Where are the Model Trucks?

[abedooley]

Mark, I wish there was a way to download all of your knowledge onto a file......

[The Red Ranger]

I don't think anyone here has said it was easy, but Mark how can you think that not doing something new is good for business? For the short while yeah you see some numbers but 10 years down the road is Revell going to still be a company if they are too scared to do do a completely new model? No. It's not good business strategy to just rely on what worked in the past. It's good to keep it in mind, and sure there is nothing wrong with reissuing the kits since they don't have to put extra expense into making a whole new tool, but in order to progress you have to expand your library to appeal to more people. It's not like they are a small mom and pop modeling company. They are a business. If Hotwheels used the same logic that "man if we make a whole new car and it doesn't sell, then we just screwed ourselves" Then we would never have a yearly collection of first editions. Yes not exactly the clearest comparison, Hotwheels sell more, have more of a following.... however if they did stop putting out first editions, stopped making new cars... I bet you'd see that drop.

[The Red Ranger]

Yeah but Mark, your information doesn't make a point as to why building more trucks is a good business decision. I get numbers, by your numbers and what you say it begs the question why bother continuing making models. Even considering the ones they have put out sell, they obviously don't make up the difference in what they have lost over the years. I just fail to see how your numbers support the idea that not making any new model trucks is a good idea. Basically what you say is the industry is in tough shape and it cost proportionately more to tool a new model so there is high risk if it fails. I acknowledge there is risk. There is risk in doing anything. There is risk to stay in business when it's so much harder than it used to be, but they still do it. My point is I KNOW that producing some modern trucks would not only satisfy current modelers, but would also attract the die hard truck enthusiasts.

The problem with what we have talked about, with these numbers and hard facts and stuff, it doesn't apply whatsoever. Nothing in the numbers you have mentioned explain why tooling a new truck would lose them money. You have explained really well the stuff they have gone through, and how expensive things are but nothing that only makes tooling something that would sell super well and bring new people to the hobby make more sense.

I don't accept that because times are hard, you don't take any chances. There's nothing wrong with reissuing kits with subtle updates to the already tooled kit, as we have decided that doesn't cost a terrible amount of money and makes it back quicker.. so that being the case, why not also tool a new kit for something that would make its money back too?

Nothing in your facts and numbers said that Revell can't afford at all to tool a new kit, but merely explained there is risk. Well I am saying that it's a minimal risk because there is a lot of interest in some modern truck models. My point of starting this thread was to draw support, to see how much interest there is for new trucks, so I could show Revell, Lindberg, or Round 2 that it would be a smart business decision to tool a new truck.

[Art Anderson]

Yeah but Mark, your information doesn't make a point as to why building more trucks is a good business decision. I get numbers, by your numbers and what you say it begs the question why bother continuing making models. Even considering the ones they have put out sell, they obviously don't make up the difference in what they have lost over the years. I just fail to see how your numbers support the idea that not making any new model trucks is a good idea. Basically what you say is the industry is in tough shape and it cost proportionately more to tool a new model so there is high risk if it fails. I acknowledge there is risk. There is risk in doing anything. There is risk to stay in business when it's so much harder than it used to be, but they still do it. My point is I KNOW that producing some modern trucks would not only satisfy current modelers, but would also attract the die hard truck enthusiasts.

The problem with what we have talked about, with these numbers and hard facts and stuff, it doesn't apply whatsoever. Nothing in the numbers you have mentioned explain why tooling a new truck would lose them money. You have explained really well the stuff they have gone through, and how expensive things are but nothing that only makes tooling something that would sell super well and bring new people to the hobby make more sense.

I don't accept that because times are hard, you don't take any chances. There's nothing wrong with reissuing kits with subtle updates to the already tooled kit, as we have decided that doesn't cost a terrible amount of money and makes it back quicker.. so that being the case, why not also tool a new kit for something that would make its money back too?

Nothing in your facts and numbers said that Revell can't afford at all to tool a new kit, but merely explained there is risk. Well I am saying that it's a minimal risk because there is a lot of interest in some modern truck models. My point of starting this thread was to draw support, to see how much interest there is for new trucks, so I could show Revell, Lindberg, or Round 2 that it would be a smart business decision to tool a new truck.

OK,

I will put it in more blunt language, having been privvy on occasion to the product planning side of things. Plastic Model kit companies don't do new tooling purely on speculation, and haven't in decades.

Almost every new project is pitched to the principal customers the model company sells to (the big box retailers, hobby wholesalers) to gauge interest. Customer interest is figured based on pre-sold orders for the new model kit in question. If there are enough presells, the kit will get tooled, if not, then not.

You and I, as consumers, model builders, may or may not see this process, most of the new kit announcements seen at trade shows such as iHobby in Chicago have already passed the presell test, which happens in private presentations to the buyers for the above named retail/wholesale pipeline, completely out of the view of the public.

The "Go, No Go" decision to produce a new kit is based on numbers, generally about 60,000 units in the first year of sales, if they can't achieve that, model companies generally do not go forward with the project, the risks are just too large. Plastic model kit companies aren't megabillion dollar Fortune 500 companies, on the radar screen they are rather small in the scheme of things, so very few managers in product development are going to stick their necks out, risk say, $100,000 of their company's capital on a project that doesn't have a pretty high propensity for success, profitability.

End of story.

Art

[Art Anderson]

Well Abe,we certainly saw the numbers on the boxes after Wal-Mart stopped carrying models!!!

Everyone (including Revell) was saying it would have no effect on the hobby that Revell and AMT would be better off without Wal Mart. Within a month,Revell kit prices practically doubled and later AMT stopped making kits alltogether. That really did make the hobby a lot better didn't it?? I know there will be people that will deny it to the ground that Revell's price increase had nothing to do with losing Wal Mart,but we all (or most of us)know that it did.

Walmart actually dropped model kits, as a staple item in their stores, well before any of the current price increases. The Big Box retailers began reducing the space allotted for model kits years ago, and as late as 2004, Walmart was putting them in perhaps 25% of their stores only.

It is fact, however, that Wally, just as with KMart before them, years before them, did sort of dictate the price point they'd accept, and they do that to this day, with just about everything they stock and sell. They are in the business of moving massive amounts of merchandise, not operating some sort or retail product museum, placing stuff on the shelves that they "hope" will sell--they are primarily interested in rapid turnover of merchandise only.

Any comparison between nowadays, and say, the years 1955-1970 as regards model car kits, isn't very relevant. Model car kits in those years were much fewer and farther between, not very many kits saw reissues, AND the marketplace was quite a bit different as well--believe it or not, model car building was nearly a 'rite of passage" for most boys aged about 10-15 or so, and many of those kits sold in the hundreds of thousands of units per year. Companies like AMT, Revell, Monogram ran their injection molding machines nearly 24/7 as well.

Face it, plastic model building was a huge fad for about 15yrs or so, before the days of organized sports on every streetcorner, before cable TV channels, before radio control cars, before electronic games, before video games, before personal computers, before just about every competing activity that exists today to capture kids' attention, and their pocket money.

Big differences between "then and now".

Art

[krow]

What I fail to understand in this is why the prototyping and machining advances and 3D rendering software advances that have been made haven't had more impact on tooling costs: It still takes half a million dollars to tool up a plastic model kit? Are model designers still in some sort of retro mode and whittling and pantographing these things or can they be created directly from CAD design input? It seems strange that with printable prototyping being here (albeit in pretty expensive form for us amateurs) it would start having an impact on lowering tooling costs for the manufacturers. If tooling is still being created the "old fashioned way" the logic of high investment costs and the current approach make sense economically. If they do have access to newer technology, the argument starts getting a little more difficult to support.

[Modelmartin]

Big differences between "then and now".

Art

Art has hit the nail squarely on the head in his post. The hobby has changed and continues to do so. It is and will become more of a serious adult hobby. It will continue to become more expensive and higher quality. For those pining for the good old days there will be nothing but nostalgia and disappointment.

For a look at where the hobby is heading check out these Youtube videos of Scott Hards of Hobbylink Japan interviewing Mr. Hiro of Model Factory Hiro. They are about 9 minutes each. Well worth the time to watch.

[Modelmartin]

What I fail to understand in this is why the prototyping and machining advances and 3D rendering software advances that have been made haven't had more impact on tooling costs: It still takes half a million dollars to tool up a plastic model kit? Are model designers still in some sort of retro mode and whittling and pantographing these things or can they be created directly from CAD design input? It seems strange that with printable prototyping being here (albeit in pretty expensive form for us amateurs) it would start having an impact on lowering tooling costs for the manufacturers. If tooling is still being created the "old fashioned way" the logic of high investment costs and the current approach make sense economically. If they do have access to newer technology, the argument starts getting a little more difficult to support.

Inflation! All of the advances in moldmaking(CAD design, CNC machining and EDM processes) do make it a lot easier and cheaper in adjusted dollars than the old days. My understanding, and Art I am sure, can verify or deny that the cost of producing a tool is roughly about the same now as in the past but inflation wiped out the savings in time as far as costs go.

I think the Galaxy 48 Chevies were produced straight from CAD files. I would be surprised if anyone makes patterns anymore for plastic kits. The only place you can find pantographs these days are vo-techs and scrapyards!

[The Red Ranger]

OK,

I will put it in more blunt language, having been privvy on occasion to the product planning side of things. Plastic Model kit companies don't do new tooling purely on speculation, and haven't in decades.

Almost every new project is pitched to the principal customers the model company sells to (the big box retailers, hobby wholesalers) to gauge interest. Customer interest is figured based on pre-sold orders for the new model kit in question. If there are enough presells, the kit will get tooled, if not, then not.

You and I, as consumers, model builders, may or may not see this process, most of the new kit announcements seen at trade shows such as iHobby in Chicago have already passed the presell test, which happens in private presentations to the buyers for the above named retail/wholesale pipeline, completely out of the view of the public.

The "Go, No Go" decision to produce a new kit is based on numbers, generally about 60,000 units in the first year of sales, if they can't achieve that, model companies generally do not go forward with the project, the risks are just too large. Plastic model kit companies aren't megabillion dollar Fortune 500 companies, on the radar screen they are rather small in the scheme of things, so very few managers in product development are going to stick their necks out, risk say, $100,000 of their company's capital on a project that doesn't have a pretty high propensity for success, profitability.

End of story.

Art

I'm glad that there is consumer input put in. I agree, that process makes sense and it's pretty close to what I would do, so no arguments about that.

I don't know where the shift was made that turned this into "Revell is cheap" or anything like that. I don't agree with the constant reissues of tired kits but that's more my opinion than anything else. I really didn't want this thread to be about a company ignoring an interest or anything, I wanted to get people who want trucks to speak up so I can, help them, I dunno. I don't have opportunity to go to trade shows or take part in presell tests or anything so this is my way to share my opinion thats all. I never wanted any arguing or anything to go on I just wanted people who want model trucks to speak up, which I did get some, but I never intended to point fingers, or blame anyone or anything like that.

Is there harm to try to poll people's interest and see if there are enough people on here that want to see updated trucks so I can at least supply revell with that information? Can that hurt?

Edited September 24, 2009 by The Red Ranger

[charlie8575]

Inflation! All of the advances in moldmaking(CAD design, CNC machining and EDM processes) do make it a lot easier and cheaper in adjusted dollars than the old days. My understanding, and Art I am sure, can verify or deny that the cost of producing a tool is roughly about the same now as in the past but inflation wiped out the savings in time as far as costs go.

I think the Galaxy 48 Chevies were produced straight from CAD files. I would be surprised if anyone makes patterns anymore for plastic kits. The only place you can find pantographs these days are vo-techs and scrapyards!

A few years ago, I was seriously contemplating entering the manufacturing end. Perhaps someday I still will, but when I last checked on this stuff a few years ago. (Late 2006, early 2007.)

1. I talked with a friend of mine who's a master machinist and specializes in molds. Using an Italeri 1933 Cadillac as an example of the type of kit I was looking for at the upper-end, Joe estimated that a tool like that would cost about $100-$150,000 in shop costs and materials to make.

2. Many molds can be made directly off the machine, and they will for a lot of small, easy-to-make stuff; however, most shops still do prototyping on complex items to ensure that the molds are cut properly. It's an inexpensive step to ensure accuracy. Particularly when tool steel is very, very expensive. I believe Joe said the stuff runs about $600-$800/ton, and a mold for a model car of average complexity is around 1500 pounds; if you screw up a major-enough part of the mold, you're back to square one.

3. I hope #2 answers your question about pantographs. Don't forget artists' studios, or people like me who still do drafting, as opposed to sitting at a computer giving myself carpal tunnel syndrome.

Charlie Larkin

[abedooley]

Art has hit the nail squarely on the head in his post. The hobby has changed and continues to do so. It is and will become more of a serious adult hobby. It will continue to become more expensive and higher quality. For those pining for the good old days there will be nothing but nostalgia and disappointment.

For a look at where the hobby is heading check out these Youtube videos of Scott Hards of Hobbylink Japan interviewing Mr. Hiro of Model Factory Hiro. They are about 9 minutes each. Well worth the time to watch.

DID ANYONE NOTICE WHAT THEM 2 WERE TALKING ABOUT AT THE END OF THAT INTERVIEW???? He was talking about starting a plastic kit line. HMMMMM........I know that doesn't mean he'll jump into our American cars, but that doesn't mean he isn't thinking about it. He made it sound like it was just gonna be done to see how well he could do it. Just food for thought. I'm not trying to start anymore crazy talk, just throwin it out there for some others thoughts.

[Art Anderson]

I'm glad that there is consumer input put in. I agree, that process makes sense and it's pretty close to what I would do, so no arguments about that.

I don't know where the shift was made that turned this into "Revell is cheap" or anything like that. I don't agree with the constant reissues of tired kits but that's more my opinion than anything else. I really didn't want this thread to be about a company ignoring an interest or anything, I wanted to get people who want trucks to speak up so I can, help them, I dunno. I don't have opportunity to go to trade shows or take part in presell tests or anything so this is my way to share my opinion thats all. I never wanted any arguing or anything to go on I just wanted people who want model trucks to speak up, which I did get some, but I never intended to point fingers, or blame anyone or anything like that.

Is there harm to try to poll people's interest and see if there are enough people on here that want to see updated trucks so I can at least supply revell with that information? Can that hurt?

OK, now I will be really blunt! You, and several others here have been very adamant at insisting that model companies produce what you want, tool them up with THEIR money, regardless of whether or not a market truly does exist for the products in question beyond the few thousand readers of model car magazines.

Instead of carrying on what is rapidly becoming a very sophomoric argument, why not raise the money to form a model company, invest those funds in new tooling--doesn't matter, make a new pickup truck, or the legendary Pungs-Fynch Supercharged roadster--just do it! And, let us know how it all turns out, huh?

If modelers had consistently voted for pickup truck kits with their hard-earned dollars, which it is quite apparent they have not over time (come to think of it, I have NEVER seen a model car kit manufacturer drop a kit, or abandon a line of kits because they sold too well!!), it seems to me that the election results are in.

Sorry to be so forward, but seriously, this one has just about run its course.

Art

Edited September 24, 2009 by Art Anderson

[Art Anderson]

Inflation! All of the advances in moldmaking(CAD design, CNC machining and EDM processes) do make it a lot easier and cheaper in adjusted dollars than the old days. My understanding, and Art I am sure, can verify or deny that the cost of producing a tool is roughly about the same now as in the past but inflation wiped out the savings in time as far as costs go.

I think the Galaxy 48 Chevies were produced straight from CAD files. I would be surprised if anyone makes patterns anymore for plastic kits. The only place you can find pantographs these days are vo-techs and scrapyards!

Andy,

YOu are more or less right, new model car kit tooling, in terms relative to expected sales of a new kit, costs about the same today as it did 45-50 years ago. Where say, $100,000 for a new set of tools for a car kit in the 1960's could be expected to achieve sales numbers of upwards of half a million kits over a two year period (and that $100K would translate into megadollars today, with inflation being what it has been since then), in today's marketplace, that same $100,000 might generate a fourth that many sales of the resulting new kit, over a longer period of time.

You are correct about the Galaxie Ltd '48 Chevy kits, the legendary Tom West (the guy behind the famed Aurora Racing Scenes, then the great MPC kits 1977-the end of MPC as a division of Kenner Toys) did the design work in CAD, the tools were cut in aluminum, in Korea. However, the CAD system in use didn't allow for much in the way of corrections, and there are some very visible accuracy problems particularly with the sedan delivery. There are those who think that Gary Schmidt did drop the ball, by not pitching those kits more heavily at hobby shops (many LHS found it virtually impossible to obtain even initial stocks of them, due to the very small operation dedicated to packing kits in boxes, getting them out in bulk to hobby shops--of that I do have personal knowledge).

With the exception of Revell, who are now a subsidiary of Hobbico, no longer an independent free-standing company, the few other domestic operations are far too small to afford any sort of focus groups, serious and objective polling, in short they just do not have the luxury of any sort of sophisticated market research. So, they have to rely on gut instinct, and in that be very concerned about letting personal desires or preferences color their thinking.

I still remember a market research poll (and polls are based on sampling the population in question, NOT a questionaire to each and every one involved in the market in question!!) that AMT Corporation did, in 1977. What was their result, as to the most requested kit??? A GARBAGE Truck, yeah, one of those gorgeous showpiece packer trucks that go up and down the streets and alleys before dawn, crews banging garbage cans on the lip of the intake of the packer body! So, with that in mind, AMT Corporation paid me $200 to do a scratchbuilt mockup of a GarWood packer truck, to be mounted on their Ford C-600 chassis (that kit had the possibility of multiple body versions), for the 1978 Hobby Industry Association Trade Show, the last one ever at the Sherman House Hotel in Chicago. Guess where I next (and last) saw that mockup? In the show window of Lagrange (IL) Hobby Shop, when I was there for their last annual July model car contest, in the summer of 1982. AMT's "experience" with that proposed kit was a resounding failure of hobby wholesalers and big box retailers to see the wisdom of preording a ton of the kits.

Art

[Art Anderson]

Inflation! All of the advances in moldmaking(CAD design, CNC machining and EDM processes) do make it a lot easier and cheaper in adjusted dollars than the old days. My understanding, and Art I am sure, can verify or deny that the cost of producing a tool is roughly about the same now as in the past but inflation wiped out the savings in time as far as costs go.

I think the Galaxy 48 Chevies were produced straight from CAD files. I would be surprised if anyone makes patterns anymore for plastic kits. The only place you can find pantographs these days are vo-techs and scrapyards!

Andy,

While of course, CAD has it's applications, trust me, the best model car kits out there are still mastered using real human eyes and real human hands, for reasons I have noted many times, ad nauseum, here, on that Brand X magazine site, and on Spotlight Hobbies message board.

In creating a model car kit, there is of course, science, but equally, if not more, importantly, to get a really good product, it takes real human artistry--and for that, there is as of yet, no substitute. Computers are still limited to the principle of GIGO, where the human eye, and the skilled hands of a sculptor still create the illusion of realism far better than any digital machine has yet been able to achieve, certainly when reducing something from 1:1 to 1:25 scale.

Art

[Art Anderson]

What I fail to understand in this is why the prototyping and machining advances and 3D rendering software advances that have been made haven't had more impact on tooling costs: It still takes half a million dollars to tool up a plastic model kit? Are model designers still in some sort of retro mode and whittling and pantographing these things or can they be created directly from CAD design input? It seems strange that with printable prototyping being here (albeit in pretty expensive form for us amateurs) it would start having an impact on lowering tooling costs for the manufacturers. If tooling is still being created the "old fashioned way" the logic of high investment costs and the current approach make sense economically. If they do have access to newer technology, the argument starts getting a little more difficult to support.

Simple answer: With all the advances in computer technology (and more to come, for sure) no computer has yet reached the point of seeing a model in miniature, with the same pair of eyes that you and I do. It is very possible to make a model body shell, for example, perfectly correct by the numbers, but to our eyes, having seen the real thing in so many cases, it will not look right. That's because unlike any puter, you, me and the other guy too, are possessed of stereoscopic vision (our eyes are spaced about 3 inches or a little more apart, which gives us the ability to see both depth and perspective, which no camera lens can do, certainly no puter program that I know of can do either).

The old fashioned milling pantographs used in years past do still exist, but more and more, processes such as Electric Discharge Milling (EDM), even CAM have major roles to play. However, the investment in high tech tooling and design systems are pretty much beyond the reach of all but the very largest model companies, so the old fashioned ways are still around.

Art

[charlie8575]

I still remember a market research poll (and polls are based on sampling the population in question, NOT a questionaire to each and every one involved in the market in question!!) that AMT Corporation did, in 1977. What was their result, as to the most requested kit??? A GARBAGE Truck, yeah, one of those gorgeous showpiece packer trucks that go up and down the streets and alleys before dawn, crews banging garbage cans on the lip of the intake of the packer body! So, with that in mind, AMT Corporation paid me $200 to do a scratchbuilt mockup of a GarWood packer truck, to be mounted on their Ford C-600 chassis (that kit had the possibility of multiple body versions), for the 1978 Hobby Industry Association Trade Show, the last one ever at the Sherman House Hotel in Chicago. Guess where I next (and last) saw that mockup? In the show window of Lagrange (IL) Hobby Shop, when I was there for their last annual July model car contest, in the summer of 1982. AMT's "experience" with that proposed kit was a resounding failure of hobby wholesalers and big box retailers to see the wisdom of preording a ton of the kits.

Art

GarWood? As in beautiful wooden boats? Wow...that's product diversification all right!

Andy,

While of course, CAD has it's applications, trust me, the best model car kits out there are still mastered using real human eyes and real human hands, for reasons I have noted many times, ad nauseum, here, on that Brand X magazine site, and on Spotlight Hobbies message board.

In creating a model car kit, there is of course, science, but equally, if not more, importantly, to get a really good product, it takes real human artistry--and for that, there is as of yet, no substitute. Computers are still limited to the principle of GIGO, where the human eye, and the skilled hands of a sculptor still create the illusion of realism far better than any digital machine has yet been able to achieve, certainly when reducing something from 1:1 to 1:25 scale.

Art

Thank you for pointing this out, Art.

When I was young and even more deluded than I am now, I was going to be an industrial arts teacher. I argued with passion that the newer methods of teaching shop- like de-emphasizing craftsmanship, skill, patience and pride in your work, and replacing it wish squishy goop was the wrong way to go, and I was laughed out of the program.

Fast forward fifteen years...and in the midst of all the "advanced modern technology," there remains a small, but dedicated group of people who do things using what was called by one of my teachers as "caveman tools and caveman tactics."

As a side-note, I've been proven right. Too many of my kids at school take no pride in anything they do, shop or not, and don't understand the virtues that I just encompassed above. And we wonder why this seems to be a lost generation...

For vindicating me in a small way, I owe you a great debt of gratitude.

Charlie Larkin

[krow]

Art,

Thanks for explaining things clearly and concisely: I didn't consider the "human element" in scale model design, nor did I factor the different returns on investment on releases from the past into things. If the technological advances have reduced costs in any way, that savings is eaten by the lower return on investment from reduced sales. As for the human factor, your point is very true-producing a replica in scale is much more than merely shrinking measurements proportionally. It's easy to lose track of that sometimes. Would I like to see more variety and cheaper kits? Yes. But given the current state of things, it isn't as bad as it could be.

Thanks again,

KenR

[Aaronw]

Art, what I read in your post about the garbage truck is that the distributors are just as conservative as the model companies when it comes to trying something different.

I fully understand that there is a large sum of money involved in tooling a new kit. It is also clear that '32 Fords, '57 Chevys and '49 Mercs sell. What I have not seen is one supported fact that well researched trucks don't sell. Did Revell go under when they tooled up the 90s Ford F350? Did the American LaFrance pumper cause AMT to go bankrupt (obviously not because they tooled up 3 seperate kits there ladder, "snorkel" and pumper).

So the model companies are conservative, lots of buisnesses are. It explains why they haven't done more trucks, it doesn't prove that trucks are a bad bet. How did that garbage truck do, I guess we will never know who was right, the poll or the distributors.

[The Red Ranger]

OK, now I will be really blunt! You, and several others here have been very adamant at insisting that model companies produce what you want, tool them up with THEIR money, regardless of whether or not a market truly does exist for the products in question beyond the few thousand readers of model car magazines.

Instead of carrying on what is rapidly becoming a very sophomoric argument, why not raise the money to form a model company, invest those funds in new tooling--doesn't matter, make a new pickup truck, or the legendary Pungs-Fynch Supercharged roadster--just do it! And, let us know how it all turns out, huh?

If modelers had consistently voted for pickup truck kits with their hard-earned dollars, which it is quite apparent they have not over time (come to think of it, I have NEVER seen a model car kit manufacturer drop a kit, or abandon a line of kits because they sold too well!!), it seems to me that the election results are in.

Sorry to be so forward, but seriously, this one has just about run its course.

Art

So because Revell apparently does no wrong that forbids me from seeing how many people out there are in my boat of wanting a few kits produced that haven't in over 10 years? Apparently I have to be pleased with everything and if there's ever something I want to see happen it's a waste of my time to question and investigate interest or lack thereof because it's the model companies money and I sure cant tell them what I'd like to see them do with that.

It blows my mind that people are so dense. When I say my point here is to see if there is a truck market it turns into "Others and myself are adamant that the companies produce what we want". Can I not see for myself if there is or is not a market with out people jumping down throats to defend companies no one really offended in the first place. Perhaps I will start my own model company smart ass but that would require product research which entails asking a model car forum if they want to see modern trucks as much as I do.

[Aaronw]

So because Revell apparently does no wrong that forbids me from seeing how many people out there are in my boat of wanting a few kits produced that haven't in over 10 years? Apparently I have to be pleased with everything and if there's ever something I want to see happen it's a waste of my time to question and investigate interest or lack thereof because it's the model companies money and I sure cant tell them what I'd like to see them do with that.

It blows my mind that people are so dense. When I say my point here is to see if there is a truck market it turns into "Others and myself are adamant that the companies produce what we want". Can I not see for myself if there is or is not a market with out people jumping down throats to defend companies no one really offended in the first place. Perhaps I will start my own model company smart ass but that would require product research which entails asking a model car forum if they want to see modern trucks as much as I do.

Unfortunately that seems to be the case, I haven't seen anything to support the idea that Trucks lose money, although it has been made abuntently clear why they make '32 Fords which seems to be arguing past the issue in your post.

I haven't seen anyone who can explain why Harry's idea of seeking customer interests is a bad one, just the same "the model companies can't make everybody happy". What is clear is the US model companies are very conservative and unwilling to look into other markets.

You see the same thing in all areas of modeling, everyone makes a P-51 Mustang and Me 109. Where I see a difference is these other manufacterers are giving military modelers more variety, who would have thought we would ever see WW2 Italian or French tanks, but we now have several nice kits. Some one made the comment military modelers don't complain about not having xyz subject (completely untrue BTW, they obviously never spend any time on miitary model sites) but simply they have way more variety particularly in recent years. I mean we now have 3 or 4 versions of the Fairey Gannet (1/72 & 1/48) from 2 manufacturers, the Gannet is a rather obscure post war sub hunter that saw limited service with the UK and Germany.

I know I'm just one person, but here are my buying habits. Tower lets me go back and look at my past 3 years of orders. In the past 3 years I have spent nearly $1700 just at Tower, Revell got $235 of that total, about 1/2 of that just for their '41 Chevy and '50 Ford pickups, another 1/4 on other Revell truck kits, the last 1/4 went to a few of cars, mostly the '06 based Mustang kits.

During this period I have bought all of the Steven's / AMT truck re-issues from various sources mostly Model Round Up, 8 or so at $50-60 each, so at least $400.

The companies getting my money are making kits I want, funny how that works both ways.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Aaronw

[Aaronw]

Mark, I don't think anyone thinks you or Art or anyone else is conspiring against any part of the hobby, even weirdos like Ed asking for a Crosley.

Somewhere this whole debate seems to have gone off track becoming half rant about '32 Fords and somewhere in there a question trying to figure out how to have the needs of truck modelers addressed.

I only posted my buying habits because 1, I just found out Tower lets me track this, and two to say I'd be happy to give more money to Revell but I can only buy so many re-issues, I'll be grabbibg a 1/2 dozen of the '65 Chevy but after that my stash is pretty much full and resin casters will continue to get a large part of my model car / truck budget.

I really didn't intend to get dragged into this but somehow I can't stay away. I'm not sure why so much of the discussion has become kind of nasty, I don't really see much on either side that warrents the negative attitude of so many, unless its just because its the internet.

It seems as though many take the explaination that the US companies are very conservative when it comes to new things as some kind of insult (on both ends, you and Art seem to take that word as an attack on Revell, others wanting new stuff as an attack on them). For some reason Harry's post about direct marketing has also gone down hill.

If I win the lotto someday (only slightly less likely than some since I don't buy tickets) you will see a new truck tooled up with the money. I'm just a dumb fireman though so I wouldn't even know where to start an investment company to do such a thing.

[Harry P.]

This thread, and several others regarding "why don't they make a model of a (fill in the blank)?" clearly show that there are plenty of opinions to go around.

Which brings me back to the idea I proposed in a previous thread: Wouldn't it make sense for every kit manufacturer to have a "Suggestion Box" on their website? Not a generic "Contact Us," but a specific area where we all could express our opinion as to what we would like to see.

One way to work it would be to build a suggestion box with dropdown menus. You would pick the year, make and model of the kit(s) you'd most like to see. Either that, or use the message-window type response, but limit the character count to 25 characters to avoid people sending long, drawn-out responses. Make the suggestion boxes only available to registered users, that way you can limit people to one vote per user and keep the results accurate (no stuffing the ballot box).

These suggestion boxes would serve several purposes. They would allow any of us to voice our opinion directly where the manufacturer will see it. Consumer wants would be collected in one single spot (the manufacturer's website) instead of being scattered all over various threads on dozens of model forums all over the internet.

These suggestion boxes would also keep a "real time" running tally of suggestions and/or wants. The manufacturers would have centralized, accurate data as far as what their customers would most like to see produced. No need to gather "petitions" or try to attract the manufacturer's attention, because the information would be entered directly on their web site.

Another benefit to the manufacturer is that it's an easy way to gather email addresses of interested people (and potential customers). Maybe the people who respond to the suggestion box receive an email newsletter as a "thank you" for adding their suggestion.

And finally, the cost to add a feature like this to a website would be minimal. All the manufacturers already have websites... adding a suggestion box is easy to do.

Add a small 3x5 card to every model kit produced, with information about the suggestion box and instructions on how to sign up and log in. That would also drive interest, and produce some consumer feedback in regards to what the customer would like to see.

It seems like a smart and easy way for the manufacturers to directly track consumer's desires.

[Harry P.]

As I've said before Harry, this is a great idea!! You really should make you suggestion to Revell as well as Round2.

I did.

[The Red Ranger]

That suggestion box is brilliant. Way to go Harry!

I'm through with trying to explain my end of the business deal. Between Art and Mark's comments I think I may just be done, here, completely. Apparently some people are so full of themselves that when someone doesn't shut up when they offer hard facts that life is based on, then they are living in a fantasy world.

If you guys like modern trucks and want to see them just post a little about it. Not that hard. I don't need to hear an economics lecture about why we wont see them or hear "if there was a market for them, there would be". So if that's all you have to offer, just keep it to yourself. Unfortunately the majority of this thread was spent bickering back and fourth about the business ######.

I'm not an idiot. I also don't just sit back and let ###### happen. I make things happen for myself. Honestly, what harm does it do to have a thread discussing the want for kits, that seem like a logical successful idea?

Your business knowledge is moderately helpful understanding why there aren't a lot of kits but it's moderate at best. You really have no idea if they have suggested truck kits and they didn't score well, just as I don't know they haven't suggested anything like that at all.

Part of suggesting an idea is having support for it. Support in the form of "the trucks in real life do super well so logically the model versions would do really well." That is part of the nature of the discussion.

It seems though, Mark, as if you expected to share your knowledge with the thread in hopes that it would put an end to anymore discussion.

[James Flowers]

That suggestion box is brilliant. Way to go Harry!

I'm through with trying to explain my end of the business deal. Between Art and Mark's comments I think I may just be done, here, completely. Apparently some people are so full of themselves that when someone doesn't shut up when they offer hard facts that life is based on, then they are living in a fantasy world.

If you guys like modern trucks and want to see them just post a little about it. Not that hard. I don't need to hear an economics lecture about why we wont see them or hear "if there was a market for them, there would be". So if that's all you have to offer, just keep it to yourself. Unfortunately the majority of this thread was spent bickering back and fourth about the business ######.

I'm not an idiot. I also don't just sit back and let ###### happen. I make things happen for myself. Honestly, what harm does it do to have a thread discussing the want for kits, that seem like a logical successful idea?

Your business knowledge is moderately helpful understanding why there aren't a lot of kits but it's moderate at best. You really have no idea if they have suggested truck kits and they didn't score well, just as I don't know they haven't suggested anything like that at all.

Part of suggesting an idea is having support for it. Support in the form of "the trucks in real life do super well so logically the model versions would do really well." That is part of the nature of the discussion.

It seems though, Mark, as if you expected to share your knowledge with the thread in hopes that it would put an end to anymore discussion.

Don't let it get to you to the point that you would leave here. Just do what He does. Put Him on your ignore list. Harry has the right idea. That is if the model companies will listen to Him. I really don't care what Mark or anyone else thinks of Me here. That is their problem not mine. Just because a company is in business does not mean they are that smart. Just look around at what has happened to most of the companies today with all their wisdom? Failing at every turn.