onions wrote:the thing is though is that you can't look at it from our point of view. we, the most rabid of lego star wars fans, will, like i said, bend over and take it. 2010 items will eventually find their way into our collections, but perhaps most will wait for sales before taking the plunge.
Yeah... I guess it depends how "rabid." I'm an old-school episodes 4-5-6 fan, so a lot of the newer sets, including Clone Wars, have not interested me (although I watch Clone Wars... better than eps 1-2-3, IMO).
So, for example, when the Midi Falcon came out, I wanted it really badly... I have the 4504, but I have no shelf space for it, so it still sits in it's box. The midi was something I could put on the shelf at work, if not at home... but not for $40. I've spend thousands of dollars on LEGO in the past year, but I refused to spend $40 for the midi Falcon... until I got it on sale for $25. If someone from LEGO is actually listening/caring about this thread; I would have bought it day one for $30, maybe even $35.
onions wrote:the other point to keep in mind is that afols are not the main target for lego toys. we barely make a blip on their radar as far as sales are concerned. it's always been and always will be for younger children. and if prices are too high, timmy's mom/dad/grandma ain't gonna be buying squat.
Again, this is true, but it's also only ever been an excuse from TLG for certain unpopular decisions. I know I'm beating a dead horse when I talk about trains, but it's a great example... they moved away from 9v because, they said, it was too expensive for kids... but the newer sets are just as, if not more expensive, and if you make your own (or buy something like the beautiful Emerald Night), you actually need to spend several times what it would have cost to "motorize" one of the engines LEGO used to sell online. We're talking about $12.00 for an older style motor you could adapt your train to, versus $80 just for the rechargeable battery and charger for the newer system, and that doesn't even include the motor. And if they wanted to make it less expensive with the new system, they could have sold their old style battery boxes for $5/each.
So their excuse about their target audience doesn't wash with me.... kids aren't getting UCS Millennium Falcons or any of the UCS or $300 sets. Well, some might, but by and large these are going to adults and TLG knows it - either that, or they are going to children of AFOLs because the adults get to take part in it.
Further, look who they are really "ripping off;" those UCS sets usually have a very good price/part ratio and, in perspective, are not terrible prices... it's the $10 battle-packs that are seeing, relatively, the biggest bumps - the low end sets that are much more likely to be purchased by or for kids.
onions wrote:LEGO cannnot keep upping the price and expecting sales to keep growing. there is a breaking point, and 2010 pricing might just be it.
And this happens for a lot of companies that start getting greedy. I hate to say that about TLG, but as a privately help company their obligations are different than a publicly held one; their increase in profits has exceeded
their increase in sales, and yet they continue to raise prices... they are trying to maximize their profit, which is fine, except the relative prices will keep yo-yoing until they find some sweet spot that they should have found a long time ago, IMO... it's hardly an inexperienced company.
Jargon wrote:The difference is that before, despite my angst, I COULD buy more.
By raising prices, my angst is irrelevant to the fact that I have to buy less.
That's right... TLG takes the same amount of your money and gives you less for it. From their perspective, it's win-win.
But that's not how it works with some of us (including me); I've actually spent LESS in the past six months than I had in the prior six months; they are not only selling me less, but they are, overall, making less money from me, and it has NOTHING to do with the economy (I'm doing just fine, personally).
OTOH, I'm sure they are doing just fine... if they could keep profits level with reduced sales, it's better for them.... it'd be like you getting paid the same amount per year for 10 months instead of 12 months of work. Wouldn't you like that?