TLG canceled my P&B order and future orders placed through S@H

[MAB]

Reasonable creates a profit to make the sale worthwhile to the seller without milking the buyer.

Buyers don't get milked, they choose to buy luxury items.

I bought two parts from lego, cost me about 65p each when they had them in stock. For a bit of plastic. Did they milk me? It turned out I didn't need them after all, so I sold them at the going rate about six months later, which was £6.00 each. Buyer chose to buy from me. Was he milked? I don't believe I took advantage of him. He was buying the part to put together a retired set, and it would have cost significantly more if he had bought the complete set rather than the parts. Sure I could have sold at a lower price and made his purchase price lower, but why should I? He was willing to pay £6 each after all. It's a luxury, not a necessity.

Edited February 8, 2016 by MAB

[Andrzej777]

@Dosenbrot

How did this whole thing work out in the end? Did they revoke the ban?

[Blondie-Wan]

Just wondering, why would Lego have a problem with resellers being ready to buy 100x 1.5eur torsos that cost 2 cents to produce? I know I'd unroll the red carpet for them.

With licensed sets, it may run afoul of their licenses - they have the rights to sell construction sets, not "individual figures" (or parts thereof). Selling someone a hundred licensed torsos could very easily be seen by the owner of the license as TLG violating the terms of its license with them.

[Rick]

Add to that that minifigures seem to be the main reason for many people to buy licensed sets and it's easy to understand why TLG would be more happy selling a 40-50 euro set instead of a 1 euro torso.

[rollermonkey]

The second is wrong. But why is the first? If everyone has the same chance to buy anything, and a company agrees to sell to ine person (whatever they do with it), then it has nothing to do with a second person that misses out. Whether it is BAP, exclusives or sales at Walmart. Is buying everything and selling it worse than buying everything and not selling it?

Sigh. Here I go again.

Wal-Mart or Target buys a product from TLG at wholesale, and sells at retail, or at a markdown if they can still make enough profit.

Resellers, on the other hand, buy product from retailers, then hoard them until such time as they can charge double the retail price or more, and often deplete inventories from retailers so that those that want them, at the time they are sold at retail, cannot.

If you cannot understand why that's an unfair practice, I cannot help you.

[MAB]

Really? Give me a list of sets that were sold at stores (that is, non Lego exclusives) that regular buyers were stopped from buying by resellers.

[large88]

Resellers, on the other hand, buy product from retailers, then hoard them until such time as they can charge double the retail price or more, and often deplete inventories from retailers so that those that want them, at the time they are sold at retail, cannot.

If you cannot understand why that's an unfair practice, I cannot help you.

Thank you for explaining capitalism rather off topic though

[anothergol]

With licensed sets, it may run afoul of their licenses - they have the rights to sell construction sets, not "individual figures" (or parts thereof). Selling someone a hundred licensed torsos could very easily be seen by the owner of the license as TLG violating the terms of its license with them.

of course, but just having items for sale is a violation of the license, selling 1x or 100x doesn't make any difference

I don't know how Lego deals with that btw, especially with hairpieces that are sometimes designed for a character, but are generic enough & are re-used later.

Edited February 15, 2016 by anothergol

[Dosenbrot]

Sorry for the late answer, but I finally asked them about this issue per phone.

It did NOT get solved. The woman I talked to explained me that the decision came from a person on an higher position than her and she couldn't do anything about it to change it.

Well, now I feel like I just got a giant middle finger shuffed in my face...

[x105Black]

Thank you for explaining capitalism rather off topic though

The whole topic has gotten off track. Also, not everyone supports this kind of capitalism. There is such a thing as ethical behavior.

Edited February 15, 2016 by x105Black

[dr_spock]

of course, but just having items for sale is a violation of the license, selling 1x or 100x doesn't make any difference

I don't know how Lego deals with that btw, especially with hairpieces that are sometimes designed for a character, but are generic enough & are re-used later.

That really depends on the Term and Conditions of the Licence Agreement negotiated between the licensor and licensee. It could be LEGO is allowed to sell replacement parts by one license and not another.

[Robianco]

Sorry for the late answer, but I finally asked them about this issue per phone.

It did NOT get solved. The woman I talked to explained me that the decision came from a person on an higher position than her and she couldn't do anything about it to change it.

Well, now I feel like I just got a giant middle finger shuffed in my face...

Sounds like you've fallen foul of someone at Customer Service. I think maybe being patient and getting back in touch in a week or two might be in order.

[MAB]

The whole topic has gotten off track. Also, not everyone supports this kind of capitalism. There is such a thing as ethical behavior.

Capitalism and ethical behaviour are not mutually exclusive. If A buys something to sell at a profit and B decides to buy it as they cannot get it either at all or any cheaper elsewhere, the A is not unethical selling it to B, if both agree on the price. If they don't agree, they can both go without, one without the sale and one without the item.

It is no more unethical for A to expect to make a profit than it is for B to expect to buy it without any profit for A.

That really depends on the Term and Conditions of the Licence Agreement negotiated between the licensor and licensee. It could be LEGO is allowed to sell replacement parts by one license and not another.

Also some apparently licensed parts are cross license, such as Finn's hair appearing in GB. Hopefully it will appear in unlicensed sets in other colours too.

[x105Black]

Capitalism and ethical behaviour are not mutually exclusive. If A buys something to sell at a profit and B decides to buy it as they cannot get it either at all or any cheaper elsewhere, the A is not unethical selling it to B, if both agree on the price. If they don't agree, they can both go without, one without the sale and one without the item.

It is no more unethical for A to expect to make a profit than it is for B to expect to buy it without any profit for A.

Profit is not inherently unethical. Some of the massive markups are. The fact that someone ends up paying a huge markup does not justify it as an ethical price.

[MAB]

Profit is not inherently unethical. Some of the massive markups are. The fact that someone ends up paying a huge markup does not justify it as an ethical price.

So the most unethical part of this equation is lego itself. They take something cheap and charge massive markups after processing it into their product. Define what massive is. Is it OK to charge 2x RRP, 5x, 10x? Where is the tipping point?What about time? If 2x RRP is OK after a year, then 4x after two years is OK, as otherwise the seller could sell out after one year and reinvest. Resellers play a significant role in allowing people to purchase items that otherwise Lego would not allow them to buy. Lego's business model works on retiring products relatively quickly to get new stock out. If they stop selling a set or part, anyone wanting that set / part cannot have it, unless someone has invested in it. It may be that one part goes out of production and can rise 10x its original value, but for every part like that there will be many more that stay in production or not rise in value at all. So while a seller may make what appears to be obscene profits to some on a part, they are probably making very little on others. If they didn't get the opportunity to make the larger markups, then they'd probably stop doing it. That affects both the reseller and the potential buyers. The buyers would no longer have the ability to buy the parts / sets that Lego will not let them buy direct. Imagine a world without sites like bricklink, where the only way you could buy is from Lego direct, and only then you could only buy what they say you can buy. As soon as you have sites like bricklink, price enforcement /fixing cannot be done (and would be illegal in many countries). Why should a seller be stopped from selling an item at a price that he is happy with and a buyer is happy with?

[x105Black]

A buyer may be paying a price, while at the same time not being happy about it.

Edited February 16, 2016 by x105Black

[Andrzej777]

Its all just business, and its up to the individual to pay the price or make do without a desired set, and thats it.

Lego on the other hand could re-release certain sets that are in high demand. I would like to see certain castle sets (market village, village raid) and the lego western theme re-released. But hey, if they dont, then they dont.

[Navy Trooper Fenson]

I made two orders on Thursday, one appears to be cancelled, while the other is still active. Haven´t gotten an e-mail like Dosenbrot but a little anxious now. I think the same kind of dance of "cancelled-not cancelled-cancelled-shipped" happened with my first B&P order in december as well but what is their damn problem? Why can´t they process bricks and pieces orders like a normal shopping site? PaB is separate from the replacement parts system as well and works ok, just do that, or is the service not profitable then? OPs problem is obviously because some idiot mistook a B&P order for a missing piece request.

The cancelled order had 50 different pieces / lots, most only 1 to 3 of a part, the biggest lots were 5 dark tan classic male hair pieces and 10 bicycle tires, unlicensed and completely reasonable when I see people on some forums that think it´s completely normal and healthy to order the same Lego brick 200 times every time they buy a set on S@H.

In comparison my active order currently in process of being shipped had a 57* 1x2 window glass lot and 20* 1x2x2 slopes which should look more like a reseller even though I need those numbers to fill all my spare window frames and finish a Green Grocer.

Sorry for the late answer, but I finally asked them about this issue per phone.

It did NOT get solved. The woman I talked to explained me that the decision came from a person on an higher position than her and she couldn't do anything about it to change it.

Well, now I feel like I just got a giant middle finger shuffed in my face...

You can´t ask them to give you that guy on the phone for a discussion? Man, service these days…

I would just order again with your moms name or some other relative if I were you. A bit complicated if you have nobody in your vicinity but better than nothing at all.

How much did you order? Surely some Bricklink resellers with monthly orders of hundred pieces in quantities of 200 each exist and can still buy with no repercussions. You couldn´t possibly rack up a track record like this with a single order.

But what's "reasonable market price"?

No part more expensive than 1€ unless it´s huge (like Jabba the Hut or like 6x16 plates) or is using double moulding machines like the new Superhero legs.

With licensed sets, it may run afoul of their licenses - they have the rights to sell construction sets, not "individual figures" (or parts thereof). Selling someone a hundred licensed torsos could very easily be seen by the owner of the license as TLG violating the terms of its license with them.

Not every license is parted out like that, it was only Star Wars in the mid-00s and it apparently changed in the last few years, otherwise there wouldn´t be action figures made from at least two japanese brands now additionally to Hasbro. If Lego wants to sell separate figures or their parts they could and apparently they can, otherwise things like Sabines helmet, Sheevs torso, and all First Order trooper parts wouldn´t be available through that service.

Add to that that minifigures seem to be the main reason for many people to buy licensed sets and it's easy to understand why TLG would be more happy selling a 40-50 euro set instead of a 1 euro torso.

Well, if they don´t want to they can limit it or charge more and they actually do limit it as many figure parts still aren´t available like anything related to regular Stormtroopers. Canceling orders after the order is just silly, I think the original poster got mixed up with a replacement parts request since it´s the same team operating these requests. A phone call would surely help. Edit.: well that was unexpected.

Really? Give me a list of sets that were sold at stores (that is, non Lego exclusives) that regular buyers were stopped from buying by resellers.

People always fear this effect because it happens in nearly all other toy brands and Lego offsets this effect by making everything available for years and overproducing their sets in a way. The following three were prime targets for resellers. In case of Cloud Cuckooland and Exo-Suit they now sit on them and have to sell them under retail price to get their money back.

Hulkbuster still is being produced but prices normalize as most people have their copy by now.

Ant-Man is probably the only true example but only because Lego decided to end production in December making its shelf life less than half a year which nobody anticipated or realized until end of december.

of course, but just having items for sale is a violation of the license, selling 1x or 100x doesn't make any difference

I don't know how Lego deals with that btw, especially with hairpieces that are sometimes designed for a character, but are generic enough & are re-used later.

Ooooh, I love it when a licensed part gets used in another line. LOTR Elf pike-sword things, lightsaber hilts, even a printed 2x2 tile with aurebesh writing. How did they manage to do it with that tile? I thought Lucasfilm holds a license for aurebesh meaning Lego would have to pay them royalties for the Ninjago Ronin Copter thing because it uses that part.

And hairpieces even count as licensed even when they are generic but only happen to appear in a given color only in licensed sets. I talk about Arielle the mermaids hair which is unavailable in red because it´s licensed but fair game in dark red and pink because those were in Friends sets.

And a bit unrelated but:

How does Lego even determine the prices? 2.23€ for a vintage style motorcycle cover but the motorcross cover is half of roughly that and both look no more or less complex to mould than the other.

The Endor Rebel helmet is 2,71€, probably the most expensive figure part I have seen and it´s basically a normal piece with a ring printed on it. I guess they need some more print cycles to get the full ring around the whole helmet and make it continue a little bit on the top but that´s still much.

The new Darth Vader helmet and its neck ring are both 2,70€ each. Just why and how?

[Andrzej777]

And a bit unrelated but:

How does Lego even determine the prices? 2.23€ for a vintage style motorcycle cover but the motorcross cover is half of roughly that and both look no more or less complex to mould than the other.

The Endor Rebel helmet is 2,71€, probably the most expensive figure part I have seen and it´s basically a normal piece with a ring printed on it. I guess they need some more print cycles to get the full ring around the whole helmet and make it continue a little bit on the top but that´s still much.

The new Darth Vader helmet and its neck ring are both 2,70€ each. Just why and how?

Yeah, prices are a mystery in general - check the prices for the alligator and the chicken - they are basically the same - the alligator consists of three parts, all of them larger than this chicken :) :)

[pirzyk]

Yeah, prices are a mystery in general - check the prices for the alligator and the chicken - they are basically the same - the alligator consists of three parts, all of them larger than this chicken :) :)

I suspect the price goes up on B&P as their stock goes down. Train buffer 1 is currently $4.00 USD and 2 is $3.74.

[MAB]

There have been a few examples where left and right handed wedges have been different prices too.

[Strobus]

I don't see why that would be when you could get replacement bricks for free.

I was planning on ordering a few of the same Star Wars torso just in case they crack, but if it might get me banned I'll have to wait and see...

No being funny but trying to get torsos for free just incase they may crack. Surely get them when they crack. Thats what Lego is trying to get rid of. Abusing the system.