Brickset ForumHome›
Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
The Community Perspective on Reselling
This discussion has been closed.
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 26.5K All Categories
- 16K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 380 The Database
- 436 Brickset.com
- 313 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 336 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 570 Community and Events
- 262 Photography/Video
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.
Comments
First off, to address the link you used, I was addressing someone claiming that buying them in the store or buying a case and selecting what you want while returning the rest are the same thing. They are not.
Secondly, your argument is flawed. Here's why. Yes. They asked a question and hence they have opened themselves up for replies across the spectrum including criticisms and rebuttal of rationalizations. People who don't like the business side of Lego interjecting their opinion into discussions of the business side of Lego aren't doing so in response to questions but rather out of their distaste for a side of Lego.
But now, let us turn our attention to the thread you attempted to use to claim hypocrisy. The person in question did not "beat other people to deals" because they didn't feel out the bags. They removed the product from the market because they were talking about purchasing goods and then returning the ones that they had no intention of buying. They did not keep a level playing field and it was unethical because they were making a purchase of 60 when they had no intention of keeping nor desire to have the 60 whether for their own use or resale. Additionally, returning them to the store wouldn't constitute "resale" because the store is not buying, they're refunding. Stores allow refunds for broken or erroneous purchases and this person knew going in that buying 60 figures was not giving them what they wanted.
Now, circumventing purchase limits is unethical as well and I didn't claim otherwise. In fact, I stated earlier in this thread that it's neither illegal nor immoral though it is possibly unethical.
So, to answer your probably rhetorical question... No, such replies are acceptable. There is no investing being discussed.
Ignore me, I misread you there.
He has also stated that he does *NOT* earn his living via selling Lego nor is the alleged "attacks" interfering with his sale of Lego as he does not carry out the bulk of it via this website.
So, yes, I have perspective and a decent vocabulary. I'm simply not resorting to hyperbole.
It actually was.. There was more labor involved in the packing and over 200 more parts than the 9398 Crawler at the same price...
That actually wouldn't have been all that bad of an idea and donating all of the money to a charity of some sorts..
But now, let us turn our attention to the thread you attempted to use to claim hypocrisy. The person in question did not "beat other people to deals" because they didn't feel out the bags. They removed the product from the market because they were talking about purchasing goods and then returning the ones that they had no intention of buying. They did not keep a level playing field and it was unethical because they were making a purchase of 60 when they had no intention of keeping nor desire to have the 60 whether for their own use or resale. Additionally, returning them to the store wouldn't constitute "resale" because the store is not buying, they're refunding. Stores allow refunds for broken or erroneous purchases and this person knew going in that buying 60 figures was not giving them what they wanted.
Now, circumventing purchase limits is unethical as well and I didn't claim otherwise. In fact, I stated earlier in this thread that it's neither illegal nor immoral though it is possibly unethical.
So, to answer your probably rhetorical question... No, such replies are acceptable. There is no investing being discussed.
There is no difference to other consumers between someone putting a whole box into a basket and then feeling them out before purchasing the ones wanted, and purchasing the entire box and taking them home and returning the unwanted ones. They beat other consumers, if they get the box into their basket first. They can then cherry pick instore without being interrupted by others. Or they take them home and do it. At least here, many stores allow returns for any reason so no wanting the item is fine, if it is accompanied by the receipt. In fact, by law many stores have to allow unwanted items to be returned as they state this as part of the contract on the receipt. Presumably, in the US it is up to the store to decide whether they want to accept returns. If they allow it, then it is THEIR fault, and they are driving the problem (much like lego drives the distribution of #41999 problem).
And there is investing going on. There is investment of time and knowledge of a store's policy.
As I noted above, the next limited edition is a no-brainer, since anyone can buy it and return it to lego if the price doesn't increase enough. It is no less ethical than getting something not wanted to block someone else buying it that does want it and increasing the price. It is just using knowledge of how lego (the company) works, after all.
But it's completely unrelated to buying for resale. And claiming it's investing is disingenous at best as the context and hence the meaning is not the same.
I really don't see what it has to do with this thread, however....
But I still agree, it's clearly not persecution.
No one else is disadvantaged. They can get to look through the box once it is returned, just as they could have done if the person had looked through them in the store.
I thought it was unethical at first. But if buying as much as you can to stop others from getting it, just to charge the same people more than they would have paid is ethical (and a good use of knowledge) then using knowledge to get what you want with as minimal effort as possible is also ethical.
If the shortage is because it's produced in limited number, the supplier knew there would be demand after the product sold out and that the price would increase. This is done on purpose probably for marketing.
If the shortage is because of demand outstripping supply, then they should have predicted the the demand and produced accordingly. The supply will be replenished, so it's the buyers that need to decide if they want to pay more, or wait for supply to catch up.
So in summary, I have nothing against resellers. But I despise things produced in limited numbers for the sole purpose of creating scarcity.
*********************************************************************
The only anger towards resellers is when a topic not related to selling get's thread jacked. I think that the topic of reselling has little to do with "Lego" as a medium, and needs to stay in it's proper threads.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 2 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 3 feels bag.
Buyer 2 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 3 feels bag.
Buyer 2 feels bag.
Buyer 4 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 3 feels bag and finds Mr. Gold.
Now, Buyer 3 accomplished it on an even playing field. But let's look at what happens if Buyer 1 just took the whole case with him.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag.
Buyer 1 feels bag and finds Mr. Gold.
Buyer 2, 3 and 4 did not have an equal chance or any chance for that matter. Nor did Buyer 1 want the 11 that he bought, felt at home and returned (or possibly the other 48 in the box).
It wouldn't be unethical if Buyer 1 bought the case and kept the 60 or resold them on Bricklink, here or wherever. But by purchasing something he clearly had no desire to have is an unethical abuse of a return policy because of his intent. Intent is everything.
Being that we have no other details than speculation or existing information from one source, we'll never know if it's true or not. I tend to think it probably is true. Maybe I'm an optimist. I would love to say that I wouldnt circumvent buying limits, even after I was warned/adhered/then banned....I'm not 100% certain I would, if put in the same space.
That's the real rub with people, it seems...but no one walks in the same shoes.
I dont agree with the exclusiveness of the set, the over limit buys, or fans paying through the nose for the set...I cant effectively judge that position though.
These are not rare and precious jems, it is not rare gold, they are plastic building toys. It is entirely within TLG's power to make 10,000 copies of the SDCC editions, if TLG chooses to make 100 or 200 copies of each, then they are well aware of what is going to happen to them.
Anything they say otherwise is just a PR attempt to make the casual consumer feel better about it.
Clearly I could just keep quiet and never post again about reselling and just carry on the same way thousands of other people do.
When you say things like "accountability", it comes across as if you want the police to show up and arrest me, or something... maybe you don't mean that, but it sounds like it sometimes.
Open question to everyone here who doesn't like what I do... if you are against it, what actions on your part, other than my no longer posting about reselling, do you think fit the situation?
I said I never had an issue with you personally. Until two days ago, that was true, but your complete unwillingness to accept any blame and continued using of the “I could have done worse” reasoning to justify breaking the rules has changed that a little. So I am going to outline some things here, let people judge you, me or whomever and move on. I am choosing to use you and specific incidents because last time when I tried to be reasonable and not call anyone specific out, I got blasted for it. So here we go.
First, in general, Lego put limits to try and stop re-sellers from buying to much. Honest truth, I HATE limits. Because that father with three boys can't buy one for each kid if he is honest. There is an old saying locks only keep out honest people. Limits are the same, Limits only keep honest people from buying to much. If someone wants to break those limits, they will find a way. The fact Lego has to put limits in place is because of re-sellers and others who can't follow rules. I do think Lego carries some blame, but to try and put the entire blame on them is like an alcoholic blaming a bar for their DUI. “The Bartender should have cut me off after 5 drinks.” Yea, they should have, but you made the choice to A) Drink (Re-sell) B) Drink in excess (Re-Sell large quantities) and C) Drive (Talk about it publicly). Don't be pissed off when the cops arrest you, then don't be surprised when your community (Bricksetforums) gets pissed at you, especially since you just got done talking about how the cops were giving you unfair warnings.
We use the speeding thing, but stop with the “It's unfair I am getting picked on” speech. By letter of the law, speeding 31 in a 30 is still breaking the law plain and simple. Most people wouldnt think much about it, and those are not the speeders we are talking about. But the truth is you normally speed 50 on a 30, and got caught doing 38. You excuse is but I could have been driving 80. Try getting pulled over for speeding 10 over, when the cop asks why try telling him It's no biggie, you could have been doing 50 over. See how fast he finishes writing that ticket. The limit was two. You circumvented the limit. Go ahead and argue that you actually didn't because you physically yourself only bought two. I figure thats the next logical step.
“At the end of the day, we are probably not good trading partners because we both know too well the value of our items. “
I hope that quote looks familiar, its what you said to me when I first came here and was trying to work a trade. You were the first to approach me, and offered me what was a pretty horrid deal. You offered me one opened large set you valued at 200 for 5 sets I got on clearance (and yes, I bought multiples at a clearance to trade so I am a giant hypocrite Crowkillers) that you valued at 205, but who's retail values were about 280. I ended up buying that same loose set for about 125 a few months later. Basically you agreed I would be a bad trade partner because I knew enough to not get screwed over. Thats where my argument that re-sellers are bad on collectors forums because they can sour people on the hobby came from. If I took that deal, and look back 6 months from then and went “wow, I got screwed” it might cause someone new to the hobby (or this forum) to walk away. I knew to avoid getting screwed because I've been in hobbies for years. But someone coming out of their dark ages might not, this might be the first real hobby for the post college guy. And just to show you were not alone, the first four trade offers I had were all from re-sellers similarly offering their stuff at a premium and mine at low value. And in one case they just used the concept of a trade to start a discussion to get me to buy their product.
You keep saying you're a collector and a re-seller, and can wear both hats. But the truth is the re-seller hat overrides the collector hat almost every time. I've seen it happen in countless hobbies, and I saw it with you. You bought that UCS Falcon for 1250 I think it was, great price. You were happy, everyone was happy for you. You built it and seemingly were joyed. Then the re-seller inside decided “I cant justify having it in my collection because it's worth too much profit” and you sold it. Fair enough, your right, but it re-enforced my statement that if I offered you a set for a good price, eventually you'd sell it for a profit. And that kind of stuff bothers people, and its why a lot of people are not willing to make deals with others. Then when it comes to @41999 you say you'd love to have one, but cant justify keeping one for 400 bucks. But the problem is you shouldnt have to justify collecting something at 400 bucks, you should have to justify the 199 you paid for it.
You also stated that you don't run the LFT fan club, but the honest truth is you worry more about what others think of you then anyone else here.
I'm probably going to get called out for this post, but the fact is it's designed to point out one simple fact: Almost every single issue people have with you is of your own doing. Own up to it.
Anyhow, that was an official statement -- one of a few different examples I cited. I also mentioned the banning of resellers from [email protected] That seems like a real action and not lip service. And then there is the explicit statement about the goal of the Co-Creation program being intended for the fans. Do you have anything concrete and not a matter of inference that refutes this and says that their intent was to have these on the secondary market?
Rather than saying something like: "TLG is completely to blame because they didn't produce enough, creating a profit situation from which I am helpless to refrain. Further, TLG is completely to blame because, though they state a limit, they were silly enough to trust me to abide by it."
What I don't mean by accountability is the police arresting someone. I never said this was illegal and people should be prosecuted.
-Keep the reselling aspects to the appropriate Buying/Selling threads
-Reduce (where applicable/possible) the amount of boasting with pictures, hauls or lengths taken to circumvent imposed buying limits
All of the other gripes are, IMO, very debatable (i.e. discussions on clearance raiding, exclusive hoarding within limits, etc.) and/or unenforceable (i.e. anything done in the real world).
So long as its not publicized, we'll be none the wiser. I think we all realize that, at the end of the day, people are going to do what they want.
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.
http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/11879/should-we-continue-the-discussion-about-reselling
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.
I'm not judging, but his actions are far from what I'd call evil, and even perhaps understandable. He didn't go for 50 of these things with the intent to say "Ha! Screw you Lego, see what I can do anyway?" He went for 6. It's still four more than I would have, but then again, I haven't been barbequed* by Lego...yet.
*Used because for some reason, "persecuted" is wildly undecipherable around here. Now I'm hungry.
I think there is a difference between buying a case of minifigures knowing you are going to return the ones you don't need and buying 6 or more #41999's to sell, build and keep mint...or all of the above. Once you buy from a retailer, unless there is a problem with the product, the retailer assumes you won't return the product. When you return an item, it costs the retailer (no matter whether it will sell ) money to restock the item. Retailers had a huge problem with this during major sporting events. People would buy big screen TV's with no intention of keeping them to watch said sporting event and then return the TV's. This is not illegal, but unethical. Retailers then placed a restocking fee on all their TV's.
Why? Because otherwise the person standing in line for 8 hours on May 4th would have bought all 50-100 copies of the B-Wing and left none for anyone else (including me, since I won't sit there for 8 hours).
Also, I fully understand the damage it does to the brand, if I was TLG, I'd have much stricter limits in place, but I'd also do business with resellers, because it would give me a measure of control over them.
A stick doesn't work without a carrot, and TLG is only offering resellers a stick, they offer no carrot in return for following their wishes or rules. Don't be shocked when the police also go back and arrest the bartender. It is illegal in many places (including Texas) to knowingly continue to serve someone who is drunk, knowing they may drive. Some bartenders will ask for the keys in return for more drinks, then call the customer a cab. All true, but keep in mind that speeding is illegal, buying too much LEGO is not.
At no point, even if I buy 50 copies of #41999, am I at any risk of being arrested. 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. :) The situation changed, everything I own is for sale at the right price, other than my wife and kids.
If it was still worth just $1,250, I would still own it, but at some higher price, my opinion changes.
I bought it, I built it, and displayed it for about a year. Clearly I didn't buy that one to flip. :) Actually, you are mistaken. What I pay for something means nothing. What it is worth means everything.
Maybe I was given a UCS Falcon for free, maybe I paid $10,000 for it. Doesn't mean a thing... What can I sell it for? That is all that counts. Everything else is just emotional justification, which is fine, but call a spade a spade if that is what you're doing. No, I don't agree.
I think a lot of the complainers here have their own issues, as has been pointed out several times.
But clearly we won't agree on that, so we'll just have to live and let live.
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.
I'm quite serious, they say what they say for PR reasons, but they would have to be fools to believe it.
It takes only a casual awareness of the collector market and 5 minutes on eBay to know exactly what happens in real life, all the pretty words and "official press releases" mean nothing. That is probably all very true, but KKK almost ran the company into the ground. He was quite wise to step down and hand the company over to a CEO who runs it like a business. Serious question... do you believe everything you read and everything you're told? You say the "explicit statement about the goal of the Co-Creation program"... you believe that? Really?
Just because they say it doesn't make it true.
They announced they would make only 20K of #41999, numbered them, gave it months of pre-release buzz... are you implying that they were not aware of exactly what would happen?
As for my "anything concrete", the listings on eBay would seem to be all the proof I require. This set doubled in price less than 15 days after it went on sale, that has to be a record for a set released at retail worldwide, even more so for a $200 set.
If it was for the fans, it would be limit 1 per VIP account, registration required, and they would have made a lot more than 20K of them.
The problem I have with the thread is the attacks on people. Warranted or not, this doesn't add to a constructive conversation. I guess neither does my humor or lack thereof.
I think the majority of us does not have a problem with resellers, but certain behaviors that maybe doesn't belong in a community. The behavior is going to happen, no matter how much we all bitch about, I just ask that the behavior can be kept at a minimum and not spill into other threads where it is not welcome.
With that said, I would like the thread to stay open for further discussion in the future. As long as it is civil.
Again, I fully agree lego gets SOME blame, but the truth is even if they enforced a strict limit of 1, LFT would have still gotten three with the method he used. If they enforced a strict limit of 1, I order one online using my VIP card, buy one at each local Lego store for cash and not use my VIP card and buy whatever TRU lets me. Limits only stop the person who follows the rules to start with. If someone wants to break the rules, they will. Short of Lego only offering it only as an online sale and limit it to one per shipping address, there is not a lot they can do. And even then LFT could have his mother order one to her house, and brother, neighbor ect ect. A limit will NEVER stop someone who plans to break it.
THAT is why the people who abuse and break limits share some of the blame.
Mesa won't do sa that...
All they have to do is pick the top 3-5 sets that retire in any given year and 12-24 months later, release another batch of them.
Imagine if they put out a VIP only copy of Cafe Corner and Green Grocer, in 1 box, order it only from LEGO stores or [email protected], for $399 for the pair.
That would completely crush the aftermarket value of CC and GG and send a message to resellers to watch out, TLG has them in their sights.
Do you really think I'd ignore such moves? It would change the way I do business completely, it might push me out completely.
All the rest of the things they do? Complete noise, mostly meant to make the casual fan and collector happy while doing nothing to stop resellers.
Didn't Lego do this with the Maersk Container Ship? Didn't affect my value of the fist release. I sold mine within 2 days of putting it on EBay.
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. 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. 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. Likewise, if this set flopped and nobody wanted it after-the-fact, does that change whom TLG was targeting for the set?
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. 1 per VIP account doesn't ensure it reaches a fan. A reseller can have a VIP account. What you're saying is they could better enforce the limit. But how they enforce it doesn't change the fact that they did have a limit.