LEGO acquires Bricklink. Why I think this is a bad idea.

Of all the things I could wake up to, a press release about LEGO buying Bricklink certainly wasn’t something that ranked very highly on that list, but here we are.

I had to do a double take to ensure that it wasn’t a poorly timed April Fool’s joke.

This is a really ground-breaking announcement and the impact of this move by LEGO to muscle in on one of the most important aspects of AFOL-culture cannot be understated enough.

For the unaware, Bricklink can be considered the lifeblood of the LEGO fan community. It’s a robust marketplace of spare parts, loose minifigures, used sets, and is probably responsible for 99% of all creations at LEGO fan conventions.

It’s even got an affectionate nickname – Cracklink, due to its addictive nature. I know this for a fact, as I’ve spent a fair chunk of change on Bricklink buying minifigures, and so, so many farm animals.

I’m mostly supportive of most of LEGO’s decisions, but this one feels like a stinker to me. Allow me to elaborate.

In business, you learn about something called core competency, which basically means do what you’re good at to make plenty of money.

This is why companies like Apple keeps (mostly) to smart devices/computing, and Shell sticks to drilling oil from the earth. Shell absolutely has the resources to do other things like create a fashion label, or their own TVs but don’t because they stick to what they’re good at, which is often determined by the company’s legacy, DNA and heritage.

LEGO has no business owning Bricklink, and I’m not convinced that there will be improvements.

LEGO’s core competencies are – design, supply chain and logistics, and creating lifelong memories for children and their toys.

Anything web-related isn’t really LEGO’s strong suite, especially when it comes to running a marketplace, which you would notice, is now in (kinda) direct competition with LEGO’s core business.

I look at LEGO’s track record when it comes to anything online – Rebrick, Lego Life, and even their rollout of the new VIP portal, it’s spotty at best.

Running a marketplace is a whole other ballgame, and I can’t exactly predict what LEGO’s end-game is. Do they merge Bricklink’s functionality with Pick-A-Brick, or Bricks & Pieces? Do they plan to shutter it completely after purging it off “grey market” sellers?

Look, Bricklink isn’t exactly clean and it’s clear a lot of parts get there from questionable sources. There’s no way that one seller from Taiwan or the Czech Republic parted out hundreds of sets to individually sell that rare minifigure in the hundreds.

I can totally see a mass migration of sellers to a non-LEGO owned marketplace like BrickOwl, which I think are the biggest winners here.

It could be a data play? Bricklink has a wealth of data about AFOL purchase behaviour, so I feel like that’s the most valuable part of the acquisition to some of the data boffins in Billund.

I don’t know – this feels like LEGO has crossed a proverbial line into the fan territory and I’m not too comfortable with this. What next, will LEGO start acquiring Fan Conventions? Brickset?

In the business world, acquisitions happen for a number of reasons, most commonly:

  1. to remove a competitor & gain market share
  2. acquire intellectual property/talent
  3. access an existing community of customers
  4. break into a new market without having to start from scratch
  5. a new revenue stream.

Looking at what Bricklink has to offer, I’d say it’s 1, 3, and 4. I don’t know if Bricklink is that profitable, so the jury is out on 5.

This is just an odd move, and I cannot think of any example where any other company out there has made a move like this and turned it into a success.

I feel like LEGO has more important things that they can and should focus on that are their core competencies, and I may be assured once I understand what their roadmap/future plans for Bricklink are.

For now, I’m pretty concerned and not too happy about this decision.

What do you think of this announcement? Let me know in the comments.

BILLUND, Denmark, November 26, 2019:  The LEGO® Group today announced it has acquired BrickLink Ltd (, the world’s largest online community of adult LEGO fans from NXMH to strengthen its connection with its important adult fan base.

The BrickLink platform has more than one million members and comprises an online marketplace of more than 10,000 stores from 70 countries; a digital building software where builders can design and showcase their creations; and a vibrant online community where fans share ideas and builds. 

The platform was founded in 2000 by Dan Jezek as a way to connect like-minded adult LEGO fans from around the world.  It was acquired in 2013 by NXMH, which is owned by Korean entrepreneur Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim. BrickLink is headquartered in Irvine, California.  

The LEGO Group CEO, Niels B Christiansen said: “Our adult fans are extremely important to us.  They are passionate, committed and endlessly creative.  We have worked closely with the community for many years and look forward to deepening our collaboration.  We plan to continue to support BrickLink’s active marketplace and evolve the digital studio which allows our talented fans to take their creativity to the next level.”

Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim, owner of NXMH,said: “It has been a privilege to lead the transformation of BrickLink during the past six years.   I am grateful to the community for being so welcoming, supportive and constructive.  I am constantly amazed by everyone’s endless creativity and their love for building.  I am confident the platform will be in good hands with the LEGO Group. As a fan myself, I can’t wait to see what’s next.” 

The LEGO Group’s Chief Marketing Officer, Julia Goldin, said:  “BrickLink provides the LEGO Group with a unique opportunity to connect with adult fans through new channels and exciting experiences.  We’ve recently collaborated with BrickLink on a range of crowd-sourced sets to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the brick.  We learned a lot and are keen to explore more ways of working together to create value.  We look forward to collaborating further with our adult fans, while retaining and nurturing the independent spirit of the digital platform.”

The acquisition also includes Sohobricks which makes small batches of building elements.

Financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. Closing is expected to occur before the end of 2019. 

56 responses to “LEGO acquires Bricklink. Why I think this is a bad idea.”

  1. hntrains says:

    Funny, looking back at such opinions! BrickLink is just the same as it was before the acquisition by LEGO.
    Proof that talking for the sake of it does not lead one anywhere worth being at.

    • Jay says:

      It’s been 3 years… outside of Bricklink Designer Program, has LEGO added any value to Bricklink in the time?

      I’m glad my worst fears have yet to come true, but I’m still questioning why this move was necessary.

      • CS says:

        And now, almost another year later, in September 2023, and Lego still hasn’t done much to add value to Bricklink.

        The Lego Group is also getting into some sketchy territory with its new MOC pop-up store, which shows customers purchasing options that mix Bricklink stores with Lego’s Pick-A-Brick. That’s just one step away from having Pick-a-Brick be one of the Bricklink stores. Of course that will lead to price manipulation.

        As a seller, I can tell you that Bricklink’s customer support for sellers is maybe the worst I have ever experienced from a selling platform. There’s still no direct phone number, which is absurd considering how much business is happening on the site. It’s essentially now a website full of franchise Lego stores and Lego still tries to pretend it’s a bunch of small sellers holding yard sales. If I sell a $10 item on eBay, I can call them for customer support. But we do thousands of dollars a month in business on Bricklink, and we just have to wait for email replies anytime we have an issue. When we have contacted Lego directly about issues, they just say they don’t usually get involved with Bricklink issues. Sometimes Lego promises to look into it, but we never hear back.

        Lego also still hasn’t updated any of the back-end stuff for sellers when it comes to selling analytics. It’s impossible to use Bricklink to see which types of pieces have sold the most in your store, or how many customers ordered tiles last month. And heaven forbid they tell you if customers found your store via a part search, a wish list, or another method.

        For buyers, the user experience on Bricklink is apparently still so bad that our store regularly gets messages from newer buyers asking us how things work on Bricklink because they can’t figure out how to navigate the site.

        At this point, I’m wondering if Lego’s goal is actually to kill Bricklink so they can push people to their Pick-A-Brick service.

        • Marc says:

          I can’t tell how it is from a seller’s perspective, but from a buyer’s perspective: I can’t wait until pick-a-brick will be one of the selling parties.
          Please read my feb 2020 reply.
          The MOC from rebrickable that I mention there is MOC-45867 at the moment.
          609 bricks divided over 175 unique lots. The ‘Auto-select’ feature helps a lot; all bricks can be bought from 3 sellers for a total of €75, including transfer. Pick-a-brick is not one of those sellers .. but I’m quite interested what the above would be if they were.

  2. Tristan says:

    So, nearly 3 years later, it seems like Lego wants Bricklink to be good enough such that there isn’t a mass migration of users, and no better than that. The site still seems like its from about 2006.

  3. Ronnie Porter says:

    Why, Are, All Lego Bircklink Instructions, SHOW THE AGE OF 18+?

  4. Jonathan Melusky says:

    Hi, I bet all my Legos that it is 100% a data grab. In 2013, Amazon purchased Goodreads. At the time, people cried foul and said it would end horrible. Goodreads is still fans of books driven and is still around today. I think this is what Lego has in mind as they seem more ethical than Amazon is. Cheers, Jonathan AFOL

    • Jay says:

      Yeah, a total data grab. It’s been a year, and progress has been quite slow, and thankfully nothing too drastic has changed just yet, but maybe it’ll change n 2021.

  5. marckies says:

    I might be naive .. but I really think it’s a good thing that LEGO Group did this.
    I believe/hope that the acquisition of Bricklink is LEGO Group’s way to become better in providing customized goods without investing too much … and that the ‘new’ market they aim for is people like me.*
    I reckon that getting a better understanding of your fan base and years and years of sales information is not to be frowned upen .. but this LEGO Bricklink thing can be good for a certain type of AFOL as well.

    Let me explain by example.
    * Here’s me, adoring the Rebrickable viper MOC-24718 from Battlestar Galactica of old.
    Free building instructions and an inventory list; what else is there to be desired? Well, the bricks.
    Now, you can only order so many colours and elements using Pick-A-Brick and Bricks & Pieces .. but you have to add the elements one by one [colour/element combination] and there’s a good possibility that not all elements can be delivered this way.

    Putting the entire inventory list in a Bricklink wishlist with only one click is something I like much better .. but now the minimum amount of sellers I have to buy from is 4, over as many different countries. Pushing the lowest price to approximately €120. And although I have that money .. I’m just not going to pay more than €0,20 per LEGO element.

    You can probably see what I’m getting at.
    I would love the option that one of those possible Bricklink sellers that I see in the list is actually the LEGO company, charging the same as they do on Pick-A-Brick.

    • Jay says:

      Hey Marckies, thanks for sharing your thoughts, and illustrating it with an example.

      That type of integration that you described is great, and if LEGO’s resources would enable that to happen, that would be awesome.

      LEGO fans are pretty conservative by nature. Most of us dislike change, and would want nothing more than to have the same Pirates, Classic Space and Castle sets released ad nauseam.

      For me, I’m just concerned about Bricklink changing too much. LEGO are also notorious for being very heavy-handed and controlling, so the skepticism that they will improve Bricklink is certainly not unfounded.

      Have you read their recent Ask Me Anything responses?

  6. J.d says:

    This is like your parents (lego) controlling everything you do on the internet (bricklink) when you are a teenager.

  7. Ernesto says:

    This is one of the most sensible responses on the LEGO acquisition of Bricklink I’ve read. Well done!

    We’ve been on Bricklink for about 10 years and upto a few years ago we were amongst biggest sellers worldwide.
    In recent years we’ve changed our business model and LEGO has become a smaller portion of our business. But our heart is still with LEGO and with Bricklink, where we started.

    We think it’s clear that LEGO has reached the decline phase of their current life cycle. They’ve been growing consistently from 2004-2017, partly during a period of economic recession. They accomplished one of the most succesful business turnarounds in recent history and achieved something unprecedented.
    But even LEGO is not invulnerable to the forces of economic nature. What comes up will go down because the world changes. Kids now spend their childhood time more on phones than with physical toys and that’s something all toy manufacturers have to deal with.

    It’s upto LEGO to reinvent themselves (again). They are not there yet and we see mostly bad moves at the moment. Acquiring Bricklink is more a defensive measure than part of LEGO reinvention. We think that acquiring LEGO is about acquiring data more than anything else. And of course they want to increase the AFOL share of their turnover as well, to cover for the turnover loss in the kids section.

    Is this bad for Bricklink?
    In short term probably not much will change.
    But… in general, it won’t be an advantage for Bricklink to have LEGO as mother company. LEGO will mostly be interested to get data out of Bricklink and not so much invest in it. And it remains to be seen what LEGO will do with the data. In our experience the LEGO company is, below their social top part, much less “friendly” than its products.

    It’s also interesting to peel down what part of Bricklink LEGO would invest in, in case they would. It’s certainly not in LEGO’s interest to support or increase the sales part in new sets, since that bypasses their strongly controlled and regionally oriented sales chain. Selling second hand LEGO can canibalize LEGO core business, so it wouldn’t make sense for LEGO to invest in that either. They already have LEGO Ideas to tap into the MOC design world and to be frank that’s a nicer platform than the Bricklink MOC part. The only part of Bricklink that could be useful to LEGO is it’s role of distributing parts to the AFOL community. So there it could be an advantage. Maybe.

  8. Jeroen Nieuwenhuisen says:

    I wholeheartedly agree. I’m afraid they will put a ban on all the licensed parts.
    Furthermore I think
    LEGO doesn’t need or want a second online shop and it sure doesn’t need a secondhand brick shop that cuts their profit for their overpriced new sets.

    This is a terrible development wrapped in a shiny gift paper by the BrickLink team.

    I’m sad.

    • Jay says:

      It’s already happened, with the purge of Brickarms from Bricklink. Chromed parts are probably next and who knows what.

      LEGO definitely doesn’t need the measly profit from Bricklink, and knowing how takeovers happen, they’ll surely want to invest a ton of money into it, so it probably won’t remain profitable for years to come.

      Look, I think it’s brilliant for the Bricklink team – they ran it as a business, and exiting by selling to a massive multinational is one of the best outcomes out there.

  9. Tobias says:

    Didn’t they say on an interview that they don’t plan on changing BrickLink in any way? So what exactly are the concerns?

    • Jay says:

      That’s unfortunately corporate-speak for we don’t have a solid plan yet, and until we do, we don’t want the entire community to flee.

      For what it’s worth, I don’t expect anything to change apart from updated Terms & Conditions and legal agreements that they probably want sellers and customers to agree to in the first 6 months.

      We’ll probably only really learn LEGO’s true intention or vision for the acquisition in about 12 months or more.

  10. Helen says:

    I am concerned that it is to decimate the second hand market so people will have to buy new. I have never sold a single set but I am able to justify spending huge sums on new Lego knowing I can sell it at break even it little loss if I ever need to. I will honestly rethink whether I buy lego at all if it does not hold it value

    • Jay says:

      That’s my concern as well. I mean, it won’t ever remove the secondhand market as eBay and Facebook marketplace are still massive, but I feel like the practice of parting out sets doesn’t quite line up with LEGO’s goals.

      The lack of clarity and direction is what is making people nervous, but acquisitions take time so LEGO are still probably assessing Bricklink, and making plans on how they plan to integrate it into what they do.

      I have a feeling like they’ll slowly fold Bricklink into as a “Marketplace”, and with that comes many, many complications.

  11. Scott says:

    Think this is a huge market trend move. Kids are tough to hold on to with Roblox and collectibles eroding time/money spent on Lego type toys. They do need to go after adults. Agree completely on the concerns and I’ve really wondered if the licensed Lego model is smart to lean so heavily on. Need to diversify their mix some. Feel like they need to build a more creative brick outlet. At same time it would be amazing to get better value on individual bricks based on market rates.

    • Jay says:

      Yeah, adult-targeted sets are pretty much still the only area of growth for LEGO from what I can see/hear.

      LEGO is marketed as a premium toy, and they make the most margins from sets, not the sale of individual bricks. This may turn out to be great, and I’m happy to eat my words in the future, but for now, the lack of clarity is a little concerning.

  12. Mark says:

    I’m thinking that I better buy all the used parts/sets sooner rather than later!

    • Jay says:

      I think nothing will immediately change in the first six months (except for the removal of Brickarms which is a little sad), before we get an understanding of what LEGO wants to do with this.

  13. David says:

    I’m pretty shocked at how negatively this news is being received and I think it says a lot about LEGO’s broken relationship with AFOLs. I’m not sure what the cause of that is, but it’s a really off-putting aspect to the fan community. Look, it’s totally possible that all of this will go very wrong. But it seems equally likely that LEGO means what they say here. The fact that so many are assuming the worst — and some here in the comments are talking about walking away from their LEGO hobby as a result — just seems crazy.

    • Jay says:

      You raise some really good points. It’s mostly because Bricklink has been so essential to the AFOL experience, and LEGO has in many times demonstrated that they don’t always have the best interests of fans in mind (CNY sets, SDCC exclusives, overpriced sets with popular characters) so there is that sense of distrust.

      Bricklink was considered sacred and independent, so to many, the negative reaction is completely justified.

      I think LEGO should’ve communicated their intentions much more transparently, and the fact is that it’s still unknown why they bought Bricklink and until we know, most people will naturally feel quite apprehensive about this, given how left field this is.

  14. Yes, yes, and YES! Our boys are big Lego fans. When I saw the news, the day after I made a purchase on BrickLink, it made me feel all the feels.

    I don’t enjoy browsing BrickLink, it’s hard to shop, but this feels conflict of interest to me. I

    ‘ll take my used Lego shopping elsewhere and am glad to hear of BrickOwl.

    • Jay says:

      You know, one of the positives out of this is for maybe LEGO to invest into the user experience and usability of Bricklink, because it’s such a pain to navigate.

      I don’t think there’s any immediate need to switch to Bricklink just yet, but I’m definitely going to keep a very close eye on Brickowl.

  15. Greg says:

    HEADLINE……Disney buys LEGO…… personally I don’t think it’s a good situation.

    • Jay says:

      Nah, Disney makes too much money licensing their content/IP/assets out to other partners to get into the toy business themselves.

      That said, if Disney were to buy another massive company or brand, they’d probably have Nintendo or LEGO in their sights.

  16. Louis says:

    This move is bothering me and I had to think it through for the entire day before I could figure out why.

    On the face of it, the data explanation makes sense. Heck, I’d have been fine with Billund entering into a licensing arrangement with Bricklink.

    What I’m not fine with is a manufacturer dabbling in the aftermarket. Fans put all of this together, and have worked out by consensus what they are comfortable with. Billund isn’t a fan. They aren’t motivated by what AFOLs are. They will, perhaps with the best intent, blunder like a kaiju through Tokyo, never really aware of the problems they create at the ground level.

    • Jay says:

      Yeah, it’s bothering a lot of LEGO fans in all the online communities that I’m in, so you’re definitely not alone.

      “What I’m not fine with is a manufacturer dabbling in the aftermarket.”

      You’ve nailed it with this sentence, it’s so unprecedented and why I feel like a line has been crossed.

      Having observed LEGO’s machinations for more than a decade now… and witnessing what they’ve done to make the VIP program such a pain to use, my optimism isn’t particularly high.

  17. Jeannie says:

    That’s disappointing.

    Although, if you were to give Lego the benefit of the doubt of having a ‘good’ reason for buying it…. perhaps it was to protect it from other, worse, new owners. If it was on the market and going to be sold regardless, maybe Bricklink isn’t the competitor they are concerned about. Ideally all those valuable buying habits and opportunities would just stay in a nice safe afol environment. But if there is some financial value to the site there could be more dangerous, exploitative owners than Lego I’d imagine.
    Still I think it’s a shame and was sorry to read the news.

    • Jay says:

      That’s a really good point, that it’ be much better them than Lepin buying Bricklink. Can you imagine the irony?

      I’m really hoping that I’m just being overly cynical and pessimistic, and that LEGO puts people in charge of Bricklink that actually understand AFOLs and what the community actually needs.

      Only time will tell I guess but LEGO’s track record doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence.

  18. Legolescu says:

    Personally I was expected this after Lego give the Studio 2.0 for free to Bricklink. This way they infiltred the marketplace and have a true measure of it. The aquisition it is beside everthing the CEO of Lego or other persons envolve and it will declare, just to control everthing, the company in the last years become obsess about this. Remember the episode with Jang when they notify him to take down a review to a set, which was buy from him from a store, but wasn’t oficial release. Ovious they don’t like other publicity or other market direction that their self. They will stop selling of new sets and other exclusive area sets.

    • Jay says:

      Did they give Studio 2.0 for free? I didn’t really know that!

      Jang and LEGO have a really strange relationship, which I find really fascinating. But yeah, it’s all about control, which doesn’t bode well for LEGO fans.

  19. Peter says:

    I’m seeing in Lego’s statement “evolve the digital studio”. Does this mean will become the replacement for LDD?

    Although one would think an upgrade to LDD would be cheaper than buying a whole new product?!

    I, personally, prefer LDD, so hopefully…. No change!

    • Jay says:

      That could likely be it, OR they just want to improve it. LEGO has access to tremendous resources and money, so hopefully this means improving performance and making it more user friendly.

      I must say, I don’t know much about the intricacies of LDD and even, so I don’t feel qualified to talk about it, but who knows, maybe they’ll find a way to merge the two.

  20. J.d theunknownlegofan says:

    I agree. I don’t think think that lego should be owning bricklink.
    I do hope though that they will make it were you pay on the site, because I always thought it was annoying having to make the order and then have to wait for an invoice to come via E-mail so that you can pay.
    Also I think what will happen is there will start to be more restrictions on the studio gallery on what you can post. Life-size guns for example (I’ve seen a lot of them in the gallery) I think would get banned with a company like Lego taking over.

    • Jay says:

      Yeah, tighter integration would be great. Maybe even the opportunity to earn VIP points with purchases? Haha.

      They’ll definitely exercise tighter controls, and continue the purge, much like what they did with Brickarms.

  21. Maybe they want to buy Bricklinks’ marketing and on line prowess.

  22. Monty says:

    I have absolutely no issue with it. The fact is that as a consumer I can buy and sell anywhere. Bricklink just happens to be a well established site, with over 10,000 “stores”.

    However, there are alternatives already out there, BrickOwl for instance.

    If Lego change anything too much, then people will just change their buying habits and Lego will lose whatever they paid for the site. So it is in their best interests to simply allow the core business to run as it is.

    The profit they make from Bricklink will be negligible compared to their core business, so money or trying to outbuy the Mum’s and Dad’s running their stores is definitely not part of their agenda.

    Nor can they set ceiling prices, which I am sure people will want them to do. “Oh, look Lego this set XY was retired 3 years ago and this person is trying to sell it for 4X the price”, as that would upset Market forces and people will sell elsewhere. Nor will they be able to police the quality and of the items sold, as there are around 10,000 stores. So they need to make it clear what they can and cannot do, as people love to complain, in their terms and conditions.

    Honestly, I think they recognize that AFOL’s are a big market, and they can get data from the store and then focus on products that are of an interest to that group that they may be currently missing out on.

    I don’t think there is anything ominous about this at all and am amused people are seeing it this way. At the end of the day, Bricklink is just a site, and it can be replicated, and people can move their stores or change their buying habits. But what an opportunity for new sets that people want.

    The core business comment is also a bit weird. Lego were rubbish as running Lego Amusement Parks, so they sold that off. I think seeing Bricklink as too far outside their core business is a bit of a stretch. We have no idea how many of the current staff will migrate to Lego, so those observations seem a little pie in the sky to me as at this time. If you hire people who have been running the business and know what they are doing, then no-one including Jung-Ju “Jay” Kim and perhaps all the current volunteer administrators on the site will now receive some remuneration.

    I personally think it is fine.

    • Anthony Christian says:

      and it maybe nice if Lego promotes the Bricklink site to raise awareness of it.

    • I’m an AFOL, frequent buyer (and surfer), as well as a aseller. And I’m not bothered much by the fact of the purchase either.
      Keep in mind that people in general don’t trust corporations and love to rant online. So all this forecasted negativity is just what the comments section is for.
      I love BrickLink but it has numerous issues, from old clunky UI (even after the recent modernization) and non-existent customer support. If there is an issue with your order and the seller isn’t willing to address it – good luck! That’s all you’ve got there.
      If Lego will start spending money on the customer service – that alone would make the whole thing being worth it.
      On other hand if Lego will try to mess up with the used sets and parts market (in a bad way like price and availability manipulations) this would likely mean the end for both Lego, BrickLink, and the AFOL movement as we know them today.

    • Jay says:

      Hey Monty, thanks for sharing your detailed thoughts!

      I totally agree, that if they change too much, too dramatically, they’ll just send people towards alternatives like BrickOwl.

      The amusement park comment is quite funny, as they were so bad at running it that they had to sell the rights to Merlin, only to buy Merlin Entertainments this year. This certainly seems a bit left of centre and totally unexpected from most quarters, me included.

      I think, a lot of worry stems from the fact that LEGO hasn’t particularly communicated their intentions about this acquisition, and what their long-term vision is beyond platitudes like “getting more connected with AFOLs”.

      I naturally lean quite pessimistic and cynical, hence my apprehension of LEGO’s move, but again, I really hope that this turns good and that I’m proven dramatically wrong 🙂

  23. Mark says:

    Yup, I’m out. Lego is over stepping here, they clearly just want to control another facet. I buy and sell on Bricklink (completely as a hobby), so I’ll taking my pieces and my money to an independent marketplace.

    Mind you, this is one of the least surprising acquisitions. After the AFOL kits, and Lego’s involvement, I was a bit suspicious.

    Anyway, this is a bad day for AFOLs, I don’t think there’s anyone out there who will be supportive of this. Thankfully, this is just a hobby for us, so I’ll be walking away until the dust settles.

  24. Ben says:

    Totally agree and users of bricklink are smart, they’ll just migrate to another site eventually, it may get fragmented in the short term though. Old companies like Lego suck at e-commerce when they try, they’re not eBay.

    • Jay says:

      Nailed it with bad in E-Commerce. I also doubt they have the right talent internally to steer it towards a brighter future. And talent like that is hard to find or extremely expensive.

  25. Mark says:

    I totally agree with all that you said above. I suspect most AFOLs who are active in the Bricklink community are very nervous right now. When TLG Chief Marketing Officer (who you can always trust) was asked the simple question do you plan to make changes to Bricklink she responded there are no immediate plans. In the next breathe she said “of course we plan to improve it”. Hmmm, right…

    • Jay says:

      No immediate plans pretty much translates to “we’re working on the plan, but at the same time, we don’t want people to abandon us”.

      We’ll probably get a clearer idea of LEGO’s long term objectives in 6-12 months when they finish integrating Bricklink into the LEGO “System”.

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 5,406 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