The gift-with-purchase conundrum
Posted by CapnRex101,
LEGO gifts-with-purchase have been a common occurrence since around 2011, with the launch of an exclusive minifigure for May the Fourth and promotional seasonal sets released in the run-up to Christmas. Their frequency has greatly risen since then, with new gifts-with-purchase launched every couple of weeks nowadays.
While their limited availability can sometimes be frustrating, I think promotional sets are often a nice reward, especially when they provide something unlikely to appear in a retail set. However, this is a delicate balance and a couple of recent examples have provoked particular criticism.
75419 Death Star and 10366 Tropical Aquarium have both been criticised as incomplete without their respective gifts-with-purchase, 40771 TIE Fighter with Imperial Hangar Rack and 5009823 Fish Tank Filter & Fish Food. I think now is a good time to examine promotional sets, which are most successful and where they can go wrong.
Frequency
Even though gifts-with-purchase have existed since 2011, they have undoubtedly become more frequent over time and often more substantial, with higher purchase requirements. This chart shows gifts-with-purchase available on LEGO.com since 2011, including polybags and items available by other means at different times, but not including 'Gear'. Products exclusive to the LEGO Insiders Rewards Centre are not included either.
Apart from the broad increase in quantity, the middle line represents bigger boxed sets, usually containing over 100 pieces. They were once very rare and the vast majority of promotional sets were polybags associated with spending around $75 or often less, whereas boxed sets are now the standard and tend to require a $120 spend, at least.
Gifts-with-purchase tied to a specific set have also become far more common, particularly last year and this. There were only two examples created before 2019, as 5002943 Winter Soldier was originally only available with 76042 The SHIELD Helicarrier in Europe and 5005747 Black Card Display Stand was designed for owners of 75192 Millennium Falcon, ending the infamous black VIP card promotion.
By contrast, there were seven gifts-with-purchase available to those buying a particular set on release last year, such as 40729 Shackleton's Lifeboat with 10335 The Endurance, while there have been nine in 2025, including the upcoming 40768 Star Trek: Type-15 Shuttlepod.
Though it is nice to be rewarded with promotional sets when buying from LEGO.com, the sheer number of these sets can be off-putting. This is particularly true for gifts-with-purchase that form part of a series and those with higher spend thresholds, which are now relatively common.
The solution is surely to produce a greater proportion of items intended for mid-range purchase thresholds. Small recruitment bags work to a degree, but very little is developed for thresholds around $50 to $80. The early May the Fourth promotions are fondly remembered, so perhaps they could serve as an effective template.
Gifts-with-purchase for bigger sets
The dramatic rise in the number of gifts-with-purchase associated with particular sets suggests they have proven successful, no matter what fans online think of them. Personally, I think there have been some positive examples, but assuming they will continue into 2026 and beyond, our focus should be on highlighting areas for improvement.
For a start, there are two extremes to be avoided: items that have basically no association with the main set and those that are essential companions to the set. 6346098 Yoda's Lightsaber is perhaps the ultimate example of the former, as it is honestly hard to think of anything from Star Wars less related to the Mos Eisley Cantina, yet the lightsaber accompanied 75290 Mos Eisley Cantina! 5009325 The Simpsons Living Room was another strange choice, more recently.
Sets that are necessary to complete the main set are rarer. I am sure many people would point to 40771 TIE Fighter with Imperial Hangar Rack or 5009823 Fish Tank Filter & Fish Food and it is true those link directly to their respective sets, but neither is truly essential, in my view. 10366 Tropical Aquarium arguably looks better without the filter installed and the hangar bay in 75419 Death Star already matches the film without the TIE Fighter and its rack.
However, I totally understand the perception of those sets looking incomplete without their gifts-with-purchase, especially after the poor presentation of 40771 TIE Fighter with Imperial Hangar Rack. The image below was initially displayed on the LEGO.com product listing for 75419 Death Star, giving the impression that the TIE Fighter was once part of the actual Death Star set, then removed to become its gift-with-purchase.
I think the simplest way to summarise the factors influencing promotional items associated with specific sets is a table, covering four categories:
- Is it good? – We all want sets to be good, but there is probably a limit where promotional sets are concerned, so including a highly desirable exclusive minifigure or the like would be unwise. I can only imagine the incandescent fury had Galen Erso been limited to the Death Star's gift-with-purchase, for instance.
- Is it relevant? – I believe the best gifts-with-purchase are relevant to their associated set, but that does not mean they must literally connect to it.
- Is it essential? – While I am not convinced there has ever been a gift-with-purchase that is essential to complete a set, 40771 TIE Fighter with Imperial Hangar Rack and 5009823 Fish Tank Filter & Fish Food come relatively close.
- Could it be sold separately? – There is an argument to be made that many promotional sets could plausibly be sold separately, but I am considering the category with a very high threshold. Using the large-scale lightsabers as an example, maybe those could be popular and successful on their own, but I have my doubts.
These are all a matter of opinion to some extent, but I have tried to be impartial. For instance, I dislike 5009823 Fish Tank Filter & Fish Food and would not place it in 10366 Tropical Aquarium if I owned the set, but many others might for realism, so I have assigned it a 'sort of' rating in the 'Is it Essential?' category, represented by a dash. Even so, the table reflects my opinions.
For me, the best gifts-with-purchase are good and relevant to their associated set, but they are not absolutely essential and should not be something that could be sold separately. 40773 The Goonies: The Walshes' Attic and 5009609 Captain Jack's Sparrow's Compass accordingly fare best, according to these metrics, which I consider a reasonable outcome.
Silly though it sounds, I honestly think 40768 Star Trek: Type-15 Shuttlepod is perhaps a bit too good! It is comfortably my favourite gift-with-purchase of the year, but the set could probably be sold separately and I am aware that some fans want the Shuttlepod without wanting 10356 Star Trek: U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D, which is not an ideal situation.
I planned to suggest a few alternatives for the weaker gifts-with-purchase released in 2025, but doing so is surprisingly difficult. 5009157 Amelia Ticket Booth is a simple one because a design to scale with 21356 River Steamboat would have been a vast improvement, without becoming a vital addition to the steamboat. It is much trickier to imagine an alternative to 40771 TIE Fighter with Imperial Hangar Rack, which would be a strong incentive to buy the Death Star on launch, without frustrating those who miss out.
Ultimately, I think the best gifts-with-purchase occupy one of two categories. They are either to scale with the main set and complement it, without attaching directly, or they are an associated accessory constructed at a totally different scale, like the Lightsaber Collection. There are some exceptions though, as 40729 Shackleton's Lifeboat was well-received and I noticed few people hoping to buy the lifeboat, but not 10335 The Endurance. Perhaps non-licensed sets just enjoy greater flexibility than licensed ones.
Assuming promotional sets like these will continue in the future, which do you consider the best and what makes a good gift-with-purchase for you? Let us know in the comments.
84 likes
63 comments on this article
The graph is missing a data point for 2013. In 2013, if you purchased 10232 Palace Cinema between September and December 31st, you also received 5002891 The LEGO Movie Poster Sticker. This was distributed only in conjunction with a Palace Cinema purchase, so it counts as a specific set GWP.
@Ottozone said:
"Your graph is missing a data point for 2013. In 2013 if you purchased 10232 Palace Cinema between September to the end of the year, you got 5002891 The LEGO Movie Poster Sticker. This was only for if you purchased that specific set so it counts as a specific set GWP."
That would be considered a 'Gear' item though, so it is excluded. Something like that does cross the boundary a bit, but I decided to focus on proper sets, otherwise the graph would have to include lots of other items, many of which are not really comparable to sets.
Lately, whenever people talk about sets being incomplete, I think about examples like 40106 from 2014 that expanded 10245, 40140 from 2015 that was part of the story for 10246, and minifigure 30603 in 2016 that was a "missing" character from 76052. The difference from the process today is you could order other things -- at far lower price points -- and still get them, while waiting until later to buy the big companion sets. However, there was still a specific, limited time to get those GWPs.
I'm not defending Lego's practice then or now, just pointing out that the DLC argument people have a flaw in any claims that this is a new concept, as these "incomplete" original sets have been appearing for at least a decade.
@CapnRex101 said:
" @Ottozone said:
"Your graph is missing a data point for 2013. In 2013 if you purchased 10232 Palace Cinema between September to the end of the year, you got 5002891 The LEGO Movie Poster Sticker. This was only for if you purchased that specific set so it counts as a specific set GWP."
That would be considered a 'Gear' item though, so it is excluded. Something like that does cross the boundary a bit, but I decided to focus on proper sets, otherwise the graph would have to include lots of other items, many of which are really not comparable to sets."
Ah I didn't see that; makes sense
My partner objects to GWPs existing in general for ethical anti-FOMO reasons, but I like the system just fine - I love that we get sets that wouldn’t otherwise exist and the novelty and creativity that goes into designing them makes me happy. I do prefer GWPs that aren’t linked to a specific set, which is partly for aftermarket price reasons (40698 Books Are My Passion aside set-linked GWPs tend to be more expensive and harder to pick up secondhand) and also because, well, the creativity aspect doesn’t apply as much when it’s tied to another set, which often makes them less interesting and fun.
I only really get grouchy if it’s something that would get a tick in the last column. A set that can be sold in and of itself shouldn’t be in the GWP system, especially when it would provide an affordable option to a much wider range of fans compared to the fancy big ticket kits. I suppose to a lesser extent I’m not thrilled if they don’t get a tick in the first column, but that’s also a self-solving problem: I can just not get the GWP!
The point of these GWPs is to induce FOMO with exclusivity and pressure people to pay full price for a set on release day rather than being able to wait for a sale. It's really scummy in my opinion.
I take issue with one detail of your chart: Sméagol and Déagol could've worked as a standalone set. It's a bit grim, admittedly, but considering it included two exclusive minifigs and a decent (if small) build, it would've sold well enough to LotR fans. And the Fell Beast set that preceded it would have sold in droves... so many people would buy 9 of them, for a complete set of Nazgûl.
And where are 40770 and 40757 ?
@FuddRuckus said:
"Lately, whenever people talk about sets being incomplete, I think about examples like 40106 from 2014 that expanded 10245, 40140 from 2015 that was part of the story for 10246, and minifigure 30603 in 2016 that was a "missing" character from 76052. The difference from the process today is you could order other things -- at far lower price points -- and still get them, while waiting until later to buy the big companion sets. However, there was still a specific, limited time to get those GWPs.
I'm not defending Lego's practice then or now, just pointing out that the DLC argument people have a flaw in any claims that this is a new concept, as these "incomplete" original sets have been appearing for at least a decade."
I think the nuance here is that you weren’t locked into getting the related set in order to get the GWP, so it’s not precisely the same situation. You could theoretically get the Mr. Freeze polybag with a cheaper unrelated purchase and then get the classic TV series Batcave at a more convenient time; it was a far more flexible arrangement.
In some ways, I feel like tying GWPs to a specific expensive purchase - especially when they feel like an integral part of the set in question - is counterintuitive, as I’m guessing there’s a few people out there that will be reluctant to get the big set without the little one to accompany it. I was going back and forth on the Goonies set in its original release window, but now that the attic GWP is no longer available I consider the door to that purchase effectively closed for good - regardless of the merits of the main set in question.
GWPs that are tied to a set seem to exist primarily to induce FOMO. I therefore prefer ones with a spending threshold for which a wide range of sets apply. Those have an effect opposite to that of FOMO (at least to me), as I make sure to have still some sets on my wanted list to meet the spending threshold. So there's no need for impulse purchases for those.
My favorite GWPs of the past several years are ones that I kind of consider to be too good to be a GWP, in that I would have purchased them if they were available as retail sets:
- 40765 Kamino Training Facility (May the Fourth 2025)
- 40686 Trade Federation Troop Carrier (May the Fourth 2024)
@Sobuuulek said:
"And where are 40770 and 40757 ?"
40770 Hogwarts Castle: Room of Requirement was not tied to a certain set and I thought the same was true for 40757 Corner Kiosk, but apparently not, so I have updated the data.
Absolutely agree on the Star Trek shuttle, I almost like it more than the main set! As for the lightsabers...yeah, they would probably never be sold as a set. But I do wish they were available as an Insider reward rather than just a gift with purchase.
@FuddRuckus said:
"Lately, whenever people talk about sets being incomplete, I think about examples like 40106 from 2014 that expanded 10245, 40140 from 2015 that was part of the story for 10246, and minifigure 30603 in 2016 that was a "missing" character from 76052. The difference from the process today is you could order other things -- at far lower price points -- and still get them, while waiting until later to buy the big companion sets. However, there was still a specific, limited time to get those GWPs."
I think I ended up with four of the flower cart (zero Modulars), two of the Toy Workshop (I did get that WV set, but don't know if I earned that GWP from it), and the minifig (not from buying the set). In terms of the holiday GWPs, I've always preferred the ones that worked as WV accessory packs, like 3300014, 40082, 40083, 40107, 40602, and 40603.
Nice article. Good this is holding attention.
I’m still in the camp: All GWP remain complimentary (free) for a brief window, and then assume a regular price and remain available until the parent set retires. Would solve a lot of issues, and would be easy to accomplish, production-wise.
40586 Moving Truck is my all time favorite GWP because it complemented the set it came from, Jazz Club, so well, with a vehicle, an extra figurine, and more importantly, more furniture that matched the set. 40757 goes in the same direction but is just not quite as amazing (it's tough to beat how tightly packed that truck can be with all the furniture).
I tend to like the ones that really go in a set, so the Death Star and the Aquarium's GWP are up my alley, but I tend to order from Lego directly since those bigger sets are simply not sold in stores from my regions, and never see any major discount online. So buying from Lego directly is the best option AND those gifts motivate me further to do so. I'd therefore say that the GWP's value and interest will depend highly on which type of customer you are too.
I did like 5009005 Entrance Gate as a set-specific GWP for 21353 The Botanical Garden because it added a nice little extra finishing touch, but it wasn't essential as the set still looked perfectly fine without it. My only gripe was the slight height difference with the GWP being on a standard plate compared to the set's baseplate.
I don't understand the table. It seems to be random ticks, dashes and crosses.
How come the Italian Market Van gets a '-' for being both good and relevant. Surely an Italian Market Van is relevant to the Italian Riviera set, if a totally different scale Star Trek shuttle is relevant to the big set, or Jack Sparrow's compass is relevant to the ship. Why is it not good?
Similarly I think all of those sets except the filter could be sold and would sell individually. You might as well just have a piece count in that column. Bricklink and ebay show that most of those GWP sell very well by themselves.
Edit: I have just looked up the Brickset review of the Italian Market Truck. The final summary sentence is: "It's a shame that there's no room on 21359 Italian Riviera to place the van on its streets but, nevertheless, it's a decent and appropriate accompaniment to it." So, yes it is good (the word "decent" was used) and yes it is relevant (the word "appropriate" was used). But clearly not essential if there is not a gap left in the bigger set to place it. And if they had left that gap, no doubt there would have been complaints about empty space and the van being left out and the set incomplete.
What about the infamous example of 6373604 Ulysses Space Probe that came with 10283 NASA Space Shuttle Discovery? It was tied to the space shuttle only. It indeed came later as a possible purchase for points in the rewards centre, but only because GWP release was such a debacle and fans were complaining a lot… So it should count towards GWP’s exclusive to one set.
Ulysses probe debacle soured me completely towards desirable sets as GWP, especially when tied to a particular set, even if I plan to buy that set.
Only buying Technic, and mostly for parts, I only have a small stick in this.
I think GWPs sole reason for existence is to entice people to buy at lego.com, and not at 2/3 of list price at amazon.*.
@n3y0 said:
"The point of these GWPs is to induce FOMO with exclusivity and pressure people to pay full price for a set on release day rather than being able to wait for a sale. It's really scummy in my opinion. "
Some people see it as scummy. Others see it as a bonus for being an early purchaser.
Personally I don't mind them at all. None are essential so it is just a bonus to those willing to buy early. If you don't want it then you have the option of waiting a getting a different bonus, such as double points or a different promo set, or a discount elsewhere.
Annoying with GWPs like 40450 which aren't complimentary to another set but have a limited window; when there's no sets of note (or qualifying price) that you want to buy at that time so you miss out
@Phoenixio said:
"40586 Moving Truck is my all time favorite GWP because it complemented the set it came from, Jazz Club, so well, with a vehicle, an extra figurine, and more importantly, more furniture that matched the set. 40757 goes in the same direction but is just not quite as amazing (it's tough to beat how tightly packed that truck can be with all the furniture).
"
The moving truck wasn't actually from the Jazz Club, it just complemented it. You could get it with any purchase. It is a nice set that goes well in any City build so I'm glad it wasn't a specific set GWP.
@myth said:
"What about the infamous example of 6373604 Ulysses Space Probe that came with 10283 NASA Space Shuttle Discovery? It was tied to the space shuttle only. It indeed came later as a possible purchase for points in the rewards centre, but only because GWP release was such a debacle and fans were complaining a lot… So it should count towards GWP’s exclusive to one set.
Ulysses probe debacle soured me completely towards desirable sets as GWP, especially when tied to a particular set, even if I plan to buy that set."
That was only ever an Insiders reward, although it was originally planned for release at the same time as 10283 Space Shuttle Discovery, but was delayed: https://brickset.com/article/58674/
@Phoenixio 40586 was free with a purchase of €180
It does match the jazz club a bit
@jdubbs said:
"I take issue with one detail of your chart: Sméagol and Déagol could've worked as a standalone set. It's a bit grim, admittedly, but considering it included two exclusive minifigs and a decent (if small) build, it would've sold well enough to LotR fans. And the Fell Beast set that preceded it would have sold in droves... so many people would buy 9 of them, for a complete set of Nazgûl."
Normally I am in 100% agreement with the Capn but many of these items and especially the LotR stuff would have been easy sets to sell not as GWPs. While they may not have been best-sellers, provided as a complementary set to a larger purchase would have still sold.
I greatly appreciate the article and the effort put into it!
However, I feel it ignores a significant issue with GWP, of which I suspect is a major factor for some people (definitely me) - an issue that feels imho both scummy, and very hard to see as a bonus.
This issue is the limited supply of GWPs, and the need to stay up at night with the set you want in the basket, and click 'BUY' at exactly 00:00 to merely have a change of getting it.
Yes, the glaring omission from this article - The 40693 Fell Beast GWP from 10333 Barad-dûr.
I appreciate TLGs effort to motivate early full-price purchases of a set, but the ratio of GWP and target set should always be 1:1.
With each year of reports of record profits, and seeing more and more expensive sets and more exclusive items, my love for LEGO, as a life-long fan, keeps taking hits.
@CCC said:
"I don't understand the table. It seems to be random ticks, dashes and crosses.
How come the Italian Market Van gets a '-' for being both good and relevant. Surely an Italian Market Van is relevant to the Italian Riviera set, if a totally different scale Star Trek shuttle is relevant to the big set, or Jack Sparrow's compass is relevant to the ship. Why is it not good?
Similarly I think all of those sets except the filter could be sold and would sell individually. You might as well just have a piece count in that column. Bricklink and ebay show that most of those GWP sell very well by themselves.
Edit: I have just looked up the Brickset review of the Italian Market Truck. The final summary sentence is: "It's a shame that there's no room on 21359 Italian Riviera to place the van on its streets but, nevertheless, it's a decent and appropriate accompaniment to it." So, yes it is good (the word "decent" was used) and yes it is relevant (the word "appropriate" was used). But clearly not essential if there is not a gap left in the bigger set to place it. And if they had left that gap, no doubt there would have been complaints about empty space and the van being left out and the set incomplete. "
As mentioned in the article, the categories are a matter of opinion to varying degrees. I could give a full explanation for all my ratings, but for brevity, I will focus on 5009422 Italian Market Van because that is the one you mentioned the most:
I think the set is just average, hence I gave the middle rating in the first category. For relevancy, it obviously is loosely related to 21359 Italian Riviera, but it does not fit anywhere on the main model, nor is it really suitable for display separately, unlike examples like 5009609 Captain Jack Sparrow's Compass. Again, I gave the middle rating because it is relevant in name, but not a proper companion for the Italian Riviera.
It's mainly FOMO, not very different to Pokémon "codes" being limited to stores/events/countries (which are tbh worse case then LEGO in most cases)
But so many of those could've been standalone sets too, especially GWP like Forestmen Hideout, Majisto's Workshop, Blacktron Cruiser, and soon enough Sea Serpent, and the likes, straight up modern remakes of old sets, and smaller sets to expand on the Castle/Pirate/Space lines are extremely rare nowadays.
Very often GWPs are something smaller that could scratch the itch for the specific theme without having to spend multiple hundreds of dollars (that are the only retail option for said theme/IP). Unfortunately they get locked behind limited availability and much higher spend threshold (or often absurdly high aftermarket price). Plenty of examples from the last few years - 40567 , 40580 , 40597 , 40601 , 40693 , 40712 , 40761 , 40768 .
And then there's stuff like 40686 or 40765 that seem designed for army-building, but are also locked in such way.
I understand the desire to bait people into paying (increasingly ridiculous) day 1 prices, it makes sense from the financial perspective and clearly works since they're pushing it more and more. But I hate it and honestly makes me even less interested in buying directly from LEGO.
In response to those asking about gift-with-purchase sets potentially being sold separately, I am treating those with a high threshold and taking the LEGO range as it exists today into account. Of course, most of them could technically be sold by themselves, but I think the chances are slim to none in most cases.
These have no chance whatsoever because they are clearly not saleable as independent sets:
40771 TIE Fighter with Imperial Hangar Rack
5009157 Amelia Ticket Booth
5009325 The Simpsons Living Room
5009823 Fish Tank Filter & Fish Food
These seem very unlikely because there is nothing else in the current range like them:
40761 The Lord of the Rings: Sméagol & Déagol
40773 The Goonies: The Walshes' Attic
5009609 Captain Jack Sparrow's Compass
5009422 Italian Market Van is simply too dull to be a set sold separately.
I would like to be proven wrong in some cases, as I would love some smaller The Lord of the Rings sets, among others, but I am trying to be realistic based on existing products.
FOMO is part of collecting, as far as I'm concerned - every non-essential consumer good is of a limited nature and exclusives are something that can make a hobby fun. As much as people hate to admit it, they likely get a rush from obtaining or owning something rare or desireable and only dislike FOMO when they're on the losing end.
That said, I DO have a problem with GWPs that connect to the main set or "complete" it. Maybe the Death Star and fish tank DO look better or fine without the added GWP, that's beside the point. If you're paying many HUNDREDS of dollars for a set in the first place, you should receive the COMPLETE product for your purchase regardless of when you bought it or from who.
I worked for Lego Retail a while back, and we once had a Dad march his kid back into the store to apologize for us because he thought his son had stolen the free GWP we had put in the bag.
Why no mention of 40729 Shackleton's Lifeboat, the GWP offered with 10335 The Endurance? I was lucky enough to get one, and the Endurance feels almost incomplete without it. But in that case there wasn't a specific place to put the GWP into the main set, unlike 75419 and arguably 10366 and considering how expensive they are, well the GWP situation is just becoming more and more egregious.
I have no issue with the general concept of GWPs. It is, after all, a very common practice across the entire retail sector to offer incentives to purchase, such as free gifts, vouchers, subscriptions, discounts etc. My main problem is that the size and quality of the sets is often not in proportion to the spend threshold or size of the sets it accompanies.
For example, 76139 1989 Batmobile came with 40433 as its GWP, a decent sized (366 pcs) and very cool set. By contrast, 40771 is just 236 pieces with a juniorized design accompanying a 9000+ piece set. If I’m forking out the kind of money required for such a huge set I would expect a much more substantial gift to entice me to purchase early.
@StolenEyes said:
"Why no mention of 40729 Shackleton's Lifeboat, the GWP offered with 10335 The Endurance? I was lucky enough to get one, and the Endurance feels almost incomplete without it. But in that case there wasn't a specific place to put the GWP into the main set, unlike 75419 and arguably 10366 and considering how expensive they are, well the GWP situation is just becoming more and more egregious. "
It’s mentioned as the example of set-linked GWPs from last year - the chart with the ticky boxes is only this year’s sets, I think.
The article focuses solely on large-set GWPs and the FOMO narrative.
It’s unfortunate that it fails to address the real issue: nowadays, GWP might as well stand for Guy/Girl With (lots of) Pennies.
Lego only rewards customers who purchase the big sets.
If you're interested in a smaller set, Lego Stores are a double rip-off — overpriced, obviously, and still not expensive enough to qualify for a GWP, not even a small one.
Just ignore the GWP and buy what, when and for how much that you planned for. If you can't enjoy a set because of a "missing section" which is a GWP, the issue is not with the set. And most GWP can be bought after market, so not a big deal. Deal with the FOMO, don't encourage it.
Anything that tugs at 90s era set nostalgia, or if ever again, obscure or special Star Wars minifigures, are ideal GWPs for me. Anymore, I'm as aware of a GWP as I'm not when I'm ordering things which tends to be more parts than sets. Though, this is almost always a thing where I planned to make a purchase anyway. If there's something cool as a GWP and I don't have a need to make a purchase... I don't.
My two pennies - Either make all GWP sets available to buy, or do away with the concept completely. Surely it costs LEGO to design and produce a GWP, so why not make it available to purchase? Tag on the exclusivity of it, and it may encourage folk to shop directly with LEGO. And my reasoning is that there are dozens of GWPs I would have bought, and then likely added to my order just to qualify for free postage! LEGO appear happy to supply the aftermarket with a trade.
@iamkevinwill said:
"My two pennies - Either make all GWP sets available to buy, or do away with the concept completely. Surely it costs LEGO to design and produce a GWP, so why not make it available to purchase? Tag on the exclusivity of it, and it may encourage folk to shop directly with LEGO. And my reasoning is that there are dozens of GWPs I would have bought, and then likely added to my order just to qualify for free postage! LEGO appear happy to supply the aftermarket with a trade."
One mid-way solution would be adding them insider points rewards, sometime later (as long as the original set it's meant to be with is still around) less likely to be scalped and still directly purchasable from LEGO.
I mean, it's not like sets like Star Trek Enterprise or Death Star are sold for 1 week only.
@jdubbs said:
" Sméagol and Déagol could've worked as a standalone set. "
Yes, and they could change the name as well! Call it "The Murder Of Deagol for poor Smeagol's birthday Present", sell it for 25 pounds and make another set based on Smeagol's stoor family kicking, punching, spitting and despising him!
My issue with gwps is that lego dot com doesn't ship to my location, so unless I'm willing to pay shipping and import tax twice by sending it to a friend in the UK who then sends it on to me, I can't ever get them
@Sandinista said:
"I worked for Lego Retail a while back, and we once had a Dad march his kid back into the store to apologize for us because he thought his son had stolen the free GWP we had put in the bag. "
I hope the father was at least big enough to acknowledge that he'd made a mistake and apologize to his son when you explained things to him.
The principle of GWPs is absolutely fine by me, either as a wicked, evil method of promotion or simply as a bonus for early purchase.
My main issue with set dependant GWPs is that they've been pretty mediocre, rarely being good enough on their own to encourage a purchase.
The only set dependant GWP I've got this year has been the Corner Kiosk, but that was helped by the concurrent 40756 GWP (and, of course, 10350 being briliant).
If a set dependant GWP is the only thing being offered, Fish Food and Filter is more like a £70 threshold than a £400 threshold!
@CapnRex101 said:
" @Ottozone said:
"Your graph is missing a data point for 2013. In 2013 if you purchased 10232 Palace Cinema between September to the end of the year, you got 5002891 The LEGO Movie Poster Sticker. This was only for if you purchased that specific set so it counts as a specific set GWP."
That would be considered a 'Gear' item though, so it is excluded. Something like that does cross the boundary a bit, but I decided to focus on proper sets, otherwise the graph would have to include lots of other items, many of which are not really comparable to sets."
I thought “Gear” meant lifestyle items, like pens and pencils, patches, posters, coffee mugs, etc. that are meant to be used by actual people as opposed to minifigures or whatever (e.g., 5005907 NASA Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Patch, a GWP for 10266 NASA Apollo 11 Lunar Lander). The poster sticker for The LEGO Movie wasn’t an actual poster, but a sticker meant specifically to go on one of the “poster” window panes in the Palace Cinema set. Although it’s a sticker and could be adhered to whatever random object one wants, it’s specifically designed as a part for incorporating into that specific set’s build. Wouldn’t that be different from all those Gear and Extended Line items and whatnot?
Personally I am against GWPs in general because the practice pushes people into spending hundreds of euros in a short surprise window, often with very little warning beforehand unless you have specifically been following leaks. I think that it's predatory and although it's ultimately up to the customer to spend that money wisely, it's still scummy to put FOMO on people who actively want to buy stuff anyway.
That said, I never have reached a GWP treshold. Not even once. My budget is too low and too spread out because I usually buy older retired sets in used condition to save cost. So I'm not really the target audience most of the time.
But sometimes I am. Why? Sets like the Bionicle GWP or the Blacktron GWP from a few years ago, which were sets about older retired themes which where ONLY available as a GWP. At that point my opinion on them soured A LOT. They were specifically not relevant to anything out at the time besides the Galaxy Explorer and maybe the Lion Knight's Castle, but otherwise there was nothing in their portfolio like them. And they were initially available for a very short time in january. They were outright gatekeeping those sets with a pricewall.
The second thing is, for a lot of themes we now have a skew towards larger sets. Sure, smaller sets are still abudant in themes like Ninjago, but only for certain themes. Many now only have one larger Icons set and maybe a brickhead. So when a LOTR, Castle or whatever other theme that only got a big honking megaset gets a small-sized fully developed set to go alongside with it that also happens to be a GWP, it basically means the variety of small sets feels like it was made smaller. All just so the big sets can have more to justify their huge costs. For that reason I like it a lot more if a GWP is a static display piece like the compass, and not basically a minifig scale play set add-on (like the droid carrier was, sadly).
@VictorvanSchagen said:
"I greatly appreciate the article and the effort put into it!
However, I feel it ignores a significant issue with GWP, of which I suspect is a major factor for some people (definitely me) - an issue that feels imho both scummy, and very hard to see as a bonus.
This issue is the limited supply of GWPs, and the need to stay up at night with the set you want in the basket, and click 'BUY' at exactly 00:00 to merely have a change of getting it."
This is exactly my problem with GWP: the release debacle. It's usually unclear exactly what time of day a set will go on sale. When it does, the site usually crashes, sometimes mid-checkout. By the time it's all working again, the GWP (not to mention the main set) is sometimes already out-of-stock. I'm sure this will be my experience buying the Enterprise later this month. If you're one of those people who wants both a signature set and the GWP that comes with it, it's stressful and feels like a stick in the eye to LEGO's most loyal fans.
Why LEGO can't adopt a universal pre-release mechanism (or adequately plan for high traffic events) for highly anticipated sets is beyond me.
Great article. What I would truly like to understand is the decision on LEGO on whether to release a GWP as a 500 7 digit series vs a 5 digit set. The 500 series packaging is freaking awful. The thing is so easy to rip apart and the artwork on the box is terrible as well. I avoid them completely, even if I like the set contents somehow. Can anyone shed some light into the criteria?
@n3y0 said:
"The point of these GWPs is to induce FOMO with exclusivity and pressure people to pay full price for a set on release day rather than being able to wait for a sale. It's really scummy in my opinion. "
Its capitalism marketing 101
Not sure if this has been said but I think GWPs are just another thing that adds to the reason why LEGO is expensive. GWPs are being subsidised by buyers of regular LEGO (without GWP). They are another marketing cost that is placed on all LEGO buyers.
Going back a couple of years now, but as part of the Inside Tour we were able to shop at the employee store inside the LEGO Campus building. I was shocked to see multiple older GWP boxed sets and polybags offered for sale there. Needless to say I bought a number of them that I had missed out on when originally available.
No one has mentioned it yet, but there is the issue of getting GWPs that just don't interest you. I appreciate many of the GWPs that come around, especially the seasonal and holiday themed ones which are my farourites. However I also have a stack of GWP sets that I am not interested in and don't need in my collection. Sets such as 40728 and 40785 come to mind. It seems a bit wrong to simply throw them into my parts bin and the secondary market can be a hassle, especially for some of the less appealing GWPs.
@CCC said: "Some people see it as scummy. Others see it as a bonus for being an early purchaser"
You know what's scummy? The way they used to do it a few years ago, when introducing an anticipated D2C set (modular, UCS etc) on the 1st of the month, and then introducing a nice GWP on the 5th. That way you essentially got punished for being an early buyer, it seems like their rationale was that since you were going to buy the set anyway, it was no point in wasting a freebie on you. And there was no way of knowing upfront, there was no pre-announcement, nothing here on Brickset, the only way to get a heads-up was to regularly visit the more "leaky" AFOL websites.
Even if they don't do that anymore, it's such scumminess that has soured me on the entire GWP game. As I've said before, Lego makes *way* too many sets you can't just buy, which is frustrating as these are often the most interesting and potentially reasonably-priced ones. And as @iamkevinwill says, these sets had development and production setup costs, it seems wasteful to only make them available to a small fraction of the potential buyers.
Rather than making GWPs set-specific, they could be made more widely available to serve as an advertisement for the parent set. I'm unlikely to buy the 10335 Endurance or 10356 Enterprise sets, but would love to get 40729 Shackleton's Lifeboat or the 40768 Shuttlepod - if I could easily buy these, maybe they would have enticed me to buy the larger sets later.
@quincy said:
"Nice article. Good this is holding attention.
I’m still in the camp: All GWP remain complimentary (free) for a brief window, and then assume a regular price and remain available until the parent set retires. Would solve a lot of issues, and would be easy to accomplish, production-wise. "
I like this idea! Alternatively, they could become available in the Insiders reward center. That maintains the exclusivity of the item but still makes them more widely available than being locked to a certain set during a one-week period.
I like GWPs in general but I'm also getting tired of set-exclusive ones. One of my favorite recent GWPs is 40598 because it expanded an incredible new set but was also available with any Harry Potter purchase of a certain spend.
@Mister_Jonny said:
" @FuddRuckus said:
"Lately, whenever people talk about sets being incomplete, I think about examples like 40106 from 2014 that expanded 10245, 40140 from 2015 that was part of the story for 10246, and minifigure 30603 in 2016 that was a "missing" character from 76052. The difference from the process today is you could order other things -- at far lower price points -- and still get them, while waiting until later to buy the big companion sets. However, there was still a specific, limited time to get those GWPs.
I'm not defending Lego's practice then or now, just pointing out that the DLC argument people have a flaw in any claims that this is a new concept, as these "incomplete" original sets have been appearing for at least a decade."
I think the nuance here is that you weren’t locked into getting the related set in order to get the GWP, so it’s not precisely the same situation. You could theoretically get the Mr. Freeze polybag with a cheaper unrelated purchase and then get the classic TV series Batcave at a more convenient time; it was a far more flexible arrangement.
In some ways, I feel like tying GWPs to a specific expensive purchase - especially when they feel like an integral part of the set in question - is counterintuitive, as I’m guessing there’s a few people out there that will be reluctant to get the big set without the little one to accompany it. I was going back and forth on the Goonies set in its original release window, but now that the attic GWP is no longer available I consider the door to that purchase effectively closed for good - regardless of the merits of the main set in question.
"
Exactly - the inability to get the 6373603 Ulysses Space Probe was the only reason I didn't buy 10283 Space Shuttle Discovery. I sat up late at night to complete the purchase, when web site crash prevented my purchase
Personally I love GWPs. I don't place an order unless I qualify for at least one, usually two. The move to large, "event" sets having exclusive GWPs is good in principle, my only issue being the quality of the GWP. The GWP with this year's Death Star, for example, was awful. As many said, it looking like a 4+ set. For me it was the size of the set. For the most expensive set LEGO has ever produced, the GWP should have been far more significant, ideally it should have received multiple GWPs. General GWPs have a threshold roughly between £100-£200, so an exclusive GWP attached to a set costing from £200 to £900 should be significantly bigger, but isn't.
I generally like GWPs, and having worked adjacent to the Marketing function previously, I understand how they are part of the marketing plan for Lego.
If they're good I'll get the set at launch (40483-1 with 75313, and 40729-1 with 10335-1) otherwise I'll wait until a double points promotion, or other discount.
However, I'm still salty after not getting the awesome VIP collection (not an actual set, put full of cool stuff that came with 10295-1 despite ordering at midnight on release day. I even contacted Customer Support in case there'd been an error, but no - just told 'sorry, they're all gone'.
Made much worse by the hundreds of them that appeared on eBay the following day!
@CapnRex101 said:
" @myth said:
"What about the infamous example of 6373604 Ulysses Space Probe that came with 10283 NASA Space Shuttle Discovery? It was tied to the space shuttle only. It indeed came later as a possible purchase for points in the rewards centre, but only because GWP release was such a debacle and fans were complaining a lot… So it should count towards GWP’s exclusive to one set.
Ulysses probe debacle soured me completely towards desirable sets as GWP, especially when tied to a particular set, even if I plan to buy that set."
That was only ever an Insiders reward, although it was originally planned for release at the same time as 10283 Space Shuttle Discovery, but was delayed: https://brickset.com/article/58674/ "
To add to this, the specific reason the Ulysses was delayed was that the queueing system worked well for the main site, but was never incorporated into the VIP site, which caused that site to crash hard during the launch of the fourth coin (Classic Space). They also delayed the release of the fifth coin (LEGO logo) for the same reason (and also because it was originally scheduled to go live on May 1st, which coincides with the one of their biggest shopping events of the year). Pushing them off was meant to prevent the VIP site from crashing.
That said, the main set was dedicated specifically to the launch of the Hubble telescope, and the Ulysses was just one other satellite that got launched on the same Shuttle during a different mission. It is tied to the Discovery, but not that mission.
Getting back to the confusion about the Ulysses release, though, it’s listed in the GWP subtheme of Promotional, even though it never was. Some GWPs show up later in the VIP Rewards Center (like the Amelia Earhart plane), and others never do. Likewise, some VIP Reward items have previously been GWPs, while others have not (like the camera and personal cassette player). It would help prevent this confusion if the VIP sets were listed as such, and not lumped in with GWPs by default. Sets that were both could be tagged as both, but listed under whichever subtheme got them first.
I love GWPS. They are arguably the ONLY reason I ever buy directly from LEGO. The only thing I can’t stand is when LEGO fails to have a reasonable amount available. Running out of GWP stock in 1 day or less is simply inexcusable.
Otherwise, I’m a big, big fan. It will be fun to look back at them over these last 15 years.
That being said, my preference would be “threshold” GWPs over “set specific” GWPs. Having options on what to buy and potentially being able to get more than one is always better
@capnrex101
I take issue with your article because you didn’t double check it with me first to make sure it agreed with my extremely nuanced opinion.
"they have proven successful, no matter what fans online think of them" yes that is how predatory business practices work
@quincy said:
"Nice article. Good this is holding attention.
I’m still in the camp: All GWP remain complimentary (free) for a brief window, and then assume a regular price and remain available until the parent set retires. Would solve a lot of issues, and would be easy to accomplish, production-wise. "
TLG wouldn't do that precisely because they wanted it to be exclusive and limited in terms of limited timeline for you to purchase, i.e. create a FOMO situation, else no one would be bothered to buy the expensive sets at full price on day 1.
This is pure marketing 101.
@Blondie_Wan said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
" @Ottozone said:
"Your graph is missing a data point for 2013. In 2013 if you purchased 10232 Palace Cinema between September to the end of the year, you got 5002891 The LEGO Movie Poster Sticker. This was only for if you purchased that specific set so it counts as a specific set GWP."
That would be considered a 'Gear' item though, so it is excluded. Something like that does cross the boundary a bit, but I decided to focus on proper sets, otherwise the graph would have to include lots of other items, many of which are not really comparable to sets."
I thought “Gear” meant lifestyle items, like pens and pencils, patches, posters, coffee mugs, etc. that are meant to be used by actual people as opposed to minifigures or whatever (e.g., 5005907 NASA Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Patch, a GWP for 10266 NASA Apollo 11 Lunar Lander). The poster sticker for The LEGO Movie wasn’t an actual poster, but a sticker meant specifically to go on one of the “poster” window panes in the Palace Cinema set. Although it’s a sticker and could be adhered to whatever random object one wants, it’s specifically designed as a part for incorporating into that specific set’s build. Wouldn’t that be different from all those Gear and Extended Line items and whatnot?"
But it's still not a set; there are no Lego parts inside.