a) LEGO is already producing sets based on the Cuusoo, so what the customers are asking for through this avenue isn't entirely ignored. b) There has to be at least some avenue for LEGO to decline producing sets that the customers want. It's a slippery slope argument, but there is the problem of the Lego Cock-n-balls possibly going through the Cuusoo process and getting enough votes. You can't really force LEGO to produce such a set. c) You can't slap on some other label as there are certain copyright and licensing issues. Even if you obtain the license, most certainly part of the license will be that the product is properly labelled as licensed and with the proper naming.
I do agree though that the Serenity shouldn't have fallen to the decision of the LEGO company.
a) Not entirely ignored, but still not completely satisfied. b) Why not make a LEGO cock-n-balls? I'm serious. It would be hilarious! A lot of people would buy it as a joke, or even for serious. LEGO would get all kinds of goodwill from producing it. c) I'm not saying to put Playmobil on it. They can make up some new brand. Call it Cusoo without calling it LEGO.
Sure, we can't, but LEGO can put whatever label they like on it.
No, LEGO can't either. If they produce the set without properly obtaining the license from the people who hold the rights to the Firefly IP, they will get a copyright infringement suit. If they do obtain the license, part of the license will almost certainly be that the product must be properly labeled as the Serenity from the TV show Firefly. And if LEGO doesn't do it, they will be sued for breaking the license agreement. At the same time I doubt that the rights-holder will agree to provide the license to anything other than the estalbished LEGO brand.
b) Why not make a LEGO cock-n-balls? I'm serious. It would be hilarious! A lot of people would buy it as a joke, or even for serious. LEGO would get all kinds of goodwill from producing it.
Maybe, but at the same time they will lose customers because some idiotic parents will freak out and start up some retarded crusade a la "Won't somebody think of the children?!"
c) I'm not saying to put Playmobil on it. They can make up some new brand. Call it Cusoo without calling it LEGO.
See above. Don't think you got the point I was making.
The point you are making is not the point we were making. Obviously LEGO needs to obtain the license to Firefly. There is no dispute on that.
We are saying if LEGO doesn't want to tarnish the LEGO brand by making a LEGO cock-n-balls or LEGO modern military, then just make them without putting the LEGO logo on it. Call it something else. Nothing whatsoever prevents them from coming up with a new trademark.
This is a common tactic that seems to always work. Anyone stupid enough to get angry will not be smart enough to realize that it was made by LEGO if the LEGO logo isn't on the box. LEGO can easily say that the cock-n-balls isn't a LEGO product, even though it is. Companies do this all the time.
Yeah I got that and added in later that the copyright holders are probably not going to provide the license if they don't have the assurance that it will be produced under the established LEGO brand name, particularly if the licensing fee increases by the number of units sold. Plus LEGO probably wanting to establish their brand even further with the Cuusoo project.
Producing the Cuusoo winners under a different brand name doesn't appear to me to be in the interest of either party.
Yeah I got that and added in later that the copyright holders are probably not going to provide the license if they don't have the assurance that it will be produced under the established LEGO brand name, particularly if the licensing fee increases by the number of units sold. Plus LEGO probably wanting to establish their brand even further with the Cuusoo project.
Producing the Cuusoo winners under a different brand name doesn't appear to me to be in the interest of either party.
It is absolutely in the interest of both parties. Anyone who would buy such a thing knows exactly what is going on. It's pointless to actually care about what brand name is on the product. All that matters is that there is a large demand, you are the only company that can supply. You can set a very high margin and push a large number of units. Therefore, do it. All those other considerations are based on ideas that are no longer true, and are especially not true for a product marketed to the geek demographic.
You really have to ask how much money Lego would actually make on a product like the Serenity ship. Sure it would sell for an ungodly high amount of money, but how many people would actually go out and buy it? Firefly/Serenity has a very vocal, but exceptionally small fanbase as opposed to something like Minecraft (which does have Lego sets coming out for). Would the smaller amount of sales but higher asking price for the set be able to offset the production costs of the set? Each set is going to need a lot of pieces and the creator was talking about having light up and spinning parts? The light-up pieces are definitely going to have to be specially made for this set, and the spinning parts might require some sort of internal motor, so there is some extra cost right there. Also add on the cost of making new molds for the minifigs and the paingint.
You really just have to ask if it is worth it to Lego in the long run.
How many people do they have available to produce these new sets? How many promising ideas do they have for new sets? Take every idea you have for a new set, and put them in order based on how much profit they are likely to generate. Have teams produce them one at a time from the top down. They already produce a lot of sets that are very expensive and do not sell like crazy. I mean, look at that Sopwith up above. Who is buying that? The Serenity will be vastly more profitable, but they make the Sopwith instead.
Scott, how many people out there build WWII models and would go crazy if they knew that there was a Lego set that allowed them to build a WWII era plane? How many people out there are Firefly/Serenity fans? I can almost guarantee to you that the former is a much larger group than the latter.
Scott, how many people out there build WWII models and would go crazy if they knew that there was a Lego set that allowed them to build a WWII era plane? How many people out there are Firefly/Serenity fans? I can almost guarantee to you that the former is a much larger group than the latter.
You seriously think that the LEGO WW2 model building market is LARGER than the Firefly/Serentiy LEGO model building market? One of these things is all over the Internet and every single fan convention. One of these things is only discussed on cruddy old mailing lists and back rooms of dank hobby shops.
I don't even like Firefly, but it's kind of obvious that it has a lots of fans around the world.
You seriously think that the LEGO WW2 model building market is LARGER than the Firefly/Serentiy LEGO model building market? One of these things is all over the Internet and every single fan convention. One of these things is only discussed on cruddy old mailing lists and back rooms of dank hobby shops.
The Sopwith Camel is a WWI era plane, but that is besides the point.
There is quite a big fanbase for it (including LEGO fans if you look at places like Eurobricks), and the Sopwith was probably already in production before the Cuusoo project started up. It is however most definitely a specialty set which won't have that great mass appeal and probably won't be produced in great numbers. There should be less of a licensing issue though, particularly considering that LEGO already produced a Sopwith Camel years ago (which had virtually no functionality).
Firefly is hard to tell how great the mass appeal is. There are some highly dedicated fans, but there aren't that many. I would by a Lego Serenity, but that is because I'm a fan of Lego and I like the show, not the other way around. If I weren't a fan of LEGO, I most definitely wouldn't buy it.
As for who is buying the Sopwith? I will, pretty much for the same reason, but the Sopwith model is looking fucking great to me. Also interesting in regards to the episode from last Thursday, would you be pissed if someone gave you a LEGO Sopwith Camel as a present, Scott?
I would not be pissed if someone gave me any LEGO as a present, even if I already had it. Except I just don't have room to put any LEGO in my apartment.
Are there likely to be any models based on copyrighted materials?
A Minecraft model is already in production. So is one based on the Hayabusa spacecraft. There's also a japan-exclusive set based on the Shinkai 6500 submarine, which was the first Cuusoo set to be released and only had 10,000 copies produced. So yeah, LEGO will license if it deems it to be a set they want to produce.
I've checked back on Cuusoo a few times. I'd buy the dark box stormtrooper set, no matter the cost, but it'll probably never happen. I really liked the look of the Minecraft mockups, but now the final design is out, and it looks terrible.
Comments
b) Why not make a LEGO cock-n-balls? I'm serious. It would be hilarious! A lot of people would buy it as a joke, or even for serious. LEGO would get all kinds of goodwill from producing it.
c) I'm not saying to put Playmobil on it. They can make up some new brand. Call it Cusoo without calling it LEGO.
Maybe, but at the same time they will lose customers because some idiotic parents will freak out and start up some retarded crusade a la "Won't somebody think of the children?!"
See above. Don't think you got the point I was making.
We are saying if LEGO doesn't want to tarnish the LEGO brand by making a LEGO cock-n-balls or LEGO modern military, then just make them without putting the LEGO logo on it. Call it something else. Nothing whatsoever prevents them from coming up with a new trademark.
This is a common tactic that seems to always work. Anyone stupid enough to get angry will not be smart enough to realize that it was made by LEGO if the LEGO logo isn't on the box. LEGO can easily say that the cock-n-balls isn't a LEGO product, even though it is. Companies do this all the time.
Producing the Cuusoo winners under a different brand name doesn't appear to me to be in the interest of either party.
You really just have to ask if it is worth it to Lego in the long run.
I don't even like Firefly, but it's kind of obvious that it has a lots of fans around the world.
There is quite a big fanbase for it (including LEGO fans if you look at places like Eurobricks), and the Sopwith was probably already in production before the Cuusoo project started up. It is however most definitely a specialty set which won't have that great mass appeal and probably won't be produced in great numbers. There should be less of a licensing issue though, particularly considering that LEGO already produced a Sopwith Camel years ago (which had virtually no functionality).
Firefly is hard to tell how great the mass appeal is. There are some highly dedicated fans, but there aren't that many. I would by a Lego Serenity, but that is because I'm a fan of Lego and I like the show, not the other way around. If I weren't a fan of LEGO, I most definitely wouldn't buy it.
As for who is buying the Sopwith? I will, pretty much for the same reason, but the Sopwith model is looking fucking great to me. Also interesting in regards to the episode from last Thursday, would you be pissed if someone gave you a LEGO Sopwith Camel as a present, Scott?
Oh, and the Modular Western Town and the Legend of Zelda sets reached 10k supporters on Cuusoo and are currently under consideration.
http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/11176
I would like this:
But not this:
This pic unfortunately doesn't show how amazing this thing is. Click the link above or this one.
More: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bloei/sets/72157629958403324/with/7338789742/