The Price Of Lego

[Mantisking]

I looked around for this but saw no posts so I hope I'm not scooped. Although I'm kinda surprised considering this is a Lego fan message board.

Andrew Seilen did an interesting blog posts analyzing the cost of Lego over time. It's really an informative read.

Intrigued by this, I did a little work of my own comparing pricing.

[Edmond Dantes]

While it might not have been posted on this site, most of us read Brickset (or CAG, or Eurobricks), where it was big news a few weeks ago.

Edit: I just checked your math and it's way off. I'm not sure what you did, but your "average PpP" calculations are wrong. Also, your argument about not being able to pay a fraction of a penny is also incorrect, as you are averaging data - a difference in the average of only $0.001 could end up being reflected in your data as a difference of $0.01 (magnitude of 10 difference).

It should be: $34.66 / 326 = $0.106 (Brickset TMNT) -- you currently state $0.12
and $34.66 / 310 = $0.111 (Bricklink TMNT) -- you currently state $0.13

Also, it should be $40.32 / 357 = $0.113 (Brickset GS) -- you currently state $0.12
and $40.32 / 342 = $0.118 (Bricklink GS) -- you currently state $0.12 (which is correct according to your rounding).

So, out of the four averages, you only did one correctly.

So, from these numbers, not only are TMNT cheaper per piece, they have more minifigures per set (nearly one more fig per set). They are by far the better value (if purchasing all six sets at MSPR as opposed to the six GS sets at MSRP).

[Mantisking]

While it might not have been posted on this site, most of us read Brickset (or CAG, or Eurobricks), where it was big news a few weeks ago.

Fair enough. I just figured there'd be some discussion here.

Edit: I just checked your math and it's way off. I'm not sure what you did, but your "average PpP" calculations are wrong. Also, your argument about not being able to pay a fraction of a penny is also incorrect, as you are averaging data - a difference in the average of only $0.001 could end up being reflected in your data as a difference of $0.01 (magnitude of 10 difference).

It should be: $34.66 / 326 = $0.106 (Brickset TMNT) -- you currently state $0.12
and $34.66 / 310 = $0.111 (Bricklink TMNT) -- you currently state $0.13

Also, it should be $40.32 / 357 = $0.113 (Brickset GS) -- you currently state $0.12
and $40.32 / 342 = $0.118 (Bricklink GS) -- you currently state $0.12 (which is correct according to your rounding).

So, out of the four averages, you only did one correctly.

I'll check the math tonight when I get home.

So, from these numbers, not only are TMNT cheaper per piece, they have more minifigures per set (nearly one more fig per set).

If you are looking for minifigs as opposed to regular pieces.

They are by far the better value (if purchasing all six sets at MSPR as opposed to the six GS sets at MSRP).

I've got some other numbers on different lines at home but, yeah, GS is horrible in terms of cost.

[Edmond Dantes]

I'll check the math tonight when I get home.

I figured out what you did. You didn't weight the averages - you just averaged the averages. In other words, it's not correct to take $0.69 / 6 - the correct method is $34.66 / 326 (as I described earlier). I initially couldn't figure out what the $0.69, $0.75, $0.69 and $0.73 were reflecting - but now I understand what you were trying to do.

If you are looking for minifigs as opposed to regular pieces.

No - either way. It's cheaper per piece AND there are more figs. You pointed this out when you described the difference between the way Lego/Brickset calculate piece count and the way Bricklink does. No matter the metric, TMNT is cheaper.

[vynsane]

It's funny, but I find Galaxy Squad to be of high value. That could be partly due to the fact that I really like the theme, and favor it over others this year. That said, TMNT was a childhood favorite of mine... but I'm not as interested in it in the present day as I would have been in my youth for whatever reason.

If you're looking at straight-up price-per-piece ratio, I guess it seems it's not "as good" as TMNT, but price-per-piece only gets you so far. According to LEGO Set Designer Mark Stafford (known on the web as Nabii or LEGO_Nabii) there is a TLG-internal price sheet for all pieces. It not only takes into account the amount of plastic used for each piece (as Andrew Seilen's post sort of accounts for by using the weight of each piece) but it also takes into account more esoteric issues like the size of the mold used.

For instance, I seem to remember him stating that a 4L Technic Axle actually costs more than a 6L Technic Axle, because it's a very old mold and only yields half the amount of pieces as newer molds (or something to that effect). Therefore, it has to be used twice as long to yield the same number of pieces. This, in turn, causes more maintenance issues and wear and tear on the mold machinery, which is factored into the over-all cost of that production batch and thus the final official TLG price-per-piece.

The set designers then have to keep the design of a set within the target price of the TLG internal cost sheet balanced against the expected MSRP. He even stated that he was able to have them bend a little bit with the piece budget for the Space Police set "Raid-VPR" because he used some pieces that broke the part budget/MSRP ratio, but the design was so well-received that they let it slide.

[Edmond Dantes]

We need the thanks button to return. Great post vynsane.

I will point out I wasn't making an argument regarding the attractiveness of either theme ("good" or not), but merely pointing out the math errors.

In fact, I am completely impartial - I own zero sets in either theme, nor do I wish to own any.

[vynsane]

We need the thanks button to return. Great post vynsane.

Heh, that's thanks enough!

I will point out I wasn't making an argument regarding the attractiveness of either theme ("good" or not), but merely pointing out the math errors.

To me, it wasn't so much an assumption of anyone else's perception of the attractiveness or value of either, but possibly that my affinity for GS was clouding my perception of the value of those sets. That said, while TMNT does have its fair share of new pieces or pieces in new colors as well as a slew of new minifigures just like GS, I feel like the GS sets have a fair deal more pieces that rank higher in the TLG-internal cost sheet (there are a lot of those 3x12 wedges used, for instance, large wing pieces, and a lot of complex windscreens).

[NIGELTTF]

Ok fair enough, but there is one thing not taken into account:

Bulk bricks, the basic Buckets and boxes have increased in price enormously:

In 2002 Build Your Dreams:

1000 pieces: $20.00 2 cents a part

Creations and Bricks

1000 pieces: $20.00 2 cents a part

Lets take what was available in 2005:

Basic 487 piece bucket: $10.00 - 2.06 cents a part

50th anniversary bucket: $10.00 - 2.00 cents a part

LEGO Creator Handy Box 800 pieces $15.00 -1.88 cents a part


Current:

Basic Brick deluxe: 650 pieces $30.00 - 4.62 cents a part

Creative bucket: 607 piece $30.00 - 4.95 cents a part


The majority of bulk buckets in 2009 were around 2 cents a part and they went to about 5 cents a part in 2010. That is not a "perceived" increase...it is an increase, and a vast one.

[FenrisAkashi]

Not sure a corner case disproves math of the larger Lego scene...

[legohunter]

Thx vynsane for your time to post the inside story about cost of LEGO. It was informative. I never know "4L Technic Axle actually costs more than a 6L Technic Axle"

[vynsane]

Not a problem! I found the interview on The Brothers Brick that has the passage I was referring to, btw. The second question/answer has the relevant info in it.

[NIGELTTF]

Not sure a corner case disproves math of the larger Lego scene...

It coincides with when a great deal of shelf space was for basic brick was replaced by a much reduced shelf space, which follows but also affects consumer choice. Unfortunately, I don't have sales data to confirm this suspicion. I also notice that basic brick was available at more retailers, such as Walgreens, in 2007 but not now. Even more than half of Targets and Walmarts do not have basic brick(other than Duplo).

[Derek]

..According to LEGO Set Designer Mark Stafford (known on the web as Nabii or LEGO_Nabii) there is a TLG-internal price sheet for all pieces. It not only takes into account the amount of plastic used for each piece (as Andrew Seilen's post sort of accounts for by using the weight of each piece) but it also takes into account more esoteric issues like the size of the mold used...

Thanks for posting this. I wish that everyone could see this and more people would at least try to acknowledge or accept this. Price-per-part is so irrelevant now. Fifteen years ago, it probably meant something when the parts library was relatively small and most pieces were basic bricks and plates.

The reason price-to-parts ratio seems out of whack now is because production costs likely vary so heavily among different pieces (including minifig parts).

[lordskylark]

One thing that makes this unreliable, is that many of the MSRP prices used on brickset and other sources for Lego sets in the 80s and 90s come from the Shop-at-home catalog, which were priced higher than normal in the stores, because at that time, Lego did not charge S&H and that cost was part of the set price. So, those prices would not have been what you would have paid for them in-store.

Andy

[Jeky]

Lego is a brand. They have a good reputation and are universal in the sense that they are sold worldwide. They have recognition and a large user base. This allows for manipulation and a monopoly on certain sets and themes concerning price.
The parts are made from petroleum so it might be from the price of oil rising also. But this would not explain Megablok pricing.
My guess is that Lego raises prices based on demand and historical demand. Star Wars will cost more because people want it. So price goes up. And the license to make them might have risen.