The gift-with-purchase conundrum

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 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.

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 40586 was free with a purchase of €180
It does match the jazz club a bit

@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.

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.

@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!

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!

@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

@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.

@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.

@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.

They are DLCs now xD

@CapnRex101 said:
"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."

So what in the current range is like the Star Trek GWP? There is nothing but the big set.

@axeleng said:"
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."

That is something I just don't understand. Why would someone want to buy something like the ST shuttle set if they don't want the big set? There is nothing else from Star Trek available, so you'd have a small set with a minor character but nothing else from the franchise if you don't buy the main set. And why would purchasing a small set now entice you to purchase a big one later, but getting a "free" one now doesn't entice you to buy the big one now?

Honestly GWPs would be fine if there was a way to also get them separately for the duration of the GWP release. This of course would mean that Lego would have to stock more and there would be more risk involved for the company. But honestly that's the cost of doing business, you can't have your cake and also eat it. Making your scheme more consumer unfriendly because you are risk averse is the prime example of the thing that makes everything worse. Imo either you take the risk and release a set, or you don't.

As I see it, GWP's are kinda now becoming what DLC's were in the video gaming space. Let's hope they don't move to loot boxes. I could see Lego actually doing this tbh.

@Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @axeleng said:"
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."

That is something I just don't understand. Why would someone want to buy something like the ST shuttle set if they don't want the big set? There is nothing else from Star Trek available, so you'd have a small set with a minor character but nothing else from the franchise if you don't buy the main set. And why would purchasing a small set now entice you to purchase a big one later, but getting a "free" one now doesn't entice you to buy the big one now?
"

Budget. The shuttlecraft would be highly affordable to people with smaller amounts of disposable income, the Enterprise very much is not."

Not to mention space. I could afford it, and would be buying it Day One if I had the space. But I don't, and unless I suddenly find myself rich enough to buy a new house between now and Black Friday, I will not be doing so.

GWP often exist to induce initial sales these days now that most sets are over priced from a public perception. Lego knows this and the fraction of the cost to produce them, especially with no unique elements, still nets them a significant profit.

@Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @axeleng said:"
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."

That is something I just don't understand. Why would someone want to buy something like the ST shuttle set if they don't want the big set? There is nothing else from Star Trek available, so you'd have a small set with a minor character but nothing else from the franchise if you don't buy the main set. And why would purchasing a small set now entice you to purchase a big one later, but getting a "free" one now doesn't entice you to buy the big one now?
"

Budget. The shuttlecraft would be highly affordable to people with smaller amounts of disposable income, the Enterprise very much is not."

That is like LEGO doing a small Stranger Things set and only including Eddie. Or a small Pirates of the Caribbean set and only including Ragetti.

Neither are much fun as a standalone set if there are no other small sets, and if you don't have the big set. If there are no other sets to go with it, would people really buy it?

@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."

I could not agree more. I already own both of these GWPs as I always buy on day one every LOTR set that is released, but I am sure that many people do not and would have been happy to get them as standalone sets.

@PjtorXmos said:
"Honestly GWPs would be fine if there was a way to also get them separately for the duration of the GWP release. This of course would mean that Lego would have to stock more and there would be more risk involved for the company. But honestly that's the cost of doing business, you can't have your cake and also eat it. "

They did that with Rivendell, coming with a free Brickheadz set that was for sale by itself. As it was not exclusive and could be purchased separately, it was not really any incentive to buy Rivendell early.

While it is technically still a GWP, making it non-exclusive makes it less special and less likely to promote early sales. They might as well not do a GWP and make the (big) set slightly cheaper.

@Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @axeleng said:"
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."

That is something I just don't understand. Why would someone want to buy something like the ST shuttle set if they don't want the big set? There is nothing else from Star Trek available, so you'd have a small set with a minor character but nothing else from the franchise if you don't buy the main set. And why would purchasing a small set now entice you to purchase a big one later, but getting a "free" one now doesn't entice you to buy the big one now?
"

Budget. The shuttlecraft would be highly affordable to people with smaller amounts of disposable income, the Enterprise very much is not."

That is like LEGO doing a small Stranger Things set and only including Eddie. Or a small Pirates of the Caribbean set and only including Ragetti.

Neither are much fun as a standalone set if there are no other small sets, and if you don't have the big set. If there are no other sets to go with it, would people really buy it?"

Yes."

So I guess you should buy it on bricklink or ebay and enjoy role playing scenes from Star Trek with your single minifigure of a minor character and the shuttle.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @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."

I know it’s not the same as something molded, but it is in fact specifically designed to attach to a(nother) LEGO element. It’s different from something like a patch or a pen or whatever.

I think GWP's could be anything as long as they don't have exclusive parts

@PjtorXmos said:
"As I see it, GWP's are kinda now becoming what DLC's were in the video gaming space. Let's hope they don't move to loot boxes. I could see Lego actually doing this tbh."

They already do that with the collectable minifig lines. Yes, there are apps that can tell you what's inside for some of the lines, but most people buying them don't know that and are just buying a blind box.

@Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @axeleng said:"
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."

That is something I just don't understand. Why would someone want to buy something like the ST shuttle set if they don't want the big set? There is nothing else from Star Trek available, so you'd have a small set with a minor character but nothing else from the franchise if you don't buy the main set. And why would purchasing a small set now entice you to purchase a big one later, but getting a "free" one now doesn't entice you to buy the big one now?
"

Budget. The shuttlecraft would be highly affordable to people with smaller amounts of disposable income, the Enterprise very much is not."

That is like LEGO doing a small Stranger Things set and only including Eddie. Or a small Pirates of the Caribbean set and only including Ragetti.

Neither are much fun as a standalone set if there are no other small sets, and if you don't have the big set. If there are no other sets to go with it, would people really buy it?"

Yes."

So I guess you should buy it on bricklink or ebay and enjoy role playing scenes from Star Trek with your single minifigure of a minor character and the shuttle. "

I think you have perhaps never been in an income bracket where you could have something - or even nothing - of what you wanted but certainly not all of it if you think that’s a major obstacle. I spent a fair chunk of my childhood coming up with elaborate sets of rules for games played with spare change: A single minifigure - one that I can happily combine with other minifigures from other themes in exciting crossovers! - has practically endless possibilities by comparison.

And regardless the shuttlecraft itself has got some excellent swoosh.

I’m not sure why you’re so offended at the idea that small sets appeal to people even if they can’t have the big ones for budget or space reasons - thank you TheOtherMike, fair point well made - that you decide to pretend I didn’t already mention the aftermarket in this thread, blithely ignore the specific problems with acquiring set-linked GWPs on said aftermarket, and just be generally kind of rude and condescending about it?"

OK. Imagine they did just the GWP set as a small retail set, and the larger set. How many complaints do you think they'd get because ... "The small affordable set only contains a minor character that nobody asked for and they have locked all the popular characters behind a massive pay wall. LEGO are trying to force us to buy big sets by releasing only one small set with a less desirable character to entice us but put all the key characters behind a paywall." I imagine they'd get more complaints doing that than if they do the small set as a nice little bonus for buying the big set early and direct from them.

@emQ said:
"GWPs are huge punishments for people with a day job/life/requirement to live within a budget.

They're only a bonus if you're already rich, helping you get richer. To any other consumer, they're a whip; not a carrot.

They should *all* stop, but especially the ones associated with a particular set.

The best GWPs were the seasonal polybags -- random parts, random small seasonal set that wasn't chock-full of unique parts, etc., that lasted enough time that supply wasn't an issue. Or when they're gear and not bricks -- the mug, the cookie cutters, the popscicle molds. The D&D adventure booklet for that set.

OR, as many people regularly point out: Make them available for purchase separately later. Free GWP bundled at release, purchasable later for the regular long duration (i.e., not "supplies limited"). They'd still be 1st-party-only (not retail chain), and still only "yellow box with a slip of paper" packaging. No need to fancy it up. Just make them available."

And then there is less incentive to buy the big set early and direct. The reason the set tie-ins exist is to promote early sales, so there is a buzz around the set and it gets advertised by being on people's shelves. If the GWP don't promote those early sales, then they probably wouldn't be made at all. There are plenty of retail sets to choose from already.

@CCC said:
"And then there is less incentive to buy the big set early and direct. The reason the set tie-ins exist is to promote early sales, so there is a buzz around the set and it gets advertised by being on people's shelves. If the GWP don't promote those early sales, then they probably wouldn't be made at all. There are plenty of retail sets to choose from already."

Better they actually not exist than functionally not exist.

And good sets sell. These big flashy releases sell themselves. If anything, TLG has painted themselves into a corner with this GWP nonsense by creating a feeling that there should and must be an "incentive". If there must be a sweetener (which I, again, disagree there needs to be), 2x insider points suffices.

I don't see why most of those sets couldn't be sold separately. The Sméagol & Déagol definitely could be a regular set. I'd buy a polybag of the Simpson's Living Room. The only ones that couldn't really by independent sets are the ones that attach to a bigger set.

@CCC said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Honestly GWPs would be fine if there was a way to also get them separately for the duration of the GWP release. This of course would mean that Lego would have to stock more and there would be more risk involved for the company. But honestly that's the cost of doing business, you can't have your cake and also eat it. "

They did that with Rivendell, coming with a free Brickheadz set that was for sale by itself. As it was not exclusive and could be purchased separately, it was not really any incentive to buy Rivendell early.

While it is technically still a GWP, making it non-exclusive makes it less special and less likely to promote early sales. They might as well not do a GWP and make the (big) set slightly cheaper. "

I mean maybe they shouldn't do that in general then, it's ethically dubious. Tho I gotta say, the Brickheads crowd and the "huge display set" crowd have a smaller overlap, than for example the two Star Trek sets coming up.

@cfenton said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"As I see it, GWP's are kinda now becoming what DLC's were in the video gaming space. Let's hope they don't move to loot boxes. I could see Lego actually doing this tbh."

They already do that with the collectable minifig lines. Yes, there are apps that can tell you what's inside for some of the lines, but most people buying them don't know that and are just buying a blind box.

"

Oh damn! You are correct! Minifigures has become such a ubiquitous product line that I completely forgot they fit the lootbox category. And honestly they should print what is inside on there. Lootboxes are gambling (by law in a few countries around the EU) and Lego is providing ways to gamble to children.

@axeleng said:
"They've ALREADY put this entire theme behind a paywall, making it irrelevant and out-of-reach for many of us. A shuttle with a minor character is at least better than nothing, but what we REALLY want would be a range of reasonably-priced sets with the main characters."

But like LOTR and so on, they have indicated (at least so far) that they are targeting this theme at adults with money rather than kids. In the past, there have been complaints about othervthemes where main characters are split between multiple smaller sets, and that those sets don't fit together so well, and that people are 'forced' to spend large amounts on lazy or poor quality sets to get them all. So LEGO have shifted to one big set that is usually very well done, and costs similar to what a full theme would cost. They react to what the people seem to want, and sales figures / income appear to indicate they are doing the right thing (as they keep doing it) and still people complain, this time the ones that feel left out as they don't want a single big set.

I don't think any themes other than SW and HP are big enough with both adult and kid fans that would allow ranges with a mixture of smaller sets that kids will want and also larger and expensive detailed sets made for older kids and adults.

@Hiratha said:
"… Er. You realise that the scenario we’re running with in reality is “every single character is behind the paywall” and you’re suggesting “at least one character is not behind the paywall” would be… less popular? I’m really not sure how you’re getting to that conclusion."

Yes, I am suggesting that if the shuttle was a regular retail set on the shelves of toy stores and supermarkets it probably wouldn't be very popular compared to other similar sized sets from other more complete themes, and that people would either not buy it as they cannot find the sets with Picard or Kirk (depending on who they associate with the franchise) as what is the point of buying it if you cannot buy similar sets with recognisable characters or worse still, they buy one then find out about the big set and complain about LEGO only putting the characters they know in an expensive set.

Exclusivity helps drive early sales. LEGO knows that and I reckon most AFOLs know that. If they sold this promo as a retail set then they will likely have to come up with another exclusive to do what they want to happen, drive early sales. And then you would moan about that exclusive.

People are forgetting that there is a specific "dollar" value associated with each GWP. Enter the set number on the Lego website and the MSRP comes up. For example 5009823 is listed as $19.99 US/$24.99 CAD.

Has anyone ever returned a set that came with a GWP and not included the GWP in the return? Was the return accepted, and did Lego "deduct" the value from your refund price? If so, you just found a way to purchase a GWP at MSRP. Sure, it's a hassle (and ethics aside, as many feel Lego is unethical when it comes to GWPs), but it's just one way to get back at the big bad wolf!!

@CCC said:
" @Hiratha said:
"… Er. You realise that the scenario we’re running with in reality is “every single character is behind the paywall” and you’re suggesting “at least one character is not behind the paywall” would be… less popular? I’m really not sure how you’re getting to that conclusion."

Yes, I am suggesting that if the shuttle was a regular retail set on the shelves of toy stores and supermarkets it probably wouldn't be very popular compared to other similar sized sets from other more complete themes, and that people would either not buy it as they cannot find the sets with Picard or Kirk (depending on who they associate with the franchise) as what is the point of buying it if you cannot buy similar sets with recognisable characters or worse still, they buy one then find out about the big set and complain about LEGO only putting the characters they know in an expensive set.

Exclusivity helps drive early sales. LEGO knows that and I reckon most AFOLs know that. If they sold this promo as a retail set then they will likely have to come up with another exclusive to do what they want to happen, drive early sales. And then you would moan about that exclusive."

I think it helps if you don’t collapse “every user who has ever complained about anything” into whoever you’re talking to at the time, since - as even a cursory glance further up in this thread would tell you, but if you wish further evidence feel free to go back and witness me getting increasingly irritated in the Death Star threads along the lines of “have any of you actually built a 4+ set before? because if you think that looks like one I have my doubts” - I have a history of being really annoying about defending GWPs, not being really annoying about criticising them.

I am specifically and solely criticising *this* GWP on the basis that this specific GWP would fit in just fine on the regular shelves in a way that most GWPs very much do not. Would it be a runaway best seller? I have no idea. I don’t think it needs to be to be on a shelf, though, and I am pretty confident that it would at least be a solid seller. I think it’s a real shame that themes like Star Trek and Lord of the Rings are largely relegated to people with larger budgets and more space (LotR has had Brickheadz but while I like Brickheadz in general and adore the Balrog in specific they’re too marmitey to consider as equivalent to affordable minifig scale sets), and seeing a kit that would be fine on the shelves only available as a GWP makes that even clearer.

I do not think repeating the idea that people will only complain about the main characters being in an expensive set if a cheaper set exists makes it more persuasive the second time.

But if you’d really prefer to fantasise about me indiscriminately hating GWPs regardless of type and content I suppose I can’t stop you.

@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. "

This would be the ideal scenario- free for early adopters, but still available at a later date. Perhaps put them in the Insiders Rewards section to be bought with points, to maintain some level of “exclusivity”, and encourage people to shop with LEGO to earn points towards the ones they want.

@Hiratha said:
"I am specifically and solely criticising *this* GWP on the basis that this specific GWP would fit in just fine on the regular shelves in a way that most GWPs very much do not. Would it be a runaway best seller? I have no idea. I don’t think it needs to be to be on a shelf, though, and I am pretty confident that it would at least be a solid seller.
"

And I am saying that it wouldn't fit just fine on store shelves because there is nothing else to go with it on those shelves. IP based sets tend to need either other similar sets from the same IP or, if it is the only one from the theme on the shelf, to have the main character in to sell. Otherwise it looks incomplete and casual buyers won't pick it up. If there was a range of sets, it would make sense. If Picard was in it, it would make sense. But there isn't, and he isn't.

With this type of franchise LEGO has gone down the route of doing one big set containing everything. So people can:

Buy everything in one box.

Buy everything in one box early and get a non-essential bonus.

Or not get anything.

Of course some people don't like that and so have come up with other ways of getting what they want contrary to how LEGO intended, whether that is buying the set and selling the figures and keeping the build, or selling the build and keeping the figures, or buying the build or the figures from someone else doing that, or buying/selling figures individually, or selling the GWP to offset some of the cost, or buying the GWP, and so on.

@smarchitelli said:
"People are forgetting that there is a specific "dollar" value associated with each GWP. Enter the set number on the Lego website and the MSRP comes up. For example 5009823 is listed as $19.99 US/$24.99 CAD.

Has anyone ever returned a set that came with a GWP and not included the GWP in the return? Was the return accepted, and did Lego "deduct" the value from your refund price? If so, you just found a way to purchase a GWP at MSRP. Sure, it's a hassle (and ethics aside, as many feel Lego is unethical when it comes to GWPs), but it's just one way to get back at the big bad wolf!!"

They refund you minus the value of the GWP. However, they can ban you (and have done this to 'offenders' in the past) if they believe you did it to avoid buying the large set. And if they ban you then you could lose access to your Insiders account and get blocked from buying online but not really in store as they don't know who you are if not using an Insiders account. I think they are even stricter in the US than here in Europe/UK where there are stronger consumer rights of return.

@Hiratha said:"...they’re too marmitey to consider as equivalent to affordable minifig scale sets..."

"Marmitey." That's a great way of putting it; I'll have to remember that one.

@CCC said: "With this type of franchise LEGO has gone down the route of doing one big set containing everything"

I think this is a subject for a separate article, "Do you prefer normal multi-set themes, or everything in one massive expensive set?". You may say it's more convenient to buy everything in one go rather than getting it piece-by-piece, but it means a very high threshold of entry, and it's pretty bad value if you don't care about that specific set. In my case I'd highly preferred to get these figures with a bridge diorama they could interact with, rather than a massive space-consuming dust collector.

"Of course some people don't like that and so have come up with other ways of getting what they want contrary to how LEGO intended"

I feel "how LEGO intended" is where the dog is buried - they're trying every trick in the book to get us to buy as much as possible of things we don't care about in order to get what we actually want (up to and including banning customers for buying something they weren't supposed to buy). Wouldn't it be nice if Lego worked with us rather than against us? Of course you may say that's "business 101" or "the way you make money", but while such predatory practices is a sure way to a quick buck, it may be costly in the log run as they may quickly lose reputation and customer goodwill it has taken generations to build up. Right now they're getting a reputation for being the Apple/EA of toys and the 800 pound gorilla pushing everyone around, like in Germany (once their primary market) where clone brands are rising in popularity. I know nothing about their quality (other than what "certain posters" here are saying) but at least they bring in some badly needed competition in a market suffering from an unhealthy monopoly.

@axeleng said:"... they're trying every trick in the book to get us to buy as much as possible of things we don't care about in order to get what we actually want (up to and including banning customers for buying something they weren't supposed to buy)."

They're not "banning people for buying something they weren't supposed to buy." They're banning people for trying to game their system.

@CCC said:
"OK. Imagine they did just the GWP set as a small retail set, and the larger set. How many complaints do you think they'd get because ... "The small affordable set only contains a minor character that nobody asked for and they have locked all the popular characters behind a massive pay wall. LEGO are trying to force us to buy big sets by releasing only one small set with a less desirable character to entice us but put all the key characters behind a paywall." I imagine they'd get more complaints doing that than if they do the small set as a nice little bonus for buying the big set early and direct from them."

Again, it's not a bonus. It's included in the price of the set.

In the US, the Enterprise is $400. This price includes the $20 for the Shuttlepod.

If you miss out on the Shuttlepod GWP, you're being overcharged $20 for the Enterprise because Lego never changes the price. You're being tricked into thinking something is an exclusive bonus when it's something you really should receive regardless because you're paying for it.

It goes without saying that paying $380 for the Enterprise, $20 for the Shuttlepod or $400 for both is preferable to paying $400 regardless if you receive the Shuttepod or not.

I'm sure a lot of people would buy the Shuttlepod as a stand alone set as well, just as they would any smaller set, whether it be to complete a larger collection or just for parts. The Shuttlepod would surely sell faster than the Enterprise--it's not like it would just sit there collecting dust on the store shelf.

Lego already offers an incentive or bonus for buying directly from them in the form of Insider Points and constant promotions.

It used to be somewhat forgivable when the GWPs were things like the holiday assortment polybags or sets that could be built with parts laying around but that's becoming increasingly rare. Exclusive GWPs only exist to induce FOMO and keep the scalper market healthy so that Lego can milk every last cent from customers through reseller fees.

A large customer base for Lego are scalpers and resellers. Inevitably, most people that collect Lego become resellers, whether it be full-time or just occasionally every few years when they need to purge because their collection has grown too large. Obviously, once people are maxed out for space, they're maxed out for space, so their buying drops off until they purge.

There's no real way to justify exclusive GWPs unless you're Lego. I'm sure scalpers love them but there again, they're being exploited by Lego all the same.

@TheOtherMike said: "They're not "banning people for buying something they weren't supposed to buy." They're banning people for trying to game their system"

Right - an unfair system intended to game the customers. Who's the worst - the scammer, or those trying to scam the scammer? If Lego didn't play such dirty games to begin with, there wouldn't be any *need* to game them.

I have little interest in Star Trek, but would still buy the shuttle if it was retail available as it's quite well designed. I don't care what minifigs it does or doesn't come with.

Speaking more generally, I think @Vesperas really summed up the issues and how I feel about GWPs.

@Vesperas said:
" @CCC said:
"OK. Imagine they did just the GWP set as a small retail set, and the larger set. How many complaints do you think they'd get because ... "The small affordable set only contains a minor character that nobody asked for and they have locked all the popular characters behind a massive pay wall. LEGO are trying to force us to buy big sets by releasing only one small set with a less desirable character to entice us but put all the key characters behind a paywall." I imagine they'd get more complaints doing that than if they do the small set as a nice little bonus for buying the big set early and direct from them."

Again, it's not a bonus. It's included in the price of the set.

In the US, the Enterprise is $400. This price includes the $20 for the Shuttlepod.

If you miss out on the Shuttlepod GWP, you're being overcharged $20 for the Enterprise because Lego never changes the price. You're being tricked into thinking something is an exclusive bonus when it's something you really should receive regardless because you're paying for it.

It goes without saying that paying $380 for the Enterprise, $20 for the Shuttlepod or $400 for both is preferable to paying $400 regardless if you receive the Shuttepod or not.
:
:
:
"

Alternatively it is $400 for the big set and you get the 5% Insiders points back and the Shuttle promo if you purchase early.

If you prefer to wait, you can pay $400 and get 10% Insiders points buying at the right time. Or you can wait until there is another GWP/promotion you are interested in.

If you don't care, you can pay $400 and not get any GWP or Insiders points if you don't sign up.

@CCC said:
"Alternatively it is $400 for the big set and you get the 5% Insiders points back and the Shuttle promo if you purchase early.

If you prefer to wait, you can pay $400 and get 10% Insiders points buying at the right time. Or you can wait until there is another GWP/promotion you are interested in.

If you don't care, you can pay $400 and not get any GWP or Insiders points if you don't sign up.
"

Or you can wait until the EOL on the Enterprise set, pay the same when a few years of inflation has reduced the value of whatever currency of choice you buy it with, and TLG earns a much smaller profit margin on the sale. Because everyone seems to be forgetting that a set that sells for $400 at launch invariably sells for $400 at retirement, except for that one time they had to adjust MSRP on a bunch of sets during the pandemic. They don’t make a habit of raising prices on sets that have already been released, and they price them such that they’ll stay profitable until the very end. Yes, that does mean you’re technically paying them more on launch day, but it’s only because your currency hasn’t spent the next few years losing value (as all currencies do).

I don’t have a problem with GWP’s outside of the higher than they should be thresholds we’ve seen in recent years. Like the hot chocolate stand coming up. That seems more like a $130 than a $170.

I really liked the Flower Cart that accompanied(I think….)Detective’s Office. It was a fun addition to the set(and continued the criminal enterprise) but the set didn’t feel incomplete without it. Then I really liked the Fountain set. Basically anything that can be added to my city is a win for me.

@emQ said:
"GWPs are huge punishments for people with a day job/life/requirement to live within a budget.

They're only a bonus if you're already rich, helping you get richer. To any other consumer, they're a whip; not a carrot.

They should *all* stop, but especially the ones associated with a particular set.

The best GWPs were the seasonal polybags -- random parts, random small seasonal set that wasn't chock-full of unique parts, etc., that lasted enough time that supply wasn't an issue. Or when they're gear and not bricks -- the mug, the cookie cutters, the popscicle molds. The D&D adventure booklet for that set.

OR, as many people regularly point out: Make them available for purchase separately later. Free GWP bundled at release, purchasable later for the regular long duration (i.e., not "supplies limited"). They'd still be 1st-party-only (not retail chain), and still only "yellow box with a slip of paper" packaging. No need to fancy it up. Just make them available."

Just because YOU don’t like something doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist. I’m by no means rich, but I usually mange to get the GWP’s I want. And then there’s some I miss out on. That’s how things work when you collect.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @Hiratha said:"...they’re too marmitey to consider as equivalent to affordable minifig scale sets..."

"Marmitey." That's a great way of putting it; I'll have to remember that one."

I’m very fond of it!

@CCC said:
"Alternatively it is $400 for the big set and you get the 5% Insiders points back and the Shuttle promo if you purchase early.

If you prefer to wait, you can pay $400 and get 10% Insiders points buying at the right time. Or you can wait until there is another GWP/promotion you are interested in.

If you don't care, you can pay $400 and not get any GWP or Insiders points if you don't sign up."

There shouldn't be an "alternatively." You should receive the GWP regardless of when you purchase the corresponding set because you're paying for it--it's baked into the price of the set. It's not free. It's not a bonus. It's not a bargain.

If you receive the GWP and Insider Points, you get what you paid for. If you don't receive the GWP and Insider Points, you're being ripped off unless you buy the set with a heavy discount (approx. 15-20% off). Even at that discount, Lego is still making a profit on the set, you've just offset the "extras" that you're paying for but not getting. What kind of incentive is that? Lego is effectively scalping you.

The exclusive GWP and 5% Insiders Points are not equal to the 10% Insiders Points like you seem to be suggesting.

Like the GWPs, the Insider program has a material cost attached to it. The program costs Lego something to produce the Insider promotions, digital freebies, coloring pages, offset the discount savings and maintain all of the user data associated with it. The Insider program is funded through an invisible, separate, distinct and additional cost baked into all sets.

Lego even provides the MSRP of the GWPs. For example, the Fish Tank Filter and Fish Food is $19.99 USD.

What if I want to buy the Fish Tank but I don't want the GWP? Why do I have to pay for the GWP or go through the hassle of selling it to recover my money so that the fish tank costs what it should have cost me in the first place?

It's difficult for me to see GWPs as anything other than a FOMO-inducing, arbitrarily limited, extremely scummy, anti-consumer business practice. They keep getting more egregious every year. They need to stop entirely. Especially the ones with exclusive minifigures/prints/stickers. There is literally no reason those need to exist from a consumer perspective. Just let us buy the sets we want without all of the mind games, please.

@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."

This, 1000 times this.

Personally, I don't like The Lego Group's push for FOMO. I usually wait several months before I buy a set to make sure I actually want it.

I dont see why Italian van and corner kiosk couldnt have been their own sets. In my opinion the latter especially wouldve been popular with city/town fans and AFOLs generally.

The Italian van wouldve made a good set similar to the Creator Land Rover (the flame yellowish orange one) just a nice small city/town type set that anyone can buy (including kids) though of a higher building standard than the average City set.

I strongly believe that GWPs should be sold separately and widely available, after a certain time.

For example the 1950s Moving Van, that shouldve been offered with Jazz Club as a GWP for a certain time, and then sold as normal. That way it really is a GIFT with purchase, youve made a big purchase on day 1, here's a gift. (which still encourages people to buy day one without forcing you).

Meanwhile, those that missed out can still buy it and indeed buy multiple copies. The various vintage/classic vehicle GWPs and Forestman Hideout/Maijesto's Workshop are examples I would argue where many fans wouldve bought multiple had they had the chance.

I always tell the true story of the Lego store in Canberra Australia. It was *literally* overflowing with copies of the Moving Truck. Cardboard boxes in stacks and stacks all around the counter and out the back, each with however many copies of MT inside.
Now I really liked that set and wouldve bought a whole bunch of them, as I am sure others would've, but NOPE. "GWP only, cant sell it".

So these blithering idiots held on to a ridiculous stock for months and yet only 3 times they had it available as a GWP with $350+ purchase (a threshold most consumers wont meet). I dont know how well they moved that stock but seriously why the hell would you not sell them normally and cash in on that??

It was even stranger because I remember another time a different lego store was selling Charles Dickens as a set because they had heaps left over.
Other GWPs Ive been told by staff they only received 5. Five copies. that's it. Never again. Bloody ridiculous.

For myself the only reason I was able to get the Moving Truck was the kindness and generosity of a random Brickset forum member who sent it to me from USA for the price of the postage as they had no need for it.

Which brings me to the next point that many fans (who would spend money buying GWPs) miss out, while many others get a set basically for free that they have zero interest in. Either way is unsatisfied customers.

Why on earth have a system where you prevent people from buying stuff they want (which is profit for lego), and at the same time give the product to others that couldnt care less??

Now, I hear CapnRex's argument about some GWPs (such as Amelia ticket office) not selling on their own.

At that point I ask why does that GWP even exist? It doesnt fit the scale of the attached set, doesnt really add anything valuable and is hardly going to be sought after enough to warrant a dramatic increase in day one purchases.

I argue make GWPs nice but not exclusive or necessary to complete a set. Have them as a GIFT for those that buy during a certain time and after that sell as normal. If it wouldnt sell on its own then either include it within the set itself (eg fish tank filter), or dont make it at all.

@CCC said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @CCC said:
" @axeleng said:"
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."

That is something I just don't understand. Why would someone want to buy something like the ST shuttle set if they don't want the big set? There is nothing else from Star Trek available, so you'd have a small set with a minor character but nothing else from the franchise if you don't buy the main set. And why would purchasing a small set now entice you to purchase a big one later, but getting a "free" one now doesn't entice you to buy the big one now?
"

Budget. The shuttlecraft would be highly affordable to people with smaller amounts of disposable income, the Enterprise very much is not."

That is like LEGO doing a small Stranger Things set and only including Eddie. Or a small Pirates of the Caribbean set and only including Ragetti.

Neither are much fun as a standalone set if there are no other small sets, and if you don't have the big set. If there are no other sets to go with it, would people really buy it?"

Yes."

So I guess you should buy it on bricklink or ebay and enjoy role playing scenes from Star Trek with your single minifigure of a minor character and the shuttle. "

I think you have perhaps never been in an income bracket where you could have something - or even nothing - of what you wanted but certainly not all of it if you think that’s a major obstacle. I spent a fair chunk of my childhood coming up with elaborate sets of rules for games played with spare change: A single minifigure - one that I can happily combine with other minifigures from other themes in exciting crossovers! - has practically endless possibilities by comparison.

And regardless the shuttlecraft itself has got some excellent swoosh.

I’m not sure why you’re so offended at the idea that small sets appeal to people even if they can’t have the big ones for budget or space reasons - thank you TheOtherMike, fair point well made - that you decide to pretend I didn’t already mention the aftermarket in this thread, blithely ignore the specific problems with acquiring set-linked GWPs on said aftermarket, and just be generally kind of rude and condescending about it?"

OK. Imagine they did just the GWP set as a small retail set, and the larger set. How many complaints do you think they'd get because ... "The small affordable set only contains a minor character that nobody asked for and they have locked all the popular characters behind a massive pay wall. LEGO are trying to force us to buy big sets by releasing only one small set with a less desirable character to entice us but put all the key characters behind a paywall." I imagine they'd get more complaints doing that than if they do the small set as a nice little bonus for buying the big set early and direct from them."

I think you’re really underestimating the appeal of this specific character, the value (not monetary but build-wise) that this minifigure has above and beyond this one character, and the shuttle itself. Honestly, the question shouldn’t be “would a fan really want this on its own?”, but rather “*how many copies* would some fans want of this?” It’s a set that lends itself to buying *multiples*, and some people would do just that. I certainly would, and I’m less wealthy than many of the collectors here.

The biggest problem with GWPs tied to a specific set is that they are limited, usually to the initial launch week. These should always be available for the entirety of the run of that set.