An Open Letter to The LEGO Group: SDCC Exclusive Minifigures

[Paul Boratko]

Hasbro has had GI Joe SDCC exclusives in the past on their website shortly after SDCC.

Mattel and Hasbro both offer their exclusives after the SDCC on their website.

NECA has already sold their SDCC figures twice online this week.

A lot of these companies even offer preorders for their con exclusives.

Not for every SDCC release they haven't.. The carded figures were only avaiulable at the Con... Last year they had their final SDCC Gi Joe/Transformers crossover set on their site and it was sold out in about 30 minutes...

By the time anyone found out about it, it was already too late.. They never made anymore despite the demand for them... From what I was told they only sell them if there are extra to sell...If not, then get ready to pay...

[agoodfella77]

Now this is some Grade A+ corporate shilling.

It can certainly appear that way.

All those other companies make their exclusive available to order outside of the con.

That, again, is an excellent solution (I might add that as an edit to my original proposal). [EDIT: added]

You are willfully putting your own life in the hands of a toy company that is under no obligation to accept your demands. Making the choice to try and collect a certian thing shouldn't mean giving up the choice to alter your goals according to the circumstances.

But you shouldn't confuse that want for a need, no matter how strong it might be.

I respect your decision to make your opinion clear, and I appreciate that you were so civil in your reply. I think we are both a little bit frustrated by the way this issue divides the community, but we simply have different explanations for how the problem should be solved (if it can be solved at all). You feel that the LEGO Group should make all minifigures and sets available to every fan who can afford the cost. I feel that fans should learn to admire and respect each other's collections without feeling like their own collections are made less valuable by the existence of items that are, through no fault of their own, not available to them. Collecting should be a fun hobby, not a burden, and when people treat a 100% complete collection as the only collection worth striving for, I feel they set themselves up for frustration and disappointment.

Yeah, I appreciate your comments -- they certainly have merit. There are some fundamental points where we can respectfully disagree. In the end it's a difference in philosophy really. In my view your approach is a much more passive one -- i.e. summarizing at the risk of making it seem to blunt, "it is what it is -- if you have a problem, it's more of a 'you' problem not 'they' problem."

What I am saying is that there can be and is a better way. A way that effectively achieves all of the goals that TLG wants (i.e. promotion, "buzz", etc.) AND give SDCC attendees a nice bonus (after all they are getting these figures gratis) AND satisfy the rest of the LEGO community (i.e. either release into sets much later or even an online system where they can buy it directly). Not to mention that this eliminates the scalpers from the equation and ensuing ridiculous secondary prices.

I think from a larger perspective, we can agree that it is a shame that this has become an issue which divides people rather than uniting them. I, for one, would much rather spend my time talking about builds, sets, ideas, themes, etc.

I don't believe his letter carries any sense of entitlement.

Thanks for reading it!

Edited July 25, 2014 by agoodfella

[KazeMonsuta]

I feel like this whole matter is getting out of hand.

Well, sometimes people want something. I'd like my own house. Some would just like this little plastic figure of a character they want to have their collection complete.

I don't know why everyone wants to defend any party in this. Some say something about: 'It's just plastic. Lego is not obliged to do anything for you. Grow up. You don't need it to live.'

While the others then have to counter: 'Well, but I'd just like to have it. Let me try to get it. One way or the other. I don't want to spend 400-800$ for a figure. I write a letter to the company, as I feel that this figure should be easier to obtain.'

People just want things. All are greedy in some way.

Some want a swimming pool. 'A huge bathtub full of water! Think about all that water you are wasting! You have to let go of some dreams!'

And others want that Justice League or the Guardians in plastic. 'Little figures in plastic! Think about the oil you are wasting! You have to let go of some dreams!'

Well let everyone try to get what they want! And if it is an open letter! And if it is with angry-filled messages in a forum that is known to be read by people that work at the company!

I would not like to be told over and over again to forget my dream about my own house to live in.

Nor would I tell anybody to just stop trying to get anything they want.

When you don't like people that like something, just ... keep it for youself, I guess. What does it give you other than self-fulfillment.

I hope nobody feels insulted by my post, but I just felt that the matter was going out of hand and that I may have some words to get things sorted.

That's something I wanted.

[BrickG]

I don't think I'm being greedy if I want a Bizzaro figure. Comparing a minifigure to wanting a hosue? What? Your whole post is pretty far reaching.

[agoodfella77]

I feel like this whole matter is getting out of hand.

Well, sometimes people want something. I'd like my own house. Some would just like this little plastic figure of a character they want to have their collection complete.

I don't know why everyone wants to defend any party in this. Some say something about: 'It's just plastic. Lego is not obliged to do anything for you. Grow up. You don't need it to live.'

While the others then have to counter: 'Well, but I'd just like to have it. Let me try to get it. One way or the other. I don't want to spend 400-800$ for a figure. I write a letter to the company, as I feel that this figure should be easier to obtain.'

People just want things. All are greedy in some way.

Some want a swimming pool. 'A huge bathtub full of water! Think about all that water you are wasting! You have to let go of some dreams!'

And others want that Justice League or the Guardians in plastic. 'Little figures in plastic! Think about the oil you are wasting! You have to let go of some dreams!'

Well let everyone try to get what they want! And if it is an open letter! And if it is with angry-filled messages in a forum that is known to be read by people that work at the company!

I would not like to be told over and over again to forget my dream about my own house to live in.

Nor would I tell anybody to just stop trying to get anything they want.

When you don't like people that like something, just ... keep it for youself, I guess. What does it give you other than self-fulfillment.

I hope nobody feels insulted by my post, but I just felt that the matter was going out of hand and that I may have some words to get things sorted.

That's something I wanted.

Thanks for your reply. I fully understand where you are coming from. But just like you said, some people are motivated by certain things and other people by other things.

I'm actually glad that my letter has helped spark an honest debate (on both sides). At the end of the day, my world is not going to end if I don't my hands on the latest SDCC fig -- of course that is silly.

Edited July 25, 2014 by agoodfella

[Hinckley]

I feel like this whole matter is getting out of hand.

Well, sometimes people want something. I'd like my own house. Some would just like this little plastic figure of a character they want to have their collection complete.

I don't know why everyone wants to defend any party in this. SNIP

I hope nobody feels insulted by my post, but I just felt that the matter was going out of hand and that I may have some words to get things sorted.

That's something I wanted.

A house and a pool are attainable with time and money. The point is there is no opportunity for most to get these figures. And yes, people want them and it's OK to want something, especially considering it's raised in a respectful tone. I disagree that anything in this topic has gotten out of hand, but the staff will intervene if it does.

[agoodfella77]

A house and a pool are attainable with time and money. The point is there is no opportunity for most to get these figures. And yes, people want them and it's OK to want something, especially considering it's raised in a respectful tone. I disagree that anything in this topic has gotten out of hand, but the staff will intervene if it does.

Agree. I think the debate / discussion has been quite civil so far (at least as far as internet discussion go!)

[merman]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SDCC-2014-Lego-Exclusive-THE-LEGO-MOVIE-Unikitty-Pre-Sale-RARE-/151366025146?pt=Building_Toys_US&hash=item233e1e3fba

Need I say more?

[Meatman]

http://www.ebay.com/...=item233e1e3fba

Need I say more?

Funny, some people are paying $399 buy-it-now while others are going for much less Anyone that pays $400 for something while the same items are selling for $200 less has got to be kicking themselves.

It's amazing what the SDCC stuff is bringing

Completed items. Look at all of that green

:laugh: :laugh: You just got to laugh.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Meatman

[Sir Brickalot]

I don't think I'm being greedy if I want a Bizzaro figure.

It's not greedy to want it, it's when people expect TLG to meet their desires just because they didn't get four pieces of plastic is when it becomes selfish. If I was lucky enough to attend Comic-Con, I'd hope to win a fig, but I wouldn't be overly upset if I didn't win.

Anyway, who's to say these won't be in future sets? Azog was.

[BrickG]

That's ridiculous. It's not selfish. That's a terrible and inaccurate thing to say. It's not selfish to wish that Lego wouldn't put exclusives out that are of people's favorite characters or important ones. The desire to collect your favorite characters at reasonable prices isn't selfish. If anything this act by Nintendo is exclusionary. They exclude a lot of people from being able to experience it by making it incredibly limited. They literally make something that is a tiny piece of plastic completely unobtainable by the majority of people via the limited numbers and limited areas it's being offered.

Is it selfish for a kid who doesn't live anywhere by these places to want a Spider Woman who will probably never been seen again? A simple want isn't selfish.

Selfishness is when someone lacks concern of others,

devoted

"devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare,etc., regardless of others.

characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself"

Selfishness

For it to be selfish I'd expect it would take away from others. Wanting the opportunity to collect these figures at a reasonable price isn't selfish because it doesn't negatively affect others in a negative way. Wanting a minifigure doesn't mean you only care about yourself or anything. You're completely exaggerating.

If anything it's selfish for people to get these only to sell on eBay. It's selfish to hoard them. It's selfish for Lego to use them as a marketing strategy to make some more $$$.

It's not at all an unreasonable request or wish that Lego make these available in some form elsewhere. Like if they were preview figures or a reasonable variant.

Selfishness... I don't know how anyone can call it that. Selfishness is stuff like having 3 cookies and 2 siblings and eating them all yourself. Not wishing for something that doesn't harm anyone for wishing for it. :/

Edited July 28, 2014 by BrickG

[Lyichir]

Selfishness... I don't know how anyone can call it that. Selfishness is stuff like having 3 cookies and 2 siblings and eating them all yourself. Not wishing for something that doesn't harm anyone for wishing for it. :/

Wishing for something is fine. Demanding it, or insisting you have a right to it as some people seem to be doing, is selfish. So is wishing these sorts of exclusives weren't offered at all because you were unable to get them (which, again, is a sentiment I've seen far too often). If Lego stopped offering exclusives it wouldn't automatically ensure obscure characters like Zur-En-Arrh Batman would appear in sets. Now, there is an argument to be made that certain characters should not necessarily be limited to exclusives. But I haven't seen a lot of that argument. Most of what I've seen is pleas for Lego to widely release past exclusives (which would basically render their description of them as exclusive a lie, and an expensive lie for those who waited in line for hours and spent large amounts for them), or to stop offering exclusives altogether (which would eliminate a lot of the good press Lego gets when they offer exclusives, as well as a lot of the interest their booth gets at the con itself).

[AncientDayz]

I really don't have much to add to this conversation except to say that I don't have a problem with exclusives at all. In fact, to expect a company to produce enough of something or a cheap enough version of something to meet your own expectations sort of falls into this whole entitlement culture that I see everywhere, especially with the younger generations.

If you think about it, everything is limited to certain extents. I would love to head to the Super Bowl or the World Series, but due to limited seating and ticket prices each year, I choose not to go. I can't blame them for not producing enough seats or cheap enough seats. I would love a Picasso, but there are only so many in existence, and I'm not going pay for one. I guess my "want" is not enough. In fact, the limitations are what makes a lot of these items (arguably) more desirable and/or valuable. Our family had a '67 Camaro SS; while I love the car, the fact that I don't see it on every street corner increases the specialness of the car, but if I didn't have one, I can't blame Chevy.

Anyway, I know we are talking toys, but I guess that's why I find any "demand" even more silly. So a few lucky people get an exclusive. Good for them! I wish I had the batmobile, but my "want" isn't strong enough to pay the expected price right now. However, that's my issue, not TLG's. In fact, I congratulate them on drumming up desire, conversations, interest, etc. That's good marketing (despite the few that are offended, but let's be honest: that can happen with anything. ex. The Friends Sets).

Now, if we turn this conversation to "needs" like food and shelter, perhaps I could change some of my thoughts. However, for a "want," I don't see the point of anyone demanding or being mad at TLG for an exclusive. They are a business; it's not their job to fulfill every expectation.

One final note (just to be clear): I don't see any problem with expressing your desires to a company. Maybe they will change their mind. If they do, good for you (not sarcasm)! I just find an expectation, or any anger, or a demand to be a bit silly and over the line.

Anyway, back to building my Sea Cow... :)

[agoodfella77]

I encourage everyone who wants TLG to review and take action regarding the SDCC Exclusive system, to write them.

I have. If you agree, then you should to. Go and do so now. If you can take enough time to read or post in this thread and you agree that something should be done -- then do something about it. And it won't cost you anything but a little bit of time. Tell your friends. Let your voice be heard. Collectively, we can make a difference.

If TLG simply reviewed some or any of the solutions I proposed at the beginning of this Open Letter, TLG will see that there is a better way, and everyone can "win" -- and we can reduce (if not eliminate) the unintended consequences of this system (i.e. scalpers and astronomical prices in the secondary market and, subsequently, angry customers).

Edited July 30, 2014 by agoodfella

[MAB]

And what is your opinion about this latest development:

http://imgur.com/a/3yVmX

If it is theft and not just a prank to wind up people on the internet, then it is theft. It is not sanctioned by lego. It is no different to someone breaking into a collector's house and stealing their minifigs, whether they were affordable or not. That is not down to Lego.

Edited July 30, 2014 by MAB

[agoodfella77]

If it is theft and not just a prank to wind up people on the internet, then it is theft. It is not sanctioned by lego. It is no different to someone breaking into a collector's house and stealing their minifigs, whether they were affordable or not. That is not down to Lego.

Totally disagree. Who is responsible for creating this artificial supply / demand? If TLG released these exclusives into general release (even if a year or two or several later) it would go a long way to reducing or eliminating the profit motive sought by scalpers. Period. It's economics 101 at its very basic level.

[MAB]

Yes, and lego have gone past basic level economics in making decisions about these. Letting everyone have everything they want at the price they want it is not always good economics.

I don't have a clue of the finances of SDCC, and what lego pays for the stands. But I do know a large number of people attend conventions to get their hands on exclusives like this, sometimes for resale, sometimes for themselves. By offering exclusives lego gets punters in through the doors, that is, ticket sales. No doubt they have an agreement with the convention organisers that if they give away things that gets the punters in, then their advertising / stall rates will be reduced. These sort of figures will be very little value to them in the numbers they are produced, but no doubt give them a large break on advertising costs. I assume the break on advertising costs is more than the costs to produce the figures. They clearly don't want to give every freebie away to every attendee as that would be significantly more expensive, so there has to be a penalty to getting the figure (waiting three hours in line, for example). Having perceived high value freebies also partly justifies the ticket costs of the convention.

Should they give up those sort of deals, so that everyone can get the minifigs they feel they should be entitled to in a regular set?

Edited July 30, 2014 by MAB

[The Joker1]

To be honest chaps, i have given up on lego being nice to us. I may write a letter to the manager of Decool asking him to do the collector and anyone else we want. As for the B*****d who stole all those figures, He works for Stan lee as a PA so i have used some methods at my disposal to contact him via all his social messaging accounts with a few choice words and a little reminder of the law.

[tedbeard]

The easiest solution is actually to stop setting unreasonable goals for your own collection.

This should end this whole stupid discussion. Get over your entitlement issues and enjoy what you do have.

[agoodfella77]

This should end this whole stupid discussion. Get over your entitlement issues and enjoy what you do have.

What an insightful comment.

Yes, and lego have gone past basic level economics in making decisions about these. Letting everyone have everything they want at the price they want it is not always good economics.

I don't have a clue of the finances of SDCC, and what lego pays for the stands. But I do know a large number of people attend conventions to get their hands on exclusives like this, sometimes for resale, sometimes for themselves. By offering exclusives lego gets punters in through the doors, that is, ticket sales. No doubt they have an agreement with the convention organisers that if they give away things that gets the punters in, then their advertising / stall rates will be reduced. These sort of figures will be very little value to them in the numbers they are produced, but no doubt give them a large break on advertising costs. I assume the break on advertising costs is more than the costs to produce the figures. They clearly don't want to give every freebie away to every attendee as that would be significantly more expensive, so there has to be a penalty to getting the figure (waiting three hours in line, for example). Having perceived high value freebies also partly justifies the ticket costs of the convention.

Should they give up those sort of deals, so that everyone can get the minifigs they feel they should be entitled to in a regular set?

We are going around in circles. I guess we have to agree to disagree. I understand your point. But mine is simply that it is absolutely possible to satisfy both sides here and create a win / win.

Edited July 30, 2014 by agoodfella

[Sir Brickalot]

That's ridiculous. It's not selfish. That's a terrible and inaccurate thing to say. It's not selfish to wish that Lego wouldn't put exclusives out that are of people's favorite characters or important ones. The desire to collect your favorite characters at reasonable prices isn't selfish.

You're right in the sense that wishing for it is not selfish, but as I said, it becomes selfish when people expect TLG to cancel their giveaways at SDCC just because they think they are entitled. Don't you think the people who have to fly over to San Diego on long flights that cost a lot of money deserve something special when they arrive? They sacrifice money and time to attend SDCC, so I think it's only fair if they receive something to treasure for years to come. So no, I do not believe that calling it selfish is 'terrible and inaccurate'. Edited July 30, 2014 by Sir Brickalot

[dr_spock]

You're right in the sense that wishing for it is not selfish, but as I said, it becomes selfish when people expect TLG to cancel their giveaways at SDCC just because they think they are entitled. Don't you think the people who have to fly over to San Diego on long flights that cost a lot of money deserve something special when they arrive? They sacrifice money and time to attend SDCC, so I think it's only fair if they receive something to treasure for years to come. So no, I do not believe that calling it selfish is 'terrible and inaccurate'.

Or something to sell to recoup some of the costs to attend SDCC if you aren't interested in keeping the convention handouts and special figs/sets.

[Faefrost]

To be honest chaps, i have given up on lego being nice to us. I may write a letter to the manager of Decool asking him to do the collector and anyone else we want. As for the B*****d who stole all those figures, He works for Stan lee as a PA so i have used some methods at my disposal to contact him via all his social messaging accounts with a few choice words and a little reminder of the law.

So let me see if I have this straight? Based on a picture that in no way indicates any actual illegality beyond the fact that this guy has something that you don't, you have;

A. Contacted a shady manufacturer that does in fact routinely engage in actual illegality in order to further perform said illegality for you.

B. Cyber stalked, and harassed the individual and threatened his apparent legitimate employment and livelihood.

C. Proclaimed him as a heinous thief to the general Internet and identified his employer by name.

Well done! The fact that you cannot see the ethical if not legal implications in all of this is simply breathtaking!

The chances are you have now inserted yourself and meddled in this poor mans life because he simply did his publicly stated job well and efficiently and was rewarded for such by Lego's advanced team for helping them get their booth squared away. He was bribed or tipped if you prefer with marketing swag by the marketing people. This is a normal course of affairs for trade conventions. It is not illegal. It isn't even really that unethical unless convention center extortion is involved. These Minifigs are not product. They are not merchandise. They are created by the Lego marketing department as show Swag. Give away tchotchkes. As long as this guy did not in fact physically steal a case from the show floor (which we have not seen any indications of, and if he did he was the dumbest crook in history) than the matter is between him, and the people he provided a service for. (And yes having someone grease the wheels at a convention is a service that otherwise can cost thousands in grease.) As long as Lego gave out whatever amount of items they promised at the show, how many beyond that exist, and how they are used for discretionary purposes is really none of our business.

Understand, writing TLG to express fan displeasure with the nature or mechanisms of their trade show exclusives is one thing. Personally I agree that it is an idiotic practice that does Lego more harm than good. Much the same as the vendors that show restricted comic con only footage or trailers. That benefits comic con. Not ?Lego or the movie company. But what you did really crosses some far far worse ethical lines. You sought or may have brought Internet Justice down on the head of a guy who probably just put in a very hard weeks work pre convention and was rewarded for it. Your jealousy does not equate to any proof of crime or wrongdoing on his part. Nor does your sense of entitlement give you any license to act.

And just to brighten your day a little bit. You have harassed this guy and publicly called him a thief. Your avatar says you are from England. Have you ever looked at your own countries libel and slander laws, should he choose to take some action? Let's just say they leave you in a very very bad place unless you have some concrete evidence of a crime the rest of us don't have. But by all means. Carry on with the web justice.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Faefrost

[The Joker1]

^have you completely missed the news going around about this guy, Before the link was taken away he was bragging how he had STOLEN, many thousands of pounds worth of figures. All i did was track him down and made gave him an internet nudge to get him to consider his actions a little more carefully. Your argument is so crap im just going to leave it with this, If you want to let these things pass you by then fine, but i personally made some effort to set the track right. good night

[Quisoves Pugnat]

Totally disagree. Who is responsible for creating this artificial supply / demand? If TLG released these exclusives into general release (even if a year or two or several later) it would go a long way to reducing or eliminating the profit motive sought by scalpers. Period. It's economics 101 at its very basic level.

But who is responsible for deciding to purchase from said "scalpers?" LEGO fans are not beholden to them, nor are minifgures a necessity of life. If a person decides to pay an exorbitant price for a minifigure, then he has made his own choice. LEGO should not be held accountable for his spending practices.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Quisoves Pugnat