Why not these things

[Casey]

Don`t some of the dragster kits come with flattened slicks?

Some of the AMT annual kits did, such as the '69 Chevelle and '70s Camaro kits:

Art's exactly right on the tires. Check out the styrene tires included with the MPC '77 Chevette and '77 Volare annual kits, and you can clearly see the limitations of molding them that way:

[johnbuzzed]

But you are complaining HERE, on what you clearly perceive to be an automotive forum. Are you aware that there are forums here at the Model Cars Magazine website for big rigs and commercial stuff? Perhaps you might want to air your thoughts there, where you might reach your desired audience. I wouldn't go on any of the truck or big rig, farm equipment or construction equipment forums in regards to a '67 Plymouth Fury kit because I realize that the audience for such a kit would most likely not be there.

How do you know that there was no "need to disagree" among the "hundreds of truck modelers"? Perhaps the comments made in regards to those certain car or cop car kit(s) are simply being ignored by those truck modelers on that "model truck group".

You just seem to keep going on and on and on and on and on and on because no one has replied along the lines of "You know, you're correct. All of the major manufacturers should immediately start production of farm equipment kits as well as construction equipment kits, no matter the cost to them. History means little here and the manufacturers should completely disregard it." There- are you happy? Will you stop now?

WRITE TO THE MANUFACTURERS. CONTACT YOUR FELLOW FARM AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MODELERS. WE HERE CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO MAKE YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE.

[Tom Geiger]

Art's exactly right on the tires. Check out the styrene tires included with the MPC '77 Chevette and '77 Volare annual kits, and you can clearly see the limitations of molding them that way:

And what's the first thing we do with those kits today? We throw away those useless plastic tires!

[2000-cvpi]

But you are complaining HERE, on what you clearly perceive to be an automotive forum. Are you aware that there are forums here at the Model Cars Magazine website for big rigs and commercial stuff? Perhaps you might want to air your thoughts there, where you might reach your desired audience. I wouldn't go on any of the truck or big rig, farm equipment or construction equipment forums in regards to a '67 Plymouth Fury kit because I realize that the audience for such a kit would most likely not be there.

How do you know that there was no "need to disagree" among the "hundreds of truck modelers"? Perhaps the comments made in regards to those certain car or cop car kit(s) are simply being ignored by those truck modelers on that "model truck group".

You just seem to keep going on and on and on and on and on and on because no one has replied along the lines of "You know, you're correct. All of the major manufacturers should immediately start production of farm equipment kits as well as construction equipment kits, no matter the cost to them. History means little here and the manufacturers should completely disregard it." There- are you happy? Will you stop now?

WRITE TO THE MANUFACTURERS. CONTACT YOUR FELLOW FARM AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MODELERS. WE HERE CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO MAKE YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE.

That's very well said.

[johnbuzzed]

Thank you. I don't mean to slight any builders of any other types of models (besides car models) but there comes a point...

Edited September 3, 2013 by johnbuzzed

[Art Anderson]

I never understood this. Although I know it is part of their reasoning. But do they pay per use? The reason I ask is, they have no problem paying Goodyear and tons of other companies to put their logo on NASCAR and other racing kits but, not on tires.

And my two cents, I'd like to see some actual rubber tires in kits. Seems to me that would be most realistic.

This is just a guess, I don't have any "inside information," but the manufacturers pretty much have to include the correct decals if they're selling a model of a specific car and the markings are an important part of the car. But they can get away with leaving logos off tires and just make them generic, especially on a non-racing model where tire branding isn't as obvious. I don't know how the licensing is determined... whether it's a one time overall fee or if it's on a model-by-model basis, but I would guess that every set of tires they can include in a kit with no brand name on them saves them a few $$$.

Most "licensing" is paid for up front, by the model or toy company. Basically, the company wanting to produce (fill in the blank here) in a model kit estimates the number of units (kits or preassembled promo's or toys) and then takes the licensing fee per unit, multiplies that out over that number of units they expect to sell within a set period of time (it may be a year, or multiple years depending on the product). If the licensor (the company owning the copyright, trademark, or design) agrees, a check gets cut and sent to them for that amount.

If the model or toy manufacturer produces and sells the agreed-on number of units within the time frame set out in the license, then all is good--even up. If the model or toy manufacturer sells more than the licensing agreement states as the minimum or "set amount", then they will have to settle with the licensor for the additional license fee for each extra unit sold. IF however, the licensee (the company wanting to use another's copyright, trademark or design) doesn't meet the agreed on number of units sold--they will have to negotiate with the licensor to either extend the time frame, transfer the unused part of the prepaid royalty to another product, or if not, the licensee pretty much has to "eat" the expense. With most licensors though, they want to see the licensor succeed (good relations between licensor and licensee are generally considered to be essential, particularly with ongoing, long-running product lines (such as model car kits), so generally speaking, licensees and their licensors tend to work together on all these things.

Licensing probably isn't a serious "money cow" for automakers or the producers of products used on cars, be those things for "street use" or in racing. But it is a way of protecting their works from just any Tom, Dick or Harry (sorry Harry P!) from just slapping that name or design on anything and everything--if that were to happen, imagine the confusion if every auto company were to start producing cars labeled "Chevrolet" for example, or if every tire company decided to mark their tires as say, Goodyear or Firestone. Who's making the genuine Chevrolet or Goodyear tires in that case? Hmmm? But it does cost money to pay the people who are charged with the responsibility of the paperwork to grant a license to say, Revell, Moebius, or Round2 AMT? In the general scheme of things, licensing costs are not the biggest expense in developing, producing and selling model car kits, even though they do add some cost--and at the price of a model car kit, while it might seem crazy to suggest this, but in a very real way, a penny here, a nickel or dime there, pretty soon it can add up enough to seriously affect the cost of producing a model kit--but that's just a fact of business life. So, with something like tires for a model car kit (which are generally the most expensive tooling that gets created) it might make sound business sense to omit tire names on model kit tires. We can wish that it were otherwise, but unfortunately, that's often the case.

Art

[Harry P.]

Art... how much of the licensing total cost would make up obtaining the license to produce a kit of a specific car (Let's say a Chrysler 300, for example) vs. the cost of also obtaining a license to produce "name brand" tires for the kit? Is the additional cost of obtaining the tire brand license a big chunk of the overall licensing expenses, or a minor part? Is the tire licensing "oiece of the pie" maybe 10% of the overall licensing fes the kit maker would pay? I guess what I'm asking is, is putting generic "no name" tires in a kit really saving the kit makers that much $$$, given the cost of getting the license to produce the kit in the first place?

[Art Anderson]

Art... how much of the licensing total cost would make up obtaining the license to produce a kit of a specific car (Let's say a Chrysler 300, for example) vs. the cost of also obtaining a license to produce "name brand" tires for the kit? Is the additional cost of obtaining the tire brand license a big chunk of the overall licensing expenses, or a minor part? Is the tire licensing "oiece of the pie" maybe 10% of the overall licensing fes the kit maker would pay? I guess what I'm asking is, is putting generic "no name" tires in a kit really saving the kit makers that much $$$, given the cost of getting the license to produce the kit in the first place?

Frankly,

That's rather proprietary information--having had experience dealing with licensing with a former employer, anything I might say as to costs might give away information that I'd best not do.

Art

[Harry P.]

I'm not asking for specific numbers, just roughly how much tire licensing is as a part of overall licensing fees for a given kit. 5% of the total? 10%?

If you can't answer, that's ok. I was just wondering how big a deal the whole tire licensing thing is in the overall scheme of things.

[gtx6970]

I was looking into having reproduction parts made for classic Mopar muscle cars. So I don't know if the numbers here are same/similar to model car licensing structure so take it for what you paid for it.

Up front costs approximatly in the $2500 range PER ITEM requesting licensing approval. In adition to this Mopar then takes approx 8% PER ITEM of manufacturers suggested RETAIL price

[Skydime]

Maybe if they would just leave two adjoining sides of the box blank instead of the same pictures on the other sides, they could afford to put that ink money somewhere else. Not up on my soapbox or anything but, it is a thought.

[johnbuzzed]

But, in it's own way, isn't the use of such product names a form of advertising? I know that when I was a kid I wanted to use nothing but STP, Goodyear tires and Champion spark plugs in my cars when I grew up. Why? Because I was constantly exposed to their trademarks via decals in the model car kits that I bought. Edelbrock, Accel, Isky, et al- so many speed and automotive equipment manufacturers names have been familiar to me for so long I have allegiance to them in one form or another. The kit manufacturers even printed them on the outside of the boxes- I don't think that hurt kit sales.

[Deano]

But, in it's own way, isn't the use of such product names a form of advertising?

You would think that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, that is apparently NOT the way the whiz-kid corporate IP lawyers think. It's all about protecting intellectual property, not good-will advertising.

[Tom Geiger]

But, in it's own way, isn't the use of such product names a form of advertising?

Yes, but the world has gotten way too complicated. First, each manufacturer has an entire department devoted to licensing products. Somebody has to pay the salaries of that department. Their first interest is protecting that trademark. The first thing in keeping a trademark from going into public domain is to display to courts that you are indeed protecting it. So when a manufacturer of say Geo Trackers refers to it's product as a cool Jeep, Chrysler comes down on them that they can't do that since Jeep is their trademark for a specific vehicle. A term like Jeep or Xerox or Coke has become part of our vocabulary and repeated uses of it to describe something generic such as Jeep being used to describe any four wheel drive, Xerox to describe making a copy or Coke being any other makers soda, starts to erode on the manufacturers hold over that trademark.

Their second concern is the quality of the items bearing their trademark. Making sure it's on well made goods, that reflect their brand well. They want to make sure it's not on goods outside of good taste. It all must fall within their corporate image they perceive for that trademark./

And third, litigation raises it's ugly head. When little Johnny swallows his Hot Wheels Mustang, his parents sue all the deep pockets. They sue Mattel as the manufacturer of the toy, Walmart as the seller of the item and Ford because it was a Mustang. So there is a certain aspect of liability with every product they license.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Tom Geiger

[Harry P.]

You would think that, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, that is apparently NOT the way the whiz-kid corporate IP lawyers think. It's all about protecting intellectual property, not good-will advertising.

That's exactly it. Protecting your brand.

If you let any Tom, Dick or Harry (thanks, Art... ) use your trademark and/or logos, then you can lose your legal claim to said trademark and/or logo. Basically you have to charge a licensing fee and have a formal usage agreement in place, or risk losing your trademarks to the public domain.

Of course, you could always be generous and charge a very minimal licensing fee... but corporations don't work based on generosity, they work based on the bottom line!

[mistermodel]

Thank you. I don't mean to slight any builders of any other types of models (besides car models) but there comes a point...

but it was a slight toward Ben. Being a member on this forum that has sections for almost every kind of model with wheels he can answer a question and voice his opinion in this general section just as much as car guys ,nascar guys, or slot car guys.Maybe in "indian land" where you come from this section is only for car guys,

Why not follow the rules and state full name and location while riding on your high horse?

[Casey]

Why not follow the rules and state full name and location

He has both listed, per the rules.

Let's stick to discussing Richard's original points, please.

[Harry P.]

Indian Land, South Carolina is a real place.

[Art Anderson]

Yes, but the world has gotten way too complicated. First, each manufacturer has an entire department devoted to licensing products. Somebody has to pay the salaries of that department. Their first interest is protecting that trademark. The first thing in keeping a trademark from going into public domain is to display to courts that you are indeed protecting it. So when a manufacturer of say Geo Trackers refers to it's product as a cool Jeep, Chrysler comes down on them that they can't do that since Jeep is their trademark for a specific vehicle. A term like Jeep or Xerox or Coke has become part of our vocabulary and repeated uses of it to describe something generic such as Jeep being used to describe any four wheel drive, Xerox to describe making a copy or Coke being any other makers soda, starts to erode on the manufacturers hold over that trademark.

Their second concern is the quality of the items bearing their trademark. Making sure it's on well made goods, that reflect their brand well. They want to make sure it's not on goods outside of good taste. It all must fall within their corporate image they perceive for that trademark./

And third, litigation raises it's ugly head. When little Johnny swallows his Hot Wheels Mustang, his parents sue all the deep pockets. They sue Mattel as the manufacturer of the toy, Walmart as the seller of the item and Ford because it was a Mustang. So there is a certain aspect of liability with every product they license.

AMEN! Thanks Tom for adding the very important part about "product liability"--the lifeblood of personal injury lawyers.

Art

[Art Anderson]

But, in it's own way, isn't the use of such product names a form of advertising? I know that when I was a kid I wanted to use nothing but STP, Goodyear tires and Champion spark plugs in my cars when I grew up. Why? Because I was constantly exposed to their trademarks via decals in the model car kits that I bought. Edelbrock, Accel, Isky, et al- so many speed and automotive equipment manufacturers names have been familiar to me for so long I have allegiance to them in one form or another. The kit manufacturers even printed them on the outside of the boxes- I don't think that hurt kit sales.

When Andy Granitelli started offering STP decals at Indianapolis Motor Speedway in the early 1960's--he SOLD them, regardless of whether or not other race car sponsors or secondary sponsors gave their logo's away or not. I was there, saw and experienced that.

"Free Advertising" does seem to have it's limits.

Art

[Art Anderson]

But, in it's own way, isn't the use of such product names a form of advertising? I know that when I was a kid I wanted to use nothing but STP, Goodyear tires and Champion spark plugs in my cars when I grew up. Why? Because I was constantly exposed to their trademarks via decals in the model car kits that I bought. Edelbrock, Accel, Isky, et al- so many speed and automotive equipment manufacturers names have been familiar to me for so long I have allegiance to them in one form or another. The kit manufacturers even printed them on the outside of the boxes- I don't think that hurt kit sales.

And, you can bet your bottom dollar that every model manufacturer who printed those logo's on their boxes, and/or printed them on the decal sheet inside the kit, paid a royalty for the right to do so. Like it or not, that is the way things work.

Art

[Art Anderson]

I'm not asking for specific numbers, just roughly how much tire licensing is as a part of overall licensing fees for a given kit. 5% of the total? 10%?

If you can't answer, that's ok. I was just wondering how big a deal the whole tire licensing thing is in the overall scheme of things.

From my experience, of course I have a fairly good idea--but I will decline to say even that, as I don't want to even hint at revealing confidential information (if a model company wants to add such information--that's their call, not mine to make!)

Art

[Agent G]

Well I for one woulkd like to see a new tool kit of the M3 Lee Medium Tank.

There I said it.

I want one.

Badly.

G

[Harry P.]

From my experience, of course I have a fairly good idea--but I will decline to say even that, as I don't want to even hint at revealing confidential information (if a model company wants to add such information--that's their call, not mine to make!)

Art

Ok, secret squirrel...

[Harry P.]

Speaking of kits we want...

I'm still waiting for my full-detail 1/8 scale Daytona or Superbird.