BrickLink Designer Program: Are more sets going to be made available?
Posted by Huw,
Overnight, an interesting message appeared on BrickLink's Facebook page:
"We've read your comments and frustrations, and we hear you! Please stay tuned for an update next week."
It tells us nothing yet, but given that the majority of comments and frustrations concerned how quickly sets sold out, in part due to the high limit of 5 sets per person allowing scalpers to swoop at the expense of others, I think we can conclude that either (a) more will be made available or (b) scalpers will have their orders reduced to one or two per set, thus freeing up inventory for others.
The latter might not be possible, or easy, so it's more likely to be the former in my opinion.
I guess we will find out next week!
111 likes
75 comments on this article
That's good news. I think they mostly underestimated the number of interested people and will adjust accordingly. They'll probably learn from their mistakes on the scalper front, especially since they have the numbers of sets bought per person. Might make future rounds more interesting!
5 sets per person is a ridiculous number.
high demand sets on their website often have a limit of 2
Make more sets available and reduce all qty:5 orders to qty:2 and the scalpers will have to go back to hunting pokemon
I'm going to guess it'll be more along the lines of "too late to do anything now, we will try and do better next time. As bonus we are going to leave you looking at the pointless 40 days of countdown for the full 40 days after they all sell out." But maybe I'm being overly optimistic...
I do wonder if Lego just thought not many people would actually be interested.
If that is the case, the low number and 5 per person make some sense.
They were clearly wrong, but could have been an honest under estimation of demand
As expected :) Great news for everyone not able to grab his favorite set !
Should be a minimum of 10000 sets of each as that's many votes it took to get them there in first place.
They should let the scalpers keep their five sets; and in 90 days after delivery, start a large production run. Do this two or there times and they’ll solve their scalper issues.
when will we find out what the final products will look like?...or will those be the final products?...thanks everyone
Five?! What about this did they not expect exactly?
For such a limited quantity a 5 set order limit was always a ridiculous decision
@Virgilnz said:
"5 sets per person is a ridiculous number.
high demand sets on their website often have a limit of 2"
Any real scrapper will have multiple account... Doubt it will be enough to stop them.
@Padraig said:
"They should let the scalpers keep their five sets; and in 90 days after delivery, start a large production run. Do this two or there times and they’ll solve their scalper issues. "
The old rug pull trick. I love your thinking!
Aside from that, did anybody at Bricklink not foresee the insane demand that these would have? Is there any way to suddenly up the production run seeing as how this was supposed to be a crowdfunding-style thing? The potential market may only be a few dozen thousand, but it seems like a way to print money from my point of view.
They should at least get rid of that ‘regional limit’. I wanted to order the ‘Pursuit of Flight’ (it still hadn’t reached max. Pre-order) . But i couldn’t order it based on my location. This feels a bit like saying ‘your money is not good enough’ because you live in Europe.
I'd love it if they reduced already placed orders. Anybody that purchased 3 or more of the same set is likely doing so to try and profit and I could happily listen to their moaning all day.
Sometimes I wonder whether TLC is fumbling around like (the ridiculous app integrated stuff like Vidiyo great figs btw) or super genius like intentionally creating a void for years of no castle/pirate/space themes where the hunger and longing of those old sets gets their customers building hype at just the mere mention of a new set. Kinda like the McRib at Mcds. But at the same time it's like come on Lego just bring your classic themes back and Western too. Lol I see this as more positive cause it tells TLC where the demand is. I missed out on POVOQ castle so hopefully I can get this time around. If Lego has been watching the Ideas and noticing that castle keeps getting 10k support, they probably have a castle theme thats already set for next year. Lol Here's to the return of Castle! Lechaim!
Reposting on the new thread.
just an idea...
I'm fully expecting another "Economics 101" onslaught but maybe lego could produce 10000 and give everyone who voted for it first refusal on purchasing at 1pp. Again I realise this is a bit more complicated but it is doable in the same way they give early access for VIPs. This is probably a terrible idea though as it'll probably encourage bots to vote on everything just to secure the opportunity to buy should it make. Then loads of projects will hit 10000. This could be policed though; an account voting on everything is clearly a bot. Also if you didn't see it at the voting stage you will probably be annoyed that you have very little chance to purchase. It'll probably mess the amounts available per region as well.
However it might be a good compromise in that lego would still only produce 10000 and not some arbitrary number. They could still decide to turn it into a genuine ideas set or do another batch run if it proves popular. No idea how this would scew the current rate to 10000 votes though. It might give you a bigger window to get in on the action or it might just push the problem to the voting stage. To me if something already has 10000 votes then you know it's popular and ripe for scalping. At the beginning of voting this is less the case so should give more time to the people that genuinely like the build rather than those looking to turn a profit
I’ve got to chalk this up as an honest mistake, and not a very unreasonable one, either. The first time they did this on Bricklink the total production runs were only 2500, and it took weeks to reach those numbers. They doubled production here, and (I suspect) honestly thought demand would be at least similar to last time.
FAQ mention:
How many sets can I pre-order?
You can pre-order up to 5 copies of each project.
How many BrickLink Designer sets will be produced?
This program will realize up to the first 15 projects that are successfully crowdfunded by the fans. Each designer set is a limited edition, and the quantity produced will be up to 5,000.
I don’t think they can change the rule now but they can do it for the next round.
In my opinion, the best compromise would be to reduce the order instead of producing more sets. If everyone is reduced to two per set instead of five 5000 should be plenty for everyone.
But they may not reach 3000…
@DearMisterLegoBreaker said:
"As expected :) Great news for everyone not able to grab his favorite set !"
Great news only for those residents of the 30 chosen countries.
The rest of us are left out.
LEGO continues not to hear us.
@SpaceCadet said:
"I’ve got to chalk this up as an honest mistake, and not a very unreasonable one, either. The first time they did this on Bricklink the total production runs were only 2500, and it took weeks to reach those numbers. They doubled production here, and (I suspect) honestly thought demand would be at least similar to last time."
I think that was exactly the case. I was really surprised at how quickly it went down this time compared to the first bricklink run. I was sure the castle would the main attraction, but I stil thought it would take at least a week to complete the 5000 run.
@gromit6 said:
"when will we find out what the final products will look like?...or will those be the final products?...thanks everyone"
The pictures are of the final products. They had been updated leading up to the start of the crowdfund.
@DearMisterLegoBreaker said:
"As expected :) Great news for everyone not able to grab his favorite set !"
except the people who's favorite set didn't get 3000 in time
@FrizHedge said:
" @gromit6 said:
"when will we find out what the final products will look like?...or will those be the final products?...thanks everyone"
The pictures are of the final products. They had been updated leading up to the start of the crowdfund. "
thank you!..was not sure because it said under the pictures that "Final product may vary from image"
I for one will be very happy if they produce more sets and/or reduce the number people are allowed.
But, since the very start of the designed program, I and many others have been shouting loudly about the total qty and 5 per person limit. Especially after the fiasco's with various other limited sets. It's really time for TLG to sort this mess out. The Lego marketing and forecasting departments need to get their act together or be replaced. They are being paid to get the numbers right and yet the fans seem to have a better idea of numbers than them! It's not rocket since when 10K people have already voted for the sets!
@SpaceCadet said:
"I’ve got to chalk this up as an honest mistake, and not a very unreasonable one, either. The first time they did this on Bricklink the total production runs were only 2500, and it took weeks to reach those numbers. They doubled production here, and (I suspect) honestly thought demand would be at least similar to last time."
What was the first time they did this on Bricklink?
@Wellspring said:
" @SpaceCadet said:
"I’ve got to chalk this up as an honest mistake, and not a very unreasonable one, either. The first time they did this on Bricklink the total production runs were only 2500, and it took weeks to reach those numbers. They doubled production here, and (I suspect) honestly thought demand would be at least similar to last time."
What was the first time they did this on Bricklink?
"
BrickLink wasn't owned by LEGO back then but back in 2019 there was the AFOL Designer Program which was a first. I'm a proud owner of the Science Tower which was one of the contenders.
@audaver said:
" @Wellspring said:
" @SpaceCadet said:
"I’ve got to chalk this up as an honest mistake, and not a very unreasonable one, either. The first time they did this on Bricklink the total production runs were only 2500, and it took weeks to reach those numbers. They doubled production here, and (I suspect) honestly thought demand would be at least similar to last time."
What was the first time they did this on Bricklink?
"
BrickLink wasn't owned by LEGO back then but back in 2019 there was the AFOL Designer Program which was a first. I'm a proud owner of the Science Tower which was one of the contenders."
LEGO didn’t own BrickLink at the time but the program was run in conjunction with them. I suspect they used this experience as the basis for deciding production quantities and order limits.
…„scalpers will have their orders reduced to one or two per set“ : that’s a great idea !!!
Reducing existing orders might create a storm but would likely be within the company’s terms. I’d either like to see that or a 10,000 limit (or no limit) and one set per customer. Additionally, remove the competition element. Make all the sets if they’re funded. If production capacity is a problem, just have fewer sets per round and run this thing over an entire year.
It's certainly possible to reduce order numbers as every order is still "In Progress" as they have to sort out orders for the unsuccessful projects & some other orders placed near the limit time.
It may not be easy or possible to increase production numbers.
Meanwhile, even if Bricklink restocks, I still won’t be able to get one.
LEGO, you pandered so hard to us with your Monkie Kid sets that I nearly choked from having them shoved down my throat. Why not do the same with this Bricklink line? I’ll be sure to swallow them whole.
And then there’s that annoying article proclaiming that Hong Kong is the best and cheapest place to purchase LEGO.
Why do they even allow more than 1 set to be bought. What need is there for someone to buy 2 or more. That would drastically cut down on people buying multiples to profiteer later on. And if you were that desperate to buy an extra set for a present for someone or something, just make another account.
I’m not quite sure I understand those who say that 10,000 copies of each set should be made because they needed 10,000 votes to get there in the first place. There is a difference between voting for a set you like on a platform like LEGO ideas and committing some hard earned cash to purchase said set. I often vote for creations I love on LEGO ideas, but that does not mean I would buy them (although sometimes I do). I voted for the Pursuit of Flight, but did not buy it. I also voted for the typewriter, but I don’t think I’m going to get it. To me, choosing to vote for a creative project that you find interesting and purchasing a LEGO set are two different things altogether.
It is absolutely wonderful news! Castle in the Forest was gone within an hour, let's hope more people will get the chance to buy it!
@eiffel006 said:
"I’m not quite sure I understand those who say that 10,000 copies of each set should be made because they needed 10,000 votes to get there in the first place. There is a difference between voting for a set you like on a platform like LEGO ideas and committing some hard earned cash to purchase said set."
At least some of that would be offset by people willing to vote for and buy the idea after it already hit 10k. It's not like ideas made into sets only sell 10k units and below.
@Bricks_and_Boost said:
"Make more sets available and reduce all qty:5 orders to qty:2 and the scalpers will have to go back to hunting pokemon"
One per address, simple as that.
This sort of stuff is exactly what people have been telling LEGO for ages: there is a huge demand for sets like these. Especially when LEGO tends to throw 20 sets into a selection process, only to make the two worst ones...
LEGO needs to basically make way more of these Ideas sets. And all of these should've had 10.000 limits in the first place.
It's reallllly frustrating when you want to give LEGO lots of money, and they simply don't see a need to make more stuff.
When they say "we hear you" I hope they also refer to how slow the Bricklink site was when the crowdfunding round started, and fix it accordingly. It makes the buying experience pretty stressful knowing that on top of competing with thousands of users desperate to grab a set you have to put up with error messages from the site.
There's maybe 75 Kakapo sets left in South Korea. If anyone is Oz/NZ who wants one knows anyone who can forward a parcel to them...
1 each is fair. My opinion sorry if more kids, Take it apart let other build it.
@eiffel006 said:
"I’m not quite sure I understand those who say that 10,000 copies of each set should be made because they needed 10,000 votes to get there in the first place. There is a difference between voting for a set you like on a platform like LEGO ideas and committing some hard earned cash to purchase said set. I often vote for creationsu I love on LEGO ideas, but that does not mean I would buy them (although sometimes I do). I voted for the Pursuit of Flight, but did not buy it. I also voted for the typewriter, but I don’t think I’m going to get it. To me, choosing to vote for a creative project that you find interesting and purchasing a LEGO set are two different things altogether."
On the flip side of that is someone like me who has never voted for an Ideas set yet own 75% of the Ideas theme.
Yeah, very annoying. I couldn't order because of their technical complications and while I was on the phone with LEGO, the castle and ship sold out. They couldn't do anything about it. Very disappointing.
I'm really curious as to what their reaction will actually be.
Resetting the limit to 1 per person/address would be my favorite solution.
So you're telling me I might just have a change of fulfilling my childhood dream of owning a Forestman castle? YES!
The best solution imho would be to just increase the production number, and let the scalpers keep their sets.
The other longer term solution would be to have a representative selection of AFOL's to help judge what is interesting or not. Not only for this programme, but also for GWP's and the like. I think most fans saw that the castle would sell out quickly even before sales had started. I wonder why that would need to come as a surprise to TLG.
If they need advice, I volunteer!
I don't think they are going to increase production. They might cancel orders above 1 or 2, maybe. The program was clearly designed with scarcity in mind. Melvin Park, Head of BrickLink / VP at the LEGO Group, said so in the following interview:
¨"Melvin: We wish we could produce more if demand is high enough but that constraint comes from the manufacturing side. As you can tell, LEGO Group is trying to meet overwhelming demand, not only from LEGO Ideas or this channel but even regular LEGO set production which has reached overcapacity.
I don’t believe we can increase the quantity of these sets.
It also serves the purpose of owning a limited edition set. If we increase the quantity, the owner of the pre-ordered sets – their satisfaction levels will go down a little."
Read here: https://jaysbrickblog.com/news/missed-out-on-bricklink-designer-program-the-sets-were-limited-by-design-rlfm-days-2021/
Maybe don't make these limited and produce as many as needed to fullfil batches of preorders. Scalpers will eventually learn that there is no money to be made here. Even with a limit of one purchase, as long as it's limited run, scalpers will find a way to buy it all up. Money is higher motivator than nostalgia. Adults are use to waiting a long time for preorders so this is a viable method of selling.
Would it be too devious to give priority to those who voted for each set?
@badbob001 said:
"Would it be too devious to give priority to those who voted for each set?"
then next cycle 200 sets consider....
Anyone suggesting a limit of 1 per address or customer. I disagree completely. 5 I agree is excessive, but 2 is not at all. Even 3 isn’t. Some of us have kids. The idea of ‘take apart then let kids build’. That’s your house. It’s not my house. There is my LEGO. And then there is my older son’s LEGO. They don’t merge.
Also take into account the fact that if you started to go for an edict of ‘Only One!’ per house then you end up taking money out of the pocket of the company…and that’s money that they will make back in ways I don’t want to think about, mainly by raising prices or cutting quality/coolness on other stuff. Consumers don’t win these things, show me where consumers win. Corporations come out on top…nearly always.
The way to beat scalpers is in YOUR hands and yours alone. And it’s your responsibility too. It’s not up to the manufacturer. There’s clearly an aftermarket for a reason. Because people are willing to spend the money. Stop doing it, and that market goes away. It’s really that simple.
But it’s not going to go away, ever. I’m completely fine with that, for the record. I love the fact that LEGO isn’t just some shite dollar store toy. It’s aftermarket value makes it that much more attractive to me. When I’m ready to retire and just get rid of everything I’ve got no issues selling my LEGO at aftermarket prices.
Do I need to remind anyone that a portion of this site and many like it are dedicated to aftermarket value tracking? It’s clearly important to a lot of people here. It should be. Keep that in mind because once you kill the aftermarket, and the so-called “scalping” market, those values drop on your collection. I’ve seen it happen to other collectibles markets. And even though LEGO is to many a great building toy, it’s also a commodity. It’s in reality both.
I’m not saying this to be argumentative with anyone, we all have our reasons, we all have our unique relationships to what we are into. It’s not up to me to judge anyone else’s core fundamentals of how they choose to live their day to day. This is just stuff to think about. I was irritated about not getting a Castle. I hope I can.
Personally, I’m not sure this really WAS a scalping problem. I think it may be more related to a kind of ‘hoarding’ mentality that people still haven’t totally shaken off. I see similar behaviors in stores every day, with folks continuing to buy multiples of items in quantities that seem extreme. Someone i hope is going to study that, but I think the pandemic created something weird in consumer behavior in some people that hasn’t gone away completely. Could be related.
Man…this is WAY too long. Just had an espresso. Sorry!
Don't worry folks... LEGO is 'Sorry'... They are 'sorry' a lot lately aren't they? Sorry for their ecommerce site, the VIP rewards, the lack of available sought after VIP Rewards (like the Coins, and the Probe).But at least we have a brick shoe, right?
I think LEGO will be sorry if changes are not made at the top to stop screwing up what are really easy decisions. LEGO execs either appear to live in a bubble and not realize their Billion dollar company is that way due to demand and popularity OR they know exactly what they are doing, driving up controversy to increase demand and really do not care a lick about their customer base.. Either way, it either is incompetent or reckless management and someone needs to make a change before the scales tip and they start looking like late 90's early 2000's LEGO: So out of touch, that the company almost goes under...
@eiffel006 said:
"I don't think they are going to increase production. They might cancel orders above 1 or 2, maybe. The program was clearly designed with scarcity in mind. Melvin Park, Head of BrickLink / VP at the LEGO Group, said so in the following interview:
¨"Melvin: We wish we could produce more if demand is high enough but that constraint comes from the manufacturing side. As you can tell, LEGO Group is trying to meet overwhelming demand, not only from LEGO Ideas or this channel but even regular LEGO set production which has reached overcapacity.
I don’t believe we can increase the quantity of these sets.
It also serves the purpose of owning a limited edition set. If we increase the quantity, the owner of the pre-ordered sets – their satisfaction levels will go down a little."
Read here: https://jaysbrickblog.com/news/missed-out-on-bricklink-designer-program-the-sets-were-limited-by-design-rlfm-days-2021/"
It's interesting that Marvin (it's Marvin Park, not Melvin) stated that the satisfaction of the owner of a set will go down if it's not a limited edition set. I'm sure that's the case for some people, but for me, I honestly couldn't care less. I am really happy to have been able to order 1 Castle, which I will thoroughly enjoy building once it arrives. It wouldn't alter my experience the least little bit if they increase the number of produced sets so people who missed out can build one too.
I got lucky to get 2 Castles: one for me and one for my son. If it gets reduced to 1 per users and avoid scalpers, I would totally understand it. The limit of 5 per users and 5000 max is a call for them.
@eiffel006 said:
"LEGO official: "It also serves the purpose of owning a limited edition set. If we increase the quantity, the owner of the pre-ordered sets – their satisfaction levels will go down a little."
Read here: https://jaysbrickblog.com/news/missed-out-on-bricklink-designer-program-the-sets-were-limited-by-design-rlfm-days-2021/ "
If people need to get their satisfaction from knowing they own a limited set that others couldn't get, I feel really sorry for them. What a low self esteem these people must have to draw satisfaction from such a pitiful and unimportant fact.
I don't give a smeg how many other people have the same sets (or whatever items) as myself. I never cared for owning a limited edition because it was limited. On the contrary, I always found artificially created scarcity extremely annoying.
After all, basically everything is limited, as nothing is produced forever.
I have an idea (pun wasn’t intended, but since I now noticed it and left it in… well, there you go): announce that these five sets will do into the official Ideas process for completed sets. Or maybe just the top 2. From what I can tell, the real global demand was for the boat and castle.
That way, people who have these first 5000 have something special and collectible. But, more people can get the sets later on. Part of what made me purchase was the exclusivity of it all. Though, not enough to get “angry” if they did decide to increase the quantity. However, I will point out that since it was announced as a limited amount, there are likely legal issues with increasing the quantity.
Sometimes companies just completely underestimate demand. Nothing nefarious. It is extremely hard to gauge the market for a new product, especially a premium on. Marvel Studios made the same error with the MCU Infinity Saga boxed set. They just did not expect that people would want to spend $600+ on copies of movies they already owned. lol
@MaxA said:
"I have an idea (pun wasn’t intended, but since I now noticed it and left it in… well, there you go): announce that these five sets will do into the official Ideas process for completed sets. Or maybe just the top 2. From what I can tell, the real global demand was for the boat and castle.
That way, people who have these first 5000 have something special and collectible. But, more people can get the sets later on. Part of what made me purchase was the exclusivity of it all. Though, not enough to get “angry” if they did decide to increase the quantity. However, I will point out that since it was announced as a limited amount, there are likely legal issues with increasing the quantity.
Sometimes companies just completely underestimate demand. Nothing nefarious. It is extremely hard to gauge the market for a new product, especially a premium on. Marvel Studios made the same error with the MCU Infinity Saga boxed set. They just did not expect that people would want to spend $600+ on copies of movies they already owned. lol"
Legal issues! What legal issues? Money hasn’t even changed hands yet. I’m sure terms you agree to when you bought through the LEGO website protects them from such frivolous lawsuits.
If someone doesn’t like that they increased the quantity, they can simply cancel their pre-order, can they not?
Since there are regional limits, does that mean they are produced in regional factories? If so, the set up time to produce a low number is costly, thus worthwhile to simply make more. The only people hurt by making more are the scalpers. Good.
I like knowing that some of my sets are rare/limited. I therefore apologize for my obvious and pitiful low self esteem.
I would be a bit surprised if Lego would cancel orders of people. Since they advertised 5 per person, they'd run the risk of getting sued if they suddenly change it after the fact. It then runs into a question false advertising and liability for being sued by multiple people. . Most likely they'd increase production since costs would be lower to simply make more since the largest amount of the cost would be in the initial cost set up. Cost of a set is also using basic pieces, no instruction prints, no extras, and no prints, so they would make more money per unit than other sets in a similar price range.
@Wellspring said:
" @MaxA said:
"I have an idea (pun wasn’t intended, but since I now noticed it and left it in… well, there you go): announce that these five sets will do into the official Ideas process for completed sets. Or maybe just the top 2. From what I can tell, the real global demand was for the boat and castle.
That way, people who have these first 5000 have something special and collectible. But, more people can get the sets later on. Part of what made me purchase was the exclusivity of it all. Though, not enough to get “angry” if they did decide to increase the quantity. However, I will point out that since it was announced as a limited amount, there are likely legal issues with increasing the quantity.
Sometimes companies just completely underestimate demand. Nothing nefarious. It is extremely hard to gauge the market for a new product, especially a premium on. Marvel Studios made the same error with the MCU Infinity Saga boxed set. They just did not expect that people would want to spend $600+ on copies of movies they already owned. lol"
Legal issues! What legal issues? Money hasn’t even changed hands yet. I’m sure terms you agree to when you bought through the LEGO website protects them from such frivolous lawsuits.
If someone doesn’t like that they increased the quantity, they can simply cancel their pre-order, can they not?"
Well, since you asked, it falls under the category of “bait and switch”. Offering one product (in this case, a limited edition set with an advertised production run of 5000 units. Because it was stated in the description of the product, that becomes an attribute of the product. Replacing it with something else, or changing something material to the product would invoke the precepts of that law, including what is referred to as “sunk cost”. Meaning, the time and effort the buyer has invested in buying something. Since that number is hard to lock down, the courts have been extremely favorable to consumers in case after case.
Also, the fact that money may or may not have changed hands is immaterial. It is the act of ADVERTISING a bait and switch that is illegal.
Finally, for what it is worth… my card was already charged.
Good. I was quite upset that I missed out on the castle. It would made a great Christmas gift for my father.
I would think that they would be stuck keeping to the terms they stated (limit 5000, 5 per customer). However, there is no reason why they should have allocated limits to each country, and assuming they are all made in Denmark, how hard would it be to add a few more Kakapos onto a container (yes, they could remove a few other sets, such as cars with steering wheels on the left side).
But there is a very simple solution to this problem. After this limited Bricklink run, produce the castle as an actual Ideas set with actual instructions. That way everyone who wants the set can get their hands on one, those of us who got this initial run still own a limited edition item. And most importantly for me, I’ll be able to purchase actual instructions off of Bricklink to go with the set I ordered.
I’m not really sure the other sets are an issue. The ship was popular, but I could have still bought one several hours after ordering began had I cared to. And the other three lasted much longer, in fact kakapos are still available somewhere. And if I had to guess, I’d say many people probably ordered these other 4 sets not because they really wanted them, but after seeing the castle fly off the shelves they simply wanted to get something, they didn’t want to feel left out.
@MaxA said:
" @Wellspring said:
" @MaxA said:
"I have an idea (pun wasn’t intended, but since I now noticed it and left it in… well, there you go): announce that these five sets will do into the official Ideas process for completed sets. Or maybe just the top 2. From what I can tell, the real global demand was for the boat and castle.
That way, people who have these first 5000 have something special and collectible. But, more people can get the sets later on. Part of what made me purchase was the exclusivity of it all. Though, not enough to get “angry” if they did decide to increase the quantity. However, I will point out that since it was announced as a limited amount, there are likely legal issues with increasing the quantity.
Sometimes companies just completely underestimate demand. Nothing nefarious. It is extremely hard to gauge the market for a new product, especially a premium on. Marvel Studios made the same error with the MCU Infinity Saga boxed set. They just did not expect that people would want to spend $600+ on copies of movies they already owned. lol"
Legal issues! What legal issues? Money hasn’t even changed hands yet. I’m sure terms you agree to when you bought through the LEGO website protects them from such frivolous lawsuits.
If someone doesn’t like that they increased the quantity, they can simply cancel their pre-order, can they not?"
Well, since you asked, it falls under the category of “bait and switch”. Offering one product (in this case, a limited edition set with an advertised production run of 5000 units. Because it was stated in the description of the product, that becomes an attribute of the product. Replacing it with something else, or changing something material to the product would invoke the precepts of that law, including what is referred to as “sunk cost”. Meaning, the time and effort the buyer has invested in buying something. Since that number is hard to lock down, the courts have been extremely favorable to consumers in case after case.
Also, the fact that money may or may not have changed hands is immaterial. It is the act of ADVERTISING a bait and switch that is illegal.
Finally, for what it is worth… my card was already charged. "
not sure about you but when I purchase a set that is backordered or a preorder my card is always charged, however it is only a temporary charge to make sure all is ok with the card, then it will fall off and not show, then when the item is shipped it will charge the card for real
@Empdal said:
"Should be a minimum of 10000 sets of each as that's many votes it took to get them there in first place. "
This. This. This. These sets required 10000 supporters. 10000 sets should be the minimum.
These were limited edition sets. Bumping the limit wouldn’t have alleviated all of these complaints. It likely still would have sold out, just maybe 15/30 minutes later and some people would still have missed and calls would commence for an even higher limit.
Releasing a crowd funding event globally is by nature going to be difficult for some time zones. Switching to a weekend day would have jammed up a whole different group of unavailable folks.
Outside of reducing individuals to 1/2 copies and/or improving their e-commerce sites for these types of surges, I’m not sure what else should have been done. And I would be so disappointed if we scare the turtle back into its shell and never get these interesting outside of the box initiatives.
At this point, I’m simply hoping to see some lessons learned applied to Round 2.
@MaxA said:
" @Wellspring said:
" @MaxA said:
"I have an idea (pun wasn’t intended, but since I now noticed it and left it in… well, there you go): announce that these five sets will do into the official Ideas process for completed sets. Or maybe just the top 2. From what I can tell, the real global demand was for the boat and castle.
That way, people who have these first 5000 have something special and collectible. But, more people can get the sets later on. Part of what made me purchase was the exclusivity of it all. Though, not enough to get “angry” if they did decide to increase the quantity. However, I will point out that since it was announced as a limited amount, there are likely legal issues with increasing the quantity.
Sometimes companies just completely underestimate demand. Nothing nefarious. It is extremely hard to gauge the market for a new product, especially a premium on. Marvel Studios made the same error with the MCU Infinity Saga boxed set. They just did not expect that people would want to spend $600+ on copies of movies they already owned. lol"
Legal issues! What legal issues? Money hasn’t even changed hands yet. I’m sure terms you agree to when you bought through the LEGO website protects them from such frivolous lawsuits.
If someone doesn’t like that they increased the quantity, they can simply cancel their pre-order, can they not?"
Well, since you asked, it falls under the category of “bait and switch”. Offering one product (in this case, a limited edition set with an advertised production run of 5000 units. Because it was stated in the description of the product, that becomes an attribute of the product. Replacing it with something else, or changing something material to the product would invoke the precepts of that law, including what is referred to as “sunk cost”. Meaning, the time and effort the buyer has invested in buying something. Since that number is hard to lock down, the courts have been extremely favorable to consumers in case after case.
Also, the fact that money may or may not have changed hands is immaterial. It is the act of ADVERTISING a bait and switch that is illegal.
Finally, for what it is worth… my card was already charged. "
Thank you for your insight. That makes sense now.
Unfortunately, with that in mind, it’ll be interesting to see what Lego offers next week. Probably along the lines of only changing the way it works for future rounds, I guess.
@MaxA said:
" @Wellspring said:
" @MaxA said:
"I have an idea (pun wasn’t intended, but since I now noticed it and left it in… well, there you go): announce that these five sets will do into the official Ideas process for completed sets. Or maybe just the top 2. From what I can tell, the real global demand was for the boat and castle.
That way, people who have these first 5000 have something special and collectible. But, more people can get the sets later on. Part of what made me purchase was the exclusivity of it all. Though, not enough to get “angry” if they did decide to increase the quantity. However, I will point out that since it was announced as a limited amount, there are likely legal issues with increasing the quantity.
Sometimes companies just completely underestimate demand. Nothing nefarious. It is extremely hard to gauge the market for a new product, especially a premium on. Marvel Studios made the same error with the MCU Infinity Saga boxed set. They just did not expect that people would want to spend $600+ on copies of movies they already owned. lol"
Legal issues! What legal issues? Money hasn’t even changed hands yet. I’m sure terms you agree to when you bought through the LEGO website protects them from such frivolous lawsuits.
If someone doesn’t like that they increased the quantity, they can simply cancel their pre-order, can they not?"
Well, since you asked, it falls under the category of “bait and switch”. Offering one product (in this case, a limited edition set with an advertised production run of 5000 units. Because it was stated in the description of the product, that becomes an attribute of the product. Replacing it with something else, or changing something material to the product would invoke the precepts of that law, including what is referred to as “sunk cost”. Meaning, the time and effort the buyer has invested in buying something. Since that number is hard to lock down, the courts have been extremely favorable to consumers in case after case.
Also, the fact that money may or may not have changed hands is immaterial. It is the act of ADVERTISING a bait and switch that is illegal.
Finally, for what it is worth… my card was already charged. "
I'm not a lawyer, but your arguments look nonsense on looking up these things. There is no "bait & switch": that requires advertising a low price item (which is not or unlikely to be available) and replacing with something more expensive. That is B & S.
As for limited edition, the production promised was a range (3000 - 5000), the "edition" is not numbered and it isn't sold at a premium price specifically due to the limit. There is also no intent that this is sold as an appreciating asset, whose value would be diminished by further production (Lego even issues some sets with a "Limited Edition" tag on the box and then produces more of them later - I have a couple) and no one buying it is materially affected if more are produced in the future. So, can't see much of a legal problem producing moreAs for card being charged - a pregauthorisation is not a charge, and if they did cancel an order, as long as that was refunded, there would be no problem. The right to cancel an order prior to confirmation of shipping is in Lego's standard T&Cs.
@ericb_ said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"If people need to get their satisfaction from knowing they own a limited set that others couldn't get, I feel really sorry for them. What a low self esteem these people must have to draw satisfaction from such a pitiful and unimportant fact."
You're joking, right? Everyone with a desire to add a rare item to their collection must therefore have low self-esteem? Give me a break."
Of course I am NOT joking.
Seriously, what kind of warped mind do you need to have to get enjoyment out of someone else's unhappiness?
Say you were lucky enough to get the Forestmen Castle, while plenty of others who would also have loved to get it didn't manage to, because of technical difficulties or whatever.
Had this set not been so limited, more people would have gotten a chance to buy and enjoy it.
You are saying that people who enjoy knowing that many others had to miss out on something but they themselves didn't is not a sign of a pitiful state of mind?
Suit yourself.
I can't understand how someone can be like that.
I was lucky enough to get the Fishing Boat which I wanted. Do I get enjoyment from the fact that it is so limited? Not at all. On the contrary, I would wish as many people as possible could enjoy this set (or any of the others).
Creating artificial scarcity to make some people feel better than others because they managed to have something others can't have is sick imho. And no matter how you try to justify it to yourself it is still not making it better.
I know it happens all the time, I still don't have to like it, do I?
For the record, never in my entire life have I bought anything because it was limited. Sure, I have got stuff that had a limited run, but that was not my motivation for getting it. Perhaps it's due to the fact that I am no collector. I buy stuff to use and enjoy, not to put it in some cabinet or whatever and lust about "having" it.
My preciousss...
@DoonsterBuildsLego said:
" @MaxA said:
" @Wellspring said:
" @MaxA said:
"I have an idea (pun wasn’t intended, but since I now noticed it and left it in… well, there you go): announce that these five sets will do into the official Ideas process for completed sets. Or maybe just the top 2. From what I can tell, the real global demand was for the boat and castle.
That way, people who have these first 5000 have something special and collectible. But, more people can get the sets later on. Part of what made me purchase was the exclusivity of it all. Though, not enough to get “angry” if they did decide to increase the quantity. However, I will point out that since it was announced as a limited amount, there are likely legal issues with increasing the quantity.
Sometimes companies just completely underestimate demand. Nothing nefarious. It is extremely hard to gauge the market for a new product, especially a premium on. Marvel Studios made the same error with the MCU Infinity Saga boxed set. They just did not expect that people would want to spend $600+ on copies of movies they already owned. lol"
Legal issues! What legal issues? Money hasn’t even changed hands yet. I’m sure terms you agree to when you bought through the LEGO website protects them from such frivolous lawsuits.
If someone doesn’t like that they increased the quantity, they can simply cancel their pre-order, can they not?"
Well, since you asked, it falls under the category of “bait and switch”. Offering one product (in this case, a limited edition set with an advertised production run of 5000 units. Because it was stated in the description of the product, that becomes an attribute of the product. Replacing it with something else, or changing something material to the product would invoke the precepts of that law, including what is referred to as “sunk cost”. Meaning, the time and effort the buyer has invested in buying something. Since that number is hard to lock down, the courts have been extremely favorable to consumers in case after case.
Also, the fact that money may or may not have changed hands is immaterial. It is the act of ADVERTISING a bait and switch that is illegal.
Finally, for what it is worth… my card was already charged. "
I'm not a lawyer, but your arguments look nonsense on looking up these things. There is no "bait & switch": that requires advertising a low price item (which is not or unlikely to be available) and replacing with something more expensive. That is B & S.
As for limited edition, the production promised was a range (3000 - 5000), the "edition" is not numbered and it isn't sold at a premium price specifically due to the limit. There is also no intent that this is sold as an appreciating asset, whose value would be diminished by further production (Lego even issues some sets with a "Limited Edition" tag on the box and then produces more of them later - I have a couple) and no one buying it is materially affected if more are produced in the future. So, can't see much of a legal problem producing moreAs for card being charged - a pregauthorisation is not a charge, and if they did cancel an order, as long as that was refunded, there would be no problem. The right to cancel an order prior to confirmation of shipping is in Lego's standard T&Cs. "
I can assure you what I’ve explained is accurate for US law. Simply going to Wikipedia isn’t going to explain the depth of case law on this issue. It was a massive problem in the United States for decades during the 20th century, which is why the law is so broad.
Here is how this case would likely go….
Judge: How many sets did you produce?
Lego: 5000 at first, but then more people complained so we just kept making them.
Judge: I see. Well, did you advertise making a specific amount?
Lego: Well, yes….
Judge: And did anyone from your organization publicly state that wouldn’t increase production?
Lego: Also, yes, but…
Judge: Well, you might still be okay. Were you aware that there is a secondary market and people sometimes buy sets based on scarcity and rarity?
Lego: Ye
@Empdal said:
"Should be a minimum of 10000 sets of each as that's many votes it took to get them there in first place. "
This makes a lot of sense, right here. Let's hope the folks over at Bricklink come to the same conclusion. It's not that hard. ;-)
Here is a thought, how about treating crowdfunding the way it was meant to be designed. How about learning something from the thousands of board games that have been funded on Kickstarter or Gamefound? How about realizing that crowdfunding is about producing what the market demands/pledges instead of capping supply and figuring out how to distribute the limited supply. You really want to stick to a fair distribution method of a limited supply then use a Dutch auction. Everyone would have a chance to participate during the bidding period, they take the lowest $ of the bid that allowed them to reach their fixed supply and everyone pays that amount. Done. IMHO, being a superbacker, I'm furious that they are making a mockery out of crowdfunding by limited the supply in the first place as it is just the antithesis of what the crowdfunding model was supposed to represent. Lego is seriously losing out on the entire Kickstarter/Gamefound wave of investments and the closest thing we have seen is this designer thing and even then they completely botch it. How about just using Kickstarter or Gamefound platforms and learning from all the other successful campaigns (including how to ship an expensive product without damaging the contents and charging customers appropriately for the safe shipping instead of offering the absurd air bubbles that do nothing to protect your purchase for free in exchange for placing a large order... ("yes, I see you spent a lot of money with us today, let us completely ruin your large order through a pathetic shipping and handling process that hasn't changed in 20 years"...) Quartermaster Logistics for example on the board game side has completely mastered shipping heavy board games with a very low chance that the contents would suffer a scratch. As a crowdfunder of Lego product I would demand that they ship whatever expensive products I was backing to us safely and pay whatever was fair. Please stop offering us free shipping if it isn't safe shipping. You aren't really doing your best customers a favor with the status quo.
@Empdal said:
"Should be a minimum of 10000 sets of each as that's many votes it took to get them there in first place. "
Wow that is pure genius but I would go much further. Each person who voted should receive an invitation to buy the set that isn't transferrable to anyone else. Perhaps Lego should also be surveying voters what price ranges and/or quantity they would be interested in backing these sets being produced. I can see situations where sets are so well designed they get everyone to vote for them but the cost of said set may be well beyond most voters affordability range.
@sidneyleejohnson said:
"Here is a thought, how about treating crowdfunding the way it was meant to be designed. How about learning something from the thousands of board games that have been funded on Kickstarter or Gamefound? How about realizing that crowdfunding is about producing what the market demands/pledges instead of capping supply and figuring out how to distribute the limited supply. You really want to stick to a fair distribution method of a limited supply then use a Dutch auction. Everyone would have a chance to participate during the bidding period, they take the lowest $ of the bid that allowed them to reach their fixed supply and everyone pays that amount. Done. IMHO, being a superbacker, I'm furious that they are making a mockery out of crowdfunding by limited the supply in the first place as it is just the antithesis of what the crowdfunding model was supposed to represent. Lego is seriously losing out on the entire Kickstarter/Gamefound wave of investments and the closest thing we have seen is this designer thing and even then they completely botch it. How about just using Kickstarter or Gamefound platforms and learning from all the other successful campaigns (including how to ship an expensive product without damaging the contents and charging customers appropriately for the safe shipping instead of offering the absurd air bubbles that do nothing to protect your purchase for free in exchange for placing a large order... ("yes, I see you spent a lot of money with us today, let us completely ruin your large order through a pathetic shipping and handling process that hasn't changed in 20 years"...) Quartermaster Logistics for example on the board game side has completely mastered shipping heavy board games with a very low chance that the contents would suffer a scratch. As a crowdfunder of Lego product I would demand that they ship whatever expensive products I was backing to us safely and pay whatever was fair. Please stop offering us free shipping if it isn't safe shipping. You aren't really doing your best customers a favor with the status quo."
I am so with you on the shipping issue, thank you so much for that, it is never fun for me to open my packages that I get from Lego, it is very much an anxiety inducer to say the least, I would have to say that 90% of my items are damaged in some way when I get them, I don't have the space to display every set I purchase so most of them I keep in their boxes and display them that way, I am not a reseller and only by one of a item, so is nice to get a item that you paid full price for to arrive and look like it is new and not something you found at the back of a thrift store on clearance, and you are right about those air bubble things, all they do is put pressure down on the set boxes so when anything is put on top of the shipping box during shipment it will crush the set boxes inside, not to mention smaller sets like GWP sets that get baldly damaged by a larger set in the shipping box
@gromit6 said:
" @sidneyleejohnson said:
"Here is a thought, how about treating crowdfunding the way it was meant to be designed. How about learning something from the thousands of board games that have been funded on Kickstarter or Gamefound? How about realizing that crowdfunding is about producing what the market demands/pledges instead of capping supply and figuring out how to distribute the limited supply. You really want to stick to a fair distribution method of a limited supply then use a Dutch auction. Everyone would have a chance to participate during the bidding period, they take the lowest $ of the bid that allowed them to reach their fixed supply and everyone pays that amount. Done. IMHO, being a superbacker, I'm furious that they are making a mockery out of crowdfunding by limited the supply in the first place as it is just the antithesis of what the crowdfunding model was supposed to represent. Lego is seriously losing out on the entire Kickstarter/Gamefound wave of investments and the closest thing we have seen is this designer thing and even then they completely botch it. How about just using Kickstarter or Gamefound platforms and learning from all the other successful campaigns (including how to ship an expensive product without damaging the contents and charging customers appropriately for the safe shipping instead of offering the absurd air bubbles that do nothing to protect your purchase for free in exchange for placing a large order... ("yes, I see you spent a lot of money with us today, let us completely ruin your large order through a pathetic shipping and handling process that hasn't changed in 20 years"...) Quartermaster Logistics for example on the board game side has completely mastered shipping heavy board games with a very low chance that the contents would suffer a scratch. As a crowdfunder of Lego product I would demand that they ship whatever expensive products I was backing to us safely and pay whatever was fair. Please stop offering us free shipping if it isn't safe shipping. You aren't really doing your best customers a favor with the status quo."
I am so with you on the shipping issue, thank you so much for that, it is never fun for me to open my packages that I get from Lego, it is very much an anxiety inducer to say the least, I would have to say that 90% of my items are damaged in some way when I get them, I don't have the space to display every set I purchase so most of them I keep in their boxes and display them that way, I am not a reseller and only by one of a item, so is nice to get a item that you paid full price for to arrive and look like it is new and not something you found at the back of a thrift store on clearance, and you are right about those air bubble things, all they do is put pressure down on the set boxes so when anything is put on top of the shipping box during shipment it will crush the set boxes inside, not to mention smaller sets like GWP sets that get baldly damaged by a larger set in the shipping box"
Last year they send each BL set in its own tight box, no need for packing material. Multiple boxes were bound together. That worked really well, I ordered 3 of one set and they all arrived undamaged. Hopefully they will do the same this year.
BTW, spot on about their use of the packing materials, they are absolutely ineffective. And the boxes are completely flimsy.