Teekay wrote: Try, MSRP + tax (if applicable). If you bought it on sale, it's your own discretion.
As I said, anyone else is more than welcome to try this business venture. Everyone going on about morality can start buying sets to sell them this way and put resellers out of business. In the meantime, that formula is unrealistic. I presumably drove to get these sets. That's gas, which costs money. That's time, which is worth money. I would be listing them on Ebay, they have sellers fees. I would actually be losing money by your method. What incentive would anyone have to do that?
Teekay wrote:Well, you are completely right there. However, some people do lie in eBay ads. I've seen it. I'm guessing you are one of those that don't.
There's no need to lie. These things practicly sell themselves if you do it right.
Teekay wrote:Well, by 20 I'm guessing you mean Battle Packs or other army builders. TLG expects people to buy several army builders, so that's no problem. If it is a non army building set, that is different. A collector will usually buy just one. A scalper (or whatever you prefer to call them) will often buy more than one. Maybe my estimate of five or ten in my last post was off. But they do buy more.
Yes, the 20 is a battle pack. The most I have of a non battle pack set is 12 (tower raid). There are several I have 5 or more. The King's Castle Siege which I bought to sell, I have 4. I think you are making a generalisation that is as likely to be true as it is false. I could quite easliy envision collectors and scalpers equalling out in their combined purchases.
Teekay wrote:Okay, maybe for a BP a collector would buy 20. I've never heard of a "reseller" (*cough* synonymous with scalper *cough*) buying just one.
First, if it were something that were fairly expensive (let's say the current Falcon when it was onsale this last XMas), I would be very hesitant to buy more than 1 to resell.
Second, the constant attempts to keep equating any new term to scalper is exactly what I was talking about earlier. We all know the word scalper is being used for it's negative implications as the only definition that really fits is so broad that it's useless. You can't expect honest discussion if one side believes the other side is evil from the get go. It's the same exact mentality that makes things like religious debate a virtual impossibility. That's why people try to bring morality into issues where it has no bearing. It clouds the issue and allows one side to basically say anything as they are supposedly morally superior (evil people don't have emotions and always do the evil thing in every instance, so who cares what else you say about them because their evil so it doesn't matter if what you say is actually true or not). There's a reason why it's a popular card to play with "news" programs and their talking heads.
Teekay wrote:But the collectors are building and displaying them. The scalpers sort of just "have" them until they sell them for profit. There is a big difference.
So what if I buy them and build them, all the while knowing I will sell them for profit later? Where does that figure into your view?
Teekay wrote:These people who want to buy sets at extreme price, can do so if they wish. They are not wrong to lose their own money. If they want to do that, it is their decision. If you buy to sell to them, try the formula above, plus $5 for your inconvience.
The problem with your formula is that I would have absolutely no reason to use it. I have already outlined how it would actually cost me money. It would cost me money to sell to someone who didn't bother to try to get them when they were everywhere. While very noble, it only encourages people to not bother getting them when they are on shelves. Which in turn encourages more scalping because there is an even larger market, and it possibly helps kill the line because people don't bother to buy them at the stores. Both long shots I admit, but long shot doesn't mean impossible. So, are you presently using that plan to resell to people?
Teekay wrote:Well, from his description, he just wanted to get rid of them. But he wanted to get his MSRP back. So he just took whatever profit people were willing to pay.
Call me cynical, but I doubt it was as noble as it sounds. I would guess (yes, it is just a guess) that to him there was no real gamble. It would be like standing in the absolute middle of nowhere and betting that a car won't hit you. Sure, it could happen, but the odds say it is very, very unlikely. So, he had minimal risk and he got away with selling them with a lower seller fee. Again, call me cynical, but I am sure these things crossed his mind. Also, why is it you seem to believe the claims of one guy on ebay yet you seriously question a lot of things any seller on here is saying?
Teekay wrote:Simple. The "reseller" insists that you buy their merchandise at their price or not at all. This eBay guy was just letting people be as crazy as they wanted.
Wal Mart (and TLG for that matter) usually insist I pay a specific price. In fact, there are far fewer price drifferences between TLG and the regular stores than there are between Ebay sellers. What's the real difference? Sellers have the right to ask whatever price they want (and people obviously don't have to pay it if they don't want the item that badly). If they couldn't, there would be no incentive to try to sell anything.
Teekay wrote:No, he is letting people pay however much he wants. He, in his nobility, is willing to take the risk that no one will bid and he'll end up selling it for 99 cents.
Is it a risk, sure. But more often than not it's like betting the sun will rise tomorrow. Sure, it might not (and if it doesn't, we'll likely all be dead so you won't have to pay up), but the odds are in your favor. I'm not saying absolutely he did that (I don't know the guy or what he did). What I am saying is that it is entirely within the realm of possibility. More importantly, given the vigor with which some people have contested the basics of our argument, I would think they would be tearing this guy's potentially immoral practices apart.
Teekay wrote:I've said this before and I'll say it again. Lego and the stock market are completely different things. A great deal of our economy is based off of the change in stock prices. Maybe someone buys your stock for the going price, which is higher than you bought it for. Then a year from now, the buyer sells it at even more than they bought it for. They are clearly not feeling ripped off. If you buy Lego on eBay for $30 and you get it and it has 90 pieces, you will feel ripped off. Stocks are meant to be sold. Lego is not. Stocks are a gamble. You buy them, hoping their prices will increase.
Investing is investing no matter how you slice it. You can say the two are different all you want, but that won't make it something that is reasonable to believe. What is the real difference? You buy both with the idea that their value will increase and you can sell them for more than you payed for them down the road. The person you sell to may only be interested in the dividends or may genuinely like the company and want to support them. The person you sell LEGO to may be wishing to take advantage of benefit of the actual stock (in this case, the set itself) or maybe he believes it will continue to increase in value, or both. There are few differences and none of any real consequence. If it helps, consider them commodities and not stocks since commodities actually have an eventual use and aren't just pieces of paper.
As for your example, if they feel ripped off then why did they buy it? I fall back on my point of buyers needing to know their product. If you feel ripped off after buying something like that, there is only one person to blame.