Hello!
To use the forum, login or register above.
(If you are already logged in above, please click here)
"Like new" has got to go.
At least from my experience, anyway.
How I sell: "Like new" means that the bricks are basically new, maybe used in a build or displayed by adults.
How I've received orders: "Like new" has been invariably bricks with SIGNIFICANT playwear. Like the kind that you find on some of my old sets from the 80s that we beat up on constantly as kids. Bricks I would be hesitant to even list under "acceptable" in my own store.
I don't understand how this happens. And it's incredibly frustrating.
Rant over.
How I sell: "Like new" means that the bricks are basically new, maybe used in a build or displayed by adults.
How I've received orders: "Like new" has been invariably bricks with SIGNIFICANT playwear. Like the kind that you find on some of my old sets from the 80s that we beat up on constantly as kids. Bricks I would be hesitant to even list under "acceptable" in my own store.
I don't understand how this happens. And it's incredibly frustrating.
Rant over.
This discussion has been closed.
Powered by Vanilla
Comments
On BO, per https://www.brickowl.com/help/item-conditions, USED (LIKE NEW) should only be:
"This condition is for used Lego, that has had a previous life, maybe being built or played with but that have been treated so well that they are in a similar condition to new parts. They may have hairline scratches but they should not have any major damage such as dents or chips."
If you do not receive a reasonable response (e.g., replacement or refund/apology and an explanation of not knowing, accidental listing, etc.), I would frankly submit an issue report to BO re the seller. Some are making honest mistakes though, bear in mind. Multiple lots? Well... that still may be not understanding the definition, technically, though that seems less likely IMHO...
I sell "like new" for items that no-kidding look like they came out of the LEGO sealed polybag from a set (no playwear, maybe a couple of very light scratches from rubbing each other in shipment). I very, very rarely sell that condition, reserving it really for pristine minifigs, and the occasional personal instructions of mine that look flawless.
Regarding the original point about Like New I totally agree that it's incredibly frustrating when sellers don't follow the guidelines, or don't bother to check properly, when listing items whatever the condition is listed as. But I don't think getting rid of it is the answer, I think it's more a case of education, whether that's about 'being more careful with your listings' or 'you can't get away with this'. As @Calibrick says if it's used responsibly I think it does have a place.
By the time you get your new car it has been driven by at least half a dozen people before you, sometimes as many as a dozen.
In the retail context, new usually means not handled other than for preparing for a final sale. But that's a mouthful so everyone just says new. And in some sectors like clothing, sometimes a garment has been 'tried' by several consumers before it ultimately sells.
IMO "like new" should by all appearances look like a new brick from a set. There can be an occasional hairline scratch.
Unfortunately this comes down to the fact that some sellers are less.. shall we say, honest.
not-handled or that it is kept in original packaging until bought.
I don't think this is correct, though. My default for listing is "used good" because I sell a lot of used bulk. But I literally look at every piece, which is time-consuming, but I don't want to sell crappy parts, so "used like new" would be applicable if the part is in near-perfect condition. I have relatively few of those.
Can't we set our designation as we please? I'm not trying to trash any particular seller. Just making sure I understand so I don't run into this again.
@Neiljones I wish your standard were different, only because I wonder if you lose sales because of that. When I see "new" parts, those are the ones that I am most confident buying, only by my personal experience. I assume these to be taken directly from purchased sets. (Not criticizing; just don't want you to me missing sales from people looking for new parts!).
I do worry that there are sellers here (and everywhere) who either don't bother to check properly or intentionally list incorrectly to get a higher price and who aren't being challenged about it, and if that's the case then there are buyers getting ripped off and that's bad news for all of us.
There will always be differences of opinion on what good enough is, but I think there is definitely a place for 'as new'
> Unfortunately this comes down to the fact that some sellers are less.. shall we say, honest.
A little context might be in order (but this is not an apology, more an overview).
There are billions of LEGO parts out there, sitting in closets and tubs. Some used parts have such a low value, that spending 30 or 60 seconds evaluating it is not cost effective. If it’s something obvious, like chew marks, that is a different story tho. Fine graduations of part quality take time, and time is money. For some parts, the time to do the job correctly does not make sense. So you wind up with a situation where the seller wants to make a return, but the necessary effort to meet the exacting requirements just does not work out. If that is dishonesty, then so be it. From my perspective, it is more of a consequence of all the people piling in, trying to monetize something they had sitting around or bought at a boot sale.
When I first became involved, 20+ years back, I bought a box of bricks from a little thrift store, way out in the countryside. In it I found some black corner slopes (IIRC 3x3 33º). I threw them up on BL, and they vanished almost instantly. Partly because they had not been made in many years, and the buyer desperately needed them. The situation in 2022 is markedly different than it was back then. Now you can barely get any return on used parts, unless it happens to be very rare.
@nita_rae, I sell almost exclusively used from giant lots I purchase, presort, clean, detail sort, and list. You are correct in that my profit margin has dropped significantly due to rising lot buy costs and inflation for supporting materials (e.g., polybags).
Note the typical profit margin for toy sales in the US runs 23.3 - 25.9% in 2019, when I researched that. And all the below excludes labor, since I don't pay myself nor track my hours.
Also, ADD 10% to the below for a typical store, as we donate 10% of all sales (not profits, all sales) to the CCFA.
2018: A big aberration as that first year I was listing years worth of purchases I had accumulated and my own personal used parts from sets (with a LOT of rare stuff) - 551.81% profit margin
2019: Continuing the above, dropped to 480.18%, which starts to add lots bought in 2018.
2020: Ended at 17.9346%% profit margin (so a normal store would have been 27.9346%, a bit over the average). I feel this will be more typical of our store - it also had quite a bit of more modern lot buys from 2018 and 2019 adding to the inventory (paying on average $3 per pound, INCLUDING shipping to me). Also, the vast majority of my inventory was wiped out and was a banner year, like for most of us. :-) I also lowered prices by 9% to be more competitive.
2021: Ended at a piddly 11.7595% profit margin (21.7595 for normal stores) - definitely below average due to a much smaller inventory than normal until summertime when I was finally able to start adding new stock: and the new inventory additions were based on new lot purchase costs running $5-6 per pound (including shipping to me). Another aberration includes a PC and several new rack purchases, which lowered the profit margin (since the year was going to suck anyway, it seemed best to get all the suck out of the way at once <s>).
So you can see dramatic changes from initial open (though selling very, very cheaply procured stock - many received free when opened in 2018) to 2020/2021 which seem to be more "typical" for me, to today.
2022 to-date, I seem to be running at a 19.54% margin, which is almost exclusively these more expensive purchased lots from 2019-2020 - which I suspect are even more costly today. I also am in the midst of hand-updating the price for every single item I sell, as I learned that using any of the averages as a basis can have some super-skewed costs for specific parts - that definitely hurt my sales in the earlier years.
For a normal store tho, that 29.54% would be pushing a 30% margin, which is terrific for the toy industry. And that's running as a highly part-time side gig as an army of one in addition to a more-than-full-time day job, and not in the best of health. :-)
I do agree with the basis of some sellers not bothering to detail sort like our store does BUT that does not mean they should make their default "Like New". If they're not going to assess their used parts when cleaning and sorting them (and BO does mandate parts are clean) beyond obvious bite marks that stand out, then the store can VERY easily default list everything as Used-Acceptable or Used-Good.
We tend to list everything as Used-Good (even if a solid 80% is actually like new after we clean them, as we excise a LOT of parts from not being good enough to sell - just personal choice, we try to only sell parts we would use in our own display builds). Used-Like New starts to get into the eye of the beholder since most buyers do not read BO's definitions. :-( But the Used-Good and Used-Like New prices are so close to each other (heck, I see many parts where NEW vs. Used-Good are comparable), it rarely is worth the effort to list Like New (save super clean Minifigures, instructions, rarer parts that meet the criteria).
I think my point with the above is that there is definitely an ROI on common Used parts - and that would be much higher than I list for stores that package differently, have better access to lower-cost bulk buys, can put in more hours with more stock (hence more sales), etc. - but it's also a massive labor of love, for sure! :-)
> If they're not going to assess their used parts when cleaning and sorting them (and BO does mandate parts are clean) beyond obvious bite marks that stand out, then the store can VERY easily default list everything as Used-Acceptable or Used-Good.
Perhaps what is missing here is an option that says ‘Ungraded’, to separate the parts where a seller takes the time from those where the seller is merely listing (and only taking the time to determine what part it is).
Graded parts should be ‘as described, or your money back’ while ungraded parts would be ‘you get the correct part, but all other considerations are off the table’.
Just my tuppence.
However, I do fear some sellers will misuse "Ungraded" for selling bad quality items. As a sort of a "seller protection": "I mentioned it was 'ungraded', so you can't complain when it's actually bad quality".
Talking as a buyer and AFOL, these categories would be good enough for me (for parts):
- New
- Good
- Poor (= complete, usable, but minor discolored, some toothmark, ...)
- Broken (= not really usable as intended, major discoloration, and so on)
On the remark of the OP, I agree "Used (Like New)" is a bit useless. Either it's "New" (even when parted out from a set, or even when built once: the condition must be like the seller would open it from the original Lego set) or it's "Used (Good)" (expecting some hairline scratches and so on).
When I buy "Used (Like New)" I have no other expectations as when buying "New" items.
> However, I do fear some sellers will misuse "Ungraded" for selling bad quality items. As a sort of a "seller protection": "I mentioned it was 'ungraded', so you can't complain when it's actually bad quality
I guess what I was trying to say, and possibly didn’t finish it is … Ungraded means you are getting the correct part, and that is all. It should not convey anything about quality (unless the seller wishes to do so). Ungraded parts should be expected to have undefined quality considerations, should not be returnable (because you did not like the quality), and should be priced as such. That would allow the prices between graded and ungraded parts to develop a spread, Effectively the buyer is paying a premium price for Graded, because of the time expended by the seller. I might even see a seller listing everything they receive as Ungraded (to get it up online in a hurry) and then incrementally move some over to Graded (when the time is available to dig thru them). The buyer is paying for a service and for a part. Right now most buyers seem to think that the grading service is required and free.