Fair and Unbiased Opinions on Brickpicker WANTED! (actually badly needed)

[bnb123]

Disclaimer: This is an opinion piece

Brickpicker from an article standpoint is becoming a barking carny yelling "BUY BUY BUY".

This site is a GREAT information source and LEGO investment tool for all, that being said I need to see a more unbiased opinion when it comes to the articles. This would greatly benefit the reputation of the site as a trusted source to use. (Anyone that can potentially benefit from click-thru affiliate revenue from this site is not considered an unbiased contributor)

I understand that the investment losers might be harder to find in this market, so I can see the ease of saying BUY BUY BUY, but the losers are out there and need to be addressed more regularly if not as much as the investment winners.

Don't believe the BUY BUY BUY mentality exists? Lets take a look at the 3 articles currently posted on the homepage :

"From article one "Is LEGO Minecraft 21102 Becoming a Flop?"

"If you need to recoup your $35 investment right away and ensure a small profit, go ahead and sell. But the smart money says it is time to start treating this set like we would any other LEGO set; get it while you can, sell it for a lot once it's gone. It just means we need to adjust our thinking and accept the fact that Minecraft is not the dynamite short-term investment it once was."

From Article 2 "Do LEGO MONSTER FIGHTERS Sets Scare Away Profits?"

"BrickPicker Analysis: Very cool little set with the

[Doofy McGee]

Hello bnb123. As the writer of two out of three of those articles, I feel I am the best one to address your concerns on this matter. I certainly appreciate your opinion and feedback, but I feel you may have misinterpreted my intentions with these articles. I will admit that they are indeed biased. They are my opinions only, and I am sharing them to provide my perspective on the sets in question. But that's all it is...my opinion, my biased opinion. I write about sets that I think have great investment potential, and I share my reasons for believing that. The sets that are chosen for the evaluation corner are sets that have a lot of buzz or a lot of questions surrounding them. We try to point out what we feel are positive aspects of the set to help generate excitement, or maybe answer some questions people may have had. Why write an article about a set no one cares about or that won't make money? It would be one thing if we saw people everywhere dumping all their money into a set that has overwhelming evidence that it is going to fail. If that were happening, it would warrant an article advising people against it. The intention is not to tell everyone to BUY BUY BUY. There is no benefit to me or any other members of this site to convince people to buy. The wonderful fellows who own this site are not making any money off this site's activity. They do it because they love the hobby and want to share their passion and wisdom. This is, after all, an investment site. If you never buy, how are you investing? When people are concerned about a set's potential, they come on and express their feelings. It is not uncommon for this site's members to urge people away from sets that don't look promising. I have done it many times myself. Again, I appreciate your opinions and thoughts, and my intention is not to seem disrespectful toward them. I just wanted to offer you a different perspective on the motivations for why the articles were written the way they were.

[Jeff Mack]

I can probably go into a very long winded reply to this article, but one thing I will just say is that Ed and I have on many occasions ask for other members to voice their opinion. That is why: 1. We have created a member review section that is focused mostly on collecting/investing. We want others to voice why to buy or why to stay away from any of the 9000+ sets as an investment item. 2. All articles have a comments section. We leave it as an open forum for people to voice their opinion against anything that Ed or any of the other authors have written. 3. The discussion forum. If you spend time in the forum, you will see plenty of people asking for opinions on sets and everyone can voice their opinion. Just like any newspaper, magazine, talk show, blog, etc. These are mine, Ed's or any of the other author's opinions, just like you stated in your post. We do have a disclaimer on the site that asks people to make their own decisions. We are just pointing out tidbits of information based on data we have as well as gut feelings. Even in your examples above, are any of these bullet points Ed points out technically bad? I personally would agree with them and I think others would as well. He does state in his articles the ones to not go crazy about as well. Everyone won't agree with what we say here, that is impossible. So even if we took all 9000+ sets and gave it a thumbs up/down. There would be plenty of people calling us crazy for the choices we made in that. Like any stock report, you need to take in all the information you can, then make you own decision. I am definitely offering you the opportunity to write evaluation articles for us. You will not be benefiting from any click throughs (which does not add up to a whole heck of a lot ), so that will qualify you as a biased/impartial reviewer. Let us know whenever you would like to submit something. We would love to have it on the site.

[bnb123]

I completely understand Arock. My article used your pieces just because they were 2 of the 3 we mentioned that are all on the homepage. They were used to solidify the point I was making. I feel that the adding more articles about the "investment losers" so to speak can help build a well rounded investor and investment resource. From the new investor standpoint only reading about the winners can hinder their investment savvy and not allow them to understand what makes a winner a winner and a loser a loser. An equal serving of both winners and the losers will only benefit the site and all of us as investors. P.s. Your articles were very informative, thorough and well written. I enjoyed reading them.

[Talon]

Now that it has been brought up I think there is a natural bias and it needs to be recognized - I only review sets I own. Personally I don't buy sets I don't like at all (I have to admit I might make an exception for a crazy discount say 80% off or more, lol). No offense meant to anyone here but I don't own a single Star Wars Planet set. I saw them at 50% off and still didn't bite. I just don't find them attractive at all. Now, if I was doing a Star Wars Christmas tree and needed some ornaments I might buy them, otherwise they are not on my list. This also means that I will not be doing a review on them. The six reviews I've done so far are all on sets that I like. I will likely do reviews on sets I like first and then finally get to sets that I don't like, but honestly that will take years! Some of my reviews have pointed out that those sets may not be great investments (Earth Defense HQ springs to mind) but still these are sets I and my family like. It hardly seems fair to do reviews of sets I don't own, but there are some sets I purchased over the years and was a little disappointed when I finally built them. Maybe I will try and review a few of those next to balance out my bias. :-)

[bnb123]

Jeff, I understand your points and feel that you and Ed have provided a very professional and incredibly useful website, which I know must be one hell of a daunting task to run. We all have our opinions and I believe the more we hear the better the site will be as an investment source. I by no means am stating the articles that I pointed out should not be written, but just saying the other side of the story needs to be heard in equal quantities. As you mentioned "Like any stock report, you need to take in ALL the information you can, then make you own decision." I appreciate the opportunity to write a piece for the site and will take advantage of the opportunity in the near future. (Do I just send you or Ed a PM when I have something?) Thanks again for providing the source it is greatly appreciated.

[stephen_rockefeller]

Maybe you can write an article on why Pharaoh's Quest and Altantis sets are big time investment losers, if that is how you want to spend your time........

[bnb123]

Stephen, Those would be great topics to write about if Atlantis and PQ were still on the shelves in most markets. I think the cat is already out of the bag on those. They could be apart of an article like: BIggest LEGO Losers of all time, with Galidor being #1, haha. BNB

[Jeff Mack]

I appreciate the opportunity to write a piece for the site and will take advantage of the opportunity in the near future. (Do I just send you or Ed a PM when I have something?)

Both of our emails are on the Contact Us page. Feel free to send anything you write to those.

How come you never comment on the articles? You have a perfect opportunity to write your opinion or question Ed why he commented to buy one set over the other? This is what I meant by see ALL the information. The comments of the blog articles are just as powerful as the article itself.

I just looked through Ed's comments of each set in the Monster Fighter article. I see him saying to be cautious of many of those sets. He is also telling people the truth about others that you should really consider getting some of those others before they disappear. Overall, I personally see it as a very fair evaluation of the theme.

[TheOrcKing]

There is a fine line between "having an opinion" and "being opinionated". I always try and give a more generalized opinion when I review a set or if somebody has a question about something in particular. Look, everyone has an opinion about everything based on their own life experiences and preferances. The trick is to tell it in a way that could help another make their own decision, not push them into one.

I also should note that it's difficult to not be a little biased when you REALLY like something! I like PHARAOH'S QUEST personally, but apparently the secondary market does not. So I would say that I love those sets and mention what I like about them, but I will not advise anyone to put any stock into them. And that is just my opinion.

[bnb123]

Jeff, sounds good will send off an article in the near future. As for Ed's article I am not saying it isn't a good or informative piece. I was just using it to emphasize my point. It was an article that concluded that every set in the Monster fighters collection was eventually at some point something that would yield a return. Maybe this is my assumption, but I would assume that many people learning about LEGO investing come into the game and find this site. They think that LEGO investing is about buying LEGO sets and holding on to them for a set period of time and then selling them. If this is the case, investors that read that article only may think its okay to buy any of the MF series of sets at some point in time because they will all eventually have a return (none of the series were deemed dogs by Ed's article as long as you waited an appropriate amount of time for the investment to mature). If I am this type of investor, would I buy any of the MF series sets right now? Probably not, mainly because they haven't hit the bottom price yet. But also because I would have to be willing to hold onto them for a long period of time (More than 10 years) just to see a return that would be worth tying up any type of cash flow for. (with exception to the Modular Set)

[Anakinisvader]

I really like the articles written on this site. I have been buying and selling legos little by little since the first wave of Star Wars sets hit the shelves. I have to admit that whatever I read on these boards makes me do the complete opposite. JUST KIDDING. I really take EVERYONES opinions to heart and really appreciate all the time and effort that is put into everying on this site. I just wish it didn't take me this long to find you all. I understand that people write articles based on experience and opinion. I wont buy or not buy because someone tells me to, unless its my wife then I have to listen or end up on the couch , but I will take into consideration all the homework and experience everyone is having. In other words, keep up the articles AND comments, they are awesome reads and we can only grow from eachothers success and misfortunes (curse you Prince of Persia).

[Jeff Mack]

Jeff, sounds good will send off an article in the near future.

As for Ed's article I am not saying it isn't a good or informative piece. I was just using it to emphasize my point. It was an article that concluded that every set in the Monster fighters collection was eventually at some point something that would yield a return.

Maybe this is my assumption, but I would assume that many people learning about LEGO investing come into the game and find this site. They think that LEGO investing is about buying LEGO sets and holding on to them for a set period of time and then selling them.

If this is the case, investors that read that article only may think its okay to buy any of the MF series of sets at some point in time because they will all eventually have a return (none of the series were deemed dogs by Ed's article as long as you waited an appropriate amount of time for the investment to mature).

If I am this type of investor, would I buy any of the MF series sets right now? Probably not, mainly because they haven't hit the bottom price yet. But also because I would have to be willing to hold onto them for a long period of time (More than 10 years) just to see a return that would be worth tying up any type of cash flow for. (with exception to the Modular Set)

This response you just gave is the problem I am having with this thread. Ed is just voicing his opinion and I am sure he will be voicing his here at some point, but if he feels that this theme in particular doesn't have a "dog", then why would he do it. Can you tell me right now which of these sets will be a dog? Let me know, I will sell mine right now. The way this theme has gone so far, they have all been winners. People really like them. I know I do. Who would have thought that The Zombies set would be so hot? I really don't see what more Ed should have said, I really don't see any of these going down in value, do you? I mean, Swamp Creature is $6.99, chances are that will go up in value. I feel the same about The Werewolf and The Mummy too. I would be VERY shocked if one day Vampyre Castle and Haunted House tank. They are just too nice of sets and priced well too.

[bnb123]

Anakinisvader, Perfectly said!

[bnb123]

This response you just gave is the problem I am having with this thread. Ed is just voicing his opinion and I am sure he will be voicing his here at some point, but if he feels that this theme in particular doesn't have a "dog", then why would he do it. Can you tell me right now which of these sets will be a dog? Let me know, I will sell mine right now. The way this theme has gone so far, they have all been winners. People really like them. I know I do. Who would have thought that The Zombies set would be so hot? I really don't see what more Ed should have said, I really don't see any of these going down in value, do you? I mean, Swamp Creature is $6.99, chances are that will go up in value. I feel the same about The Werewolf and The Mummy too. I would be VERY shocked if one day Vampyre Castle and Haunted House tank. They are just too nice of sets and priced well too.

I think you are misunderstanding my point when it comes to Ed's article. It serves a purpose, it is well written, it has valuable information. There is nothing wrong with his article. From my original posts point, I was just trying to state that more of the other side of the coin would help the site. More articles like Eds are just fine, keep them coming, seriously. Lets get as much info as we can out there, both the good and the bad.

From my most recent post, I understand why you disagree. I am sure a ton of people do because we all have different investment goals, we all have different sales channels, we all have different knowledge bases and we all have different amounts of time to expend on LEGO investing.

With exception to the Modular MF set, and based on if I am the casual LEGO investor with limited knowledge, limited time, limited cash flow, and the need to have a return in less than 3 years, I would pass on MF. There are better investments to pursue if I am this type of investor.

If you are the LEGO investor with limited knowledge, limited time, limited cash flow, and the need to have a return in less than 3 years. and still like the MF series as much as you do, then you very well could be on to something and I am going to be eating my words 3 years from now when they blow up.

Just to add the other side of the coin to this: If I am an investor who knows a little bit about the game, has a continuous cash flow to allocate to LEGO investing, and is in it for the long haul then YES, I would buy a few of each them all when they hit rock bottom.

[stephen_rockefeller]

This thread is making my head hurt..............

[Ed Mack]

Dear bnb123... Well, what can I say? You figured us out. We are shills for LEGO. We make millions off of my articles. We remove any negative feedback on LEGO sets so everything is hunky dory so that people BUY, BUY, BUY. Now onto reality... This site costs money to run and produce. A lot of money. It also takes a lot of work to make it happen. A lot of work. Years of work. It's a full time second job. How do we pay for this? Are we independently wealthy? No. Jeff and I have full time jobs and families. So how do we do pay for site costs. You figured it out...affiliate fees. Just like every other major LEGO site out there. But here's the catch...It costs the members nothing. The site remains FREE while we enable them to possess information that would be rather difficult and expensive to obtain otherwise. So therein lies the issue. How do we keep the site operating and free through affiliate fees and not promote LEGO sets? It's impossible. As Jeff stated, there are over 9000 LEGO sets in existence and many are poor investments. But why should we talk about those? We already have plenty of tools and data that the members can see the worst performing sets and themes. Do you want me to hold your hand and show you these underperformers? I don't have the spare time or energy to show you what sets not to buy. Use your own judgement. We tell people about LEGO sets that could make you money. Who wants to hear about losers? Do you want me to talk about Atlantis, Prince of Persia or Pharaoh's Quest sets? I own them all and have stated that numerous times on these forums, but I guess you never read that. I have stated numerous times that I should not have invested in these sets, but I liked them, so it's not always about the money. Throughout the site, we let members know that LEGO investing is not a guaranteed money maker and we talk about the many negatives and pitfalls. That being said, we are about the positives of the LEGO collecting and investing hobby. We will continue to be a promoter of the brick. If you feel there is not enough unbiased content on the site, WHY DON'T YOU PRODUCE SOME? We will give your article the same spotlight as the other articles get. We look and ask for members to supply us with quality content, whether it promotes LEGO investing or not. WE WANT NEW AND DIFFERENT CONTENT...We almost beg for it, by giving away BrickPicker points for reviews and new articles. We want members to give us reviews on various sets and write articles/blogs on any LEGO related topic they want and would be interesting to members. I find you post useful in that it lets opens up discussion on this topic, which makes for quality forum banter. But here is the issue, I am a true believer in LEGO investing and the LEGO collecting hobby in general, so how can I write negative articles? I need others to do so. You can do so. You seem perfectly capable of producing a counterpoint to my points. I'll ask every member who has opposing views to share them...I WELCOME THEM...THE SITE NEEDS THEM... So the gauntlet is thrown down...Here is your chance. Write your opposing views. I look forward to reading them and posting them. Ed Mack

[bnb123]

Dear bnb123...

Well, what can I say? You figured us out. We are shills for LEGO. We make millions off of my articles. We remove any negative feedback on LEGO sets so everything is hunky dory so that people BUY, BUY, BUY.

Now onto reality...

This site costs money to run and produce. A lot of money. It also takes a lot of work to make it happen. A lot of work. Years of work. It's a full time second job. How do we pay for this? Are we independently wealthy? No. Jeff and I have full time jobs and families. So how do we do pay for site costs. You figured it out...affiliate fees. Just like every other major LEGO site out there. But here's the catch...It costs the members nothing. The site remains FREE while we enable them to possess information that would be rather difficult and expensive to obtain otherwise. So therein lies the issue. How do we keep the site operating and free through affiliate fees and not promote LEGO sets? It's impossible.

As Jeff stated, there are over 9000 LEGO sets in existence and many are poor investments. But why should we talk about those? We already have plenty of tools and data that the members can see the worst performing sets and themes. Do you want me to hold your hand and show you these underperformers? I don't have the spare time or energy to show you what sets not to buy. Use your own judgement. We tell people about LEGO sets that could make you money. Who wants to hear about losers? Do you want me to talk about Atlantis, Prince of Persia or Pharaoh's Quest sets? I own them all and have stated that numerous times on these forums, but I guess you never read that. I have stated numerous times that I should not have invested in these sets, but I liked them, so it's not always about the money.

Throughout the site, we let members know that LEGO investing is not a guaranteed money maker and we talk about the many negatives and pitfalls. That being said, we are about the positives of the LEGO collecting and investing hobby. We will continue to be a promoter of the brick. If you feel there is not enough unbiased content on the site, WHY DON'T YOU PRODUCE SOME? We will give your article the same spotlight as the other articles get. We look and ask for members to supply us with quality content, whether it promotes LEGO investing or not. WE WANT NEW AND DIFFERENT CONTENT...We almost beg for it, by giving away BrickPicker points for reviews and new articles. We want members to give us reviews on various sets and write articles/blogs on any LEGO related topic they want and would be interesting to members.

I find you post useful in that it lets opens up discussion on this topic, which makes for quality forum banter. But here is the issue, I am a true believer in LEGO investing and the LEGO collecting hobby in general, so how can I write negative articles? I need others to do so. You can do so. You seem perfectly capable of producing a counterpoint to my points. I'll ask every member who has opposing views to share them...I WELCOME THEM...THE SITE NEEDS THEM...

So the gauntlet is thrown down...Here is your chance. Write your opposing views. I look forward to reading them and posting them.

Ed Mack

Hi Ed,

I completely understand your response. I only wanted to state a fact regarding affiliate revenue, to make a point about the source of bias and unbiased journalism. I did not say you guys are millionaires or trying to run sketchy operation. In fact I pretty sure you guys are just two innovators that decided to do something with their hobby and actually succeed at it.

I want to reiterate how GREAT the site is and what is does for the community. It's sites like Brickpicker that continue to bring the hobby and LEGO brand to the next level.

Articles from myself could only help the balance, so I accept your offer and hope that they will bring more users in search of quality information regarding LEGO investing.

No hard feelings Ed, I truly do respect you and Jeff and Brickpicker.com

[Ed Mack]

Hi Ed,

I completely understand your response. I only wanted to state a fact regarding affiliate revenue, to make a point about the source of bias and unbiased journalism. I did not say you guys are millionaires or trying to run sketchy operation. In fact I pretty sure you guys are just two innovators that decided to do something with their hobby and actually succeed at it.

I want to reiterate how GREAT the site is and what is does for the community. It's sites like Brickpicker that continue to bring the hobby and LEGO brand to the next level.

Articles from myself could only help the balance, so I accept your offer and hope that they will bring more users in search of quality information regarding LEGO investing.

No hard feelings Ed, I truly do respect you and Jeff and Brickpicker.com

Hi bnb123...

I really do appreciate your points and I really would enjoy members producing content that might shine a negative light on LEGO investing. People need to know there is a dark side to LEGO investing, as with any investment. There are no hard feelings. Jeff and I are used to defending our work. Not everyone likes what we do.

Like I said earlier, I would enjoy reading and posting an article(s) from members that counter my positive ones. There are always two sides to a coin and I'm sure there are many valid points you can make. Constructive criticism is always welcome. Thanks again for your ideas and interest in our site.

Ed Mack

[cvail8]

Here's the problem: Until (if?) if the market goes to hell in a handbasket, that will be the first time that anyone really loses money on Lego. Yes, there are sets that are losers, but for the most part any set bought at retail price or less will have some return. So it's hard for people to have a negative opinion when things have generally been going in a positive direction. I think the site does a great job of letting people know which sets are probably safe bets. The tools they provide are wonderful ways to examine each set. And if you are curious about a specific set or theme, just set up a topic and people are happy to give you their opinions. They aren't always positive, but I think people tell you honestly what they think. I guess my point is, there's no one to be gloom and doom when most of the people here believe that things are going to stay generally positive. Maybe that's part of the problem.

[Ed Mack]

Here's the problem: Until (if?) if the market goes to hell in a handbasket, that will be the first time that anyone really loses money on Lego.

Yes, there are sets that are losers, but for the most part any set bought at retail price or less will have some return.

So it's hard for people to have a negative opinion when things have generally been going in a positive direction.

I think the site does a great job of letting people know which sets are probably safe bets. The tools they provide are wonderful ways to examine each set. And if you are curious about a specific set or theme, just set up a topic and people are happy to give you their opinions. They aren't always positive, but I think people tell you honestly what they think.

I guess my point is, there's no one to be gloom and doom when most of the people here believe that things are going to stay generally positive. Maybe that's part of the problem.

I agree. We are talking about LEGO sets here. How much bad can come from that? LOL. I was thinking about this thread last night and to be honest, bnb123 talked about an "unbiased" information site. Well, in today's media and information sites, are any really "unbiased"? I really can't think of any. The bills have to be paid by someone or something. Even the PBS Television Network has strong ties to government money, so there is always a question of who is funding what. As I stated earlier, we promote LEGO bricks. We try to inform people how to make money off of buying and selling LEGO bricks. We also inform people how to SAVE money when buying LEGO sets.

Even if you never had any intention on selling a LEGO set in your life, this site helps LEGO fans find the lowest prices for LEGO sets, so there is a use for this site for non-investors as well. But even if your intention is not to resell, it doesn't hurt to know what your LEGO collection is worth. I would like to hear from more members that are "Bullish" on the LEGO investing hobby/business. It makes for good and informative content and conversation for the site.

[emes]

There seems to be plenty of negative information throughout the site that I've used to help make decisions. For example, in the MF evaluation there's plenty of negative aspects peppered in. One thing that stands out to me though is the product we're dealing with and the structure of the market. If this were a stock I could short-sell that stock, in which case negative information would be really useful. Negative information doesn't have the same value here, as I can't short-sell LEGO sets. That said when you buy anything that you intend to resell you are taking some amount of risk. This is what kills all pickers profit margin. That risk is somewhat mitigated for LEGO because of it's pervasive popularity. IMO the site has been very clear about this. Personally, I don't buy and sell only LEGO, but many other items as well and the risk is exactly the same whether it's LEGO, cosmetics, or antiques, etc... In many of these cases I'm not making a purchasing decision based on negative information; rather, it's a purchasing decision made on what I think someone might want at some date in the future.

[pickleboy]

While I enjoy the comments at brickpicker etc. IMO, If you need help on how to buy and sell LEGO sets, you probably shouldn't be worrying about your own investments, etc. The benefit to me, other than the conversation, is the unique pricing and portfolio solution that no other website has. I can get great LEGO conversation almost anywhere. Brickpicker offers a very unique solution to a real problem. (tracking the value of your LEGO sets.) A LEGO website advertising clothes will go out of business. Could you imagine the business meeting... "Ok so we are going to build a community of LEGO fans and advertise clothes to them...It'll be awesome."

[Jeff Mack]

A LEGO website advertising clothes will go out of business.

Could you imagine the business meeting... "Ok so we are going to build a community of LEGO fans and advertise clothes to them...It'll be awesome."

Haha, this made me chuckle. Whenever I see your name, I expect to see some crazy pickle avatar. You have to find one :)

[pickleboy]

Haha, this made me chuckle. Whenever I see your name, I expect to see some crazy pickle avatar. You have to find one

BOOM!! Just for you!