TLG acquires Bricklink

[andythenorth]

2 minutes ago, Fuppylodders said:

I'd suspect they truly want to data mine the hell out of it

Data mine what already? 

BL sales data is already public. https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=8158-1#T=P

BL seller inventories are public.

BL wanted list data is somewhat public.

2 minutes ago, Fuppylodders said:

because it gives an insight into what people are *still buying* and *still interested in* while not having to do any market research of their own into what people might want to buy.

One might say this is....useful?  Finding out what people are actually buying?

 

For the record, I think TLG will screw up BL, but only by accident.  TLG have no obvious good record in running online platforms.

I also suspect it was a distress sale, the previous owner of BL had possibly lost interest (more interested in BTC-type crypto currency and giving away his fortune).  TLG have probably re-homed it with good intentions, or to keep it out of the hands of others. Stuff like this happens.  People who haven't bought, sold, or crashed a business see weird motives to business decisions, where business mostly just runs on well-intentioned mistakes. 

[Itaria No Shintaku]

3 hours ago, Gray Gear said:

Advertisement is not a nececary expense. It is a expense a to grow a company to make more profit in the future.

Advertisement for a product is money you pay.
Lepin & Co. do not pay a single cent, yet they benefit.
TLG advertised set XXXXXX, Lepin did the same paratising the ad that TLG paid for.
Defending the copycats always wrong. There is no valid reason for defending them. Never.

[Vindicare]

Good gravy, a lot of Chicken Littles over this news. All we have to go off is the CMO’s word that little to nothing will change, especially regarding sellers. This sounds like a promising thing as it gives the company more insight into us AFOLs. 

[Gomek]

OK, so I've only read about half the postings on this so apologies if I repeat something.

4 hours ago, koalayummies said:

The Brothers Brick did a most excellent job with question preparation for that interview yesterday. Brought up some really fantastic points. That was some good Lego journalism.

I will applaud them for asking a couple very tough pointed questions (though most went unanswered).

My favorite was about the conflict of interest:
 

Quote

 

Brothers Brick:

LEGO creates artificial scarcity for things like San Diego Comic Con exclusives like sets and minifigs. And then LEGO would immediately turn around and profit from that artificial scarcity. How is that not a conflict of interest?

Julia Goldin:
You’re right in the fact that we do create some exclusives, some exclusive building sets for particularly advanced [builders] or for particular platforms. We’re not doing it particularly with profits in mind as much as we’re doing it as part of a cultural moment that creates something that’s really interesting. So, this is where I, again, I don’t see how that conflicts with the platform.

 

I don't understand how Julia doesn't understand this is a problem. Lego creates figures that are artificially rare, then instead of making $2 profit, makes $20 to $30 commission on something that costs pennies to produce. While I will concede that I'm sure there much worse reasons they do this (namely exploiting complete-ists to drive perceived value in their product) ; it just makes artificial rarity that much more sketchy.

Counter point: If this spells the end of catering to scalpers (and ultra rare figures), then I'll be a big fan of this acquisition.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Gomek

[Ankoku]

From what I remember LEGO saying, in regards to guns, it is a public perception thing. e.g. people become outraged by the idea of mini-figures with guns. If it is an IP, in a way, it isn't so much their problem, so they don't worry about Overwatch/Star Wars. The general public don't mind the Star Wars stuff etc. having futuristic guns.

I think, where they worry about public perception, is when the gun is a replica of real guns past and present. Which is what Brick Arms does a fair amount of.

I honestly don't know if they would do an Aliens IP, since the M41A Pulse Rifle looks a bit like normal guns. Bit too close for their risk analysis.

Also, with IP, they seem to have a different set of rules. e.g. mini-figures are always yellow, unless it is an IP, then real skin tones are used.

With Brick Arms, at least you can see that this was an established position for LEGO and it is understandable that Brick Arms stuff can't remain on BL because of that position. It makes sense. Obviously, this is unfortunate for Brick Arms and what they do is important for to AFOL community and their lack of presence on BL will hit their sales.

[anothergol]

7 hours ago, Lego David said:

LEGO is a company. The reason they exist is to make money. And they certainly wouldn't invest a few millions of dollars without expecting even more money back. Whether that is trough fees or by using BL as a place to sell their own stuff, it's still money that's the biggest motivation.

They're not dumb, if 99% of their income comes from kids, if they invested pocket money it's not to directly make pocket money, but improve their image, because their brand is all they have.
If that ensures them that Bricklink isn't gonna be filled with third-party parts, there, that may already be worth what they invested. If there's a company that knows how serious of a threat clone brands are, it's the one that started itself as a clone brand.

Bricklink only shows incomplete stats, so maybe this will be totally wrong, but let's do a quick computation:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1304

From the 2013 chart, let's round it at 1 million orders per year. Or let's be very generous, make that 2 million orders per year (BL says to have 1 million accounts, god knows how many are still very active, so 2 millions orders/year seems fair). Let's also be generous on the average order value, and make it $40. What's 3% of 80 millions? 2.4 millions. With that you have to pay salaries, and remember, that's a year of programmers on Studio & other apps TOO.
..but let's be generous here too and let's say it's 2.4millions profit. How much is Lego making again? Let's check. 1.2... BILLION!

Pocket money I say. We're only a handful of adults playing with Lego, we're not the market.
Lego's profits seem to fluctuate by +- 200 millions each year, the acquisition of BL isn't gonna reflect in that, even if they raised the fees to 100%.

I mean just look at this chart, BL's pocket money may just affect the decimal part, they're not caring at this level. Instead they work on the protection of what they have & their image, because that's globally what makes a difference.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by anothergol

[anothergol]

1 hour ago, Ankoku said:

I think, where they worry about public perception, is when the gun is a replica of real guns past and present.

Something ironic in this, Lego's most useful parts generally started as minifig accessories, including weapons.

These guns, MOCers understand how annoying their SIGHT is, but we have to do with that, because it's a gun. Well, some in my collection have the sight cut off. And where did I get them? Bricklink of course! Cut off by kids who would prefer this part NOT being a FRIGGING GUN.

[Bornin1980something]

5 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

That is exactly my point. If they are capable of wringing twice the fee from you, they will. There was a very big problem with re-sale of event tickets (like music concerts etc) in that events would sell out on the ticket provider and then resellers would inflate the price selling them on. Selling them on using sites that belonged to the ticket companies; companies who would take a nice slice of profit from the resale of tickets they had already sold! It took Government intervention for measures to be put in place to prevent the worst of it. 

Indeed. They are already admitting that they will need to remove products that do not match their corporate image. Which probably means anyone selling MOCs of modern war situations or anything from the World Wars will be removed from Bricklink. Also, might prevent store names that references war, armies or soldiers and possibly even Gun (After all, the pew-pews LEGO makes are Blasters, not guns!). 

It is quite the quagmire of unconsidered problems.

If they remove products that don't match their 'corporate image,' would that mean banning some of their own older products?

[TeriXeri]

8 minutes ago, anothergol said:

Something ironic in this, Lego's most useful parts generally started as minifig accessories, including weapons.

And Bricks & Pieces calls this piece SUBMACHINE GUN Ø3.2 SHAFT

Somehow, if it's used in LEGO's own themes like 2014 Ultra Agents, and also in 2019 Lego Movie 2, they have to add round pieces to it to make it some fantasy weapon like this : 

(Ultra Agents 2014 example)

But if it's a licensed theme, it's apparently fine to to be used as a "gun"

(Star Wars 2017 example)

Edited November 27, 2019 by TeriXeri

[zephyr1934]

I would imagine there could be issues with Lego owned BL listing expired licenses like NBA, Thomas the Tank Engine, etc.

[Grover]

Or, uh.... this?

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=x1608&idColor=11#T=S&C=11&O={"color":11,"iconly":0}

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Grover

[Itaria No Shintaku]

7 minutes ago, Grover said:

Or, uh.... this?

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=x1608&idColor=11#T=S&C=11&O={"color":11,"iconly":0}

 

It's not about guns.
If it was about them, a revolver or a tommy gun would count as much as a sword. They are always weapon.
It's TLG not wanting to do modern warfare. 
Actually a tommy gun cannot be considered modern warfare, it's something of more than 100  years ago.

[ShadowWolfHount]

You are ignoring the part in the brothers-brick interview where 'violence' was also in there, so the gun thing still holds weight. Not to mention all the licensed IP (along with their own) that breaks this rule, especially licensed with Indiana Jones, Overwatch, Superhero Star Wars etc.

They keep talking about these moral rules but always break their own rule they set for themselves.

[Artanis I]

I fail to see how people are afraid of licenced parts/sets whatever being removed. All sellers on BL are RE-SELLERS of previously existing items, no one is PRODUCING ITEMS, no one is even a RETAILER. TLG paid the fee already, and anyone can re-sell anything of physical property.

When you listed your old Hulk pyjamas on eBay did Disney demand a cut? Or send a cease-and-desist?

And if they did it would be illegal.

[anothergol]

1 hour ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

It's TLG not wanting to do modern warfare. 
Actually a tommy gun cannot be considered modern warfare, it's something of more than 100  years ago.

Dude, revolvers are still around.  WW2 is also a no-no for Lego (or they would make tanks, like the competition does), except it's ok when it's Indiana Jones. Just like FPSes are banned, except it's ok if it's Overwatch.

Also, Brickarms & others do old time & fantasy weapons too.

I think Lego is ok with war when it has enough fantasy behind it. Of course they are, they aim at kids and kids love to pretend war.
But Brickarms are just arms, eventually it's up to the kids to pretend it's fantasy or reality. But let's face it, kids will use all of Lego's guns and make their City minifigs shoot at each other. And when I was a kid when Lego had no weapon yet, these were guns:

2 minutes ago, Artanis I said:

I fail to see how people are afraid of licenced parts/sets whatever being removed. All sellers on BL are RE-SELLERS of previously existing items, no one is PRODUCING ITEMS, no one is even a RETAILER. TLG paid the fee already, and anyone can re-sell anything of physical property.

When you listed your old Hulk pyjamas on eBay did Disney demand a cut? Or send a cease-and-desist?

And if they did it would be illegal.

They do decide what you can sell on BL or not. You're still free to sell somewhere else of course.. where no one is gonna find it.

(not that I think they would ban licensed parts, I don't see why they would do that either)

Edited November 28, 2019 by anothergol

[The Brick Boss]

Is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing? 

[KevinMD]

3 hours ago, Gomek said:

OK, so I've only read about half the postings on this so apologies if I repeat something.

I will applaud them for asking a couple very tough pointed questions (though most went unanswered).

My favorite was about the conflict of interest:
 

I don't understand how Julia doesn't understand this is a problem. Lego creates figures that are artificially rare, then instead of making $2 profit, makes $20 to $30 commission on something that costs pennies to produce. While I will concede that I'm sure there much worse reasons they do this (namely exploiting complete-ists to drive perceived value in their product) ; it just makes artificial rarity that much more sketchy.

Counter point: If this spells the end of catering to scalpers (and ultra rare figures), then I'll be a big fan of this acquisition.

This is a pretty silly complaint. If they wanted to profit from the scarcity they could just dutch auction them off and make plenty more cash. The fact that they give them away shows that they value the advertising more. 

[jonwil]

On 11/27/2019 at 6:21 AM, Masked Mini said:

TLG is a shareholder profit driven corporation in, this the year of our Brick, 2019.

LEGO is a privately held company owned by the founding family and doesn't have shareholders to answer to. So they can do what they think is best for the company long term rather than what's best for the share price (there isn't one) or the shareholders (there are none as such)

 

[Grover]

2 hours ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

It's not about guns.
If it was about them, a revolver or a tommy gun would count as much as a sword. They are always weapon.
It's TLG not wanting to do modern warfare. 
Actually a tommy gun cannot be considered modern warfare, it's something of more than 100  years ago.

It's not about guns, per se, as flintlock muskets and such have been used over the years by TLG in pirate sets etc., and certainly SW etc. use 'guns', but are considered non-modern warfare.  But if you don't think that the Thompson submachinegun was used in modern warfare, you are sorely mistaken.  The Thompson was used by the US military from 1938-1971!  No kidding, people carried these things in Korea and Vietnam.  These weapons are still produced, sold, and in use by some groups even today.  The first production models were 1921 (so the actual weapon, despite having ~40 working prototypes by 1918, is less than 100 years old, and, by most definitions is 'modern' since it uses a centerfire smokeless cartridge), and the round drum magazine was made iconic by the ultra-violent gangsters of the 20s and 30s in the US, which has been glamorized into what we see in the Lego production today.  So to say that TLG does not use 'modern' weapons is not true (which you can see by their inclusion in the Indiana Jones sets that are set in the 20s and 30s).  They do make some exceptions for licensed themes, however much anyone wants to argue to the contrary.

In general, however, I would agree that TLG does try to avoid modern weaponry.  I don't really care one way or the other about modern weapons such as BrickArms since I don't build in the WWI/WWII era, but there still remains the question of the limitations of what TLG wants to have as its image for sale on BL, but also the question of what restrictions are placed on TLG, and by extension, sellers on BL.  For instance, will TLG be held to its contracts of only current license agreements to be sold?  Since it's an old license, such as some of the NBA things that someone else mentioned on here, will TLG allow it to be sold?  It's perfectly legal for a private person to sell such things, but will TLG be held to some contractual wording with their original agreement with the NBA?  Amazon allows for these things to be sold by sellers, but then again, Amazon didn't produce licensed merchandise in the same manner TLG did.  If TLG's lawyers are smart, the will address these issues before they become a problem.  It does not inspire confidence when they say that they 'will not change anything' in the same breath as 'we will no longer allow third party products, such as BrickArms'.  Remember, they're not just banning modern arms, but also the swords, etc. that BrickArms sells as well.  I am by no means saying this is the end of BL or anything, but asking questions that I have relating to IP and other unusual aspects of a non-affiliated aftermarket coming under the control (and both the benefits and legal restrictions) of an associated corporation.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Grover

[jonwil]

LEGO saying no to things they didn't actually make (like BrickArms or BrickForge or custom 3D printed parts or whatever else) absolutely makes sense.

As for guns (like the revolver or tommy gun) its all about context, not the shape of the part. A revolver in a western set is fine since its old and not modern, a revolver in a police set is not fine since its modern. A tommy gun in a Batman set or an Indiana Jones set is fine since its fictional and not modern. A tommy gun in a police set is not fine since its modern.

There IS this item though https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=86934 that TLG might want to remove from the site or block from sale (selling actual alcohol might be an issue for TLG)

Oh and these https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=G&catString=1005 too.

Edited November 28, 2019 by jonwil

[Grover]

29 minutes ago, jonwil said:

LEGO saying no to things they didn't actually make (like BrickArms or BrickForge or custom 3D printed parts or whatever else) absolutely makes sense.

As for guns (like the revolver or tommy gun) its all about context, not the shape of the part. A revolver in a western set is fine since its old and not modern, a revolver in a police set is not fine since its modern. A tommy gun in a Batman set or an Indiana Jones set is fine since its fictional and not modern. A tommy gun in a police set is not fine since its modern.

There IS this item though https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=86934 that TLG might want to remove from the site or block from sale (selling actual alcohol might be an issue for TLG)

Oh and these https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=G&catString=1005 too.

OK, I can understand that argument better, however grey a line it is between fiction and modern.  I am still curious how they will address issues such as the IP rights when licenses have expired, however.  And I very seriously doubt they will allow the smoking materials and alcohol to be sold on BL, even with a Lego logo!

Edited November 28, 2019 by Grover

[Japanbuilder]

There is a lot at stake now at TLG with this. If this gets ruined it will simply lead to alternatives to BL flourishing. TLG can't possibly buy them all up.

That said, expect teething problems with this.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Japanbuilder

[anothergol]

4 hours ago, jonwil said:

LEGO saying no to things they didn't actually make (like BrickArms or BrickForge or custom 3D printed parts or whatever else) absolutely makes sense.

of course it does.. to them. But then let's not pretend they will do that because it's guns.

3 hours ago, Grover said:

As for guns (like the revolver or tommy gun) its all about context

& Brickarms (& others) have no context

 

& what counts as "modern" anyway? Pretty much all Lego themes have bits of fantasy, so if it's fantasy that allows this set to feature a gun, then it's allowed in every theme. Because this looks pretty contemporary to me.

So yeah, it looks like it's only in Lego City that guns aren't to be found, but they are in every other theme, regardless of the time.

 

The problem is that Lego isn't phrasing their "ban on guns" properly. It has more to do with the seriousness. Lego wouldn't do what clone brands do, replicas of warfare vehicles (past or present) that look too serious & made for fans. But there's a difference between a replica of a Sherman and the Metal Slug, which IMHO would be totally fine for kids, but too against Lego's strict rules.

Edited November 28, 2019 by anothergol

[Gray Gear]

10 hours ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

Advertisement for a product is money you pay.
Lepin & Co. do not pay a single cent, yet they benefit.
TLG advertised set XXXXXX, Lepin did the same paratising the ad that TLG paid for.
Defending the copycats always wrong. There is no valid reason for defending them. Never.

That's right, but it does not change my argument. 

The Bugatti is the best example:

Instead of doing some more testing and fixing the suspension issues they paid half of youtube for some half-assed product placements. You see where the 70€ compared to the Porsche went.

[anothergol]

3 hours ago, Grover said:

And I very seriously doubt they will allow the smoking materials and alcohol to be sold on BL, even with a Lego logo! 

Well, they do acknowledge that BL is for adults. If they have a problem with these silly items, it's more that they regret having done such things in the past, I guess.

Because they can't possibily make BL safe for kids. I mean, a kid would be safer drinking & smoking than licking used parts full of salmonella.