result of certain individuals in our community, I think it's justified to cast a light on this. Whether or not those individuals feel any accountability is up to them.

Crowkillers

I had heard stories of LUGs that got caught reselling LUG Bulk parts on Bricklink...

I look at some of the German Technic dealers at Bricklink and wonder where in the Hell they are getting these huge quantities of parts from at waaaaay less than they can be purchased from Lego... And they aren't coming from parted out sets...

Legoboy

Pitfall69 said:

@Legoboy because that's how I roll ;)

Equally, I'm now getting questioned privately what relationship I have with you. What have you done? You can't be spreading nasty rumours like this??

Community, listening? I have nowt to do with this terrible person.

LostInTranslation

Crowkillers said:

I had heard stories of LUGs that got caught reselling LUG Bulk parts on Bricklink...

I look at some of the German Technic dealers at Bricklink and wonder where in the Hell they are getting these huge quantities of parts from at waaaaay less than they can be purchased from Lego... And they aren't coming from parted out sets...

Could be from Legoland Germany. I didn't look too closely at what Technic parts they had in stock when I was there. But it is conceivable they came from there. I've seen German BL sellers with huge stock of pearl gold 2x2 tiles which are in short supply in sets. But I picked up some from the Factory shop at Günzburg, so mystery solved :-)

Crowkillers

^ Interesting.. I didn't know that any of the Legoland parks carried Technic stuff..

pvancil27

rocao said:

But, if the rule, no matter how poorly constructed it is, was a result of certain individuals in our community, I think it's justified to cast a light on this. Whether or not those individuals feel any accountability is up to them.

I've avoided posting in that thread because I didn't think it was the right place, but I mostly agree. I actually think there is some other factors going into their decision, but I do think the reselling aspect is a major part of it. I've tried to point out that there is some blame to resellers but consistently get told I'm attacking people or flat out told I'm wrong. Maybe I just don't word myself well or maybe people just assume I have some irrational hate but I'm glad to see at least some others coming to a similar point of view, if only to help me not think I'm totally out of line.

Pitfall69

Legoboy said:

Pitfall69 said:

@Legoboy because that's how I roll ;)

Equally, I'm now getting questioned privately what relationship I have with you. What have you done? You can't be spreading nasty rumours like this??

Community, listening? I have nowt to do with this terrible person.

I was picking names at "random". Don't fret, but if you keep it up, I'm putting the set meant for you back on the shelf...better yet, I will give it to @LegoFanTexas, so he can sell it to you for 3x the price ;)

rocao

Going back to my hypothetical scenario, I, too, would give the set to the person that wants to build it.

I am a hobby reseller. I do not think reselling is immoral. I have cleared a shelf of clearance LEGO before. I do not think that is immoral.

Yet, I personally feel, at its root, LEGO should be used and enjoyed. If I had to choose between two parallel realities where 1) LEGO had no real value and every set was opened to be built or 2) LEGO was a commodity with great value but no set was ever opened, I would choose the first. Similarly, in a world where LEGO ceased to exist, I feel the greatest loss would be that there would no longer be built LEGO. Those that derive income from LEGO could find another investment vehicle.

Giving the set to the customer who will build it satisfies this belief. It isn't an issue of morality or legality.

As a reseller, is this hypocritical of me? You might think so, but I don't see it that way. Instead, I think it's purely selfish of me. My preference for scenarios are: I profit >> end-user gets LEGO with no mark-up, no reseller profits > some other reseller profits, end-user gets LEGO with mark-up

Interestingly enough, @dougts, @LegoFanTexas, and I all said we would give the set to the end-user and not a reseller. We have more compassion for the end-user.

Is it no surprise then that there are people on this forum who aren't resellers who also have the same compassion and thus shape their views about how reselling negatively affects it and either speak out against it or prefer not to hear about it?

Legoboy

^^ He's already got 6!

Pitfall69

Legoboy said:

^^ He's already got 6!

That's right. I have none :(

greenwithenvy

Why are so many people really in an uproar about reselling Lego? They're plastic pieces. Most of you didn't even care in 1997 when Lego almost folded. They're magical plastic pieces that most of us enjoyed as children and/or missed out with, but at the end of day it's just plastic. Think about all the collectibles in the world. Lego is no different; CDs, paper dolls, bicycles, glassware, video games, bottle caps, you name it.

For all of you who despise resellers, please lobby Lego to never discontinue another set. That'll solve all your emotional turbulence if you got your way. Another suggestion would be to order that set Lego just put out before it is EOL'd. This assumes you haven't won the battle against Lego to indefinitely make all sets.

For all of the resellers, keep selling. I'm glad you're here. I've bought many sets that you just can't get anymore; vintage sets, recent EOL'd sets. If it weren't for buyers and/or collectors, there'd be nothing to sell. So until buyers stop buying any collectible, there will ALWAYS be sellers.... ask eBay or Bricklink if you disagree.

Pitfall69

^again, I don't think it it so much the reselling aspect that people have an issue with, but certain behaviors.

greenwithenvy

@Pitfall69, I understand your point, but when I'm a buyer, I can choose not to purchase something I think is overpriced. It's not the sellers more than the buyers. It's a 50/50 relationship. If a reseller wants 10x RRP I don't have to buy it, but when I do I set a precedent. Folks are asking $1000 USD for 41999s on eBay right now. No one is biting. As soon as someone does, well, now we have a price setting precedent. Buyers' behavior is just as much in question here. Equally so.

Would you agree?

pvancil27

greenwithenvy said:

Why are so many people really in an uproar about reselling Lego? They're plastic pieces. Most of you didn't even care in 1997 when Lego almost folded. They're magical plastic pieces that most of us enjoyed as children and/or missed out with, but at the end of day it's just plastic. Think about all the collectibles in the world. Lego is no different; CDs, paper dolls, bicycles, glassware, video games, bottle caps, you name it.

That's the thing about a hobby, it is personal to you. That's why some people take it personally when something they love gets turned into something that someone uses to make money at expense of themselves and others like them.

greenwithenvy said:

For all of you who despise resellers, please lobby Lego to never discontinue another set. That'll solve all your emotional turbulence if you got your way. Another suggestion would be to order that set Lego just put out before it is EOL'd. This assumes you haven't won the battle against Lego to indefinitely make all sets.

You act like every argument made by people against resellers is based on the "I didn't get it and it makes me mad" concept, when for most of the arguments put forth, it's just plain not true.

greenwithenvy said:

For all of the resellers, keep selling. I'm glad you're here. I've bought many sets that you just can't get anymore; vintage sets, recent EOL'd sets. If it weren't for buyers and/or collectors, there'd be nothing to sell. So until buyers stop buying any collectible, there will ALWAYS be sellers.... ask eBay or Bricklink if you disagree.

Close to what you said in another thread that I didn't respond to because I didnt feel it was the right place, but consumers in the hobby have every right to care about what a reseller does, but you are 100% right that a reseller does not have to justify themselves. No one does.

Pitfall69

I agree. I'm not arguing your point. I'm just saying that I feel most people who have commented, agree that resellers have their place, but that some resellers do whatever they can to circumvent buying limits, clear shelves of sets, and exploit desperate people looking for rare and hard to find sets.

pvancil27

greenwithenvy said:

@Pitfall69, I understand your point, but when I'm a buyer, I can choose not to purchase something I think is overpriced. It's not the sellers more than the buyers. It's a 50/50 relationship. If a reseller wants 10x RRP I don't have to buy it, but when I do I set a precedent. Folks are asking $1000 USD for 41999s on eBay right now. No one is biting. As soon as someone does, well, now we have a price setting precedent. Buyers' behavior is just as much in question here. Equally so.

Would you agree?

Mostly agree with you. It's why I say Sellers deserve some blame along with resellers and lego.

Pitfall69

^Sellers and buyers have a symbiotic relationship. One couldn't survive without the other.

jasor

^ This. Who sets the prices? It's not the resellers. The resellers will adjust for what the buyer is willing to pay. The reseller can price for whatever they want....it's the buyer's decision to pull the trigger. There are PLENTY of things I have not bought because supply/demand ratio was wonky.

Buyers who are patient benefit from resellers who are reasonable. It gets a bit fuzzy at the other ends of the spectrum.

pvancil27

They do. I also screwed up what I meant to say, that buyers deserve some of the blame along with resellers and Lego.

binaryeye

jasor said:

Who sets the prices? It's not the resellers. The resellers will adjust for what the buyer is willing to pay.

How can a reseller determine the maximum a buyer is willing to pay without setting a higher price? The buyer isn't likely to suggest a higher price.

Dad

^ Resellers, not reseller.

vitreolum

^ Auction? Take Azog as an example, before some buyers bid insane amounts over 1000, a couple sold well under those prices.

cheshirecat

This is irrelevant, it's not the act of selling but the behaviour that acquired the sets thats at fault, sometimes.

greenwithenvy

If the seller is paying attention, he'll sell for what the market will bare. It's simple economics. Buyers set the market price through their choices of purchasing the best deals depending on their want. This principle applies to any product. Supply and demand is also important.

It's an emotional decision for most buyers who aren't resellers. Again, if I buy that $1000 41999 (I won't today, but could next year) I set the average value of that set higher. Look at 10196. I remember when they were $249.99. I received one as a gift. Now they're ~$1800. The buyers feel that is a fair price as they are buying them. If I listed mine for $3000, no one would buy it today. However, if Lego is still a high demand collectible in 10 years, it may go for $3k or more. Who knows? The buyer will when he goes to purchase one.

Regardless of my rambling, buyers are just as to blame for the perceived degradation of the hobby.

prof1515

pvancil27 said:

I actually think there is some other factors going into their decision, but I do think the reselling aspect is a major part of it. I've tried to point out that there is some blame to resellers but consistently get told I'm attacking people or flat out told I'm wrong. Maybe I just don't word myself well or maybe people just assume I have some irrational hate....

Or maybe you're simply wrong and reselling is not "a major part of it".

If you believe that saltpeter is a major part of baking a cake, others disagreeing are not doing so because you don't word yourself well or because they assume you have an irrational hate. They disagree because there is no foundation for your belief.

pvancil27

prof1515 said:

pvancil27 said:

I actually think there is some other factors going into their decision, but I do think the reselling aspect is a major part of it. I've tried to point out that there is some blame to resellers but consistently get told I'm attacking people or flat out told I'm wrong. Maybe I just don't word myself well or maybe people just assume I have some irrational hate....

Or maybe you're simply wrong and reselling is not "a major part of it".

If you believe that saltpeter is a major part of baking a cake, others disagreeing are not doing so because you don't word yourself well or because they assume you have an irrational hate. They disagree because there is no foundation for your belief.

It is quite possible I'm wrong, I can admit that much. In this case, Lego themselves have said reselling is a major part of why they changed their policies. (unless I have misread that thread) As such, I'm just going with what they said.

BrickDancer

This thread is like a Lego Royal Rumble of Brickset's mightiest debaters. At 38 pages, we've had a lot of wrestlers ousted and yet still get new ones in the ring each day. I wonder who will be the last man standing...

pvancil27

greenwithenvy said:

If the seller is paying attention, he'll sell for what the market will bare. It's simple economics. Buyers set the market price through their choices of purchasing the best deals depending on their want. This principle applies to any product. Supply and demand is also important.

It's an emotional decision for most buyers who aren't resellers. Again, if I buy that $1000 41999 (I won't today, but could next year) I set the average value of that set higher. Look at 10196. I remember when they were $249.99. I received one as a gift. Now they're ~$1800. The buyers feel that is a fair price as they are buying them. If I listed mine for $3000, no one would buy it today. However, if Lego is still a high demand collectible in 10 years, it may go for $3k or more. Who knows? The buyer will when he goes to purchase one.

Regardless of my rambling, buyers are just as to blame for the perceived degradation of the hobby.

Problem is the person who sets the price at 1000 is not allowing the market to set itself, it is instead setting the market and dictating that it must come to him. There is always the chance it never does sell at that price. In this case, it;s setting a price way above what the market is. I know in some cases people on this board have listed items for 10-15% more then they sold for with the reason given that "their service is better then average." When those sell (and that amount over wouldn't stop some people) it does drive the price up.

greenwithenvy

That one seller isn't setting the market alone. Fortunately, there are many sellers in the case of 41999. Once everyone who wants one opens theirs and most of the resellers have sold their stock, the price will be significantly higher. Right now there is only one seller on eBay in the USA for a mint Corner Cafe. He's asking ~2250. The market is not prepared to bare that price and his odds of selling it are slim to none. He is not the sole representative of the market. There are other choices.

prof1515

pvancil27 said:

It is quite possible I'm wrong, I can admit that much. In this case, Lego themselves have said reselling is a major part of why they changed their policies. (unless I have misread that thread) As such, I'm just going with what they said.

It looks like a specific kind of reselling though and not reselling in general. Additionally, as the effectiveness of their actions are suspect, it may not be a problem so much as a PR move by Lego to address a perceived problem, not necessarily an actual one.

pvancil27

Yes, in extreme cases it tends to not hurt the market. But if a CC sells normally for 500 (I have no clue what one really sells for) and someone lists the only one for 600, If someone is desperate for one and buys it, it does move the market up some. I actually agree that 90+% of the aftermarket is buyer set by buyers, but sellers can and do affect it too.

binaryeye

vitreolum said:

^ Auction? Take Azog as an example, before some buyers bid insane amounts over 1000, a couple sold well under those prices.

What were the starting prices in those auctions?

I'd argue that auctions are a special case because the winning bid reflects only what one person is willing to pay.

greenwithenvy said:

If the seller is paying attention, he'll sell for what the market will bare.

My point is the seller can't know what the market will bear without increasing the price. I suppose it could be argued that the increased price isn't a valid price until something is bought at that price. In that case, it could be said that the seller sets the floor and the buyer sets the ceiling.

binaryeye

prof1515 said:

It looks like a specific kind of reselling though and not reselling in general.

Just like slowly moving the goalposts is different than simply moving the goalposts?

CCC

binaryeye said:

auctions are a special case because the winning bid reflects only what one person is willing to pay.

It reflects what two people will pay.

prof1515

binaryeye said:

Just like slowly moving the goalposts is different than simply moving the goalposts?

Nope. I personally don't believe that reselling has anything to do with it. I think it's simply Lego addressing the irrational attitude many have toward resellers.

This affects, what, less than a tenth of a percent of sales? Hardly a measure against an significant problem. It's a molehill made into a mountain and I'm not even sure there was ever a molehill to begin with.