Licensing Fees Gone Wild...

[Harry P.]

I was just reading Larry Greenberg's kit review column in the October issue of MC, where he goes over several recent re-issues of older kits.

A common thread linked every single review. To quote Larry from several of his reviews:

"...and the tires are no-names that were Goodyear Wide Tread F70-14s in a former life.."

"...the tires are no-names that used to be Goodyear Radial GTs..."

"...turbine style wheels on no-name (formerly Goodyear Eagle VR50) tires.."

You get the picture. So what happened here? Obviously these kits were originally released with correct logos and markings on the tires...but no more. Did Goodyear start to play hardball with the kit manufacturers and jack up their licensing fees so high that the kitmakers can't afford to pay them anymore? Or are the kitmakers now flat-out prohibited from using correct markings on kit tires? And if so, WHY???

And on a similar theme, Larry mentions in his Buick GSX kit review that the decal sheet includes correct GSX markings and stripes, but in the Firebird Trans Am kit the Trans Am logos are not included due to "that pesky licensing thing". A Trans Am kit with no Trans Am markings???!!! Huh???

Both the GSX and the Firebird kits are representations of GM cars...so why can the Buick kit include the correct markings, but the Trans Am kit can't? How is it that a model of a specific car can be released, but the correct markings for that car can't be included? Is there any logic to this? Someone please 'splain it to me...

[Raul_Perez]

As I recall, the "Trans Am" name is licensed by GM through the SCCA. for Every Trans Am that GM sells, the SCCA gets a $5 royalty. Here's a link to the story:

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/Profiles/20...ember/American/

Edited January 2, 2008 by Raul_Perez

[LVZ2881]

As I recall, the "Trans Am" name is licensed by GM through the SCCA. for Every Trans Am that GM sells, the SCCA gets a $5 royalty. Here's a link to the story:

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/Profiles/20...ember/American/

thats correct, the GSX name is a GM trademark, while the Trans Am is owned by SCCA and licensed to GM for use on the car.

[Harry P.]

Thanks for the info, guys...that explains the "Trans Am" situation. (I LOVE the idea of including the individual letters to spell out "Trans Am" on the decal sheet. Now THAT'S my kind of thinking! Hey, why not. Nobody holds the rights to the alphabet...right?)

But what about the generic tire story? Are kitmakers not allowed to use Goodyear markings anymore?

[notfastenuff]

I don't know about Goodyear, but I know some of the other tire manufacturers sell their tread molds after so many years of production. This may be the case with the tires used in these kits. The tire that was a Goodyear XYZ (just generic term) could not be a Goodyear tire anymore. Just one example that I'm familiar with was a Yokohama tire (one of their performance tires, forget exactly which one) was discontinued. Yoko kept the name with a different number at the end, think AV1 became AV2 kinda thing, but the tread pattern and mold was sold to Wanli (I think it was Wanli). So, if an older kit came with the original Yoko tires, but was rereleased, I could see an issue. I wouldn't think they could put the Yoko name on it, but they couldn't put the Wanli name on without changing the whole sidewall. (Wanli didn't call it the same thing Yoko did.)

This may not be the reason, but I think it very well could be.

[Brendan]

Thanks for the info, guys...that explains the "Trans Am" situation. (I LOVE the idea of including the individual letters to spell out "Trans Am" on the decal sheet. Now THAT'S my kind of thinking! Hey, why not. Nobody holds the rights to the alphabet...right?)

But what about the generic tire story? Are kitmakers not allowed to use Goodyear markings anymore?

The font of the text is also copyrighted for names. I had a good friend who was sued by a major company not for using the name, but for the font that name was written in.

As for Goodyear, the price to use their name is very expensive. Tamiya now is no longer putting it on their older F1 cars that they are releasing. Tamiya used to be able to get around this by going to Formula 1 when they had contracts with Goodyear, which gave Tamiya the right to use the Goodyear name.

The way I see it, it's free advertising for them. But I do understand that they do have to protect themselves. Just my 2 cents.

[Harry P.]

The way I see it, it's free advertising for them. But I do understand that they do have to protect themselves. Just my 2 cents.

But what are they protecting themselves from? Unscrupulous modelers selling "Goodyear" model tires on the black market to unsuspecting motorists?

Like you said, it's free advertising...and there's no way a 1/24 scale model tire is in any way conflicting with or hampering their full-scale tire business. It doesn't make sense...unless of course the real reason is greed. Then it makes perfect sense.

[Brendan]

Yes, greed is the major part of it.

But if I owned a company and someone used my name to sell something that was not of good quality, wouldn't that make my company look bad?

I'm of the belief that a name signifies quality and one would want to protect that quality. But it is frustrating not to be able to use a decal on a model car. It seems that it should fall under the protection of art. But the law doesn't see it that way.

[Guest Davkin]

The way I understand the law is that trademarks and copyrights have to be vigorously defended by the owner in order for them to keep them, otherwise they will fall into public domain. This means any time someone uses your trademark and you want to let them you have to have a licensing agreement, and as previously mentioned, a manufacturer doesn't want their name attached to any old piece of junk, they more often than not want to assure their logo is going on a quality product. All this takes a lot of time and money, especially when the lawyers get involved. I suspect most companies don't make much if any money off all the beauracracy that have to go through to lisence their trademarks.

David

[Harry P.]

Yeah, I understand protecting your trademark and all that. But if GM and Ford and Chrysler, etc. are ok with model kits of "their" cars being produced (and the associated licensing fees paid), why would Goodyear have a problem with those models having "Goodyear" tires?

Don't GM, Ford, Chrysler and the rest also have an interest in "protecting" their brand? Apparently they don't have a problem with model kits of their cars being produced...so what's Goodyear's problem?

You can produce a model kit of a car that had a copyrighted name and image, but it can't have tires with "Goodyear" on them? That I don't get.

[fury3]

Why not write to Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in Akron, Ohio and find out from "the horse's mouth", so to speak? Another example... In the "Flomax" medication ads that feature the old men in a blue 67 Mustang Convertible (that don't have to go "potty" anymore), why are the "FORD" letters missing from the hood and the running horse missing from the grille corral? There are many other such examples in this wonderful new enviroment we now live in. Just a simple thought...not trying to be a smart #$@. Fury3

[Frank Steffens]

Licensing fees and the reasons for insisting on them boils down to three elements:

1. Protecting their brand from cheap knockoff reproductions. Paying the licensing fee in this instance helps to ensure that the company's product is not only accurate, but of good quality.

2. Generating new revenue streams. Mr. Joe Middlemanagement, after two decades of lackluster performance, and fearing for his salary/bonus, decides he needs to justify his existence in the corporate hierarchy. For years, he's been handing over technical drawings and the like to model manufacturers for little or no cost because its free advertising. Now he sees this practice as a good way to bring in some cash. He'd heard once on MSNBC that companies like generating new revenue streams. He has the legal department draw up documents (their cost of production will naturally be tacked on to the vig), and he drops them in the model manufacturers' lap.

3. Protecting their corporation from being sued in the event a product with their name on it causes an injury. Lets say Little Johnny builds a Revell '55 Pro Sportsman that has Goodyear Slicks on it. While trying to blow it up with fireworks, he injures himself. Naturally, Little Johnny's mother wants to sue, so she contacts the law firm she saw advertised on Jerry Springer. The Law Offices of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe file suit against Chevy, GM, Goodyear and any other corporation whose products appear in the model. If the model had Moroso Valve Covers, they get sued. If it had a Lenco tranny, they get sued. Eventually, they'll settle for just enough money for Little Johnny's mother to get a new double wide trailer and several new outfits for when she goes to "work". All of the legal fees are paid out of pocket by the corporations that are sued. Never once is it mentioned that Little Johnny's mom should have been supervising her son, but thats beside the point.

The first element is somewhat understandable, the second is just corporate greed, and the third is society's fault.

Since the first element is understandable, where it falls short is in degree. Any manufacturer that wants to protect their copyright can and should do so, but attaching an arbitrary number to it is wrong. Its especially wrong when it winds up adding several dollars to the retail price of the kit, or worse, is so exhorbitant that the kit no longer contains any reference to to the licensor's product. A simple solution, if in fact that's really what they want, would be final approval of their products representation before it goes into production. For example, Revell sends over test shots of their Goodyear Drag slicks for approval before putting them in the '55 Chevy Pro Sportsman box.

In the end, there's really nothing we can do about it. If we boycott, we're really only hurting the kit manufacturers and retailers, who I am sure would rather not have to pay a licensing fee either. The original manufacturer won't care, because licensing fees are just gravy anyway.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Frank Steffens

[Aaronw]

I think the issue with licensing comes down to they can't just give it away and still protect their trademarks. Coming up with a small reasonable fee or other arrangement allowing its use for an item like a model isn't worth their time, and they are too short sighted to consider the advertising angle. Realistically I'd think that assigning the commercial value of seeing their logo in 10,000 kits as payment in full for use of its image would be a fair trade. A poor treament of that logo would be reasonable to pull its use or even sue. The first Mustang kit from a company that looks oddly like a Pacer, and in the words of the Soup Nazi "No Ford's for you"!

There are a few companies that get it.

Erickson Aircrane is one, they build what was once known as the Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane

http://www.ericksonaircrane.com/Content.as...delerZone07.asp

The important bit that shows they get it

In order to mitigate the challenges (read “painsâ€) of coordinating a paid royalty and quality control system, Erickson Air-Crane feels an equitable arrangement would benefit all parties which is thus: We will suspend paid royalty requirements in return for your honorable attention towards accuracy in paint scheme and design of your replicas of the Erickson S-64 Aircrane Helicopter. This would include proper dimensions, paint, and decals accurate in color and placement to the design of our S-64.

Basically don't do anything to make our company look bad and we won't send our laywers after you for just making a nice model of our helicopters.

Absolutely no reason other companies couldn't do something similar, they get exposure and we don't have to fiddle around with issues like individually placing letters on a tire (although I do give MPC credit for thinking outside the box).

I understand Ford is a major pain about this stuff, to the point of going after hot rodder type websites that show the Ford logo in the photos of the cars. The logo is ON THE CARS IN THE PHOTO BECAUSE THEY ARE FORDS!!!! I don't know what kind of pin heads think this stuff up that they feel the need to go after enthusists taking photos of cars and sharing them on the web. Real braniacs.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Aaronw

[Aaronw]

In the end, there's really nothing we can do about it. If we boycott, we're really only hurting the kit manufacturers and retailers, who I am sure would rather not have to pay a licensing fee either. The original manufacturer won't care, because licensing fees are just gravy anyway.

Ah, but we could boycott the 1-1 product.

Dear corporate lacky,

I'm sorry but I will no longer be able to consider your product because I only buy products that I can find in a model kit.

If you would like to have a shot at my money I would suggest you contact Revell, AMT, Lindberg, Tamiya, Hasegawa and Aoshima and request that they consider using your products image in their model kits.

Thank you

Mr Glue Sniffer

[Joe Handley]

Well said Frank and Aaron!

[Zoom Zoom]

As some have pointed out, it is indeed Goodyear's greed that is what has seen their removal from models. Corporate stupidity at it's finest.

I've been buying tires for decades, it's really easy for me to boycott Goodyear from my 1:1's to show support for the model hobby...it's not exactly rocket science to make a better tire than Goodyear. They were some of the worst OE tires I've had on cars. I've had much better service from both Michelin and Dunlop, and even from cut-rate tires from Sumitomo and Kelly vs. the garbage Goodyears I had on a couple of Fords and one of my Mazdas.

[Harry P.]

As some have pointed out, it is indeed Goodyear's greed that is what has seen their removal from models. Corporate stupidity at it's finest.

I've been buying tires for decades, it's really easy for me to boycott Goodyear from my 1:1's to show support for the model hobby...it's not exactly rocket science to make a better tire than Goodyear. They were some of the worst OE tires I've had on cars. I've had much better service from both Michelin and Dunlop, and even from cut-rate tires from Sumitomo and Kelly vs. the garbage Goodyears I had on a couple of Fords and one of my Mazdas.

Man, I couldn't agree more. My car came with "performance" Goodyears...worst tires ever. Their "performance" amounted to absolutely NO grip in the rain and a treadlife of only about 30,000 miles, and the direct replacement was insanely expensive. I went to Continentals and love them. I don't think I'd ever buy a Goodyear tire again.

[Phil Patterson]

I've got a set of Goodyear winter treads on the back of my minivan. They flat spot when cold and thump until they warm up. This usually takes 15 miles or more, sometimes much more on a cold day like today. Once these wear out, I won't be buying anymore Goodyear products. The regular Goodyear tires I've bought in the past were less than adequate in either tire life, handling and especially smoothness. This stupid anti-advertising, kick the consumers in the teeth policy has switched me over to the anti-Goodyear, won't buy anymore of their products category.

It's basically the straw that broke the camel's back.

Hope you got your money's worth out of those lawyers, Goodyear, you're not getting any more of mine.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Phil Patterson

[old-hermit]

A very simple answer, Greed & Lawyers.

There were more law school graduates in the last few years than ANY other profession.

What does that tell you ?

[MrObsessive]

A very simple answer, Greed & Lawyers.

There were more law school graduates in the last few years than ANY other profession.

What does that tell you ?

I've said for a long time that if we can turn off the faucet to the amount of lawyers that are poured out in this country, that would surely cure a lot of ills.

[Jason Rothgeb]

Licensing fees and the reasons for insisting on them boils down to three elements:

In the end, there's really nothing we can do about it. If we boycott, we're really only hurting the kit manufacturers and retailers, who I am sure would rather not have to pay a licensing fee either. The original manufacturer won't care, because licensing fees are just gravy anyway.

Frank,

I enjoyed reading your post and agree with the points it made except for the passage I cite above. So many times a particular course of action is pursued and maintained simply because there is no feedback to the contrary. How many of us have actually written to Goodyear and expressed our displeasure with their licensing policies? Me personally it has been on the to do list for a number of years but have not gotten around to it. This post has served as the tipping point for me to not wait another day and to write that letter today.

I disagree with the statement about the original manufacturers. Many times in this country, multi-million dollar companies and their decisions are influenced by the "mouse that roared", in other words a vocal dissenter who voices their opinion against what is seen as what the majority wants. Want an example? The taste of Coke. Does anyone think that Coke made the decision to change the formula arbitrarily? No sir. There was loads of research that demonstrated people preferred the sweeter, higher corn content taste of Pepsi. Pepsi realized this when they launched their "Pepsi Challenge" campaign some years before the Coke formula change. Based on that information that Coke had, they made the change. The unanticipated negative feedback and nostalgia for the hundred year-old formula for this decision brought about a swift and drastic course correction.

Another good example is those who object to the content and language of some TV shows. (I really don't want to get into the politics of obscenity and network TV, I cite it only because a small group made their opinion know and affected a change in a multi-million dollar corporation.) This was not a big group, but the voicing of their opinions got a lot of media attention and affected what and how the network's broadcast.

Another factor I think has been overlooked in this thread is the MILLIONS of dollars Goodyear spends promoting their products and attempting to generate goodwill. You think Goodyear MAKES money on their association with Nascar? The money they spend is all about getting their name in front of race fans and generating goodwill. Did Pixar pay Goodyear for their association with the movie Cars or did Goodyear pay them? The reason these two examples come to mind is a visit to my tire store a couple of years ago yielded me going home with a bunch of Nascar posters and "Cars" goodyear tie-in stickers for kids. Goodyear has spent all these millions for people to think positively about their product and then ostracizes a number of potential customers for the sake of a few thousand. It does not make sense and if just a few of us bring this to their attention, I believe we CAN change their mind. It can't just be me though, my letter alone will be written off as a lone nutter.

To this end I would ask those involved in consumer relations (a big company would make my point a little better but small companies are welcome too) to relate their own stories about how a rational and articulate complaint or suggestion brought about a change in the dealings with that one consumer or company policy.

To make things easier, here is the contact information for Goodyear:

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

1144 East Market Street

Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Tel. (330) 796-2121

Fax (330) 796-2222

I'll update this thread with the text of my own letter and any response I receive.

As a final point, I'd like to address the barb directed at attornies in this thread. The decision to charge model companies a substantial royality fee for the right to use their name is a BUSINESS decision made one or many business people. It was not a verdict rendered in a court case or some other legal document. It was a decision based on the principles of Capitalism. Namely a given company has decided that it is going to charge a certain amount for the use of its copyrights. If society has decided that a certain element of Capitalism is undesirable, like say the sale of one's organs or tissue, they expressly forbid it. The answer in this case, IMHO, is to convince that company that such a high fee is a poor business decision that will generate negative feelings and impact their profits.

A primary purpose that attornies serve is the gathering and analysis of information and providing that information and their analysis to the client who requested it. Here's mine: write to Goodyear, tell them you do not agree with their licensing policy, and tell them exactly how much you spend on tires and how their policy has affected your purchasing decisions. Consider this post a little Pro Bono work on my part

Edited January 9, 2008 by Jason Rothgeb

[Harry P.]

Jason, I get the feeling that you're either a lawyer, related to one...or married to one...

Seriously though...you bring up good points. Let us know what respone (if any) you get from Goodyear.

[Guest Davkin]

Okay, I know I'll be flamed here for being negative but I only say what I say because I've "been there done that." The problem Jason, with your letter writing campaign is that it won't get any media attention whatsover like all the other examples that you cite did. Goodyear couldn't care less about a couple hundred letters written to them by model car builders....that is unless the media take it and runs with it and makes it a huge public relations issue for them, which I'm certain is never going to happen.

Back when the auto manufacturers were harrassing the model car cottage industry such as resin casters and decal makers I wrote a letter to each of the big three. I received in return a form letter from each that essentially told me in a polite way to bugger off, it's their right to collect licensing fees.

David

Edited January 9, 2008 by Davkin

[Brian_R]

Well, this is what Goodyear replied to me:

We have model licensees who continue to use the Goodyear brand on the tires for authenticity purposes. However that is not to say that we don't charge a royalty fee for the use of the brand. The model company ultimately decides whether to pay a licensing fee or not based on their market and the margins they determine they need to achieve.

Regards,

Kathleen Miller

Customer Relations

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

What I want to know - Revell had to spend some tooling money to remove the Goodyear names - they must have thought that was the most cost effective thing to do. Just how much money does Goodyear want per kit to use their logo?

Brian

Edited January 9, 2008 by Brian_R

[Jason Rothgeb]

Just how much money does Goodyear want per kit to use their logo?

One answer to this question comes from the pages of a back issue of Model Cars magazine. I think it was the article Darryl Hutala (my apologies if I misspelled your name) in which he compared the current AMT and Revell NASCAR kits not too long ago. If I recall correctly, the figure mentioned was the Goodyear license would add the dollar or more to the cost of each kit. If someone has this article/figure at hand, it would enrich the discussion.