Would you pay more...

[gluebomb]

We all know that the new Revell releases do not have any tire sidewall detail. My question would be, would you be willing to pay more, lets say a $1 more per kit for this "extra" detail. I know I would what do you think.

[bbowser]

I would as long as the sidewall detail is correct! Don't be slapping Goodyears on a car that came with Firestones, for example. On the other hand I hate to reward a company for being so money-hungry as to want royalties for what is in effect free advertising. Are you listening NASCAR?

[Dr. Cranky]

If they are going to charge a dollar extra, they might as well throw in more than just one little extra treat.

For example, I have paid the range of prices on the Special Edition 49 Merc, from sale prices all the way to 26 and 28 dollars for that kit, and I am happy to do so because it has so many parts that I can use else where.

[Fat Brian]

I would IF they retool new tires with sidewall lettering. The tires they have used for the past 30 years look like garbage anyway so I replace them letters or not now.

[disabled modeler]

I think if the box art shows white wall tires they should be included in the kit....correct ones like the 70 series white walls would be great the skinnys look goofy on many models.

[moparmagiclives]

I dont think we need to pay anymore for something that should be included in a scale model already.

I wouldnt pay eaxtra for a sticker that says " guaranty that its complete".....it just should be.

[martinfan5]

Thats one of the nice things about buying Japanese kits, they still have sidewall detail , but with cost of Revell kits already, I would not want to pay $1 more for something that should be on the tires to begin with. But, to 100% honest, I dont really care although that much about the side wall detail, I am more concerned about the correct tire/wheel size,and being accurate .

[kyotey1693]

I would. Though I dont agree with paying more for what we used to get, I understand why it's not there anymore. I think the licensing thing is bs but I get that they dropped it to prohibit passing anymore price increases on to us, the hobbyist. I have feared for a long time that they may go out of business altogether due to a lack of revenue.

Just to play devils advocate for a second though. If you feel slighted (like I do) that we used to get sidewall detail and now we dont, yet we still pay just as much or more for kits.... Consider gasoline ( I know, sore subject huh?) We used to have 93 octane around here and it was only 20 cents more than regular per gallon. Now the highest we have is 91 and it is like 27 cents more per gallon. Do you stop buying gas because of it?

[Drgon63]

Just to play devils advocate for a second though. If you feel slighted (like I do) that we used to get sidewall detail and now we dont, yet we still pay just as much or more for kits.... Consider gasoline ( I know, sore subject huh?) We used to have 93 octane around here and it was only 20 cents more than regular per gallon. Now the highest we have is 91 and it is like 27 cents more per gallon. Do you stop buying gas because of it?

Gasoline prices are a farce.... brought on by greedy speculators on wall street....as for not buying gas unfortunately it is a evil i have to use to go to work, but have used my motorcycle much more even in inclement weather and don't travel near as much or as far as i used to... i have effectively cut my fuel consumption by 2 thirds ... so if i could not have to buy gas i would... the alternative fuel vehicles don't help with anything either as most get a major markup premium or they are POS's... one other thing that's being discussed on capitol hill is that they want to raise the taxes on fuel because we are using less as a country and there losing tax revenue....also some states are experimenting with mileage tax based on how many miles you drive a year by attaching a permanent GPS unit to each car in that state and taxing you on how much you drive...

as for kits... the price goes up the less I (we) buy... until they are priced out of existence....i understand profit. and i understand the licencing... I just don't agree with the greed of the Auto industry and tire manufacturers wanting so much for something someone else said ...FREE adverizing

Enough ranting... sorry to hijack the post....All better now... gonna go eat some of my cookies now....peace all y'all

[Lunajammer]

The part I don't get is why companies charge licensing fees to model companies who are essentially branding for them, then spend big $$ to pass out free T-shirts and promotional items all over the place to keep their name in front of the public.

[charlie8575]

The licensing fees, in many cases, have become quite high. It's only natural that part of that (the cost of production) is passed on to the customer in the final price, along with wholesaler and hobby shop markup.

The major problem that I think a lot of the toy and hobby manufacturers have is poor negotiators working for them. The goodwill and free publicity is of great value, and that needs to be driven home to these companies. Many of the licensing companies have retained firms that engage in what I can only (politiely) described as legalized extortion given the rates they seek. These companies are not law firms, but are something akin to talent agents and charge accordingly.

I think it would be very interesting to have full disclosure as to who charges what. Some rates, like Firestone, are actually quite reasonable (a small review charge,) while others (like Goodyear) charge, from what I have been told $100,000 to review your submission, with an annual royalty, based on sales on top of that.

I also think the toy and hobby industry should negotiate some kind of blanket permission/royalty arrangement, that spells out everything in clear, simple terms. While it might be fair to allow manufacturers to still negotiate some specifics, I think the industry should form some similar licensing obtaining cartel similar to the license-granting firms and cartels some of the 1:1 companies have.

As to Revell, frankly I think much of it is cheapness. Bridgestone-Firestone is very happy to license their products at low, and from what I have been told, in some cases, no charge. All they ask is to look at what you're doing first. They'll even help you with the design if you need it.

One thought- why aren't we going to other tire companies? Cooper, from what I've been told, is very interested in licensing its products, and might charge far less, if anything, simply for the publicity. True, Cooper never came factory on anything, but they're a common replacement tire, and aren't an unreasonable choice.

Many GM cars prior to the 1960s had Generals fitted at the factory. Why isn't anyone talking to Continental-General?

Same thing- if we can determine who owns Armstrong's name now, if anyone. If nobody- that solves the royalty issue right there, and Armstrongs, from what I've seen, would at least occasionally show up on factory-fresh cars.

Kelly might cost less to license than Goodyear, and Goodyear might like the publicity for Kelly and might be willing to offer concessions. And I've seen more than a few cars of recent vintage (within the last 15 years) with Kelly tires from the factory.

Michelin might be willing to license U.S. Royal/Unioryal at a discount. That will cover a lot of GM cars from the 1960s to today, plus I think some AMCs and the occasional Chrysler product, although most Mopars came with Goodyears, they would use other manufacturers as a backup, unless a car called for something specific (like Polyglases or Wide-Ovals.)

It's time for the manufacturers of models to band together and start negotiating smarter. And it's time for them to start thinking outside the box.

And no, I won't pay extra for something that they should be doing.

Charlie Larkin

Edited September 3, 2012 by charlie8575

[martinfan5]

The licensing fees, in many cases, have become quite high. It's only natural that part of that (the cost of production) is passed on to the customer in the final price, along with wholesaler and hobby shop markup.

The major problem that I think a lot of the toy and hobby manufacturers have is poor negotiators working for them. The goodwill and free publicity is of great value, and that needs to be driven home to these companies. Many of the licensing companies have retained firms that engage in what I can only (politiely) described as legalized extortion given the rates they seek. These companies are not law firms, but are something akin to talent agents and charge accordingly.

I think it would be very interesting to have full disclosure as to who charges what. Some rates, like Firestone, are actually quite reasonable (a small review charge,) while others (like Goodyear) charge, from what I have been told $100,000 to review your submission, with an annual royalty, based on sales on top of that.

I also think the toy and hobby industry should negotiate some kind of blanket permission/royalty arrangement, that spells out everything in clear, simple terms. While it might be fair to allow manufacturers to still negotiate some specifics, I think the industry should form some similar licensing obtaining cartel similar to the license-granting firms and cartels some of the 1:1 companies have.

As to Revell, frankly I think much of it is cheapness. Bridgestone-Firestone is very happy to license their products at low, and from what I have been told, in some cases, no charge. All they ask is to look at what you're doing first. They'll even help you with the design if you need it.

One thought- why are we going to other tire companies? Cooper, from what I've been told, is very interested in licensing its products, and might charge far less, if anything, simply for the publicity. True, Cooper never came factory on anything, but they're a common replacement tire, and aren't an unreasonable choice.

Many GM cars prior to the 1960s had Generals fitted at the factory. Why isn't anyone talking to Continental-General?

Same thing- if we can determine who owns Armstrong's name now, if anyone. If nobody- that solves the royalty issue right there, and Armstrongs, from what I've seen, would at least occasionally show up on factory-fresh cars.

Kelly might cost less to license than Goodyear, and Goodyear might like the publicity for Kelly and might be willing to offer concessions. And I've seen more than a few cars of recent vintage (within the last 15 years) with Kelly tires from the factory.

Michelin might be willing to license U.S. Royal/Unioryal at a discount. That will cover a lot of GM cars from the 1960s to today, plus I think some AMCs and the occasional Chrysler product, although most Mopars came with Goodyears, they would use other manufacturers as a backup, unless a car called for something specific (like Polyglases or Wide-Ovals.)

It's time for the manufacturers of models to band together and start negotiating smarter. And it's time for them to start thinking outside the box.

And no, I won't pay extra for something that they should be doing.

Charlie Larkin

Very well said Charlie, and I agree 100% with you

[Modlbldr]

as for kits... the price goes up the less I (we) buy... until they are priced out of existence....

Good thing I have more than I'll ever need!

Later-

Edited August 30, 2012 by Modlbldr

[Ace-Garageguy]

Frankly, I've had it up to here......with being nickel and dimed for licensing fees on damb near everything, product-placement in films, constant intrusive ads everywhere, and greed greed greed greed greed. Gotta get every last penny for NOTHING, while the bucks they could be making for actually doing SOMETHING are ignored. Get rid of the marketing morons and the attorneys scamming for a few cents each for a logo on a model car tire, and get back to making scale models that modelers actually want, with less than a 5-year lead time.

I can get all the "branded" tires I want, or actual CHRYSLER valve covers to go on my vintage Hemi (the silly hemi in the Revell '32 5-window doesn't even have symmetrical EXHAUST PORT SPACING, ya know, like a real one? Is that another way around the royalty trap? What is it supposed to be, anyway?) in vintage kits, or I can cast my own without anything going to support some royalty weasel.

When every business is trying to get a free ride on every other business's back, the consumer gets sfrewed. And don't even get me started on Nascar.

There was a time when companies like Goodyear promoted themselves by doing cool stuff, for free. Anybody remember the tires for Mickey Thompson's Challenger !? Hugely expensive R&D program. Free. And the car couldn't have been built without them. Pretty good marketing I'd say......that was in 1961 or 2, and I STILL have a lasting favorable impression of Goodyear. But pay another dollar to get the name embossed on a set of model car tires? You're kidding, right?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Guest]

No. If Round2 can put the lettering on their tires, I see no reason why Revell can't.

[philo426]

It wasn' a problem in the 60s and 70s!Now every potential source of revenue must be exploited aggressively.A sad state of affairs!

[Monty]

As much of a tightwad as I am, I wouldn't mind paying a little more for better sidewall lettering, but as others have said, how 'bout something besides Goodyear tires, especially for street machines? Imagine AMT taking advantage of the lower licensing costs and creating some correct Firestone Wide Ovals or Revellogram cranking out some Uniroyal Tiger Paws.

[Casey]

No. If Round2 can put the lettering on their tires, I see no reason why Revell can't.

Yep, Round2 has released new M&H Racemaster, Firestone, and Goodyear Polyglas GT tires in the last year, so whatever they're doing, they're doing just fine.

[Bill J]

When I was a kid, I learned about auto products from race cars and from model kits. Goodyear, Firestone, Autolite, Purolator and so on. So when I needed a set of spark plugs I went seeking Champions or Autolites because I knew those producrs from the decals that came with model kits and seeing the stickers on race cars.

The idea of royalties to replicate the products in minature is ridiculous to me. It should be considered free advertising and a form of flattery. Everyone wants to have a piece of the revenue now and all it does is negatively effect the hobby. A hobby that is advantageous to automakers and accessory makers alike. It would be a trademark infringment if someone was copying the product, the model companies are not competing with Firestone or Goodyear, they are merely paying tribute to them. They should not have to pay royalties on that.

You can't stop the greed these days, sad where we have gotten to.

[lanesteele240]

The part I don't get is why companies charge licensing fees to model companies who are essentially branding for them, then spend big $$ to pass out free T-shirts and promotional items all over the place to keep their name in front of the public.

You have hit the hammer on the head. I mean the nail on the head

[charlie8575]

When I was a kid, I learned about auto products from race cars and from model kits. Goodyear, Firestone, Autolite, Purolator and so on. So when I needed a set of spark plugs I went seeking Champions or Autolites because I knew those producrs from the decals that came with model kits and seeing the stickers on race cars.

The idea of royalties to replicate the products in minature is ridiculous to me. It should be considered free advertising and a form of flattery. Everyone wants to have a piece of the revenue now and all it does is negatively effect the hobby. A hobby that is advantageous to automakers and accessory makers alike. It would be a trademark infringment if someone was copying the product, the model companies are not competing with Firestone or Goodyear, they are merely paying tribute to them. They should not have to pay royalties on that.

You can't stop the greed these days, sad where we have gotten to.

Legitimately, there is a concern the 1:1 companies have about protecting their name and products. For that reason, I can see permission being required, and even a reasonable review fee to help cover the time needed to approve the product.

However, so many lawsuits get filed over the most idiotic things, that the companies in question need to protect themselves. For example, if the tires in branded "Goodyear," and some kid swallows it, quite frequently, the parents will not only go after AMT, for example, but Goodyear, too, and the courts will let it stick. Paying for lawyers is expensive. Much of this comes to needing to reform product liability laws and making profit from the product, not side-businesses, as the main focus, and much of the profit can be returned by flattening corporate command structures.

The biggest problem, I still think, is the industry's lack of a cohesive, intelligent, economical licensing compact. That needs to happen.

Charlie Larkin

[sjordan2]

Legitimately, there is a concern the 1:1 companies have about protecting their name and products. For that reason, I can see permission being required, and even a reasonable review fee to help cover the time needed to approve the product.

However, so many lawsuits get filed over the most idiotic things, that the companies in question need to protect themselves. For example, if the tires in branded "Goodyear," and some kid swallows it, quite frequently, the parents will not only go after AMT, for example, but Goodyear, too, and the courts will let it stick. Paying for lawyers is expensive. Much of this comes to needing to reform product liability laws and making profit from the product, not side-businesses, as the main focus, and much of the profit can be returned by flattening corporate command structures.

The biggest problem, I still think, is the industry's lack of a cohesive, intelligent, economical licensing compact. That needs to happen.

Charlie Larkin

I'm with Charlie on this one. And once again, almost no corporation sees the use of their trademark or other intellectual property by an unlicensed third party as "free advertising." Most big tire companies have spent about a century building their brands and don't need it, particularly from a small niche market like car modelers. Companies need to protect their brands in the manner they see fit.

Further, since there appears to be such a strong desire by modelers to have correct, branded tires in the kits, wouldn't that make the kits more attractive and valuable to the buyers - hence, deserving of a licensing fee paid by the kit manufacturers capitalizing on the appeal of tire brands? Of course, cost would be a deal-breaker to them.

Edited September 1, 2012 by sjordan2

[timc]

Anyone remember American Satco? If somebody could get their hands on those molds we would be happy again.

What about Alan at MA'S resin?

When you stop to think about it........After you pay $5-6 per set of aftermarket,$1 more per kit doesn't seem that bad.

Now on the other hand.... Tire details should be there already.

AMT is doing wonderful with their approach on all this,why can't revellogram?

What about the Cooper brand or Cyclone,whitch is made by Cooper?

Let's hope they get the tires right in the upcoming ratroaster,and I think those are Coker tires anyway.

When ya'll figure this one out let me know would ya?

[jamesG]

nascar, foose, boeing, airbus, star wars,... there is no reason details can't be added to car tires without jacking up the price if they can afford licensing for these others.

[Jeff Johnston]

Nope. Shabo and others sell tire decals that are much better looking than trying to paint the side wall details on a model tire.

Well....that's not completely true. I guess I would but what I am saying is that for 6 or 7 bucks you can get enough tire decals or dry transfers to last at least as many models.

I buy tire decals from a guy I know from another board. He sells them to be for 10 bucks for a 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of all different kinds of decals. Goodyear Polyglas, BFG T/A's, Wide Oval, Uniroyal....