Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Teup  | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 05:10 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.
There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.
|
I agree completely. If I want to buy, for example, ~30 blasters (to replace
the stud-shooters in Battlepacks), and I can only buy them in batches of 5-10
at a certain store, I will purchase them from a store with no lot-limits,
and will not make three (or more) orders from the store with limits.
Aside from driving away buyers (particularly new buyers, large-scale MOC-ers,
and army-builders), there is the potential for abuse of such a system. If a store
sets a minimum-buy, then sets low lot-limits, it could possibly force buyers
to purchase numerous items that they do not need/want (to raise the price of
each cart), in order to be able to buy what they do want (and in the desired
quantities). While in most cases, such a scenario as described above would simply
drive the buyer away, but, when the items in question are rare, buyers may have
no choice other than to be gouged, if they want the aforementioned items.
|
You are free to buy wherever you like and if a seller does not find buyers because they don't offer enough, they know they need to buy more or make more available.
|
Though you say it in disagreement, this is actually what I said (that I would
just buy what I want from a store without lot-limits, and that those with
limits will lose buyers). Additionally, your suggested solution seems to run
counter to the stated purpose of increasing a store's sales (as it
essentially proposes that stores revert to the current system - In which case,
why make a significant change to the system?).
| | The scenario where it's part of a bad mix with features is as much a complaint about those other features as it is about this one. Minimum order is also a fine feature which by itself already 'forces' you to buy things you don't need.
|
While you are correct that I dislike minimum-buys (and I already avoid stores
with ones that are unreasonably high), I can usually bump the price up by purchasing,
say, six Stormtroopers, instead of five. If there is a five-lot-limit on Stormtroopers,
however, I would need to find an additional $4-5 item (that I may not need) to
raise the price of the cart. Minimum-buys are already fairly common, so adding
lot-limits on top will just hurt stores that have them even more.
| | This is really not any different from me shopping for Star Wars minifigs and a store having only some of them while some others they are keeping in their stockroom and are not available to me.
|
It, to me, is more like going into a store and finding piles of (40299) (the
Kessel Mine Worker), but only being able to buy them in batches of two, having
to go out of the store and come back in in order to buy more, and having to buy
a CMF or two each time (representing shipping/fees/etc).
| | I think that's an extremely common situation, and I don't see why keeping part of a lot in stockroom is that fundamentally different from keeping some lots in stockroom and offering others.
|
The difference is this: If am browsing through a store and see only five of a
piece that I want (but in a higher quantity), I may buy all five. If I am browsing
through a store and see 400 of that same piece, but I can only buy five,
I will probably not buy any. I recognise that this may seem illogical,
but (to me, at least), it is a psychological difference between seeing what I
can have, and seeing what I could have, if not for an imposed restriction.
This results in frustration, similar to that regarding one-per-box CMFs (particularly
Percival Graves); LEGO could include more, but they choose to create
artificial scarcity. Lot-limits are, in my view, much the same.
| | You should consider not just the side where you do not find the 30 blasters. You should also consider the side where you do find the 30 blasters because a reseller or another big guy was unable to buy all 6948 of them. They can be cheaper without being instantly gone.
|
In the case of the 6948 blasters, the problem could be solved within the confines
of the current system, by simply listing the blasters in batches of 60 at any
given time. This prevents the mass-buyout that you fear, but also does not drive
buyers away (or to frustration) by limiting the blasters to, for example, ten-per-order.
| | To you this is not visible, but I lose some lots that I could have served many buyers with to their full satisfaction.
|
I do understand and appreciate that this side of the issue exists, and I am not
trying to negate it. I am simply trying to bring the concerns of a buyer
to the table, as nearly all who have commented on (and supported) this proposal
are sellers, so that all perspectives can be examined before making a
significant change to the purchasing system.
|
So I guess alot of the concern is remedied if what's left in stock really
is invisible. That way, you can hardly blame a store for not selling it any more
than you can blame a small store for not being large 
What I meant to say was, I think there's no need to worry lots will suddenly
become small. It's a tradeoff to the seller, because big lots really sell
better. He will have to find the sweet spot of having ample parts available while
sheltering them from large scale buy-outs. I'm thinking more in terms of
thousands, or perhaps Voldemorts that I want to sell individually and not all
10 at once. For some things there's this tipping point where either you are
stuck with them or they are all bought instantly.
But really, nobody understands the value of being able to offer large lots more
than I do. I'm the guy who parted out 20 Ninjago cities just for that purpose.
Spent all my savings just to get big lots 
|
 |
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 05:02 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
|
The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.
|
No, it should not be visible anywhere, just like a stockroom items is not visible.
If I have a lot of 5000 but limit it to 500 per buyer, it should show as a 500
size lot everywhere on Bricklink.
I intended it as a more automated version of the current way to do the same thing,
listing 500, switching on "retain" and writing "4500 left" in the remarks.
I agree it would be annoying to see things you couldn't buy.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 04:59 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Geniac writes:
| | In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | ...to bar the effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
I have no desire to bar anybody from buying as much of my inventory at once as
they want. I'm here to sell Lego. If somebody wants to buy all I have of
a part, that's fine with me.
Shaun
|
So you leave the field 0
|
| Author: | Geniac | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 23:40 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | ...to bar the effect of buyers blowing sudden holes in your inventory.
|
I have no desire to bar anybody from buying as much of my inventory at once as
they want. I'm here to sell Lego. If somebody wants to buy all I have of
a part, that's fine with me.
Shaun
|
| Author: | leopard37 | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 22:42 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Voted no,
You are here to sell items no? If someone from China can make money on your part
with shipping. Let them, TLG has made their cut, you make yours, than let them
make theirs.
You've already said there is a way of doing it with the remarks and retain,
do it...
Tyson.
|
|
| Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 21:46 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
|
The full quantity of a given item would not be visible on the item's Catalog
entry, but would it be visible on the item's entry in the store? It
is my understanding that it would, hence my concerns.
|
|
| Author: | DeLuca | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 21:41 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.
There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.
|
I agree completely. If I want to buy, for example, ~30 blasters (to replace
the stud-shooters in Battlepacks), and I can only buy them in batches of 5-10
at a certain store, I will purchase them from a store with no lot-limits,
and will not make three (or more) orders from the store with limits.
Aside from driving away buyers (particularly new buyers, large-scale MOC-ers,
and army-builders), there is the potential for abuse of such a system. If a store
sets a minimum-buy, then sets low lot-limits, it could possibly force buyers
to purchase numerous items that they do not need/want (to raise the price of
each cart), in order to be able to buy what they do want (and in the desired
quantities). While in most cases, such a scenario as described above would simply
drive the buyer away, but, when the items in question are rare, buyers may have
no choice other than to be gouged, if they want the aforementioned items.
|
You are free to buy wherever you like and if a seller does not find buyers because they don't offer enough, they know they need to buy more or make more available.
|
Though you say it in disagreement, this is actually what I said (that I would
just buy what I want from a store without lot-limits, and that those with
limits will lose buyers). Additionally, your suggested solution seems to run
counter to the stated purpose of increasing a store's sales (as it
essentially proposes that stores revert to the current system - In which case,
why make a significant change to the system?).
| | The scenario where it's part of a bad mix with features is as much a complaint about those other features as it is about this one. Minimum order is also a fine feature which by itself already 'forces' you to buy things you don't need.
|
While you are correct that I dislike minimum-buys (and I already avoid stores
with ones that are unreasonably high), I can usually bump the price up by purchasing,
say, six Stormtroopers, instead of five. If there is a five-lot-limit on Stormtroopers,
however, I would need to find an additional $4-5 item (that I may not need) to
raise the price of the cart. Minimum-buys are already fairly common, so adding
lot-limits on top will just hurt stores that have them even more.
| | This is really not any different from me shopping for Star Wars minifigs and a store having only some of them while some others they are keeping in their stockroom and are not available to me.
|
It, to me, is more like going into a store and finding piles of (40299) (the
Kessel Mine Worker), but only being able to buy them in batches of two, having
to go out of the store and come back in in order to buy more, and having to buy
a CMF or two each time (representing shipping/fees/etc).
| | I think that's an extremely common situation, and I don't see why keeping part of a lot in stockroom is that fundamentally different from keeping some lots in stockroom and offering others.
|
The difference is this: If am browsing through a store and see only five of a
piece that I want (but in a higher quantity), I may buy all five. If I am browsing
through a store and see 400 of that same piece, but I can only buy five,
I will probably not buy any. I recognise that this may seem illogical,
but (to me, at least), it is a psychological difference between seeing what I
can have, and seeing what I could have, if not for an imposed restriction.
This results in frustration, similar to that regarding one-per-box CMFs (particularly
Percival Graves); LEGO could include more, but they choose to create
artificial scarcity. Lot-limits are, in my view, much the same.
| | You should consider not just the side where you do not find the 30 blasters. You should also consider the side where you do find the 30 blasters because a reseller or another big guy was unable to buy all 6948 of them. They can be cheaper without being instantly gone.
|
In the case of the 6948 blasters, the problem could be solved within the confines
of the current system, by simply listing the blasters in batches of 60 at any
given time. This prevents the mass-buyout that you fear, but also does not drive
buyers away (or to frustration) by limiting the blasters to, for example, ten-per-order.
| | To you this is not visible, but I lose some lots that I could have served many buyers with to their full satisfaction.
|
I do understand and appreciate that this side of the issue exists, and I am not
trying to negate it. I am simply trying to bring the concerns of a buyer
to the table, as nearly all who have commented on (and supported) this proposal
are sellers, so that all perspectives can be examined before making a
significant change to the purchasing system.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 20:42 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, danielclark writes:
| | I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
I agree, you should not see it. It would work exactly the same as the stockroom
currently works: You don't see what's back there that you cannot order.
The shop simply appears as a smaller shop, so yes, they will pay for it by showing
further down the highest quantity list just like you say. The seller can't
eat the cake and have it too
|
|
| Author: | danielclark | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 20:36 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| I'd be less inclined to shop in a store that restricts how much of an item
I could buy, especially if I could see they had more. When I search for parts
it's by highest quantity for my most desired elements. If a store is going
to retain some inventory then it's going to show further down on that list.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 20:15 | | Subject: | Re: New parameter for lots: max per buyer | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, DeLuca writes:
| | In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:
| | This would not give you more buyers. If anything it will turn away buyers.
There are no buyers out there specifically looking for sellers who limit what
they can buy. On the other hand, there may be buyers out there who want to buy
more than your max. I see no possible upside.
|
I agree completely. If I want to buy, for example, ~30 blasters (to replace
the stud-shooters in Battlepacks), and I can only buy them in batches of 5-10
at a certain store, I will purchase them from a store with no lot-limits,
and will not make three (or more) orders from the store with limits.
Aside from driving away buyers (particularly new buyers, large-scale MOC-ers,
and army-builders), there is the potential for abuse of such a system. If a store
sets a minimum-buy, then sets low lot-limits, it could possibly force buyers
to purchase numerous items that they do not need/want (to raise the price of
each cart), in order to be able to buy what they do want (and in the desired
quantities). While in most cases, such a scenario as described above would simply
drive the buyer away, but, when the items in question are rare, buyers may have
no choice other than to be gouged, if they want the aforementioned items.
|
You're making it sound like this option will force you to do certain things,
but that's not the case at all. You are free to buy wherever you like and
if a seller does not find buyers because they don't offer enough, they know
they need to buy more or make more available. The scenario where it's part
of a bad mix with features is as much a complaint about those other features
as it is about this one. Minimum order is also a fine feature which by itself
already 'forces' you to buy things you don't need.
This is really not any different from me shopping for Star Wars minifigs and
a store having only some of them while some others they are keeping in their
stockroom and are not available to me. I think that's an extremely common
situation, and I don't see why keeping part of a lot in stockroom
is that fundamentally different from keeping some lots in stockroom and offering
others.
You should consider not just the side where you do not find the 30 blasters.
You should also consider the side where you do find the 30 blasters because
a reseller or another big guy was unable to buy all 6948 of them. They can be
cheaper without being instantly gone. To you this is not visible, but I lose
some lots that I could have served many buyers with to their full satisfaction.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
