On the one hand, I personally can understand the intention of LEGO, to pull the UVPS smooth in order to supposedly prices "fairly" in a supposedly comparable region.The intention behind it can of course have different reasons (thought game): a) There is a flow on effect, which means not only the RRP increase, but also the dealer costs, which could then mean more return (then also depends on your cost structure) B) The dealer prices remain the same and thus you try to create more flexibility like the competition to give higher estates (for the customer, 40% lists better than 30%) although the resulting net price would remain the same.But that in turn creates general "discount appetite" which, from a LEGO point of view, would be more counterproductive the time.c) Especially in the case of a relatively fast -rotating range like that of Lego, I personally find the implementation very failed.On the one hand, I look at the much scolded Sian and just there they want to increase further....well then.Under certain circumstances, they could have supposedly cleverly and praise the new releases according to their new philosophy.As a result, nobody could have made the before/after comparison and only an indirect method using the same set classes/number of parts etc...make.So you could have avoided this discussion.But in general we have to be honest with ourselves, is a Hardcore Lego collector/farmer really price sensitive?Especially with the exclusive sets, make it damn clever.Very high RRP, marginal offers through a few times a year double VIP points (which then means a maximum of 10% and only gets back to the turn in your own shop) and then stop the GWPs.Partly nice things, but out of pure price view not price relieving for the end users but a bundle with low costs for LEGO.With regard to price management, they do a lot right, especially when the customers are involved.That's why I think I have not done a PR with existing sets in the price.In their view, too, this "outrage wave" will also flatten out again.
