MartinP Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think that the purpose of Lego retiring sets is because the set is not selling as well as it has been and Lego wants to keep the sets in-store somewhat new. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go to a Lego store and see the same sets year after year. Lego can keep a few sets for longer production, but if they kept a lot of sets for longer production, it would get boring seeing the same set over and over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naf Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 As a debate exercise, i disagree with your assertion. Lego retiring sets is not what made them so successful over the years. It made Lego INVESTING so successful, but not Lego themselves. If Lego is actively selling sets that are 6 years old (DS 10188 seems to qualify) than they stand only to lose money by retiring it. For sets that arent selling well, absolutely those need to be retired to keep Lego healthy. But i don't think the DS nor the SSD falls into that camp. If you walk into a lego store and see DS's with date stamps from 2012, then i'd agree with you. As we've seen, the recent DS's and SSD's have brand new production date codes. I'll give you that Lego could very well reduce the urgency of buying an expensive set if it was available 'forever' but i don't think the retirement cycle is what makes Lego successful, its only what makes our hobby successful. It's not the fact that sets retire that makes Lego successful, it's the fact that they refresh their lineup with new product on a regular basis. They need to constantly rotate sets out of production because they only have so much capacity to produce sets. They need to kill the old sets so that they can have brand new product to sell. Brand new product keeps people interested in Lego. Take cars as an example. Even if a Ford Mustang is selling extremely well, Ford still freshens the model every couple of years. People want to buy things that are perceived as being new and cutting edge. The Death Star is an anomaly. I'd argue that not only is it a flagship set for the Star Wars theme, but for Lego in general. Everyone knows about the Lego Death Star, even people who aren't that into Lego. It's the one display in the B&M Lego stores that has been consistently in the main window ever since the set came out. It has a certain wow factor, and perhaps Lego doesn't have anything in the pipeline right now that can fill that special product slot, so they just choose to not retire it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asharerin Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 TLG will postpone the retirement of certain sets if they are selling well. Nothing is set in stone with production unless a license has expired in which case they legally can no longer produce a certain set (e.***. Harry Potter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Mack Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 As a debate exercise, i disagree with your assertion. Lego retiring sets is not what made them so successful over the years. It made Lego INVESTING so successful, but not Lego themselves. If Lego is actively selling sets that are 6 years old (DS 10188 seems to qualify) than they stand only to lose money by retiring it. For sets that arent selling well, absolutely those need to be retired to keep Lego healthy. But i don't think the DS nor the SSD falls into that camp. If you walk into a lego store and see DS's with date stamps from 2012, then i'd agree with you. As we've seen, the recent DS's and SSD's have brand new production date codes. I'll give you that Lego could very well reduce the urgency of buying an expensive set if it was available 'forever' but i don't think the retirement cycle is what makes Lego successful, its only what makes our hobby successful. One set doesn't make your case. The Death Star obviously makes them a ton of money or it would have been retired long ago with the 10179, 10030, Cafe Corner, Taj Mahal, and every other popular set. The SSD is a great set, but probably not as successful as the 10188. It will retire and most likely very soon at that. On your second point, success is not always measured by monetary means. LEGO bricks were voted "Toy of the Century" because they are a unique toy which constantly improves and releases new and better products. They retire their old sets for new and improved versions...sets with better and more creative bricks and better building techniques. The results of discontinuing older sets for newer and better sets help LEGO build a huge fanbase, which in turn has helped them become profitable. We can discuss other reasons why LEGO has turned a profit the last 8 or 9 years and had issues before, but the main reason is improved and state of the art products and themes. Really, if LEGO never retired products, we would still be building Galaxy Explorers and Yellow Castles. As a matter of fact, maybe not....LEGO would have been out of business long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudcatsfan Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 But then what's the reason for lego to retire <any previously retired popular set>? Is <any previously retired popular set> somehow less popular that DS and SSD? Well perhaps that's the key. How we define popular might not be the same as lego. Lego is truly the only ones who know if a set is worth keeping on shelves, and one would have to assume they'd do what's in their best interests. Therefore if the Death Star is on the shelves for 6 years,,,,,,,,,,,,its probably popular, financially profitable, and worth the shelf space. Who are we to say its not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p8nt4lyfe Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Lego store employees in Glendale, CA said yesterday that the SSD is 100% retired. They also said not to expect any more Death Stars. They were already fully sold out, so it wasn't a sales tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No More Monkeys Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Lego store employees in Glendale, CA said yesterday that the SSD is 100% retired. They also said not to expect any more Death Stars. They were already fully sold out, so it wasn't a sales tactic. :-) Wrong thread... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p8nt4lyfe Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Haha, I know, but I figured I'd share it with the thread that I actually read Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Mack Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 TLG will postpone the retirement of certain sets if they are selling well. Nothing is set in stone with production unless a license has expired in which case they legally can no longer produce a certain set (e.g. Harry Potter). This is true...which has been shown recently with the 10188, Fire Brigade, Grand Emporium...to name a few. The term, "subject to change," is readily apparent in many LEGO documents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Mack Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Lego store employees in Glendale, CA said yesterday that the SSD is 100% retired. They also said not to expect any more Death Stars. They were already fully sold out, so it wasn't a sales tactic. Yes, that is the rumor among US LEGO stores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waddamon Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Folks, fundamental business management is that all "widgets" have a life cycle. No exceptions. That life cycle can evolve, but is usually defined. I believe the LEGO group is testing the tolerances of longer life spans as well as more products on the shelf at the same time, coupled with price controls. Trends are not determined over night. This is why I believe that last year and this year may be recalled as the golden age of LEGO investing. If their hypothesis is proven true, ie. longer life cycles and more products at the same time, the secondary market will be shaken. Very small group of people have piled up large exclusives since the price control was implemented. If that changes next year you will have mass buying of exclusives in the future with a large saturation of sets from LEGO. This will lead to price declines from that point forward. The sets retired over the current and previous 18 months will be pure GOLD to those that can wait to sell for years to come. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No More Monkeys Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Folks, fundamental business management is that all "widgets" have a life cycle. No exceptions. That life cycle can evolve, but is usually defined. I believe the LEGO group is testing the tolerances of longer life spans as well as more products on the shelf at the same time, coupled with price controls. Trends are not determined over night. This is why I believe that last year and this year may be recalled as the golden age of LEGO investing. If their hypothesis is proven true, ie. longer life cycles and more products at the same time, the secondary market will be shaken. Very small group of people have piled up large exclusives since the price control was implemented. If that changes next year you will have mass buying of exclusives in the future with a large saturation of sets from LEGO. This will lead to price declines from that point forward. The sets retired over the current and previous 18 months will be pure GOLD to those that can wait to sell for years to come. Unless it is ... The SuperWidget!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Raichu Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 This will lead to price declines from that point forward. The sets retired over the current and previous 18 months will be pure GOLD to those that can wait to sell for years to come. It may be the lack of caffeine in my system today, but those 2 sentences are contradicting each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudcatsfan Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 One set doesn't make your case. The Death Star obviously makes them a ton of money or it would have been retired long ago with the 10179, 10030, Cafe Corner, Taj Mahal, and every other popular set. The SSD is a great set, but probably not as successful as the 10188. It will retire and most likely very soon at that. On your second point, success is not always measured by monetary means. LEGO bricks were voted "Toy of the Century" because they are a unique toy which constantly improves and releases new and better products. They retire their old sets for new and improved versions...sets with better and more creative bricks and better building techniques. The results of discontinuing older sets for newer and better sets help LEGO build a huge fanbase, which in turn has helped them become profitable. We can discuss other reasons why LEGO has turned a profit the last 8 or 9 years and had issues before, but the main reason is improved and state of the art products and themes. Really, if LEGO never retired products, we would still be building Galaxy Explorers and Yellow Castles. As a matter of fact, maybe not....LEGO would have been out of business long ago. Can we truly assume that Cafe Corner, Taj Majal and other retired sets that are popular now were great sellers? I don't think that would be the case. I do agree that refreshing the line is key, but i also think that if they had 2 - 4 sets that just kept selling no matter how many years passed, they'd be crazy to stop selling them. Even in the name of something fresh. In fact, even if the Death Star 10188 has figures many advanced collectors deem as 'dated' and a lack of advanced building styles, it says alot that this set can ABSOLUTELY stand on its own based on teh amount of thought and engineering that went into designing its interlocking scenes and wonderful variety of minifigures. I'd say you could put that set on display in the middle of the store even today and it would get more Oo's and Ah's than just about any other item they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waddamon Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 It may be the lack of caffeine in my system today, but those 2 sentences are contradicting each other. Sorry, after writing it I realized it was not clear. Price declines for the new sets being released late 2014 and over the next few years. Holding onto the stuff invested in now (retiring soon) and last year should grow exceptionally well due to the controls and retirement prior to the new life cycles that LEGO may establish. Due to the high price controls less people than we think actually invest in these. Ignoring the price, the storage of exclusives alone will dissuade people because 3-5 year hold is a long time for most. I am referencing investing and not flipping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amtrak23 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Folks, fundamental business management is that all "widgets" have a life cycle. No exceptions. That life cycle can evolve, but is usually defined. I believe the LEGO group is testing the tolerances of longer life spans as well as more products on the shelf at the same time, coupled with price controls. Trends are not determined over night. This is why I believe that last year and this year may be recalled as the golden age of LEGO investing. If their hypothesis is proven true, ie. longer life cycles and more products at the same time, the secondary market will be shaken. Very small group of people have piled up large exclusives since the price control was implemented. If that changes next year you will have mass buying of exclusives in the future with a large saturation of sets from LEGO. This will lead to price declines from that point forward. The sets retired over the current and previous 18 months will be pure GOLD to those that can wait to sell for years to come. IMO the golden age of investing in Lego is long gone. Too many people hoarding. The last few years were great, but I don't see it continuing anymore. There is too much selection out there now, and it has to get over saturated at some point. Oh not too mention...it's all cheap useless plastic that is literally the same piece produced over and over and over...Every time I think of it this way I just cringe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dbroncoboy Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 IMO the golden age of investing in Lego is long gone. Too many people hoarding. The last few years were great, but I don't see it continuing anymore. There is too much selection out there now, and it has to get over saturated at some point. Oh not too mention...it's all cheap useless plastic that is literally the same piece produced over and over and over...Every time I think of it this way I just cringe. I cant imagine what the golden age was like then. I thought the SSD shooting up around $250 before it was even retired was pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waddamon Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 IMO the golden age of investing in Lego is long gone. Too many people hoarding. The last few years were great, but I don't see it continuing anymore. There is too much selection out there now, and it has to get over saturated at some point. Oh not too mention...it's all cheap useless plastic that is literally the same piece produced over and over and over...Every time I think of it this way I just cringe. This was my point. Consumerism is alive and well. Not sure when that will die, but I do think it is a ways out. No one really knows for sure though. My comments were geared toward the exclusives though, not LEGO toys in general. SSD and DS being the point of topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnwray Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 It's not the fact that sets retire that makes Lego successful, it's the fact that they refresh their lineup with new product on a regular basis. They need to constantly rotate sets out of production because they only have so much capacity to produce sets. They need to kill the old sets so that they can have brand new product to sell. Brand new product keeps people interested in Lego. Take cars as an example. Even if a Ford Mustang is selling extremely well, Ford still freshens the model every couple of years. People want to buy things that are perceived as being new and cutting edge. The Death Star is an anomaly. I'd argue that not only is it a flagship set for the Star Wars theme, but for Lego in general. Everyone knows about the Lego Death Star, even people who aren't that into Lego. It's the one display in the B&M Lego stores that has been consistently in the main window ever since the set came out. It has a certain wow factor, and perhaps Lego doesn't have anything in the pipeline right now that can fill that special product slot, so they just choose to not retire it. This, this, and this. Take Monopoly, for instance. That game has been in existence for more than a century and is one of the most well-known and iconic board games of all time. And yet, they are constantly releasing new versions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Mack Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 . Very small group of people have piled up large exclusives since the price control was implemented. Great point. Jeff and I have noticed a definite trend away from exclusives over the past year. With the continued LEGO policy of not letting its affiliates discount exclusives and limiting purchases on LEGO S@H, more people have shifted to where the discounts are...small to mid sized sets. I have always been one to buy a LEGO set at 30-50% off, even the dogs. Lately, I have been trying to find deals on exclusives wherever I can. I just took advantage of eBay's Quadruple points to buy another 10188, SOH and Sea Cow at nice discounts and no tax. The deals are still there on larger sets, it just takes some more effort and patience to find them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pins79 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 It seems that many of the veteran investors who were used to discounts on exclusives have stopped buying as many exclusives since the "no discount" policy. But I wonder if this is offset by the large number of new investors not used to having discounts. It seems like every time a set goes "out of stock" on shop at home, someone inevitably starts a panic and posts about potential eol even when the set is newly released. It just seems like there are way too many investors now. I mean, how many new brickpicker members are there on a daily basis? Sent from my iPhone using Brickpicker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Mack Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Can we truly assume that Cafe Corner, Taj Majal and other retired sets that are popular now were great sellers? I don't think that would be the case. I do agree that refreshing the line is key, but i also think that if they had 2 - 4 sets that just kept selling no matter how many years passed, they'd be crazy to stop selling them. Even in the name of something fresh. In fact, even if the Death Star 10188 has figures many advanced collectors deem as 'dated' and a lack of advanced building styles, it says alot that this set can ABSOLUTELY stand on its own based on teh amount of thought and engineering that went into designing its interlocking scenes and wonderful variety of minifigures. I'd say you could put that set on display in the middle of the store even today and it would get more Oo's and Ah's than just about any other item they have. We can't assume any of these sets are great sellers, true, but your point of LEGO extending set lives to 6 years was based off of one set, the 10188. There have been over 10,000 LEGO sets produced, and even if 10 or 20 had a 6 year shelf life, that is an outlier. The 10188 is an exception...for now. In no way am I knocking the 10188. I have pointed out many times that bang for your buck, it is one of the best sets LEGO ever developed and sold. Maybe LEGO is changing their philosophy on retiring sets. Time will tell. My original point was that by retiring LEGO sets, it makes them more valuable than if they were never or rarely retired. Sure, it helps the investors of the world as well, but most of all, this value after EOL helps LEGO itself. If an item is perceived as valuable after it is retired, more often than not, the same would be true when the item is being sold by primary retailers. It is much easier to sell a $400 LEGO set to an AFOL if they believe that the LEGO set will be worth more money one day than they paid for it. How many $400 boxes of plastic would LEGO sell if the pieces became almost worthless after opening the box like many toys? Not many. The primary and secondary markets compliment one another and the retiring of sets is a key component to it all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
33Lego Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 "The primary and secondary markets compliment one another" This is very true. And it is an interesting economy theory to study. On a side note, order of 10221 on June 20th (WM) was not shipped yet AND I got an email saying if it didn't get shipped within 10 days it will get cancelled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mos_Eisley Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Folks, fundamental business management is that all "widgets" have a life cycle. No exceptions. That life cycle can evolve, but is usually defined. I believe the LEGO group is testing the tolerances of longer life spans as well as more products on the shelf at the same time, coupled with price controls. Trends are not determined over night. This is why I believe that last year and this year may be recalled as the golden age of LEGO investing. If their hypothesis is proven true, ie. longer life cycles and more products at the same time, the secondary market will be shaken. Very small group of people have piled up large exclusives since the price control was implemented. If that changes next year you will have mass buying of exclusives in the future with a large saturation of sets from LEGO. This will lead to price declines from that point forward. The sets retired over the current and previous 18 months will be pure GOLD to those that can wait to sell for years to come. The Golden Age of LEGO investing was several years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Raichu Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 My original point was that by retiring LEGO sets, it makes them more valuable than if they were never or rarely retired. Sure, it helps the investors of the world as well, but most of all, this value after EOL helps LEGO itself. If an item is perceived as valuable after it is retired, more often than not, the same would be true when the item is being sold by primary retailers. It is much easier to sell a $400 LEGO set to an AFOL if they believe that the LEGO set will be worth more money one day than they paid for it. How many $400 boxes of plastic would LEGO sell if the pieces became almost worthless after opening the box like many toys? Not many. The primary and secondary markets compliment one another and the retiring of sets is a key component to it all. You would think LEGO knows it but their anti-reseller position seems to indicate otherwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.b1d395946af8b81233b71644246addcb.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.