TLG acquires Bricklink

[Itaria No Shintaku]

1 hour ago, Gray Gear said:

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.

Whatever, still the point is that the copycats are no Robin Hood, they are Al Capone.

1 hour ago, anothergol said:

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.

Probably they just "went too far" sometimes and they regret it. Not that a ghost revolver is the case, probably the Tommy Gun is only when coupled with a non fictional character.
Or, they can make adults sets, like Stranger Things, where they allow more than usual.

Since bricklink is a plaftorm for adults, there will be no kids buying smoking supplies or wine.
Maybe they will just put a disclaimer on that very object and that's it.
I wouldn't certainly disapprove that behaviour.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Itaria No Shintaku

[astral brick]

On 11/27/2019 at 11:57 AM, anothergol said:

Personally, I WANT Lego to process that data, I want them to understand which parts are wanted in which colors, & start producing them, whether it's for their own shop or distributed to sellers around the globe.

I think that you are naif, or perhaps just very optimistic.

On 11/27/2019 at 11:57 AM, anothergol said:

As for MOCers, I don't think has ever been any relevant for MOCs. Their system of buying MOCs from sellers is a bit pointless.

I disagree, in fact I believe that supporting the design and the sale of new (and nice) sets was probably the point of no return for Bricklink. Thanks to the use of true Lego parts, they became - on a minuscule scale of course - a legitimate competitor of Tlc itself. Paradoxically, a "reseller" which paid much more attention to their customers than the original company did.

[anothergol]

2 minutes ago, astral brick said:

I think that you are naif, or perhaps just very optimistic.

Lego has always been producing parts for LUGs, how is that different

3 minutes ago, astral brick said:

I disagree, in fact I believe that supporting the design and the sale of new (and nice) sets was probably the point of no return for Bricklink

I'm not talking about the AFOL designer program, I'm talking about MOCs sold in BL shops. If you even knew that it existed, because yeah, no one does, and it's not even an idea that could have worked (it's just a miracle when a shop has all of the parts needed for a MOC).

 

20 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

Or, they can make adults sets, like Stranger Things, where they allow more than usual.

Oh I think Stranger Things was rather kids (or at least teens)-friendly when they covered it. I don't think they would have made the same choice after the totally over-the-top season 3.

[MAB]

9 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.

That is great. World War 1 ended over 100 years ago, so should we expect to see LEGO doing WW1 sets?

 

8 hours 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.

 

First of all, sellers on BL are retailers if they are buying stock to resell. Plus there might be leverage from the license holders to have certain items removed from (or not inserted into) the catalogue. So for example, if Disney (or LEGO) does not want individual Luke Skywalker minifigures sold at bricklink, they could have them removed from LEGO's bricklink catalogue. It is their catalogue now, they choose what goes into it.

 

[Peppermint_M]

10 hours ago, Bornin1980something said:

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

A lot of companies have done this with their old product. They either outright cut them out or frame them as something from a time/attitude that is less enlightened (See, any product with really badly  racist connotations)

8 hours ago, Artanis I said:

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

No, but you are a private person using a selling platform by a merchant to sell on the items you own. LEGO are a licensee, they will be making some money from bricklink and they will be making the money on IP, IP holders will want to renegotiate the terms.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, anothergol said:

Lego has always been producing parts for LUGs, how is that different

Have they? I know they supply parts for LUGs, but all the parts I have ever bought that way have come from existing parts rather than specifically produced parts for LUGs.

Plus I think manufacturing parts that are rare so other sellers can sell them is somewhat different. If there is a case to make them, then surely they would put them in their own sets rather than let others profit from selling rare parts (at inflated prices).

[anothergol]

31 minutes ago, MAB said:

So for example, if Disney (or LEGO) does not want individual Luke Skywalker minifigures sold at bricklink, they could have them removed from LEGO's bricklink catalogue. It is their catalogue now, they choose what goes into it.

To be fair, if Lego wasn't wanting anything on (old) BL, they could simply have bought them all.  (but I don't see why on earth a license owner wouldn't want licensed part on BL)

[MAB]

2 hours ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

Since bricklink is a plaftorm for adults, there will be no kids buying smoking supplies or wine.
Maybe they will just put a disclaimer on that very object and that's it.
I wouldn't certainly disapprove that behaviour.

I don't think LEGO will be able to argue that bricklink is for adults only. You only need to look at COPPA and what it is doing to youtube content providers. They can say that the content they produce is aimed at adults, but children may be interested in it. LEGO is a toy and as such any LEGO site is attractive to children. That said, there is nothing wrong with producing things such as toy guns. It is LEGO's own decision not to do modern warfare.

3 minutes ago, anothergol said:

To be fair, if Lego wasn't wanting anything on (old) BL, they could simply have bought them all.  (but I don't see why on earth a license owner wouldn't want licensed part on BL)

It is because if someone can buy just the minifigure of whoever, then there is no reason to buy the set. Plus, if it is true about LEGO not being able to sell individual licensed parts themselves, then why are they allowing the sale of them on their own site?

[Rudivdk]

After reading through the interview again, I get the feeling that TLG was not fully expecting to buy BL (at least not now). A lot of 'I dont know yet', 'we will have to see' answers are given. And it was stated that buying BL was an 'opportunity', so not a delibarate execution of a business goal? Still don't know if it's good or bad though...

[MAB]

17 hours ago, Ankoku said:

True enough, but there is also the question of power and control. So some of what they spent may relate to that. Now they are the biggest fish in the resale/reseller platform market, which means they can influence it.

If you think about it, with this purchase, they take a very similar position to Amazon. Amazon controls the platform that everyone sells on. Amazon is also the biggest seller on said platform. Which is something regulators are looking into. BrickLink revenue is tiny in comparison to The LEGO Group. That said, LEGO could potentially becomes the biggest seller on the platform they now own.

Not only could they be the biggest seller, but they also have access to records of how much inventory all their sellers have, and how much they are selling it for, including any stock held in stockrooms not accessible to the public. Plus they have records of what their sellers have sold, in which quantities and again how much they have sold it for.

3 minutes ago, Rudivdk said:

After reading through the interview again, I get the feeling that TLG was not fully expecting to buy BL (at least not now). A lot of 'I dont know yet', 'we will have to see' answers are given. And it was stated that buying BL was an 'opportunity', so not a delibarate execution of a business goal? Still don't know if it's good or bad though...

I imagine they wanted the AFOL sets programme, as something that can be combined with unsuccessful IDEAS projects or other popular but not retail worthy (for them) projects. They collaborated with BL on that and saw that it was a useful idea, at least for US buyers in the first instance. It just happened to be at a time the current BL owner is selling up a lot of his businesses.

[anothergol]

28 minutes ago, MAB said:

It is because if someone can buy just the minifigure of whoever, then there is no reason to buy the set. Plus, if it is true about LEGO not being able to sell individual licensed parts themselves, then why are they allowing the sale of them on their own site?

but.. *someone* has already bought the set.

And is it known for sure that Lego is not *allowed* to sell individual licensed parts? I thought it was just that they didn't want to (for 2 reasons, the first that they, as you say, wanna sell sets, and the second reason that a licensed part is generally produced just for 1 set, thus in smaller quantities, it's their best interest not to produce too many extras that they're not garanteed to sell outside sets, and can't reuse later).

[MAB]

17 minutes ago, anothergol said:

but.. *someone* has already bought the set.

They have, but then a LEGO owned company is allowing them to do something that LEGO says is not possible.

18 minutes ago, anothergol said:

And is it known for sure that Lego is not *allowed* to sell individual licensed parts? I thought it was just that they didn't want to (for 2 reasons, the first that they, as you say, wanna sell sets, and the second reason that a licensed part is generally produced just for 1 set, thus in smaller quantities, it's their best interest not to produce too many extras that they're not garanteed to sell outside sets, and can't reuse later).

We don't know, that is why I said the"if it is true". They say they cannot, but then often when a company says that it is because they choose not to rather than they are not allowed to. Only they (and any licensing partner) know.

 

[Shiva]

17 hours ago, Dane said:

What is it you wanted TLG to do? if its true that BL have been for sale for a while as some claim and with the large store chains going bankrupt all over world. TLG then need to secure an important channel as BL is, I dont think TLG expect to re-earn from fees what they paid but in the long run they have secured this platform.. that is if all AFOL's dont freak out about it in advance before they even find out how it will go...

That freaking out part. THAT worries me more than TLG buying Bricklink.

Anyone remember Stargate Universe? Part of the failure was that some fans boycotted the series, due to the others ending.

That Bricklink users or sellers freak out is the greater danger than TLG, in my opinion.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

2 hours ago, MAB said:

Have they? I know they supply parts for LUGs, but all the parts I have ever bought that way have come from existing parts rather than specifically produced parts for LUGs.

Yes they have. They wrote it in a note they sent to the Ambassadors this year.
They do special runs for this very purpose.

2 hours ago, MAB said:

I don't think LEGO will be able to argue that bricklink is for adults only. You only need to look at COPPA and what it is doing to youtube content providers. They can say that the content they produce is aimed at adults, but children may be interested in it. LEGO is a toy and as such any LEGO site is attractive to children. That said, there is nothing wrong with producing things such as toy guns. It is LEGO's own decision not to do modern warfare.

Still TLG can put on individual items "This item is intended for adults and not for kids".
It's easy, no particular stress, and effective.

-

I am a little curious, I read all the comments and I didn't find a single comment blaming bricklink for this choice. Business are made within two parts. They are both responsible. If this acquirement is this much evil as someone is depicting it, the misdeed is being carried by both sides.
On my behalf, I think TLG is the lesser to be blamed here. When the Jezek family sold bricklink, it became something uglier and careless.
I still remember that there have been 3 months in which the forum was full with people complaining that they weren't receiving any more orders point-blank, and they had a normal average just before (and they had also after) that period. I was one of them. I usually got my 3-per-week orders and I was really frustrated to discover that (if I recall correctly) from May 2017 to July 2017 I didn't receive a single order that I didn't ask for (like, telling a friend I was making a special discount for him).
Bricklink never told us the truth. They said that nothing special happened, but we customers aren't stupid. Three months without a single order? Many people all togheter point-blank? 
Come on! 

Not to mention all the rest. Errors all over. No replies from the help desk. A clear intent to sell everything. If this (and I don't think so) cession is the biggest misdeed happened in the AFOL era (as most are depicting), you have two parts to blame, and TLG is the lesser. My 2 cents of course.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Itaria No Shintaku

[MAB]

56 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

On my behalf, I think TLG is the lesser to be blamed here. When the Jezek family sold bricklink, it became something uglier and careless.
I still remember that there have been 3 months in which the forum was full with people complaining that they weren't receiving any more orders point-blank, and they had a normal average just before (and they had also after) that period. I was one of them. I usually got my 3-per-week orders and I was really frustrated to discover that (if I recall correctly) from May 2017 to July 2017 I didn't receive a single order that I didn't ask for (like, telling a friend I was making a special discount for him).
Bricklink never told us the truth. They said that nothing special happened, but we customers aren't stupid. Three months without a single order? Many people all togheter point-blank? 
Come on! 
 

I received plenty of orders during that time in 2017, so it could have been coincidence that you did not.

I found BL didn't really change (operationally) when the Jezek family sold it. Later on it did as they tried out new things, most of which seemed to fail. The community aspect did change a bit when it was sold, and of course the new BrickOwl coming along due to the sale.

59 minutes ago, Itaria No Shintaku said:

Not to mention all the rest. Errors all over. No replies from the help desk. A clear intent to sell everything. If this (and I don't think so) cession is the biggest misdeed happened in the AFOL era (as most are depicting), you have two parts to blame, and TLG is the lesser. My 2 cents of course.

I agree there have been a lot of errors recently. It is far from perfect.

[Roebuck]

I was surprised like everyone else of this sale.
I see a lot of people are worried, maybe rightly so, time will tell. On the other hand if Lego make a lot of changes that the users do not like, they will move somewhere else so it is not in their interest..

Lego has a lot of money now they need to invest, they recently bought Legoland in Billund and now BL.
Of course the owner of BL earn some money, but I think it is peanuts compared to what Lego are making on other parts of their business. So I think they will use it to mine user-information, that is where the real money can be made (just look at Facebook)..
A very basic example:

Lego sees that a single goat cost 30 euro on BL. So they make a set and include a couple of goats in it, since that is a part that has very high value a lot of AFOLs want it. The set will sell more copies that if it had not goats included and Lego makes a lot of money..

So in the best case scenario they leave BL alone and we get more sets and parts we want

[Ankoku]

1 hour ago, Roebuck said:

Lego sees that a single goat cost 30 euro on BL. So they make a set and include a couple of goats in it, since that is a part that has very high value a lot of AFOLs want it. The set will sell more copies that if it had not goats included and Lego makes a lot of money.

Realistically though, how many extra sets are they going to sell because of that? I don't think it would be enough for LEGO to be too interested in.

Did any stats come out in regards to how many sets BL sold during the event they did in collaboration with LEGO? I do wonder if that was a test LEGO did in relation to buying BL.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

2 hours ago, MAB said:

I received plenty of orders during that time in 2017, so it could have been coincidence that you did not.

No, sir. That's even greater evidence.
Many people who got even 2 orders per day suddenly went down to 0 per day for a couple / 3 months.
In the same time, many people noticed an increase of their average orders.
They did something and they knew they were playing with other people's money so they simply pretended nothing happened.
But why in the world the forum was plenty of messages of people experiencing the very same problem, in the very same period, in the very same way?

[Jacob Nion]

48 minutes ago, Ankoku said:

Realistically though, how many extra sets are they going to sell because of that? I don't think it would be enough for LEGO to be too interested in.

Did any stats come out in regards to how many sets BL sold during the event they did in collaboration with LEGO? I do wonder if that was a test LEGO did in relation to buying BL.

I don't want to make up any rumours, but there was this Beyond the brick video about their warehouse holding all the parts for the project. And it looked still very cramped.

[Ankoku]

7 minutes ago, Jacob Nion said:

I don't want to make up any rumours, but there was this Beyond the brick video about their warehouse holding all the parts for the project. And it looked still very cramped.

Said video:

 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Ankoku said:

Did any stats come out in regards to how many sets BL sold during the event they did in collaboration with LEGO? I do wonder if that was a test LEGO did in relation to buying BL.

They sold all that they were allowed (by LEGO) to make.

I imagine it was the first step in them being interested in buying BL. It could well be a good way to deal with AFOL like submissions from IDEAS that do not have a good business case for normal large production runs, but would make sense for smaller runs.

[coinoperator]

On then other hand:
Lego may now provide parts lists of sets
When you wait for BL you wait ages.

and adding offical Lego sets....yes the BL morons even refuse sets,

[Gomek]

16 hours ago, KevinMD said:

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. 

Well, now instead of indirectly profiting from marketplace manipulation, they would now directly profit. Again, on a very small scale, but makes the practice of artificial rarity that much more sketchy.

[Ankoku]

54 minutes ago, MAB said:

They sold all that they were allowed (by LEGO) to make.

That is good.

I am just wondering if they want to cash-in on stuff that goes viral.

e.g. The baby Yoda LEGO creation would be a good example of this, if it wasn't for the IP issues. Would be interesting if something became popular, they could just add a "Buy Now!". Then you don't have the hassle of trying to find all the parts, in the correct colours etc.

I don't see that as being a realistic proposition, since LEGO and the creator would never work fast enough to viably cash in on it.

That said, it would be an interesting world where AFOL's could create instructions for stuff and you can just buy the set from LEGO. Which is in essence what happened with the BL event. That way, the creator gets a small cut and LEGO sells more bricks.

Could be akin to a KickStarter for LEGO. Where sets which get enough pre-orders, get turned into real buyable sets. The bit which bothers me though, is that the BL event seemed very.... manual. You would hope the process would be far more automated in the creating of the sets.

Ultimately, were LEGO buying the user base more than anything else? They may not care about the sellers and are happy, for the most part, to just let that side of things carry on as it. What they are interested in, is all the people visiting BL and how they can sell to them. e.g. I visit BL and here far more than I visit LEGO.com. Maybe that is what they are interested in having access to. e.g. us.

[astral brick]

I don't understand why many people keep talking about "peanuts" or "pocket money".

Pocket money is still money. And there are no small markets, only markets that are yet to be discovered.