Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
If anyone is making multiple orders and repeatedly returns the items but keeps the promos, they should be immediately and irrevocably banned. That should be easier to enact than anything else, for surely the list of items returned to LBRI is a fraction of those sold.
If someone takes it legal then great lets discuss, but we all know it will not happen so its a completely fruitless debate.
And @vwong19 are you just trying to wind people up by saying you would circumvent their policy?
1) LEGO has until very recently been very loose and liberal with handing out multiple freebies to users - same purchase, multiple purchases, online, in store - didn't much matter. Over time, this conditioned buyers that this was the norm, and it became what was expected going forward.
2) LEGO decided to tighten up on the enforcement end of the policy. They are certainly well within their rights to do so, and I don't really see anyone seriously suggesting otherwise. No one is entitled to multiple freebies. However, because of the conditioned expectation LEGO has created over time, it is understandable that some people would react unfavorably to this change in enforcement, and that it can reasonably be seen as a negative customer experience, especially in light of:
3) LEGO has done a pretty poor job of keeping it's online shopping cart, order placement, and confirmation software processes up to date with current norms and standards, and has been wildly inconsistent in it's application of the policies.
In my view, a smarter move by LEGO would have been to first update their ordering systems to not add (or to remove) items to the cart that should not be allowed, better handle account limits, and other improvements; and then to start cracking down on enforcement, rather than the other way around. This would result in a better customer experience with clearer consumer expectations.
If Lego is serious about their "1 per household" policy, then they are going to have to enforce it by giving out freebies only to VIP customers and somehow eliminate people with multiple VIP accounts. They could also reduce the period of the promotions to 1-2 days to eliminate repeat buying.
The most times that I take advantage of any promo is 5, but on average, I want 3 copies of the SW or Super Heroes sets (1 for me, 1 for my kid, and the rest to sell/trade or keep unopened).
How about 3 per household limit. I could live with that and I wouldn't have to play games with TLG.
So what happens is that they don't limit and people moan they couldn't get it because resellers bought them all. They limit it and people moan that they can only get one.
The only answer in my eyes is to honour the limits that Lego put in place and then look elsewhere if I want more.
I have 2 boys and a wife who loves camper vans. I would ideally like 4, one for each of us, but at the end of the day I accept its a limited freebie and they want it to be available to as many as possible.
One thing I learnt recently is that Lego comes apart ;-) So you know what, both my boys and my wife will get a chance to build and play with the Camper.
Ironically I don't care about the VW set, although my initials are on the vehicle.
If they truly limit freebies to 1 per household, then I can imagine the price of these freebies rising in the secondary market, since there would be more buyers and fewer sellers... isn't that bad also?
Being serious though, given we've heard from multiple sources that they want/need to limit this promo, what do you think will be TLGs reaction to running out early, seeing people place 10 orders at just over the amount (which also multiplies up their shipping costs that they've just made free) and having people return parcels because they didnt get a poly. The answer is, as is so often the case, the entire community will loose out.
Will they win that argument?
Maybe, depends on the courtroom, judge, and jury that is involved. :)
It's not unreasonable to think the policy is wrong and that you will get it given that it's in your basket, that the rule was never enforced before and only selectively enforced even now.
The 41999 having produced in limited number of 20.000, being ~200 USD a piece and being sold out in days (with the limit of 2 per "household") compared to the T1 camper van with less production costs, giving out freely for orders 1/3 of the price of the 41999 and randomly enforcing the limit, still being available in the middle of the month gives me the feeling that was produced like, what, 200.000 or even more pcs?
Again, not advocating it, just stating a fact.
Or are you saying they should have managed it so that the very last one they had was given out to the final customer on the final day of the promotion?
if they run out too early, they risk that they lose further orders because people decide to go to Amazon instead (cheaper price, no freebie) or at best wait until October when 2x VIP points are on. However, at least they made a given number of sales, at full RRP, to give out all of them. But if they still have some left, they would have been better off promising them earlier on ALL £50+ order with the hope of increasing these (or reducing returns) rather than the likelihood of then giving them away with standard orders.
I don't like the 1 ph rule but if it is the new normal then I can live with it, but like every other restriction they might try to apply the thing that is most annoying is the inconsistency of policy and perceived unfairness if policy is not uniformly applied.
I have no problem with one per house or per VIP. Just don't add them to subsequent carts, so no confusion.
However it appears that your argument that they had some left over at the end of the month and therefore didn't handle the promo well is flawed.
It is much better that they stick to the rules and everyone who is entitled to one gets one and they end up with some left over, than dishing them out to all and sundry, ignoring the rules and running out half way through the month, and thus letting down all the people in the second half of the month who would be entitled to one.
Suggesting they're limiting them because they don't want to run out and disappoint those who order towards the end of the month, that's a bit of a weak argument to be honest. TLG will know how many orders they receive during any given month and what tolerance to allow for giveaways given the extra orders that previous popular ones generated. It's far more reasonable that they limited them earlier in the month because their deal with VW only allowed them to make so many, and they wanted to ensure their projected order volumes were accurate enough to subsequently relax the "one per household" limit.
Whatever the reason I think most people are just after consistency. Learning your 2nd and 3rd order didn't include a poly only to see sellers on eBay with 10-20 of them each is what probably annoys all those who missed out on multiples. Placing an order you wouldn't otherwise have placed just to get the 2nd camper you want is surely something they'd want to encourage. I assume they'd rather have your money than you giving it to some lucky chancer with TLG connections on eBay.
^ There are course ways to get many of them without having connections to TLG. Just off the top of my head - buy 10x £50 sets instore from different stores, or from different staff in the store, or get relatives / friends to do it. Probably not using VIP card, then ask for the points later so you don't miss out on them.
What would you do with the extra order you wouldn't have otherwise placed? Some of the time, that set will be traded / sold so no real different to a reseller / lucky chancer on ebay.
And for the record, I do not believe that is a reasonable assumption.
Sympathise with those who were denied more than one, does seem terribly unfair.
I somewhat wonder if whether you get more is related to this magical metric Lego seem to store that determines whether you get a VIP day invite, whether you got the valentines key ring and so forth. Maybe if you score high on that they're less picky and more willing to please, but score low and they just give you one?
So at very least we know the absolute most they can cost, and from there it's reasonable to make a determination as to whether even a £3 gift on a £50 order is a problem but realistically when you remove profit margins from the equation as well as the other costs of logistics of dealing with a 3rd party it's going to be way lower.
Because I don't agree with your assumption that Lego are mismanaging their organisation I am argumentative.
You know zero about what you are 'assuming', you know nothing about the costs to produce, costs to supply or any agreement with VW.
I knew I left this thread for a reason....
If you're going to disagree with someone at least justify your point. If you can't justify your point then consider that perhaps your point simply isn't valid. Otherwise it looks like you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, in which case yes, you're being argumentative and it's not constructive.
You miss the point, the assumption WAS invalid because they had no facts to base it on. Nothing to do with my opinion.
I didn't need to enter into an argument (even though I accused of it) to say that the assumption was invalid.
And unfortunately for you this is a public forum and my opinion, as well as yours and everyone else here is just as valid.
So many posts on here are utter tripe because they are full of:
"It is clear that", when what they mean is "I think"
"TLG are rubbish because", when what they mean is "I disagree with this"
Seriously so many people here base their 'facts', 'fair assumptions', 'proof that' comments on absolutely no real facts.
I suspect it's the same for all polybags across the world apart from those bundled with newspapers and I'd wager even at 20p or whatever it was for the ones in The Sun it wasn't costing them that much to run the promo.
I bet is was Bob, was it Bob? Compulsive liar that dude, we should have sacked him years ago!