I find all of this fascinating.
So let's consider this seemingly widespread idea that Lego doesn't care about and/or maintains a positive view of resellers (financially, at least)...
Just think of it this way:
Assuming each individual buying Lego has a finite amount to spend on the product (because assuming otherwise would be insane), why on Earth or anywhere else would the company want to share any of that income with us?
Let's take the Tumbler as an example, from Lego's perspective: Ideally, every individual who actually wants a Tumbler to keep will buy it directly from an authorized store - online or otherwise.
It is foolishly shortsighted to think that "a sale is a sale", and that Lego shouldn't care what happens afterward; because for every Tumbler bought at $300 from a reseller there is $100 less that will be spent by someone on OTHER Lego products. Of course this is not strictly/directly true, but the concept is blatantly obvious to me and surely dominates the perspective. If you are an economics expert able to disprove this assumption, please be my guest. I like education.
Otherwise, on the most obvious core business level, reselling hurts the manufacturer in a significant way ($$). But not all reselling is created equal. What sort of product is most susceptible to this kind of lost profit scenario for them? Certainly not the minor stuff. Mixels are not the concern here. Almost anyone buying Lego in the first place has another $5-20 to spare for whatever small set they want. It's the big exclusives, naturally, that hurt the worst. Expensive, difficult to find sets are not as widely distributed and therefore harder to deliver directly to the target consumer in the first place.
Those consumers who want but can't afford it all, at least right away, or right now, may hesitate to buy... then one day find out they waited too long and suddenly TH at retail is a thing of the past. Perhaps they aren't even getting it for Christmas since the price went up so much. What happens if they really want it, though? They pay a premium to a reseller and then cannot afford to buy the PS or PC or PR as early as they planned, (read: at retail), if at all.
That's what I'm calling the direct effect of reselling on Lego's profits. Indirectly, too, that person may become frustrated and give up on the modular line entirely. Perhaps they move on to another line of Legos, or perhaps another manufacturer gets their $$ next time. In almost any case, the end result is less money flowing from that consumer to Lego themselves.
Again, I know it doesn't always work this way. The pattern of an immediate and drastic rise in value of EOL (or those soon to be) exclusive sets of 50% or more tells us that there seems to be plenty of demand to meet the supply (of reselling), so far. But I think, given that we are in a period of extreme Lego sales growth, it is a pattern that will eventually sputter and die. Nevertheless, this pattern just makes it that much more obvious how much more money the target consumer COULD be spending on Lego sets at retail. Anyone think Lego not paying fairly close attention to the secondary market at any time? Seriously?
Oh and besides the whole losing money / sharing profits issue? When the average target consumer is pissed off at the whole reselling trend and tells Lego about it, possibly using lots of not-so-nice words, and/or threats to take their money elsewhere, guess what? Lego probably ought to do something about it.
When brand store employees give constant feedback about dealing with all the phone calls from the same resellers each week, followed by the multitude of identical questions and disappointed visits from target consumers due to sets being unavailable, over and Over and OVER, it has got to have an impact. No one with any business sense at HQ is cackling with glee over shelves being empty when demand is still there.
So, back to the Tumbler. I can't believe this and RI haven't substantially entered the "something wicked" discussions, yet (and Mars Rover, for that matter). Personally, I see the recent highly limited distribution practices as an experiment toward limiting the reselling phenomenon... in parallel to whatever exactly is going on with unpredictable retirement of exclusives. By controlling the rate of distribution of these limited production sets AND making it more random when they both appear and disappear, the target consumer who doesn't closely track such things stands a MUCH better chance of finding one for themselves at retail, do they not? Of course, other factors have to fall in line for it to happen... but personally I think I am seeing some evidence that this is exactly what is going on.
And as Ed has said again and again and again, the savvy, dedicated reseller who rations their purchases out over time and chooses sets wisely based on empirical data more than the reactionary herd mentality, WILL be able to keep up with most of it, and perhaps even reap greater rewards (at the expense of the herd, no less). Meanwhile, Lego DOESN'T MIND this type of reseller quite as much, because they are not constantly emptying shelves and causing big hassles jumping from one EOL (or newly released limited production) set to another. Yes they do still steal some profits down the road, but if they do so acting more or less as the target consumer would, what can really be done about it?.
Remember, no one likes drama. The wise ones around here have already camouflaged themselves from the hammer fairly well, and are now encouraging others to do the same, because the more that thing is swung around the less safe it is for everyone here. Sparks are beginning to fly. The number of "investors" is growing exponentially, it would seem, and acting so undisciplined at times that a threshold of tolerance (by the public, by retailers, and by Lego) is quickly being reached. If we are only 3.7% of overall sales (a completely random number, fyi), but 60% of the non-monetary problems (and rising), guess what? Action is going to be taken.
Could Lego modify their business model to include and gain an advantage from a significant sector of individual resellers? Probably. Should they? I doubt it. The reasons go well beyond the current marketplace. Perhaps the hypothetical "experiments" going on lately are designed to answer just that question, though.
All I know is, unless you are in this for a quickie, it's time to wake up. Your friendly, fatherly alarm clock has been ringing for a few weeks, now. Stop snoozing. Times are changing. Kudos to those who have already started to adapt.