So long as B was able to purchase during the retail lifetime of the product (and they are not all purchased by resellers to corner the market), I doubt lego actually care whether they get the money from A or B.nhyone said:A buys a set from TLG for $100. B buys it from him for $200 in the secondary market. A then buys another set from TLG again for $100 to repeat the cycle.
I'm sure TLG would rather get the whole $200 from B.
Soon the world will come full circle and realise that what kids need is what used to be called a broad education. Add languages, and we can have a METALS programme.tamamahm said:It is also why some places focus on STEAM instead of STEM, due to the recognition that the creativity of the arts is truly becoming more and more an important aspects of these fields, and a primary differentiator in products.
I don't think they have publicly banned anyone, it tends to be private. And no, I don't think they do dislike resellers. They dislike some resellers, the ones that tend to buy large amounts of current stock to profit from it at certain pinch points such as Xmas (as in the minecraft saga), when they get complaints that current sets are not available but are on ebay. I don't think they care about resellers of stock they are wanting to get rid of at the end of its retail life.Hanzo said:It was my understanding Lego publicly dislikes resellers, even to the point of banning them from ordering on S@H. That not true?
Yes, that is the argument that you pay a premium for this brand, as it has great resale value down the line. While LEGO may not actually state this, they know it is true and is probably one of the reasons they charge such high prices.ryjay said:
Cars were often, and still are, purchase based on resale value in the secondary market. Car makers benefit from this...heck, sale people even use that as a selling feature when trying to make a sale at the dealership, yet receive no money off of the resale.