SUBSCRIBE
Search

Missed out on Bricklink Designer Program? The sets were limited by design (RLFM Days 2021)

UPDATE: LEGO and Bricklink have provided an update, which includes a second allotment of Round 1 sets to be released. Read the full statement in my latest Bricklink Designer Program post.

On the 1st of July, Round 1 of the Bricklink Designer Program Crowdfunding round opened up, with 7 previously rejected Ideas getting a second chance via this program to be crowdfunded into LEGO sets.

Only 5 out of the 7 sets would make it through Round 1 and there was a limit of 5,000 for each set.

Well, this was entirely by design, and I have evidence of artificial scarcity being the original intention behind this program – during the recent Recognised LEGO Fan Media Days 2021, we sat in a Q&A session with the LEGO Ideas and Bricklink team where they talked about this program, so read on to hear what Marvin Park, Head of BrickLink / VP at the LEGO Group has to say about this project, and why these limits were put in place.

The Bricklink Designer Program officially opened at 1am on Friday, 2 July here in Melbourne, Australia. and I had a long day on Thursday, so I wasn’t really up for staying up so late just to get my hands on the sets, even though I really wanted the Castle in the Forest set (pictured above).

I got up early on Friday to see what was remaining, and wanted to crowdfund some of them, but by then the Castle in the Forest and Great Fishing Boat had sold out already – not surprising, those were the most impressive builds out of the 7 options, but I was quite disappointed that I missed out.

Speaking to people who stayed up, it seemed like the Castle and Fishing boat lasted about 30 minutes each.

FOMO kicked in, and I wanted to also back the Safe, but was hit by this peculiar message – the maximum limit hadn’t been hit, but what we were not told was that there was arbitrary limits allocated to each region, and most projects in Australia had already been exhausted.

Great.

Not to mention the lack of certain countries that could be shipped to such as Singapore, which I imagine is disappointing, especially when LEGO’s APAC Hub is located in that very country. Nope, you’re out of luck there.

Which reminded me of my conversation with Marvin Park, Head of BrickLink / VP at the LEGO Group that we spoke to at RLFM Days 2021, where purchase limits, and the 5,000 quantity was brought up.

Here’s a transcript of our Q&A:

Marvin Park, Head of BrickLink / VP at the LEGO Group

Henry from German Youtube channel Klemmbausteinlyrik.de raised concerns first:

There will potentially be plenty of resellers due to the limited number of sets worldwide. Do you think that crowdfunding might be over in after 5 minutes? What will you do with people who are unsatisfied that they missed out in the morning?

Marvin: We have data from previous programs. This time might be different as we’re taking great designs from LEGO Ideas. We anticipate a little faster corresponding time, but I don’t think all the quantities will be sold out in 5 minutes and it will take much longer than that.

If that happens that is a very happy problem to solve. We’ll limit purchase quantity to 5 for each account. That restriction is not only by user IDs but we’ll also check address/credit cards, so it won’t be easy for someone to purchase large quantities of the set.

I believe it will give enough time to fans. We have a real-time platform so that people can see how fast projects go and respond accordingly.

Jay: you mentioned that there was a limit of 5 sets per account. If you get to a point where the 5,000 cap gets filled instantly, is it possible to increase that based on demand? We’ve seen throughout this year that LEGO as a whole – forecasting has not been the strongest point when it comes to LEGO.

Could 5,000 be a lowball estimate and what are contingency plans if demand surpasses what you have to supply?

Marvin: We wish we could produce more if demand is high enough but that constraint comes from the manufacturing side. As you can tell, LEGO Group is trying to meet overwhelming demand, not only from LEGO Ideas or this channel but even regular LEGO set production which has reached overcapacity.

I don’t believe we can increase the quantity of these sets.

It also serves the purpose of owning a limited edition set. If we increase the quantity, the owner of the pre-ordered sets – their satisfaction levels will go down a little.

Another Bricklink/Ideas person (can’t recall his name): Its also worth pointing out that the Bricklink Designer program is also a pilot for us to learn whether there is sufficient interest in something like this and see how AFOLs react to sets that are produced in this way.

Obviously if they manage to sell out, it’s a good indicator and it gives the BL team the necessary information about this program.


So yeah, that’s what was said to us, and it’s disappointing as I specifically raised the prospect of LEGO underestimating demand for these sets, and not having a contingency plan in place.

Personally, the 5 per account limit for each set was the most out-of-touch part of the entire program. With limited numbers in place, I don’t get why you wouldn’t limit the purchase quantities to 1 each to ensure that as many people get a fair shot at the sets.

Secondly, I remember being stunned by Marvin’s admission that this entire pilot program was designed with exclusivity and artificial scarcity in mind, and that there is the thinking at higher levels of The LEGO Group that “satisfaction levels of fans who pre-ordered might be reduced if more people get access to the set”.

I was pretty gobsmacked when I heard that and with the huge customer dissatisfaction caused (there’s a big thread in the LEGO Ambassador Network forum currently going) where ambassadors are voicing their community’s displeasure about the rollout, that this completely didn’t register in their heads.

Especially in a year where the LEGO VIP Ulysses Probe controversy blew out into astronomical proportions.

Thankfully, Bricklink put out this statement on Facebook, and an update would be coming next week, so maybe they’ve seen the light and will be making more available.

Or you could’ve just listened to us ambassadors when we raised concerns directly to you at RLFM Days 2021 that this would go exactly the way it would…

Did you manage to crowdfund or get your hands on any Bricklink Designer Program sets? What do you think of the entire program and how it was run?

To get the latest LEGO news and LEGO Reviews straight in your inbox, subscribe via email, or you can also follow on Google News, or socials on FacebookInstagram (@jayong28), Twitter or subscribe to the Jay’s Brick Blog Youtube channel.

Subscribe to receive updates on new posts and reviews!

86 responses to “Missed out on Bricklink Designer Program? The sets were limited by design (RLFM Days 2021)”

  1. Mike says:

    Totally misguided strategy – there are probably hundreds of thousands of lego fans that would want any of these sets (I’d kill to get the fishing boat) so why not just release them for us all to buy? These sets will end up on aliexpress and make more money for the rip-off Chinese merchants than TLG and BL. Yet another utterly mystifying decision – I have no idea what is going at Lego HQ these days.

  2. Chris says:

    As someone who was lucky enough to get the sets I wanted (it helps that pre-orders started at 11am for me, and even then it was a close call on the castle with the website issues), I sincerely hope the 5000 cap gets raised – it won’t reduce my satisfaction in the slightest! And regardless, I cannot begin to understand the 5 per person limit – 1 or 2 are the only ones that make sense.

  3. Andrew says:

    So wrong and if bricklink does not do anything I am canceling my account. Do not care they are limited. Care that they let resellers get 5. I am not going to buy a scalped set on eBay.

  4. Roland says:

    All of the companies excuses, and they are just excuses, is that they don’t have production capacity. The rest is marketing misusing accepted terms like crowd funding when it is nothing like what the term means.

    First of all they need more production capacity.
    No excuses for not applying logistics principles to production.

    Second marketing needs a few swift and hard kicks in the pants followed by some education on how to run a kickstarter. That means having a production plan and understanding the logistics required.

    Third, just do one at a time, which would simplify the logistics.

    Fourth, stop pandering to the resellers because they do nothing for the hobby or the brand.

    Fifth, allow and encourage third party partnerships in the future.

    • Eric says:

      A member posted this discussion about BDP in the Bricklink Discussion Forum. It contains a lot of good information.

      • Dug says:

        Link?

        Also, we could all roll off a huge list if sets which ideally would have been produced and available in greater numbers.

    • C Brady says:

      Bravo! Excellently said – succinct and to the point.

    • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

      Everything is right on the spot except that I can understand that TLG don’t like to increase capacity as the demand is probably slowing down after covid-19. Still the logistic problem in other crowdfunding projects hasn’t been limiting the copies but extending the delivery time. And people are even OK with that as it’s something that can be understood (and every person that made the pre order could get the project at same time so satisfaction stays as TLG has this view about others having the same set than you: “their satisfaction levels will go down a little”).

      “Third” and “Fourth”
      Exactly. If there is the production limit why still offer 5 sets in one round? Also this means 25 sets for each scalper when the other simple option would be to offer just one project in one round with limit of one per customer. That would give scalpers just one set (not 25).

  5. badbob001 says:

    I can only imagine how they will make this worst next week. For the next round, they’ll let us vote for a single set to increase the quantity to produce. When the winning set is revealed, it’s a total shock as it’s the worst and no one would have voted for it but we can’t argue because the vote totals are secret. Rumor is that they picked it because it was the easiest and cheapest to manufacture. Not the first time: 850458: VIP Top 5 Boxed Minifigures (https://brickset.com/sets/850458-1/VIP-Top-5-Boxed-Minifigures)

    And when it doesn’t sell as well as other sets, they’ll claim they were right all along, and we should stop complaining.

    • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

      Good point.

      If it’s true that Lego can’t produce more than 25.000 BDP sets in every round my proposal is that people will pre order with real money. The set gaining most customers and/or most money is the only one produced. Everything should be transparent. There shouldn’t be any limits. If someone want some set to be produced then this person can order for example 100 sets (to make the gained money higher so that the set will win that round). If the winning set sells only 3.000 units that should be just good for TLG as they would have more capacity in the next round.

      Voting isn’t good solution and Lego has made this clear by themselves as 10.000 votes in Ideas will result only 5.000 sets in BDP.

      It’s no even a secret that Lego will produce cheap sets. Price was main point why blacksmith was altered so much from Ideas version.

  6. Chico says:

    I’m so glad they limited sales to 5000. I want to keep this set exclusive. I bought one to build but after seeing the demand and secondary price being so high already, I’m gonna sell the one I bought. Wish I would have bought more.

    If you don’t like how the hobby goes, find a new one. Rare and scarce sets should be normal. Stop crying because you didn’t the toy you wanted… You’re an adult. Not a child.

    • Jargon says:

      Ah yes, because mockingly showing off your new toy to less lucky strangers online is the… checks notes… adult thing to do.

      • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

        Please explain me why a bad toy that is rare is a good thing?

        (If the toy is good it sells without the rarity factor so it must be bad to begin with)

    • Jay says:

      That’s an odd way to enjoy a hobby, when you derive benefit from others who miss out, but you do you.

      • Johnz says:

        “Sorry, tough luck, you’ve missed out on this pretty cool VIP reward. Better luck next time.”

        So.. when you get it, it’s tough luck. When others get it, it’s because they derive benefit. Riiiight..

    • Ed says:

      You should find a new hobby besides trolling. You’re an adult. Not a child.

  7. Tuukka Tuomisto says:

    “satisfaction levels of fans who pre-ordered might be reduced if more people get access to the set”. isn’t true for me. I just want one set for myself. I’m not planning to sell it. I don’t gain anything from (artificial) scarcity. Actually my satisfaction to the Lego Group has dropped significantly because how badly this Bricklink Designer Program was handled.

    I don’t anymore know what I’ll do with my pre order. I respect the designer and like the built but I truly hate this program. The box will remind me how greedy humans are and make me just feel bad and that’s not the reason to acquire Lego bricks.

    There are several ways how this could have been done better:
    1) No country specific limits
    2) All countries included
    3) Limit of one set per one customer (this limit makes sense as the production is slow and these are special sets)
    4) Time limit of only 2-5 days (if some upper limit is needed, the lower limit 3.000 orders does make sense)
    5) Only the first 5.000 sets would be delivered in January 2022, next patch of 5.000 sets in April 2022 and so on until all pre orders would be fulfilled (as there is queue in the production currently)

    The biggest problem might be that TLG has no idea how crowdfunding works. It’s not about upper limits. It’s all about lower limits. The project needs big support so that it can move forward but if it does it’ll have no upper limit. Actually most crowdfunding projects will add more content if there is more demand (more money to be used to improve the initial idea that was just something to get things going).

    When the Lego Group loves scalpers it shouldn’t use crowdfunding but normal shopping platform to sell only a few sets.

  8. flagstones says:

    As you’ve noted, TLG has been quite off-base in predicting demand for certain sets. And yet again, they have been so arrogant to assume that they knew how many sets to produce and how to administer the demand for them.

    Why not use the so-called ordering system as the gauge for demand itself. Let everyone who wants one to commit to an order, then figure out the production run required. Yeah, there’s a few more logistical concerns to iron out, but it’s money in the bank.

    Instead, the method we’ve been subjected to is just a mess, a massive hit to consumer and fan confidence as well as a big disappointment for everyone who couldn’t make it to a certain hour of a specific day to order.

    Everyone TLG should have had this drummed into them from the start but they don’t seem to learn from their mistakes: “If you can’t do it right, then don’t do it at all.”

  9. flagstones says:

    “If we increase the quantity, the owner of the pre-ordered sets – their satisfaction levels will go down a little.”

    Lol… fuck that noise.

  10. C Brady says:

    But quote: “As you can tell, LEGO Group is trying to meet overwhelming demand, not only from LEGO Ideas or this channel but even regular LEGO set production which has reached overcapacity.” Melvin says that production limits were determined by manufacturing capacity……..which is already OVERcapacity. I think the point is that if LEGO has said that regular LEGO set production has reached overcapacity (their direct quote) one can only surmise that they are creating a logistics problem by trying to produce more in demand low quantity sets. It takes way from their ability to catch up production on their primary lines. While I certainly applaud LEGO for helping to create some “dreams come true for 5” LEGO fans, but at what cost to the brand? So now they have possibly created negative reactions on several of their lines in regards to production and access to product. LEGO Group should have waited to undertake this project until materials and capacity for production had stabilized AS well as provided a more equitable way for customers and fans to have better access to purchase the product. And, I agree with other comments that set order should have been limited to 1 or 2. I am not downplaying the “wonderfulness” of these funded sets (and yes I wish I was creative enough to be one of the lucky five) – I just think LEGO misplayed their hands on this one terribly.

    • Jay says:

      Absolutely – this has been raised ad nauseum directly to LEGO’s AFOL engagement team by many other ambassadors, so I think there’ll be some good out of this.

      The frustrating thing is that this was entirely predictably, and I for one cannot understand why anyone would think a 5-set limit was a good idea, for something that already has a limited run.

      As you can see, we did try to raise it directly to Bricklink, but it fell on deaf ears.

    • C Brady says:

      Thank goodness for your blog, Jay. Because of it, I have become a better informed (and entertained) member of the LEGO community.

      As much as I think the LEGO Group, overall, is a wonderful company; it is just that – a Company. I personally believe that issues such as these will continue to “fall on deaf ears” until said issues negatively impact LEGO’s bottom line and/or brand image. (You said it best regarding the limit of 5).

      In fairness to LEGO, I try to remember that is was a mere 20 years ago that they were balancing on the edge of bankruptcy and pulled themselves out. LEGO is probably at a financial and creative pinnacle right now and has less of an incentive to change (at this time). Hopefully though, input from sources such as Jay’s Brick Blog and others in the LEGO community will create a better process for the LEGO fan and consumer going forward.

  11. John campbell says:

    I think a limit of 2 max should be enforced. No one other than a reseller needs more than 2. One to build and one to put away.

    • Jay says:

      Absolutely, or even a limit of 1. All new D2C/18+ sets almost always have purchase limits of 2 or 1, so I cannot understand why they didn’t implement it here for sets that already have limited numbers. Boggles the mind!

  12. Eric says:

    It’s not artificial scarcity. Melvin clearly states that production limits were determined by manufacturing capacity.

    • Jay says:

      True, but I did ask if they had a backup plan if demand far exceeds supply.

      They can always book in another manufacturing run, even if its at a much, much later date.

    • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

      It’s artificial as they could have produced the next 5.000 sets for April 2022 and the next 5.000 sets for August 2022. It’s normal that crowdfunded projects can take years to finalize (to actually make all that was pre ordered). This was not normal shopping platform where customers are expecting less than a month delivery times.

      • Eric says:

        It’s unreasonable to expect someone to satisfy every request made of them. I’ve tried to accommodate every request of my time, both inside and outside of work, until I realized that I cannot possibly deliver without burning myself out. LEGO is having difficulty meeting demand for official sets. Producing Bricklink Designer Program sets, regardless of the production numbers, puts even more strain on their manufacturing capability.

        The Bricklink Designer Program is not normal. It’s the first time LEGO has offered rejected Ideas sets through an official channel. We’ll probably see adjustments to the current process, maybe even as early as Round 1, but we may also see that this is a one-and-done event. LEGO could deem disruptions to manufacturing schedules and an increased Customer Service workload as reasons to discontinue the program.

        • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

          We agree that Lego has made a mistake. It should not do things which don’t work. But Lego could be transparent about it. Now it’s just making things up. They can just say: “sorry, we failed and can’t meet your expectations”. No need to try to get out of the situation by trying to do everything but nothing well.

          • Eric says:

            I would not say LEGO made a mistake. Yes, having a purchase limit of 1 per customer for each set would have allowed more people to get the set(s) they wanted, but some people would have still missed out.
            LEGO was not deceitful or dishonest. They told customers how many sets would be available and when pre-orders would begin. If a customer’s expectations went beyond the facts provided, then the customer made a mistake.
            I missed the opportunity to buy the Nebulon B at MSRP because I forgot when it was scheduled to go on sale Like the BDP sets, the Nebulon B was in short supply and highly sought after, so there’s no guarantee I would have been able to purchase one even if I had remembered. It was my mistake. I can’t justify paying the aftermarket price, so I can either Bricklink the pieces needed to build it, or forget about it and move on.

            • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

              I’m still not convinced that TLG didn’t make a mistake. They are big toy company (I expect more from them or actually less mess), run a crowdfunding and it went worse that I have seen from others (I’m not comparing them to best I can imagine but to the basic level I have seen). Why run PRE order crowdfunding with a limit of 5.000 sets with limit of 5 per customer? It IS a mistake.

              For example there is a small game store in Finland and for them it was super easy to reject scalpers from buying a limited item (and it was also online). It’s not hard. Of course the Lego Group didn’t make a mistake (in their own mind) as they are trying to maximize their profits. I give you that.

              “LEGO was not deceitful or dishonest.”
              Where it was said that there will be country limits and what the limits were?

              There are several ways how this could have been done better:
              1) No country specific limits
              2) All countries included (to reply to Eric’s “some people would have still missed out”)
              3) Limit of one set per one customer (this limit makes sense as the production is slow and these are special sets)
              4) Time limit of only 2-5 days (if some upper limit is needed, the lower limit 3.000 orders does make sense)
              5) Only the first 5.000 sets would be delivered in January 2022, next patch of 5.000 sets in April 2022 and so on until all pre orders would be fulfilled (as there is queue in the production currently)
              6) Servers have to handle the traffic. As there was country limits why allow all countries buy at the same time? Could have been e.g. at 8 PM at every country (so no need for Jay to wake up at night).

  13. Ed says:

    Castle was by far the fastest. Fishing Boat took about 2 hours to reach 5000, although of course I don’t know when each region was filled.

    I agree, it’s much better to have more happy customers by making enough sets, than to have slightly happier customers (and resellers) by artificially limiting quantities.

    LEGO marketing amplifies this situation by telling fans to hurry up and log on at the start time to reserve your set, instead of designing their program to make good use of its full duration.

    They know full well people are reselling the sets, as that’s what customers did during the 2019 Designer Program. After all, it’s BrickLink, home of trading bricks, so the reseller aspect might well have been planned.

    • Jay says:

      The region caps were frustrating – it seems that here in Australia, our allocation was exhausted really quickly, and there was no way to plan around that.

  14. Edmund says:

    I live in Singapore. I was able to buy the Löwenstein Castle from BL without a problem in 2019, before BL got acquired. When the acquisition happened, I even assumed it will be better overall. Little did I know this means I am suddenly unable to purchase these products just because it forces us to buy via Lego shop instead of through BL.

    Frustrated, I even tried to buy them via the Australian store, and provided details to send it to a parcel forwarding service (which means more delivery costs). Soon after, my order was rejected because of their delivery policy of only sending to residential addresses.

    Thanks to Lego for saving my money, but no thanks for the huge disappointment and anguish, especially when future sets look even more compelling.

    • Jay says:

      Yeah, that was really unfair – I think it’s due to the fact that fulfilment of the sets were made through LEGO.com, which Singapore doesn’t have – which again, is a massive oversight on LEGO’s part to not open it up further, especially when the first ever one had global fulfilment capability.

      • Edmund says:

        Exactly. Btw when I mentioned this same post in some FB page, I was scolded by some Australians for doing that and potentially “depriving Australian citizens”.

        Fair enough. I am sure the people who bought them in Australia does not include a tonne of scalpers who realise the entirety of Asia is only represented by South Korea and they can happily resell to reprieved and desperate Asia for a lower delivery cost then most of the other 29 countries.

        All these nonsense won’t have occurred if they stuck to selling them via BL instead, as they did before.

  15. Tash says:

    Completely agree, the whole thing is exceptionally disappointing and now the Castle in the Forest is on eBay for $1000 AUD… I am keeping my fingers crossed there may be a second run but accept that it’s probably gone.

    I don’t disagree with the “first come, first served” sentiment, but it wasn’t handled very fairly and played right into the hands of resellers instead of genuine fans. The region limit and website loading issues further worsened it.

    Hoping that the future rounds will bit a bit more obtainable for more of us. Congrats to the lucky few that did manage to get what they wanted.

    • Jay says:

      I’m very hopeful for a second run, even if its months away so those that missed out get a second chance. Hopefully with purchase limits in place.

      I think a delayed second run is the most amicable solution, and fans will accept that as a compromise.

    • Chico says:

      I am a reseller and a genuine fan. I’m all about making money first, my hobbies second. That being said, I only bought one castle. To keep. But that may change now that the price is crazy high already. LEGO did fine with this, they told us the limit being made. We all knew that. If you were too slow, that’s on you. Not anybody else.

  16. Gunther says:

    Here in Austria (Europe) the castle was sold out in under three minutes, the oat in ten. As most days the Lego shopsite couldn’t handle the traffic and I was stuck in a loading screen for those first three minutes and when the site finally loaded it was sold out already. Either Lego starts getting their IT user friendly on such days or stop that limitation bulls**t already. Limitations for vip only’s Fine but extra limitations and Lego sites that can’t handle the traffic is starting to drive me away. The whole online venture is getting worse after every time they make a survey.

  17. Mac says:

    Jay, just a thank-you for highlighting the disappointment in Singapore. Me and my Singapore-based AFOL LUG were big supporters of last year’s BrickLink designer programme, and were excited about this year’s projects, only to get shut out from the onset. Most normal AFOLs can’t jump through the hoops necessary to order through one of the “select” countries on the list, and frankly shouldn’t have to try. (I understand that LEGO made that harder in any case, by restricting orders to onwards-shipping companies!) If this really is deliberate scarcity (“FOMO marketing”) as you suggest, then maybe it’s time to save some money and let a few LEGO sets go by — at least I’ll get some training in that regard as there’s no way in hell I’m chasing a reseller copy of any of these sets! Disappointed, and angry at LEGO, but looking for the silver lining.

    • Jay says:

      No worries at all, sometimes LEGO forgets that SE Asia exists and this is a classic example.

      It’s such a slap in the face, especially since the first Designer Program was open globally.

      I don’t even feel terrible about missing out on the Castle as I had already had an inkling it was going to be a poor experience from the outset, and wasn’t that hopeful of scoring one, hence not even trying to stay up for it – especially when there’s work at 7am the next day!

      • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

        There’s still the very probable possibility that all the sets are changed worse when they are produced by TLG. Just see how the blacksmith was a very nice set in the Ideas platform but in the final official Lego version had bad ground, bad tree, bad proportions, bad wall colors, bad roof colors, and bad roof texture. This new castle had also several changes but they were done by the original designer and made sense by playability, accessibility, durability and so on.

        TLG tries to explain why things are like that but every explanation can be easily proven wrong. For example the final product has several parts, several different parts and it’s expensive. The original Ideas version could have been kept much better just by respecting the original designer (and customers) more. Customers are willing to pay Lego for the premium quality. Customers are also willing to wait for a good product. The product just needs to be excellent in all aspects.

  18. Wt says:

    Tell Lego they suck. If they don’t want to provide stock then people should just stop buying. See how much they appreciate it when they’re boycotted due to poor customer service. I am quite happy to give up the Lego hobby if they don’t like my business.

    • Hervon says:

      Totally agree!

    • Chico says:

      It wasn’t poor customer service. You were just slow. The blame is on the buyers for failing to buy a limited product. You don’t cry to Ferrari when they only produce 5 copies of a single car. Same market, different toy.

      • C Brady says:

        While you may make a point, Ferrari and LEGO are not the same market and it is not the same idea.

        Almost every hobby has rarity and collectables – Lionel Trains, Gee’s Bend quilts, Hess toy trucks, etc.

        Sometimes that is what drives a hobby and can certainly be an important factor in the enhancement of it (or detriment – ie Hummel collectables over-production). I don’t think anyone is disputing the prominence and importance of rare LEGO sets and their subsequent resell and possible profit. I personally own 130+ sets (I would have more but 2005 hurricane wiped out my collection at that time) and some are rare. At this point, I have not re-sold any of my sets. A time may come for that, but I’m not counting on it to fund my retirement.

        The question put to the readers of Jay’s blog was about the process. Even BrinkLink acknowledged frustrations from the LEGO community about how the order process went. Of course there would be disappointed people. Even in the best situation, not everyone can obtain a set due to availability, timing, cost, technical issues, and so forth.

        Would I feel the same way IF I had obtained a set? Would you feel the same way IF you had NOT been able to obtain a set. I believe the person who wants a set to build for themselves versus a collector who buys for the purpose of profit resale approaches the challenges from different prospectives. Neither are wrong – perhaps just very different.

        Frustration exists at the process from limits on quantities to justification or lack thereof of manufacturing capacity to regional limits. The market only exists if someone is willing to pay the dollars for it. It is that simple.

      • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

        If Ferrari would work like Lego it would hide the 5 cars in some stores around the world. Then some lucky ones find those (actually just one customer in Lego case could buy all 5). Lego had huge problems on their platform. People with both time and money weren’t able to get the product they wanted.

        Also crowdfunding isn’t about upper limit but about lower limit to see if something is wanted so much that it can be produced with a profit.

        No one is against scarcity (just it shouldn’t be mixed with Ideas having 10.000 supporters with limit of 1.000). Also Lego can do what they like. But collectors usually don’t like when a company uses complex gimmicks and their store is down.

        Also Lego is saying one thing and doing another. They say that they have problems in delivery and that’s the reason but actually they are quite happy to have limited runs. Could stop lying for example. Also why allow one person to buy 5 items if the stock is low? Exactly, they favor scalpers but just don’t want to say it out loud.

  19. James Dutton says:

    What does Leg Godt mean again?

  20. Mark P says:

    I really enjoyed the previous BrickLink kits, it was really chilled out, but knew that since The Corp had bought BrickLink, this wouldn’t be the same. Still, bubs woke me up at 12:45, so I resettled him, then fired up the laptop.
    I wasn’t interested in collecting them all (they’re not Pokemon!!), but thought the Kakapo was awesome, and would never be made by Lego otherwise, so I grabbed one of those, couldn’t be happier. Pretty messed up by Lego though. Artificial scarcity sucks.

    • Jay says:

      Oh congrats on getting the Kakapo! Gotta thank bub for that!

      • Mark P says:

        👍 I’ll let you borrow it if you want to do a build review. 😆
        Apparently almost no Kiwis got any, owing to the fact that by the time they woke up, the Aussies had already drained the region. That’s so messed up, it should be a Kiwi Exclusive!!!

        • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

          This feels like someone in the Lego Group has tried their best to maximize the anger of their customers.

          Maybe they want to get rid off Bricklink as it eats their own sell. Using old bricks is environmentally good but bad for Lego business.

  21. Chill says:

    Interesting that some of the seasonal sets like the Halloween or Thanksgiving vignettes get capped at 1 or 2 per household yet these get capped at 5. I agree with the suggestion of 1 per household to begin with and then open it up after a certain time period if there are still sets available. I had the same issue as you Jay, under the total limit but unable to purchase due to region limit.

    • Jay says:

      Yup – most exclusives/LEGO for Adults/Ideas sets have a cap of 1 or 2 to ensure more people get access. These sets, with a super limited run of 5,000 had no business with a 5 purchase limit makes zero sense as it just encouraged people buying extra to resell.

      • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

        TLG favors scalpers as they can pay fast large money. It makes sense in this quarter business model in capitalism. They probably would like to put even higher limit than 5 but then it would have been too obvious to all.

        Also they could make another patch of 5.000 set e.g. 2023 (as their production capacity is maxed) but that would be bad for scalpers so TLG won’t do that.

        • Eric says:

          Tuukka, you’re purely speculating in almost all of your posts. None of these accusations are based on facts. It seems that you’re letting emotions cloud your judgement.

          • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

            Basic trolling technique is to speak about someone’s feelings and not about their arguments. Also trolling usually includes the words like “all” and “none” and then still not provide counter examples to prove other vice. Trolling is just causing a mess and not adding information or clarification to the things presented.

            I wish people respecting each other even if they don’t share their views, keep the discussion on the arguments, give more examples, and so on. I hate trolls. That’s what I’m mostly feeling in Internet.

  22. Ben says:

    They are taking a leaf out of games workshops book and going with the extreme fomo marketing. Balls to that.

  23. Andrew says:

    So basically all Lego are doing here is further fuelling a scalpers market. A limit of five means a handsome profit for those with bots etc who are able to be online when orders open. Why not start with a limit of one per account and increase it if there are any unallocated after a certain time?

    Whilst I can see that the rarity of a set has value to many collectors, but it seems given recent experience that these don’t go to collectors in the first place, but to those seeking to make a quick profit flipping on eBay and the like.

    • Dug says:

      No bots were used. Plenty of peeps were up at 1am Aus time to seal the deal.

      • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

        It was quite easy to make a bot for this campaign as the sets were actually sold on the shop dot lego site. It used the normal shopping bag url. With the limit of 5 this was super easy and fast money for flippers.

    • Jay says:

      All good ideas, and you could’ve totally seen this coming.

      Add to the fact that I’m guessing a large chunk of these sets will remained sealed in boxes as collector’s items makes it even sadder.

  24. CA Brady says:

    Personally I was disappointed and didn’t get access to the sets. I wonder if it was just LEGO’s way of over-inflating the value/market and raising the scarcity of a product. If LEGO Group is having problems meeting DEMANDS of supply with their “regular” product lines, why on earth would they launch this product now? I think the whole ordering process was mishandled. And I am a huge LEGO fan.

    • Jay says:

      It’s important to note that this was a “pilot program”, but that does not excuse not having purchase limits in place, and zero transparency about regional caps/quotas.

  25. Steve says:

    I agree with the Singapore remark, was looking to get the castle but was TURNED OFF by the fact that Singapore is not included. LEGO should look for a new home because I do not tolerate idiots like them.

  26. C Brady says:

    Personally I was disappointed and didn’t get access to the sets. I wonder if it was just LEGO’s way of over-inflating the value/market and raising the scarcity of a product. If LEGO Group is having problems meeting DEMANDS of supply with their “regular” product lines, why on earth would they launch this product now? I think the whole ordering process was mishandled.

  27. Andrew McCanna says:

    The program started at 10am for me. I got 2 Castle in the Forest, 1 Great Fishing Boat, 1 Sherriff’s Safe, and 1 Pursuit of Flight set. Also, they didn’t sell out in 30 minutes. at least 45-1 hour.

    • Dimitris says:

      Are you just trolling or living in an another parallel Sweden, mate? I know internet anonymity allows you to say whatever comes to mind but for us with jobs I can think of more logical ways than hanging from the screen 17.00 to buy a ”not-enough-demand-anymore-for-classic-castle” set.

    • Mat P says:

      This was highly dependent on region and set as there were limits per country (I’d guess by stock allocated to regional warehouses)
      Here (Europe) the Castle was out at 17:25-30, about 10 minutes were spent trying to make the page work as it was switching between open orders version, not yet open orders versions and errors.

  28. Jargon says:

    I will never understand how knowing someone else owns and enjoys the same product as you would diminish one’s “satisfaction level.”

    • Andrew McCanna says:

      They didn’t say that. People like rare items, and if this isn’t as rare, then people don’t like it as much.

      • Jargon says:

        Your statement doesn’t contradict mine.

      • Gunther says:

        There were even higher numbers of limitation with success sets in the past. We are talking kind of worldwide And 5000 are not much. ANd than regional limitations so that I could see still 4012 available but not in my country any more after three minutes is kind of a joke and nothing more

    • A1chemi says:

      They’ve made it clear that they can’t increase capacity and won’t upset existing pre-orderers by doing anything to affect the rarity.

      Presumably all they may do is change the limits in round 2 to give more people a fair chance. 1 per person seems unlikely (they clearly still want it to sell out pretty fast), but 2 or 3 as with holiday sets and botanical series seem a strong option.

    • Jay says:

      I remember being so shocked when I heard that. It’s like he said the quiet part out loud, which is why I decided to dig this transcript out.

    • Tuukka Tuomisto says:

      Basically TLG says things that just aren’t true. First they needed 10.000 supporters but sold only 5.000 sets. And why should they need to make 5 projects out of 7? Could just make e.g. 25.000 castles and that’s it for round 1. They don’t have capacity to produce so don’t do that then. Skip all the other 6 projects.

      Everything points out that TLG clearly favors scalpers (many sets but all super low quantities). But they can’t admit it as it would be bad publicity.

      If the product is bad your satisfaction will drop. Not because someone else has it.

  29. Nancy says:

    I started trying to access the DP site at opening (a civilized 8am in the NW of US) and after an initial worry that I’d only get 504 errors I finally managed to get thru; I was specifically hoping to score 2 Pursuit of Flights (me and a gift for bro) and a Kakapo (huge NZ avian fan…). I was very happy to get thru but was not surprised to see the castle gone almost immediately. Also happy that Kakapo made the cut off, tho I’m sure others were not. Not thrilled with the whole artificial scarcity theory – seems like we can appreciate things without a scarcity factor. Takes the ‘fun’ out of toys imo.

    • Jay says:

      Oh congrats on scoring the Kakapo and Pursuit of Flight!

      It does suck the fun out of toys, and just encourages stockpiling/scalping when there are so many things you can do to prevent it from happening.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Welcome!

    Hello and welcome to Jay's Brick Blog. In here, you'll find independent LEGO set reviews, commentary on LEGO trends & news, bargain hunting tips and an inside look into the life of an average LEGO fan. Find out more about me here
  • Subscribe for updates

    Enter your email address here to receive updates about new posts from Jay's Brick Blog - straight to your inbox!

    Join 5,311 other subscribers
  • Buy LEGO

  • Follow me on Instagram @jayong28

  • Follow on Facebook

  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Branding and website design and build by Canvas Group