Alternative Brands and Shops (investing/building)

[Frank Brickowski]

On 2/18/2021 at 5:47 PM, $20 on joe vs dan said:

I found this part very interesting:

"The classic Italian sports car without an appealing box and without printed assembly instructions costs 39.95 euros (as of February 18, 2021). For this you get 902 parts. If I compare that with the LEGO 10248 Ferrari F40 from 2015, I find that a lot of money. The LEGO Ferrari cost 89.99 euros at the time, had over 250 more parts, a reasonable box and printed instructions."

so my take-away is that it would have costed very similar to LEGO if Blubrixx had paid to use the name "Ferrari" and added a decent box. If not accounting for inflation which may be debatable.

Everyone has their own comfort-level in terms of the amount of plagiarism they will accept; that need not be rehashed after 10 pages of it earlier.

For everyone who still claims you have to have a license to release cars looking very much like some real vehicles.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Frank Brickowski

[Frank Brickowski]

For everyone who still claims the "Brick Wars" were just a small YouTube thing and that would be of no importance for the market and totally irrelevant for investors in the first place - Big German Newspaper reporting now:

"LEGO antagonizes loyal fans, suffers PR disaster"
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/themen/reportage/pr-desaster-fuer-weltkonzern-lego-bringt-die-treuesten-fans-gegen-sich-auf/26934832.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-de-DE

Edited February 22, 2021 by Frank Brickowski

[Frank Brickowski]

On 2/18/2021 at 5:35 PM, BricksBrotha said:

Great read, thanks for the share. Interested what FrankB has to say about the missing pieces, discoloration, big sprue points, misshaped pieces... 

 

I do agree with some of the comments in the article though, was not necessary to throw away extra parts. If anything, bag and donate them.  

 

What I have to say: Well, with this very article Promobricks suffered their very own PR disaster in the German brick community.

[Frank Brickowski]

On 2/18/2021 at 5:47 PM, $20 on joe vs dan said:

I found this part very interesting:

"The classic Italian sports car without an appealing box and without printed assembly instructions costs 39.95 euros (as of February 18, 2021). For this you get 902 parts. If I compare that with the LEGO 10248 Ferrari F40 from 2015, I find that a lot of money. The LEGO Ferrari cost 89.99 euros at the time, had over 250 more parts, a reasonable box and printed instructions."

so my take-away is that it would have costed very similar to LEGO if Blubrixx had paid to use the name "Ferrari" and added a decent box. If not accounting for inflation which may be debatable.

Everyone has their own comfort-level in terms of the amount of plagiarism they will accept; that need not be rehashed after 10 pages of it earlier.

They do not NEED to pay for the name because they do not use anything protected. Read the 700+ comments and look at the LEGO vehicles overview. I don't know how many times I am supposed to repeat this: For some things you do not NEED a license because they just are not protected.

How can LEGO release an F1 car without paying license fees (Grand Prix Racer)? How can they release a Le Mans car without paying license fees (24 Hours Race Car)? Because the designs are not protected and because they don't use the names. Just like the competitors. But when the alternative brands do it, you call it illegal. When LEGO does it, it's perfectly fine. That's the very definition of a double standard.

Apart from that the "math" done in the article was totally off with intention, read the comments below to see the community's reaction.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Frank Brickowski

[iahawks550]

I appreciate you bumping this thread with new information. I had almost forgotten about it.

[Frank Brickowski]

1 hour ago, iahawks550 said:

I appreciate you bumping this thread with new information. I had almost forgotten about it.

So despite this being in the national news, you still consider it irrelevant. Nice.

[Shortbus311]

So despite this being in the national news, you still consider it irrelevant. Nice.

You still don't get it. If alternate brands succeed and take down the LEGO "monopoly" then there will be no such thing as LEGO investing anymore, which would be a bad thing for nearly everyone here. No one here is going to champion your cause. It was good that you brought it to everyone's attention here, but no one on here is going to hope for alternative brands in the US. At least until there is a proven aftermarket demand for the new companies sets.

[Frank Brickowski]

5 minutes ago, Shortbus311 said:

49 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

So despite this being in the national news, you still consider it irrelevant. Nice.

You still don't get it. If alternate brands succeed and take down the LEGO "monopoly" then there will be no such thing as LEGO investing anymore, which would be a bad thing for nearly everyone here. No one here is going to champion your cause. It was good that you brought it to everyone's attention here, but no one on here is going to hope for alternative brands in the US. At least until there is a proven aftermarket demand for the new companies sets.

No one here said it was good to be made aware of this story, everybody was just saying they don't want to know. Moreover I never demanded anyone to champion anything, it was about simply acknowledging the facts - which no one here was ready do and still isn't (except you maybe).

Edited February 22, 2021 by Frank Brickowski

[iahawks550]

57 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

So despite this being in the national news, you still consider it irrelevant. Nice.

Kanye West got a divorce. I consider that irrelevant also.

[Darth_Raichu]

2 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

No one here said it was good to be made aware of. I never demanded anyone to champion anything, it was about simply acknowledgign the facts - which no one was ready do and still isn't (except you maybe).

First.  These lawsuits are nothing new.  LEGO did similar thing in the US back when Friends line was introduced.  IIRC the lawsuit was vs Hasbro, but don't quote me on that

Second.  LEGO needs to protect their name / brand or risk losing the ability to protect it in the future.  That is part of the lawsuit as quoted by your newspaper article above

Third.  Yes we get it.  LEGO sued alternative brick brands

Fourth.  This is just for interest of full disclosure.  How much money do you have invested in the alternative bricks?  Are you one of the distributors or manufacturers of these alternative brands?  Usually anyone with so much passion covering these matters have some kind of financial interest in them.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

2 hours ago, Frank Brickowski said:

They do not NEED to pay for the name because they do not use anything protected. Read the 700+ comments and look at the LEGO vehicles overview. I don't know how many times I am supposed to repeat this: For some things you do not NEED a license because they just are not protected.

How can LEGO release an F1 car without paying license fees (Grand Prix Racer)? How can they release a Le Mans car without paying license fees (24 Hours Race Car)? Because the designs are not protected and because they don't use the names. Just like the competitors. But when the alternative brands do it, you call it illegal. When LEGO does it, it's perfectly fine. That's the very definition of a double standard.

Apart from that the "math" done in the article was totally off with intention, read the comments below to see the community's reaction.

You're right, there is a double standard.

I think LEGO gets some leeway because of the decades of reputation they built.  The other companies have to deal w/ their reputation and/or lack thereof.

Not saying it's right or wrong; but there's obviously grey. A box w/ 4 wheels can be considered a "copy" (Heck Audi copied their car design from Dial soap); based on interpretation. Every popular brand has their unique elements...how far a copy goes in reproducing those elements seems to be the crux of the argument.

[Darth_Raichu]

Just now, $20 on joe vs dan said:

Heck Audi copied their car design from Dial soap

I am too lazy to research this.  Elaborate please

[Frank Brickowski]

3 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

First.  These lawsuits are nothing new.  LEGO did similar thing in the US back when Friends line was introduced.  IIRC the lawsuit was vs Hasbro, but don't quote me on that

Second.  LEGO needs to protect their name / brand or risk losing the ability to protect it in the future.  That is part of the lawsuit as quoted by your newspaper article above

Third.  Yes we get it.  LEGO sued alternative brick brands

Fourth.  This is just for interest of full disclosure.  How much money do you have invested in the alternative bricks?  Are you one of the distributors or manufacturers of these alternative brands?  Usually anyone with so much passion covering these matters have some kind of financial interest in them.

So, in your opinion a nation-wide (80 million people, one of the world's largest economies) PR disaster for the world's most popular company is not worth mentioning, alright.

I have nothing invested in any brand except LEGO as per my investement portfolio. I don't buy any sets for building because I'm not even a brick fan. Happy now?

[$20 on joe vs dan]

7 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

I am too lazy to research this.  Elaborate please

In the 2000s Audi car designs were considered pretty bland...I saw this meme comparing it to a bar of Dial soap...can't find it but here's the car

 

[Darth_Raichu]

1 minute ago, Frank Brickowski said:

So, in your opinion a nation-wide (80 million people, one of the world's largest economies) PR disaster for the world's most popular company is not worth mentioning, alright.

I have nothing invested in any brand except LEGO as per my investement portfolio. I don't buy any sets for building because I'm not even a brick fan. Happy now?

Again.  We get it.  LEGO sued alternative brands.  As for the PR disaster, we have to wait and see how big of the effect these lawsuits to their sales figures.  The article above did not report any backlash from general public.  Yes, stores complained and Youtubers were mad, other than that, what was the reaction from the public at large?

Also, if this was really that big of a deal, could you explain why you still invest / have money in LEGO sets?

[exciter1]

Since everyone else is tone deaf and won't provide a proper response.

[Frank Brickowski]

3 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

Again.  We get it.  LEGO sued alternative brands.  As for the PR disaster, we have to wait and see how big of the effect these lawsuits to their sales figures.

Agreed. I never stated otherwise, by the way. I just strongly suspect all of this will show in a loss of market share for 2021 (or even second half of 2020 already beacause issues have been cooking in 2020 already).

  

3 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

Yes, stores complained and Youtubers were mad, other than that, what was the reaction from the public at large?

The article is about LEGO antagonizing its very fanbase. Apart from that the "clash" was also noticed by portions of the "general public" - see the newspaper article I linked today. That means: Many people are getting in contact with bricks for the first time, learning about alternatives right away and about LEGO suffering a PR disaster. What more can you ask for in terms of the perfect storm?

Apart from that what kind of "reaction" would you expect from people not familiar with the topic? Many people just don't buy bricks, did not know about the topic or are not interested - but what all of them they HAVE read now is that LEGO has turned into an unsympathetic company not caring about their fans, not caring about their products and that you can also get about the same quality or even figures with better features from other brands. I would not be surprised to see TLG go after this article with their lawyers again, leading to the next disaster. 
  

3 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

Also, if this was really that big of a deal, could you explain why you still invest / have money in LEGO sets?

I am talking about long-term shifts in the market which are beginning in Germany. No need to panic right now though. It's gonna be developing slowly, and you better be aware of it as an investor. But that's just me. Everything's awesome for everyone else!

[CosmicSpeed]

@Frank BrickowskiIt doesn't seem like BlueBrixx is making any friends either:

https://zusammengebaut.com/wie-bluebrixx-lego-baumeister-hintergeht-brickative-wehrt-sich-87852/

[Frank Brickowski]

11 minutes ago, CosmicSpeed said:

@Frank BrickowskiIt doesn't seem like BlueBrixx is making any friends either:

https://zusammengebaut.com/wie-bluebrixx-lego-baumeister-hintergeht-brickative-wehrt-sich-87852/

Johnny's World has adressed the issue in a video recently: When selling a MOC-based set of a Chinese manufacturer, Geman retailers can only ask their Chinese business partners in good faith if they have an agreement with the MOCer. If they get confirmation about an agreement, they will sell it in Germany. But there seem to be cases where "someone" has been in contact with Chinese brands and agreed about their MOCs being produced while these "someones" were not the MOCers themselves in the first place.

Which one "version" you tend to believe or not, the situation is not anywhere near satisfactory. However, I'm not here to defend each and every decision any German retailer makes, be it BB or anyone else. I've just repeatedly made aware of that there's nothing illegal about Chinese brands per se. Which does not mean that everything they do is OK. Just as with LEGO, cue Osprey, cue "inspiration" possibly taken from several IDEAS projects.

Apart from that: As I have read, German AFOLs have different opinions about the MOC issue - some don't like designers being "copied" from, some don't care at all, some are in between.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Frank Brickowski

[Darth_Raichu]

31 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

The article is about LEGO antagonizing its very fanbase. Apart from that the "clash" was also noticed by portions of the "general public" - see the newspaper article I linked today. That means: Many people are getting in contact with bricks for the first time, learning about alternatives right away and about LEGO suffering a PR disaster. What more can you ask for in terms of the perfect storm?

Apart from that what kind of "reaction" would you expect from people not familiar with the topic? Many people just don't buy bricks, did not know about the topic or are not interested - but what all of them they HAVE read now is that LEGO has turned into an unsympathetic company not caring about their fans, not caring about their products and that you can also get about the same quality or even figures with better features from other brands. I would not be surprised to see TLG go after this article with their lawyers again, leading to the next disaster. 

This will blow away and be forgotten with time, just like that lawsuit related to the Friends line.  

[exracer327]

After reading the above article it seems like there are two issues:

1) LEGO has become a generic term.  The article uses "Jeep" as an example, but there are others.  Kleenex (is a brand, not just something you sneeze into), Chan-nel-lock (is a brand - not just pliers with different channels to open the size of the pliers). 

LEGO is trying to keep their name from becoming generic, which according to the end of the article someone is now pushing an effort to make the word "LEGO" an officially generic term for interlocking bricks.  If that happens, I think LEGO will be done as a company, let alone as an investment.  So I guess if you want to destroy the big-bad company, then go for it.  Kind of sad really though.

2) The second issue reminds me of the car industry in the 1970s.  In the USA, Japanese cars were much cheaper than the USA manufacturers could sell them for.  There was also an issue with quality as USA manufacturers were trying to figure out where to cut-costs.  Labor unions went on strike because they were trying to cut costs there too.  In the end, car manufacturers did cut costs by automating their manufacturing (firing tens-of-thousands of workers) and using cheaper products: plastics, imitation leather, etc.  I remember seeing the factory front wheel bearings from a 1982 Camaro.  The race holding the bearings in place was made of a hardened plastic.  I have also seen factory timing chains from the 1970s that used metal gears with hardened plastic teeth.  Least to say those parts wore out fairly quickly (before 100,000 miles).

I can see how both issues are related.  Maybe LEGO is a bit defensive.  It appears to me they have taken a multi-directional approach to defend their product and maintain market share in an increasingly competitive interlocking-brick market.  After all, every company will say they like competition but what they really mean is, they like beating the competition - with a lawyer stick if necessary.

[KShine]

Apparently, the Germans are really really angry with LEGO.

[Sozial]

8 minutes ago, KShine said:

Apparently, the Germans are really really angry with LEGO.

Only a few but those who are like to tell.

[Frank Brickowski]

33 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

This will blow away and be forgotten with time, just like that lawsuit related to the Friends line.  

Thank you for your take, I acknowledge and appreciate your opinion, I for my part think the opposite - time will tell who has been right.

It's just you have no idea about the magnitude the clash had on YouTube, with LEGO being made fun of, being seen by masses of people as the "big bad company" instead of the "friendly, popular toy brand" it once was, YouTubers laughing about the Technic Ferrari, calling their followers (tens of millions overall) to boycott TLG. And once people have put the "UNCOOL" stamp on LEGO (which has happened right now in large quantities), this is something that will not just go away just like that with time passing.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Frank Brickowski

[BrickLover80]

20 minutes ago, exracer327 said:

LEGO is trying to keep their name from becoming generic, which according to the end of the article someone is now pushing an effort to make the word "LEGO" an officially generic term for interlocking bricks.  If that happens, I think LEGO will be done as a company, let alone as an investment.  So I guess if you want to destroy the big-bad company, then go for it.  Kind of sad really though.

 

I don't think this would destroy Lego as a company. The other companies would still not be allowed to call their product Lego, the same way CVS can't call their tissues Kleenex. What would change is that you could legally make a YouTube video where you call BB or Cobi bricks "lego bricks" instead of "interlocking bricks".

What might destroy Lego as a company is lower production quality or boring sets. I have to say that in the kids market, most sets from last few years have not impressed. If I look at the current police station, it's as good as the last one. The same for some of the licensed sets. But Lego has always gone through cycles, so I'm hoping they will get better again.