Revell wants to produce new Models after Vote

[Orionblamblam]

It's as meaningless as any of the 'what do you want polls' of the last three decades.

Sure. But if some particular choice got a *lot* of votes, that could well tilt the balance. Not really sure what a "lot"would be here, but I suspect it would be a number far above what anything truly new and license-heavy would actually get.

 

[Rickshaw]

It's as meaningless as any of the 'what do you want polls' of the last three decades.

Sure. But if some particular choice got a *lot* of votes, that could well tilt the balance. Not really sure what a "lot"would be here, but I suspect it would be a number far above what anything truly new and license-heavy would actually get.

As it is easy to skew the voting in that poll, the validity of it as being truly representative of public interest in any particular suggested kit is highly questionable. As a PR exercise, it works very well though. The gullible and the naive will assume that Revell actually cares what their customers think and will purchase more of their kits.

 

[merriman]

It's as meaningless as any of the 'what do you want polls' of the last three decades.

Sure. But if some particular choice got a *lot* of votes, that could well tilt the balance. Not really sure what a "lot"would be here, but I suspect it would be a number far above what anything truly new and license-heavy would actually get.

As it is easy to skew the voting in that poll, the validity of it as being truly representative of public interest in any particular suggested kit is highly questionable. As a PR exercise, it works very well though. The gullible and the naive will assume that Revell actually cares what their customers think and will purchase more of their kits.

What you suggest is that Revell of Germany cares little what the customers thinks or wants. That flies in the face of a customer driven market where the manufacturer of a good or service tailors his product to the wants and needs of the buying public/business/government agency.

Yes, the Revell survey-vote is a good PR move; they want to at least give the appearance that the customers needs drive Revell's activities. Hand in hand with that, is it not in Revell's best interest to give the customer what he wants? I see no nefarious intent with the open survey-vote. I take this solicitation of public input at face value. When the tabulation is in I fully expect the results to be presented to the people who dictate Revell's product development choices.

Yes, the voting is easily skewed by those with agenda's and/or are natural cheats. But the survey is appreciated and if honestly evaluated by Revell, will be a useful tool to them.

I agree with those who have identified the ever tightening patent protection C&D's between prototype builders and those wishing to provide sub-scale physical analogs being a major road-block to Revell and the others as to what subjects they can afford to produce. Boeing and the others are clearly penny wise, and pound foolish. But they suffer from Corporate Think and there is no known cure for that (yet).

So, when the smokes clears, Revell will invest in subjects that require little if any licensing fee's; are clearly devoid of likely third-party actions; and will be a product that fills the expressed need of the buying public.

Whoopee: more P-51's and Me-109's.

David

 

[Orionblamblam]

So, when the smokes clears, Revell will invest in subjects that require little if any licensing fee's....

Whoopee: more P-51's and Me-109's.

Problem: Boeings attack lawyers will jump up Revells keister if they produce a brand new P-51 without a license. Logic much suggest that the shape of a P-51 due to it's great age, or the fact that it was bought by the Government, would put it squarely within the realm of Public Domain, but Boeing Legal would disagree.

Honestly, I'm not sure that there are many things that Revell could model that anyone would want that wouldn't involve licensing. Dinosaurs, perhaps. Their own in-house designed sci-fi spaceships (doubtful).

 

[merriman]

So, when the smokes clears, Revell will invest in subjects that require little if any licensing fee's....

Whoopee: more P-51's and Me-109's.

Problem: Boeings attack lawyers will jump up Revells keister if they produce a brand new P-51 without a license. Logic much suggest that the shape of a P-51 due to it's great age, or the fact that it was bought by the Government, would put it squarely within the realm of Public Domain, but Boeing Legal would disagree.

Honestly, I'm not sure that there are many things that Revell could model that anyone would want that wouldn't involve licensing. Dinosaurs, perhaps. Their own in-house designed sci-fi spaceships (doubtful).

Gotcha.

Has the von Braun/Klep/Bonestell/Freeman/Viking estates/company come after you yet?

We're head'n down that road.

David

 

[Orionblamblam]

Smaller IP holders *tend* to be less snippy about such things. And garage-kit companies often - though not always - are allowed to slide where larger companies will get dinged. I've been informed by people better in the know than me that it's when you move 5,000 units or more (plus or minus, I imagine) that large corporations get interested. If there's ever been a garage kit company that even came *close* to those numbers, I've never heard of 'em.

That said: Lucasfilm was on the ball with cease and desist orders for anybody doing anything with the Millenium Falcon. Other ships, they'd let slide... but MF? There're on you Right Now. Now that Star Wars is Disney, i don't really see the situation changing appreciably.

Anyway, this is a lot of the reason why I don't sell kits of my own anymore, but just work as a schlub making master parts under contract for someone else. The basic licensing contract for Boeing, for example, makes it impossible for a garage kit to make a profit (generally something like $400 to $1000 for the license plus $5 per unit, as memory serves... that license fee right off the top eliminates the possibility of profit from most such models).


And due to having really, really bad lungs... that's one of the reasons why I have come to appreciate model building via computer. It eliminated a whole hell of a lot of the dust and volatile chemicals from the process, and replaces them with soothing electromagnetic radiation.

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

The 'Government' was the consumer and bought the P-51s as finished products, they did not buy
the 'engineering design'. All of that intellectual property remained with NAA and successors. This includes
the copyright on the popular name and designation, both of which the 'Government' allowed the design
owners to copyright. Ditto on the majority of other 'military consumer products'.

 

[Hot Breath]

It's as meaningless as any of the 'what do you want polls' of the last three decades.

Sure. But if some particular choice got a *lot* of votes, that could well tilt the balance. Not really sure what a "lot"would be here, but I suspect it would be a number far above what anything truly new and license-heavy would actually get.

As it is easy to skew the voting in that poll, the validity of it as being truly representative of public interest in any particular suggested kit is highly questionable. As a PR exercise, it works very well though. The gullible and the naive will assume that Revell actually cares what their customers think and will purchase more of their kits.

What you suggest is that Revell of Germany cares little what the customers thinks or wants. That flies in the face of a customer driven market where the manufacturer of a good or service tailors his product to the wants and needs of the buying public/business/government agency.

Yes, the Revell survey-vote is a good PR move; they want to at least give the appearance that the customers needs drive Revell's activities. Hand in hand with that, is it not in Revell's best interest to give the customer what he wants? I see no nefarious intent with the open survey-vote. I take this solicitation of public input at face value. When the tabulation is in I fully expect the results to be presented to the people who dictate Revell's product development choices.

Yes, the voting is easily skewed by those with agenda's and/or are natural cheats. But the survey is appreciated and if honestly evaluated by Revell, will be a useful tool to them.

I agree with those who have identified the ever tightening patent protection C&D's between prototype builders and those wishing to provide sub-scale physical analogs being a major road-block to Revell and the others as to what subjects they can afford to produce. Boeing and the others are clearly penny wise, and pound foolish. But they suffer from Corporate Think and there is no known cure for that (yet).

So, when the smokes clears, Revell will invest in subjects that require little if any licensing fee's; are clearly devoid of likely third-party actions; and will be a product that fills the expressed need of the buying public.

Whoopee: more P-51's and Me-109's.

David

You contradict yourself several times. An "honest evaluation" is impossible if the results have been deliberately skewed by those with an agenda. Revell, as you note, will not be willing to pay licensing fees, so the results of the survey will not be followed, no matter how supposedly popular a particular subject is.

Logically because of those licensing fees, I can see that more than likely the results would be skewed towards the obscure and older subjects from non-US corporations because they would be cheaper. However, how many in the US are going to be interested in a kit of an obscure Hungarian aircraft for example?

 

[J.A.W.]

Indeed, these days, for most consumer products, even special interest items, the marketing department/bean counters are the arbiters of what gets produced/sold..

 

[Artie Bob]

"So, when the smokes clears, Revell will invest in subjects that require little if any licensing fee's; are clearly devoid of likely third-party actions; and will be a product that fills the expressed need of the buying public." IIRC, Revell was at least for a time, the exclusive licensee for Ferrari models, which must be one of the most desirable and possibly one of the more expensive licenses to obtain. As a former business person who was also an engineer , I would consider that a license is just another cost of doing business. If the value of the license, in terms of reaching a particular marketing level, is reasonable in terms of return on investment, then it is simply a matter of doing the math and proceeding. If it is not a good investment, then negotiation would be the next step, trying to convince the seller they have priced themselves out of the market. Actually, most businessmen (not managers, as many of them are not businessmen, but corporate politicians) are not stupid, most successful ones know how to make money and the difference between investments and expenses, which is the key to understanding the mechanics of licensing.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

JIMMY CARTER!!!!

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

Artie Bob nails it, Revell (all divisions are owned by Hobbico) regularly pays license fees to the automobile/truck manufacturers, airframe manufacturers and movie studios. The assertion that
no future projects will be of licensable subjects is ludicrous crystal-ball gazing.

 

[Grey Havoc]

The Aurora, Revell, Monogram Models Story thread.