Resale Overprice (foreal)

Well customhouse aren't limited and they are regularly listed for a lot higher than normal sale value. Check out the marketplace. Almost everyone has "save yourself months of waiting and buy it now". Customhouse wait times average from 3 months to 5 months lately and the 5 months can be tiresome (I should know). But if you ever need proof how impatient people can be for instant gratification, look at some of those listings. LOL.

chaos-zebra: if you are going to look at t-shirts, then also consider that part of the reason manufacturers are able to provide them so cheaply is they don't always look at who is manufacturing them when they can buy them for $2 each. Child labour, starvation wages, etc then come into play so then arguably, the reseller in that instance is helping to finance a market for some really odious labor practises. Hardly contributing to society - reasons why t-shirt arguments should always be left out of doll threads......

I see the 'if the scalper didn't buy it, someone who genuinely wanted the doll would have' argument all the time. How do you know? This is totally theoretical. The doll could just as easily have ended up in the hands of an overindulged 13 year who will mistreat and scratch it? Perhaps it would be better off in the hands of a scalper. As far as the Soom MDs are concerned, this argument is totally invalid. They are unlimited when they are for sale so anyone buying is not taking them off people who want them but helping to make them available down the track to people who have missed out.

 

Macy's is still providing a place for Calvin Klein to sell their shirts. If it weren't for Macy's, Calvin Klein would have to set up their own outlet in that location.

I was not thinking of you in particular when I said some people pretend not to understand why intent is important in order to make a profit. I was only offering a theory of where this argument may have originated.

 

Sure they have -- Assumption "A" is faulty if the buyer wasn't there to buy that doll at its original price, and the doll is not in stock at the manufacturer anymore, because it's an LE that's been sold out since 2005. Scalper has it for sale at a painful price. Buyer shells out painful price for doll, but finally gets Holy Grail doll. Voila, useful service provided.

Assumption "B" is also faulty: If Scalper A hadn't bought that doll, who's to say that it wouldn't have just been bought up by Scalper B? Instead of Poor Deserving Orphan X?

Market law is actually jungle law, it's just been dressed up to look civilized.

 

But what if I missed the original release of a limited doll, or didn't have enough money to purchase it at the time? What if I had enough money to purchase the doll, but didn't click the mouse quickly enough, and it sold out? In that case, the scalper is providing me with a great service--she's selling me a doll that I couldn't otherwise have gotten.

I think the main issue here is that scalping seems unfair to people who are emotionally invested in the product. Case in point- I am emotionally invested in my favorite band, so when their local show sold out in five minutes and I had to buy tickets from a scalper, it irked me. It seemed unfair that a "real fan" would be deprived by someone who didn't care about the music and only wanted to make money. But life's not fair, and my love of the band entitles me to nothing. Moreover, I'm certainly not going to make judgments about the scalper's morality, or whether she is a good person or a bad person or is dishonest or kicks puppies or whatever. She's just a person out to make some cash, just like I do every day at my job. Maybe she scalped those tickets to feed her starving family, who knows? At the end of the day, all I cared about is that I got my tickets, and I was grateful that someone provided that (very useful) service to me.

 

People tend to want the fairest things to happen - that everyone will get their doll at retail price, no one will ever get ripped off or lied to about a doll... But it's unfortunately not a fair world at all. Even the scalpers though are providing a useful service - they are obtaining the dolls before a collector who will keep them forever does and they are making it available to someone who would have otherwise missed out. So what if someone decided some time ago, "Hey, I am going to buy 5 Sards in the off chance they one day become wildly popular. If not, my investment is gone." and then later sold them at a huge markup? Yes, they're making a big profit off of something they didn't even want, but they're giving the person who got into the hobby well after Sard was gone a chance to own him...at a substantially higher cost, but it's an opportunity that wouldn't otherwise come up. Scalpers are doing something good even if it's by a method that some people do not like. It is a bit different when something is limited by quantity but as they say...the early bird gets the worm. Survival of the fittest and all that, it even applies in the dollie world.

 

As long as it's not akin to scalping. If a person or doll seller with a lot of financial backing buys out a lot of limited dolls, only to turn around and re-sell them for a profit later, that IS scalping, and it takes away the ability of regular doll owners to purchase certain dolls, which is obviously not the intention of the original makers.

 

So, let me get this straight. If someone sells a doll that is no longer available to purchase from the company for more than what the doll cost them to buy, they are a money-grubbling scalper who walks around all day thinking about ways to screw people over? That's a huge generalization there.

If something has gone up in value, why are those who have that item and no longer wish to own it (whatever their reasons) suddenly the bad guy for selling according to Market value?

I will repeat this. Again and again and again because it apparently bears repeating (and "you" is generic):

1.) Dolls are not necessities for every day living. No one is being "deprived" from something essential to their survival. Yes, you may want it really really really badly, but we don't always get everything we want. That's called life.

2.) No one is obligated to cut you a good deal on anything just because you want it and have dreamed of owning it forever. Again, this is called life.

2.) Things that are no longer readily available go up in vaule. This is true of everything from natural resources to, yes, doll-shaped pieces of resin. If demand is greater than supply, price goes up. Period. Welcome to the real world, that's how it works.

 

JennyNemesis, I think it's fair to say that if the doll is being resold 5 years later, it's not by a scalper (at that point, even if they'd preserved it in mint condition the entire time with the intention of reselling, I supposed you'd call them a collector, for sheer dedication if nothing else ). If someone decides they absolutely must have a limited that sold out 5 years ago, well, that's when they'll have to fend for themselves in the jungle.

As for situation B, "It's okay to do something bad because if I didn't, someone else would," is not a compelling argument.

Anbaachan, the service of distributing the dolls is already taken care of, therefore if the scalper is seeking gainful employment they should look elsewhere. Also, if you support scalpers by buying their scalped goods, you are only encouraging them to scalp those particular goods more often, thereby decreasing your own chances of obtaining the goods at original cost in the future.

Now, I can see where, in a situation like your concert, you might be willing to pay someone any price for their ticket. But I think there's an important difference between you offering someone $XXX for their ticket, and someone who never had any intention of going to the concert offering you their ticket for $XXX. Either way you might get the same ticket for the same price, but the difference, again, is in the intent of the seller. When people start buying tickets just to scalp them, the number of scalped tickets could get so large that all or nearly all the tickets would be scalped, and what service would they be providing then? If the distributor had wanted to sell the tickets by auction they would have in the first place; there's no reason for an unrelated third party to be profiting. And indeed this is why there are anti-scalping measures such as "one ticket per person in line" in place for some events. In the end, scalpers are just a hindrance to distribution.

 

I think this has come down to a dispute between two opposing ideologies. There always will be people who find capitalism and free market distasteful, after all, most traditional moralities/religions (except for Protestantism which is custom tailored to the bourgeois society) count it as a manifestation of greed and therefore, evil. In the next life, when we all live in an elven commune, where nobody has more things than they need, and everybody is an artist in their own right, and all anthropomorphic objects have souls - then yes, it will be different. However, in the absence of an alternative, it is reasonable to accept that selling for profit is a reality, and it is not immoral - according to the current society's morals.

 

Doesn't it just come down to this:
You want it and willing to pay whatever amount for it. You buy it.
You want it but don't wanna pay for it. You don't buy it.
You don't want it but you have it. Sell to person who want and will pay.

You as a buyer have a choice. You don't have to pay outrageous prices if you don't want to.

Simple as that. It works in all levels of our society. Demand and supply at work there.
We all want the world to be fair but it really isn't.

 

Katyok, I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. In capitalist America, profit is God, there's no debate there. I would like to point out, however, that there are many places that are not the afterlife where this is not the case.

 

Actually, there is a lot of debate there -- this is simply not the place for it. At all.

 

chaos_zebra,

Something's value is dependent upon what someone is willing to pay for it. Just because something originally sold for x amount that doesn't mean it should be sold for the same amount later on.

Here is an example:
The Mona Lisa was originally sold by da Vinci for approximately $120. According to your logic, I should be able to walk into the Louvre and be able to buy it for $120 because that is the price it was sold for. You may argue that this is a priceless work of art and that there is only one, therefore the value justifies the price. Well, some extremely rare dolls are seen as art to those who collect them. There really isn't much of a difference.

 

Midnightpariah, I'm not sure you read my posts, because nowhere did I say that any object ever sold should always be for resale at the original selling price. I think we can all agree that that's absurd. We were debating scalping as a special case of resale.

Surreality, I would argue that this very thread proves my point, but you're right, this isn't the place.

 

...and if all the commenters in the thread were American, or even remotely in agreement -- which, y'know, it wouldn't be a debate in the first place if they were -- maybe that would be true. Let's try not to tar an entire population with this sort of generalization. It's offensive, foolish, and arrogantly narrow-minded when we do it to the Chinese in terms of 'cheap goods', and it's no less so when done in this context. Seriously.

 

I found it really wierd when I saw someone selling a fairly popular non-limited doll whose sale price is around $200 on the companies website asking over $300 for it. And that was without face-up or any extras, and it didn't include shipping. I was looking for that doll at the time and PMed the seller asking if they would maybe lower the price, and they told me if I don't like their price to just go away xD...

In cases like that, I really don't understand price hikes.

 

people who want to make profit off of anything are everywhere. its wrong to be in the hobby to make money. not to enjoy the dolls but to enjoy the money they are worth. :
however i dont believe this is a debate .... its only reasonable to sell a limited high demand doll for what its worth that dose not make it over priced :/
i personally would Never do that.... the next person would turn around and just do the same dolls are worth more than paper to me

 

Current market value for a BJD is little different than market value for a house, a set of fine silverware, or a car. Value is established based on the availability, condition, demand for the item. It is not personal and has nothing to do with "fairness" or appreciation of a vision. Those arguments are so out of place in basic economics that it is seems bizarre to me that they are even being brought up.

I would love to see someone go to a realtor to buy a home and argue that the selling price was unfair because it was more than what the owner originally paid. I would jump at the chance to be a fly on the wall if someone tried to negotiate down the price of a rare car on the basis of how much they had always dreamed of having one. Those arguments are utterly out of place for those items. And they are no less out of place when dolls are concerned.

I can't help but wonder if those who are so upset about the cost of the limited dolls they desire are taking things a bit too personally. We may all be in the same hobby, but that does not mean we are sisters or best friends. I am not obligated to sell below market value to help you achieve your "vision" any more than you are obliged to lose out in order to benefit my material desires. And make no mistake -- that is what they are. Material desires. Thinking that you deserve to satisfy your material desires at a lower cost than everyone else is the selfish behavior, not asking for market value.

Those who understand the concept of market value, rarity, scarcity, and demand are not mean or out to take advantage of their fellow man. They merely understand how to separate the personal from the impersonal, and the "fairness" of value from the "fairness" of emotion.

 

So, here's a question, especially to those who are opposed to markups: Where is the line between "reasonable markup for a doll that's no longer available from the company" (whether said doll was a limited release, or the company has closed or discontinued the sculpt or whatever) and "scalping?" I'm curious to see where people are drawing the line.

 

I'm imagining it lies somewhere between "what I want to pay" and "what I can't afford."