10224 - Town Hall

[diablo2112]

Re-releases are pretty complex.  Part of TLG's strategy is managing overall parts production and inventory.  If a set has many unique parts/unique colors, it adds to the calculation.  Retooling is non-trivial, even with the molds in storage.  Not to mention, it's another unique part to keep in inventory, ship to Mexico/Czech, etc.  It can be done, but it also comes at a cost.  TLG nearly went bankrupt 10 years by having too-many kits and parts in simultaneous production.  They won't make that same mistake again. 

 

I'd love to see (and perhaps, it's been done) an analysis of these valuable sets, including those close to EOL, and how many unique parts they share with other sets in production.  Might be clue as to why some sets have been around forever (*hack* DS *hack*, TB) and others go away rather quickly.

[Val-E]

What would be exciting is if it came back in stock again so they could actually honour the 50% off promotion......

[Alfiepops]

Just bought 3 for way above MSRP. So for me, this would be the getting kicked in the balls kind of fetish.

Surely there are less painfull fetishes to indulge in. p.s I know your name is not Shirley.

[rich79]

Does LEGO have any reason to retire this set anymore? If we take the two reasons for early retirement to be 1) low popularity and 2) high MSRP, then all LEGO has to do is take a glance at ebay and amazon to see that there is still a market left for the set at way high prices. And for all the sales happening online at above MSRP right now, there are surely plenty of people left who missed out on the Town Hall and can't afford paying over MSRP but would jump on an opportunity to buy from LEGO again.

 

I admit that I don't know much about how LEGO works as a company, but it would seem really stubborn to me if they decide to go out of their way to retire this set early while there is still a proven demand. There are so many options available to them right now: making the set online-only, opening up back orders first, even raising the MSRP slightly for a re-release. Maybe all of these are uncommon, but so is retiring a set two years early, no?

 

Am I just being dense?

Maybe they can rerelease a Cafe corner , market street and green grocer as well. And for the star wars movie a 10179.

Then i don't have to worry about my seals and crack them all open and built a street with 70 modulars.

[pieman]

Re-releases are pretty complex.  Part of TLG's strategy is managing overall parts production and inventory.  If a set has many unique parts/unique colors, it adds to the calculation.  Retooling is non-trivial, even with the molds in storage.  Not to mention, it's another unique part to keep in inventory, ship to Mexico/Czech, etc.  It can be done, but it also comes at a cost.  TLG nearly went bankrupt 10 years by having too-many kits and parts in simultaneous production.  They won't make that same mistake again. 

 

I'd love to see (and perhaps, it's been done) an analysis of these valuable sets, including those close to EOL, and how many unique parts they share with other sets in production.  Might be clue as to why some sets have been around forever (*hack* DS *hack*, TB) and others go away rather quickly.

 

This is the kind of data I'd love to see, too.

 

I was under the impression that the TH doesn't have many unique parts. And, while I can understand the logic behind LEGO reducing the number of sets they have in production, if the TH was originally expected to run for another year or two I feel like LEGO wouldn't have too much to lose by keeping it in production for a little while longer. Would the TH coming back even be considered a true re-release? It's not like it has been officially tagged as retired, nor has it even been sold out for *that* long.

 

Besides, LEGO is supposedly the number one toy maker right now, so I'm sure they have some wiggle room as far as taking a potential loss on a single set goes. There might even be some value in bringing back the TH as a simple experiment, for them. Of course... you don't get to be the number one toy maker by re-releasing Town Halls all willy-nilly.

[Ciglione]

Maybe they can rerelease a Cafe corner , market street and green grocer as well. And for the star wars movie a 10179.

Then i don't have to worry about my seals and crack them all open and built a street with 70 modulars.

 

bluff

[Val-E]

I heard from a Lego employee that when a Lego Delorean hits 80mph, it triggers a switch in Lego HQ to restart Town Hall production. Unfortunately, I don

[Mos_Eisley]

Nothing happens at 80mph, you have to get that baby up to 88mph.

[Ciglione]

Wouldn't it be cool to go 30 years in the future and buy the "official 2045 edition brickpicker's almanac" to see which sets will have appreciated the most?

[Val-E]

So that Lego employee lied to me? Does that mean it really won

[Ciglione]

This is the kind of data I'd love to see, too.

 

I was under the impression that the TH doesn't have many unique parts. And, while I can understand the logic behind LEGO reducing the number of sets they have in production, if the TH was originally expected to run for another year or two I feel like LEGO wouldn't have too much to lose by keeping it in production for a little while longer. Would the TH coming back even be considered a true re-release? It's not like it has been officially tagged as retired, nor has it even been sold out for *that* long.

 

Besides, LEGO is supposedly the number one toy maker right now, so I'm sure they have some wiggle room as far as taking a potential loss on a single set goes. There might even be some value in bringing back the TH as a simple experiment, for them. Of course... you don't get to be the number one toy maker by re-releasing Town Halls all willy-nilly.

 

Just ask yourself... so far, how many people have called or written to Lego asking for older sets to come back? I would not like to buy them drinks.

[exciter1]

Wouldn't it be cool to go 30 years in the future and buy the "official 2045 edition brickpicker's almanac" to see which sets will have appreciated the most?

 

Well, maybe we can get Trekgate and Alpinemaps to do a yearly summary, since their daily summaries are failing.

[Ed Mack]

This is the kind of data I'd love to see, too.

 

I was under the impression that the TH doesn't have many unique parts. And, while I can understand the logic behind LEGO reducing the number of sets they have in production, if the TH was originally expected to run for another year or two I feel like LEGO wouldn't have too much to lose by keeping it in production for a little while longer. Would the TH coming back even be considered a true re-release? It's not like it has been officially tagged as retired, nor has it even been sold out for *that* long.

 

Besides, LEGO is supposedly the number one toy maker right now, so I'm sure they have some wiggle room as far as taking a potential loss on a single set goes. There might even be some value in bringing back the TH as a simple experiment, for them. Of course... you don't get to be the number one toy maker by re-releasing Town Halls all willy-nilly.

The main dark orange color is somewhat rare.  Bottom line, it has a lot to do with sales and ease of production.  The Death Star and Tower Bridge were mentioned earlier about sets that last forever.  For one thing, they probably sell well.  For another, their bricks are common and easy to produce.  That makes a winning combo for LEGO.  The Town Hall was probably a slower seller and dark orange bricks were expensive to produce most likely.

[pieman]

Just ask yourself... so far, how many people have called or written to Lego asking for older sets to come back? I would not like to buy them drinks.

 

You have a point, but there is a big difference between bringing back a set that is tagged as retired and just "restocking" a set that is "sold out" right now. (I realize how much that sounds like a silly conspiracy theory.)

 

Besides, retiring the Town Hall early would require LEGO to make a conscious decision to go against the precedent they have set with the previous modular sets' retirements. If we assume that LEGO does get emails and calls about bringing back fully retired sets, then how many angry emails do you think they'll get in response to an early retirement like this? Although... personally, I wouldn't be surprised if LEGO doesn't get many calls or emails on the subject at all.

[Kenxxx]

I'd love to see (and perhaps, it's been done) an analysis of these valuable sets, including those close to EOL, and how many unique parts they share with other sets in production.  Might be clue as to why some sets have been around forever (*hack* DS *hack*, TB) and others go away rather quickly.

Analysis may have flaws but see my post...

http://community.brickpicker.com/topic/87-10224-town-hall/?p=354695

Edited January 19, 2015 by Kenxxx

[pieman]

The main dark orange color is somewhat rare.  Bottom line, it has a lot to do with sales and ease of production.  The Death Star and Tower Bridge were mentioned earlier about sets that last forever.  For one thing, they probably sell well.  For another, their bricks are common and easy to produce.  That makes a winning combo for LEGO.  The Town Hall was probably a slower seller and dark orange bricks were expensive to produce most likely.

 

Dark orange may be expensive to produce, but not as much as unique molded or printed pieces would be. And an excess of dark orange pieces wouldn't be something that LEGO couldn't repurpose into another set or collection of misc bricks (although I'm sure that is a major oversimplification).

 

And this still all begs the argument: was the Town Hall doing so poorly that LEGO really feels the need to retire it two whole years early? Why not just one year? If they see the current going rate on amazon and ebay, why not respond with a final, limited run based on demand? Why not even increase the MSRP of a re-release? All of these are pretty extreme responses and would be breaking well-worn precedents, but you can say the same about the early retirement of a modular set.

 

Perhaps early retirement is likely the simplest and least risky solution that LEGO has, but this whole ordeal has been kinda uncommon and weird. I don't think a curveball is outside of the realm of possibility.

[diablo2112]

Analysis may have flaws but see my post...

http://community.brickpicker.com/topic/87-10224-town-hall/?p=354695

 

THIS is an outstanding post.  Very, very well done!  Exactly the type of data that helps in understanding EOL decisions for various sets.  Town Hall has a surprising number of rare and unique parts.  

 

Similar analysis of TB, DS, and other exclusive+near_EOL sets would be very interesting (42009, T1, PS, ToO, Tumbler, SOH, FW, etc.)

 

A hat tip to you, sir.  And a drink on me, should the occasion present itself.

Edited January 19, 2015 by diablo2112

[pieman]

Analysis may have flaws but see my post...

http://community.brickpicker.com/topic/87-10224-town-hall/?p=354695

 

Cool! I guess there were more unique pieces than I thought. Now the next analysis to make would be: historically, how often does LEGO completely abandon unique pieces vs. simply using the more often from the point they are introduced? Especially considering a few of the Town Hall's unique pieces are just different colorations of common bricks. Not an easy task!

[inversion]

Another factor about 'collectibles' market. Demand is driven by the common knowledge that product is around for a limited time and won't come back. So people buy it because they don't want to miss the ship and pay inflated prices together with the fact they know that the product they own will hold its value. If people believe the value is persistent they are more likely to haul cash. If LEGO destroys this 'belief' sales of exclusives may drop by a not insignificant amount overall. 
 

So LEGO has to weigh the following: cashing in on a popular and desired retired set vs. keeping up the 'limited availability" belief. Since the latter most likely affects all exclusives I would vote on the latter since they can always create new awesome products that would sell just as well as resurrected ones. 

 

I might also add, just as Ed also mentioned somewhere earlier, that the current rapid growth of LEGO as a company is mainly a result of the increased perceived value of LEGO. People saw in the emerging secondary market that value is persistent over time, even increases and began to consider it differently than other toys and regard them as valuable durables rather than ordinary consumption goods therefore their propensity to throw cash increased. Since they are not run by imbeciles they know this and don't want to destroy it. The large quantity of AFOL sets is part of the strategy of keeping this up. 

Edited January 19, 2015 by inversion

[darin]

Just got another one on ebay about 5 mins ago for buy it now $379 free shipping!

I've been looking at newly listed on ebay, every hour or so. lol

That's makes 5 in the past 3 days for me. Up to 8, and counting now. =)

[Ed Mack]

 

Dark orange may be expensive to produce, but not as much as unique molded or printed pieces would be. And an excess of dark orange pieces wouldn't be something that LEGO couldn't repurpose into another set or collection of misc bricks (although I'm sure that is a major oversimplification).

 

And this still all begs the argument: was the Town Hall doing so poorly that LEGO really feels the need to retire it two whole years early? Why not just one year? If they see the current going rate on amazon and ebay, why not respond with a final, limited run based on demand? Why not even increase the MSRP of a re-release? All of these are pretty extreme responses and would be breaking well-worn precedents, but you can say the same about the early retirement of a modular set.

 

Perhaps early retirement is likely the simplest and least risky solution that LEGO has, but this whole ordeal has been kinda uncommon and weird. I don't think a curveball is outside of the realm of possibility.

Maybe LEGO retired the Town Hall to mess with the minds of resellers.  You must realize that LEGO is very aware of secondary market values.  They would like to see their products viewed as valuable and collectible.  Constantly re-releasing sets would hurt secondary market values, thus reducing the perceived value of new LEGO sets.  If people pay big dollars for retired sets, they are more willing to pay big dollars for new sets.  One hand washes the other.

[pieman]

Maybe LEGO retired the Town Hall to mess with the minds of resellers.  You must realize that LEGO is very aware of secondary market values.  They would like to see their products viewed as valuable and collectible.  Constantly re-releasing sets would hurt secondary market values, thus reducing the perceived value of new LEGO sets.  If people pay big dollars for retired sets, they are more willing to pay big dollars for new sets.  One hand washes the other.

Your points (and inversion's above) are very valid. I'm sure that LEGO is going to make the best decision for their business.

I do wonder how much restocking the TH would affect the overall value of exclusive sets, though. Restocking it shouldn't reduce the perceived value since it wasn't "supposed" to retire this early anyways. I would think that things would remain the status quo. Now, LEGO might want the increase in value that surprise retirement could bring about. I think most of this still hinges on the fact that the TH hasn't officially been tagged as retired yet.

This is all super interesting! No matter what happens with the TH, I feel like the results will provide a few clues about how LEGO handles a bunch of things internally.

[exciter1]

Maybe LEGO retired the Town Hall to mess with the minds of resellers.  You must realize that LEGO is very aware of secondary market values.  They would like to see their products viewed as valuable and collectible.  Constantly re-releasing sets would hurt secondary market values, thus reducing the perceived value of new LEGO sets.  If people pay big dollars for retired sets, they are more willing to pay big dollars for new sets.  One hand washes the other.

 

What makes zero sense is retiring R2-D2 right now?  Makes us want to OD on Fun Dip!

[inversion]

I do wonder how much restocking the TH would affect the overall value of exclusive sets, though. Restocking it shouldn't reduce the perceived value since it wasn't "supposed" to retire this early anyways. I would think that things would remain the status quo. Now, LEGO might want the increase in value that surprise retirement could bring about. I think most of this still hinges on the fact that the TH hasn't officially been tagged as retired yet.

 

What would change are people's expectations. The issue is not the short run perceived value of TH (it would also drop though), but all of the other sets' in the long run, especially the ones LEGO is still producing. LEGO's slice of this cake is the increased sales driven by the higher perceived value, which in aggregate is most likely higher than the single yields from another production run.

Exactly the opposite would happen like you said: it would kick up the status quo. This is a repeated game where the current equilibrium depends on the joint expectations of both parties (customers and the firm). If you want to somehow look into this then read a little about the infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma (though it's only LEGO here who would want to deviate).

Edited January 19, 2015 by inversion

[trekgate502]

What makes zero sense is retiring R2-D2 right now?  Makes us want to OD on Fun Dip!

">

I love it love it love it. R2 retiring that is.

I only like the hard candy part of fun dip. I eat a box over time and throw the rest out.