75159 - UCS: Death Star (2016)

[gregpj]

This one is for you LEGO, inspired by @BrickLegacy and brought to you by Brickpickers everywhere.

[Frank Brickowski]

18 minutes ago, justapilgrim said:

you can't handle the truth

Only a few good men can.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Frank Brickowski

[bricker123]

The only silver lining is for those who buy for collection. I have one only and glad I don't need to pay $100 more now...

[Follows Closely]

On 8/29/2016 at 5:22 PM, Ed Mack said:

Consumers will have the last laugh.  My money is on this set being a flop.

I would like to agree, but in one year will anyone* remember 10188? I think this set will perform just as well as 10188 did in it's second to third years.

* 95% of typical lego consumers

On 8/29/2016 at 9:36 PM, Phil B said:

Last year it was $30 for the City and Friends one, and $40 for the SW one, if I recall correctly. Total is just enough for the free bonus Advent Calendar

It is not a typical calendar. It looks like you have to reuse the pieces to build each model. Look at the piece count, its much lower than a typical calendar.

On 8/29/2016 at 10:19 PM, Ed Mack said:

Sitting at my dinner table tonight eating some Chick Fil-A and flipping through the new LEGO catalog. I get to the 75159 page and my wise ass 6 year old son says, "Dad, you aren't going to buy another one of those are you? You already have 10 of them!" Smart kid and good advice. The Disney Castle does look great on the cover by the way. The Capitol Building also is special. Great set.

Chick fil-a and a LEGO catalog, does life get any better for a 6 year old?

23 hours ago, GhostDad said:

So much reading to catch up on here.  My thoughts: The new Death Star is real.  The new Death Star is bad.  Be nice to people (like me) who are sitting (figuratively) on stacks of 10188's.  Don't buy any 75159's or you will be summarily deported to Denmark.

Two months ago I have 15, now I have just one. That one has been build many times over the past 6 years.

[tjj1984]

1 hour ago, Follows Closely said:

I would like to agree, but in one year will anyone* remember 10188? I think this set will perform just as well as 10188 did in it's second to third years.

* 95% of typical lego consumers

There is a continually contentious question (on this forum and others) at the heart of this statement: What, exactly, is the break-down between TLG sales to "end users" and sales to resellers--particularly for these large, "UCS"-type sets?

My (admittedly novice) intuition is that resellers account for a sizable chunk of the consumer base for the larger ($200+) sets. How much of the pie resellers actually represent remains to be seen, but it seems that @Ed Mack would agree with me (at least when it comes to this particular set) in saying that it's statistically significant.

However, given the recent decisions by TLG, I suspect that they don't even know the break-down. More importantly, I think TLG may be completely ignorant of the true economic impact of resellers (as @Ed Mack has also stated).

There is a tacit assumption that TLG is basing their business decisions on a thorough understanding of the market, but I'm not sure I'm convinced that's the case. I think it's possible (maybe even likely) that their actions are based more in the interest of immediate profits than sustainable growth. In my opinion, this is due in no small part to their partnership with Disney, who is focused on squeezing every penny out of the Star Wars and Marvel licenses. People are quick to attribute the re-release and price-hike of the Death Star to a "Disney Tax". As far as I can tell, no one has really followed this line of thought to its logical conclusion: Disney will not bat an eye at destroying the LEGO brand, so long as it allows them to maximize profits while their licensed IPs are hot.

Think about it: TLG reported a record revenue of 5.2 BILLION dollars in 2015. Meanwhile, Disney reported a record revenue 52 BILLION dollars (!). How do you suppose those revenues break-down in terms of their partnership? I would venture to guess that at least 30% (maybe even as high as 50%) of TLGs revenues in 2015 are due to Disney's Marvel's The Avengers Force Awakens. What percentage of Disney's revenues do you suppose are due to licensing building blocks? Ten percent? Five percent? Two and a half percent?

For Disney, TLG is a solid ally, but not a crucial asset. They will ride the current LEGO-craze for all it's worth, but I don't doubt for a second that they will bail on TLG at their first convenience. Hell, if I were a Disney exec, I would be eyeing partnership with certain Chinese counterfeit companies to put out my next licensed brick-built set.

This line of thinking is admittedly cynical--but, ****--this is the world we live in.

[Ed Mack]

2 hours ago, Follows Closely said:

I would like to agree, but in one year will anyone* remember 10188? I think this set will perform just as well as 10188 did in it's second to third years.

* 95% of typical lego consumers

It is not a typical calendar. It looks like you have to reuse the pieces to build each model. Look at the piece count, its much lower than a typical calendar.

Chick fil-a and a LEGO catalog, does life get any better for a 6 year old?

Two months ago I have 15, now I have just one. That one has been build many times over the past 6 years.

A few things are working against the 75159 keeping pace with the 10188.  Number one, many serious LEGO collectors already have a 10188, so why bother with the 75159 at $500?  I will not buy one after analyzing the new version.  It's a waste of $500 to me.  So that is a sizable chunk of potential buyers out of the mix.  The second thing is that the revised 75159 is an old set.  A tired set.  I have a hard time imagining such a huge rush of rich kids wanting this set or wealthy parents willing to shell out $500 for a retread.  Even the rich have standards.  LOL.  

But the most important thing working against the 75159 are resellers.  When the 10188 was in its third year of production (2011), the secondary market was ramping up to full speed and people expected this set to retire...and soon.  That was the standard back then...2 and 3 year production runs and retirement...then a guaranteed winner.  People were already stocking up on this set in 2011 expecting retirement.  Same in 2012...2013...2014...2015...and early 2016.  This set was always tantalizing resellers and we were complicit in its never ending retirement, expecting huge returns.  What's worse was that the 10188 disappeared a few times and exploded in price, even making it more tempting.

I don't see this happening again with the 75159.  Not even close. 

[CM4Sci]

T minus 3 hours! 

[dcdfan]

T minus 3 hours! 

Too bad we can't minus 8 years.

[GhostDad]

47 minutes ago, tjj1984 said:

There is a continually contentious question (on this forum and others) at the heart of this statement: What, exactly, is the break-down between TLG sales to "end users" and sales to resellers--particularly for these large, "UCS"-type sets?

My (admittedly novice) intuition is that resellers account for a sizable chunk of the consumer base for the larger ($200+) sets. How much of the pie resellers actually represent remains to be seen, but it seems that @Ed Mack would agree with me (at least when it comes to this particular set) in saying that it's statistically significant.

However, given the recent decisions by TLG, I suspect that they don't even know the break-down. More importantly, I think TLG may be completely ignorant of the true economic impact of resellers (as @Ed Mack has also stated).

There is a tacit assumption that TLG is basing their business decisions on a thorough understanding of the market, but I'm not sure I'm convinced that's the case. I think it's possible (maybe even likely) that their actions are based more in the interest of immediate profits than sustainable growth. In my opinion, this is due in no small part to their partnership with Disney, who is focused on squeezing every penny out of the Star Wars and Marvel licenses. People are quick to attribute the re-release and price-hike of the Death Star to a "Disney Tax". As far as I can tell, no one has really followed this line of thought to its logical conclusion: Disney will not bat an eye at destroying the LEGO brand, so long as it allows them to maximize profits while their licensed IPs are hot.

Think about it: TLG reported a record revenue of 5.2 BILLION dollars in 2015. Meanwhile, Disney reported a record revenue 52 BILLION dollars (!). How do you suppose those revenues break-down in terms of their partnership? I would venture to guess that at least 30% (maybe even as high as 50%) of TLGs revenues in 2015 are due to Disney's Marvel's The Avengers Force Awakens. What percentage of Disney's revenues do you suppose are due to licensing building blocks? Ten percent? Five percent? Two and a half percent?

For Disney, TLG is a solid ally, but not a crucial asset. They will ride the current LEGO-craze for all it's worth, but I don't doubt for a second that they will bail on TLG at their first convenience. Hell, if I were a Disney exec, I would be eyeing partnership with certain Chinese counterfeit companies to put out my next licensed brick-built set.

This line of thinking is admittedly cynical--but, ****--this is the world we live in.

Disney forgoing Lego to partner with Chinese counterfeiters?  Really?  Look at it this way: Disney is ALREADY 'partnered' with counterfeiters.  I'm sure Lepin & co. would happily sign some sort of contract, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the first royalty check to arrive...

A fun wager to make would be to place bets on whether Lepin will update its existing 10188 counterfeit to reflect the new 75159 set number, piece count and ('cause why not?) Disney logo.  Any takers?  I say they're too lazy to bother.

[KvHulk]

5 minutes ago, GhostDad said:

Disney forgoing Lego to partner with Chinese counterfeiters?  Really?  Look at it this way: Disney is ALREADY 'partnered' with counterfeiters.  I'm sure Lepin & co. would happily sign some sort of contract, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the first royalty check to arrive...

A fun wager to make would be to place bets on whether Lepin will update its existing 10188 counterfeit to reflect the new 75159 set number, piece count and ('cause why not?) Disney logo.  Any takers?  I say they're too lazy to bother.

I'll take that bet. They're gonna knockoff everything under the sun. If not sooner, then later.

[jerryherb]

reseller body is at least partially to blame (im 20+ into this one). because of us it was probably the most profitable set for TLG, which is why it was kept alive for so long. because disney bought the franchise TLG was forced to slap their logo on it and pay more for the marketing rights. because the package was so outdated after 7 years on the market TLG decided to redo the artwork, slap some cheese on it, and up the price. they will now realize that without the investors this thing will flop as it has nothing to do with the current films and will not be on Timmy's absolutely must have list especially at current price point. and why would Timmy's parents spend $500+ tax when all of the sudden there is a glut of 10188s that are pretty much identical and can be had for less. either TLG will have to lower the price below 10188s to move this thing quickly and fluck us further, or b-wing it into early retirement. had they based the new one on R1 or at least different scenes from OT than 10188 everyone would have been a winner. screw TLG up their..... 

Edited August 31, 2016 by jerryherb

[ZULU]

On 30-8-2016 at 4:19 AM, Ed Mack said:

Sitting at my dinner table tonight eating some Chick Fil-A and flipping through the new LEGO catalog. I get to the 75159 page and my wise ass 6 year old son says, "Dad, you aren't going to buy another one of those are you? You already have 10 of them!" Smart kid and good advice. The Disney Castle does look great on the cover by the way. The Capitol Building also is special. Great set.

I have found a way to apologise TLG for this release:

Disney ASKED for a Death Star at the and of 2015

Lego didn't have the time to produce a new one:

Disney DEMANDED a Death Star at the end of 2016 

Lego didn't have the time to produce a new one, so they refreshed the old one...

[Ed Mack]

43 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

A few things are working against the 75159 keeping pace with the 10188.  Number one, many serious LEGO collectors already have a 10188, so why bother with the 75159 at $500?  I will not buy one after analyzing the new version.  It's a waste of $500 to me.  So that is a sizable chunk of potential buyers out of the mix.  The second thing is that the revised 75159 is an old set.  A tired set.  I have a hard time imagining such a huge rush of rich kids wanting this set or wealthy parents willing to shell out $500 for a retread.  Even the rich have standards.  LOL.  

But the most important thing working against the 75159 are resellers.  When the 10188 was in its third year of production (2011), the secondary market was ramping up to full speed and people expected this set to retire...and soon.  That was the standard back then...2 and 3 year production runs and retirement...then a guaranteed winner.  People were already stocking up on this set in 2011 expecting retirement.  Same in 2012...2013...2014...2015...and early 2016.  This set was always tantalizing resellers and we were complicit in its never ending retirement, expecting huge returns.  What's worse was that the 10188 disappeared a few times and exploded in price, even making it more tempting.

I don't see this happening again with the 75159.  Not even close. 

Another few reasons why the 75159 will not match the sales of the 10188.  As stated above, there will be cheaper 10188s for sale.  Another reason...counterfeits.

[tjj1984]

46 minutes ago, GhostDad said:

Disney forgoing Lego to partner with Chinese counterfeiters?  Really?

That comment was kind of a throwaway jab at TLG's non-existent leverage with Disney. My broader point is that LEGO is way more dependent on Disney than Disney is on LEGO.

Edited August 31, 2016 by tjj1984
changed prepositions

[tjj1984]

43 minutes ago, GhostDad said:

A fun wager to make would be to place bets on whether Lepin will update its existing 10188 counterfeit to reflect the new 75159 set number, piece count and ('cause why not?) Disney logo.  Any takers?  I say they're too lazy to bother.

A comment I read on a facebook page a few weeks ago indicated that Lepin would be pulling out of cloning 10143 so they could release 75159. At the time I thought it was evidence that 75159 wouldn't be a re-release of 10188, but we all know how that played out.

[labfreak7]

It's sad that they announce plans to clone a set, and there is no recourse from Lego.

[tjj1984]

7 minutes ago, labfreak7 said:

It's sad that they announce plans to clone a set, and there is no recourse from Lego.

I would like to hear them publicly denounce the knock-offs, but short of that what would you like them to do?

I guess they could petition Amazon to stop aiding and abetting knock-off dealers by implementing some new, stricter policy for third party sellers...

[CM4Sci]

Didn't know we were timed on edits to posts.

2 hours! 

[gregpj]

3 minutes ago, CM4Sci said:

Didn't know we were timed on edits to posts.

2 hours! 

Yup - 15 minutes I believe.

[Alpinemaps]

1 hour ago, Ed Mack said:

A few things are working against the 75159 keeping pace with the 10188.  Number one, many serious LEGO collectors already have a 10188, so why bother with the 75159 at $500? 

I've said this before, but it bares repeating (and goes in line with what Ed just said.  The hardcore SW LEGO collectors I know (and by hardcore, I mean, own over 90% of the sets ever produced), have said they will NOT buy 75159.  

 

2 hours ago, tjj1984 said:

Hell, if I were a Disney exec, I would be eyeing partnership with certain Chinese counterfeit companies to put out my next licensed brick-built set.

You had me up until you made this point, which I completely disagree with.  Disney has partnered with questionable Chinese companies in the past, and have had to deal with recalls and PR non-sense.  They don't want to deal with that crap if they don't have to.

And while I agree that LEGO relies more heavily on Disney than Disney on LEGO, let's not forget that LEGO is still the #1 Toy Company.  Even if that's fueled by it's relationship with Disney, it's still a truth.  Disney is not about to jump ship to a lesser brand (Chinese knock off or legit company).  Disney cultivates it's perceived quality very carefully.  They'll be careful not to damage it either.

[CM4Sci]

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by CM4Sci

[dcdfan]

3 minutes ago, CM4Sci said:

I just got sent this, reveal should be in the next few minutes. Feel free to hide if needed.

 

 

Like this?

[tyclin]

2 hours ago, Ed Mack said:

Another few reasons why the 75159 will not match the sales of the 10188.  As stated above, there will be cheaper 10188s for sale.  Another reason...counterfeits.

I want to say something too. With 10188 running for almost eight years, there must have been accumulation of tons of fans who had built it. Personally, I am not a star wars fan and I built it. Why would tons of fans who had built 10188 want to build an almost (presumed) identical set (75159) again unless they would like to see how steady the extra 200 pieces would provide, how the difference in color scheme in some chambers, etc? I would not consider buying 75159 because I think 75159 is for new comers and who did not get 10188.  It is just a boring strategy for Lego and that is why 75159 comes out so fast because "somebody" is lazy in designing new version of death star.

[inversion]

And people were crying about the 20% price increase in USD. Across the big pond we get a 45% one in GBP. Brexit for ya. Jokerland is real and we know who are the clowns.

[Fenix_2k1]

19 minutes ago, inversion said:

And people were crying about the 20% price increase in USD. Across the big pond we get a 45% one in GBP. Brexit for ya. Jokerland is real and we know who are the clowns.

£400  Go home Lego, you're drunk!!!!

Edited August 31, 2016 by Fenix_2k1

[jstodda]

Lego will only remake the Death Star when Pigs... Uh oh......