Jump to content

NEW OO gauge Crowdfunded Class 92 initiative


DJM Dave
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Now, whilst I'm posting this I'll take the opportunity to mention that I will no longer be giving you any of my money, and that my decision has nothing to do with another manufacturer's plans but simply down to what I personally take to be deplorable behaviour on your part.

 

 

Budgie,

 

No where have I said I will never ever buy a DJM product.  I quite clearly stated why I'm not prepared to 'invest' in this single enterprise.

 

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Paul

I think it's that sentence that can easily be misunderstood!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly I am pretty un-impressed with some of the comments here- one specifically.

 

At no point did Dave say that the rights to the model will be invested in the initial purchasers nor that there would be any exclusivity or so on; in that respect he has been absolutely transparent.

 

It is very simple indeed; we are being offered the chance to purchase a model for £X. We are not being asked to invest in the means of production or buy shares in the company. If that is what you are aiming for then ask any of the manufacturers if they are seeking full investors/ partners.

 

As for describing DJM as 'deplorable' on the basis that you do not like the transparent and open business model, perhaps such remarks are best made by PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Tom was incorrect to call it "equity crowdfunding" but otherwise he is correct, those who participate are paying, in advance, for a model. Once they have the model their interest is over. There is no promise of exclusivity. Most such offers provide a discount on the eventual public sale price in return for the advance payment and often priority on delivery, and that's it. No "shares" are involved and no dividends.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

.....and all this hassle to get a decent model of the Cl.92 on the market at a reasonable price.

 

One thing I certainly do know is that I do not have the stamina and courage that DJM has shown in his attempt to bring something that many people want to the market. Having read some of the above posts if I was in his shoes I would have just  said stuff it. I'm out.

 

Give the man a break. We're lucky to have guys like him about.

 

Keith

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how far each party is with their models but could this be an opportunity to say ok I will do the OO version you do the N scale and we will share research, don't know if cad costs could be shared or not and market as a joint venture share advertising costs?

Thanks

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

.....and all this hassle to get a decent model of the Cl.92 on the market at a reasonable price.

 

One thing I certainly do know is that I do not have the stamina and courage that DJM has shown in his attempt to bring something that many people want to the market. Having read some of the above posts if I was in his shoes I would have just  said stuff it. I'm out.

 

Give the man a break. We're lucky to have guys like him about.

 

Keith

Well said. I am beginning to wonder why, and for how much longer, people will invest their time, effort and money in developing the models for us that we have been asking for. Be it DJ Models (oh you might make more...), or Model Rail / Kernow (where's my model...) the level of criticism is reaching disproportionate levels.

 

On DJ Models in particular, Dave has regularly said he would not repeat livery / number combinations. What was that supposed to mean if not that he would make more in the future? I am sure the modelling world would be a far poorer place if he did one run and said that was the lot and no more... I missed out on a Rapido model as I was not in a position to buy one, I would love to see another run but it isn't going to happen.

 

Roy

Edited by Roy Langridge
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just writing this to give my support to Dave with the 92.  I'll be paying for 2 x OO Gauge Class 92s and what he then chooses to do with the tooling etc is entirely up to him.  I never expected a stake in it, profit or whatever . . . just decent models of 92s!  

 

If he makes further models to sell to trade, I'll be getting another one in grey livery with the other style of name, if he chooses to do that one.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My apologies Budgie,

 

A poor choice of words on my part my poorly illustrated point leaving it open to misinterpretation.  Thanks to MGR for highlighting it.

 

Apologies again,

Paul

Accepted. Now let's forget about it and get on with ensuring that the class 92 models in both scales are successful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issues with Dave doing separate and different releases post-crowdfunding and thus reusing the tooling, as it would be a waste to do one run and then never again use the tooling despite it being well within its lifespan. Most models produced nowadays we buy at exactly the same price as the original release, and in most cases more due to inflation and rising costs etc, but R&D is going to cost a minute fraction of the initial amount to research and tool up the first release of the model, so are all companies that don't lower the RRP when the R&D or tooling costs are covered being sly and making a quick profit? The RRP of most RTR releases nowadays include a rather generous profit margin anyway, which is known by all but we still accept and pay for it, however with crowdfunding Dave will reap the rewards only after initial production through the sale to trade of another different run.

 

By helping Dave finance the model with small instalments upfront, we are allowing him to produce a model for us that we want, and then he can take his tooling and produce additional different variants, which he can profit more from. I think this is totally acceptable as the initial run of models will not be remade, simply the tooling will be reused which in my view is economical for DJM and the right thing to do.

 

Again, this is my understanding and please do correct me if I am wrong, but again I fail to see what the issue here is.

 

Thanks,

Jack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure where "trade margin" fits into the equation. For the crowd-funding business model the producer deals directly with the eventual buyer so no trade margin, but the chance to make a producer margin. When a future batch is made and sold through the trade, there is still the producer margin, but an additional retail margin which would drive the selling price higher. I had not expected a crowd-funded model to be exclusive forever, but I had expected there to be a financial advantage to crowdfunders.

 

I thought when DJM started invoicing deposits for the N gauge Class 92 it was a sign that they had decided to proceed with the model, even, as its turns out, in the knowledge that DJM had that another producer might also be in the ring. It seemed a bit curious that this should suddenly become the topic of the opening post in the locked topic, since with the decision made to proceed and invoice "interested parties" surely there was no going back. It seemed strange that the 00 model was not invoiced as well, so I am not sure of what that means for the 00 gauge model's popularity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crowd funding idea is what it is, you either buy into it or you don't. As with the Rapido manufacture to pre-order model I believe it is now a part of the hobby regardless of what people think of it. My own personal position (and it is just my personal opinion, no offence intended to anybody) is that I don't like either idea and would rather just buy a model when it is released in the old fashioned way, however if others embrace pre-ordering and crowd funding then it is their right to do so and it is not my place to object.

 

I believe what has put the heat into this current topic is the (in my view) ill advised references to Revolution Trains. Outing one of their projects before they themselves had announced it publicly was unfortunate however I can accept the justification that Dave believed the knowledge of the release was already widespread and as such that the model had in effect been announced. What is more problematic is referring to the content of a private letter on a public forum. If the letter is considered to be an attempt to reach an agreement that is counter to the law then the appropriate response is to report it to the competent authorities. If the letter was considered as a well intentioned attempt to avoid two companies potentially losing out (which if my belief, I really do not think Ban A and Red Death have tried to subvert the law) then I think it should have remained private. In neither case do I think it should have been made public on an enthusiast message board.

 

Personally I just think this whole situation is unfortunate, but duplication is a part of the hobby and will I expect become increasingly common. Companies have every right to make whatever models they wish (assuming they have any necessary licenses).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the funding analogy as being similar in ONE concept to the N-Gauge Society inspection saloon made by Farish for them.

 

The funder (in this case the N-gauge Society) paid the development costs and got an exclusive model- or in this case a big batch of exclusive models.   The manufacturer has now made another batch of the same model (which I assume have different running numbers) and is selling them at a higher price through its dealer network.

 

I see the crowdfunding as doing the same job as the NGS funding for the inspection saloon.  Once the funders have got their models then Dave as manufacturer can then bring out the same model in different livery/number combinations at a higher price etc.  The exclusivity for the funders is that their models are a) a lot cheaper and b) not repeated, at least in the Crowdfunded example.

 

Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

 

Les

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now can we all agree on 2 things please?

 

1) that I've been a bit of a berk this weekend and

 

2) let's all move on for the sake of our hobby!

 

So, quite weirdly, and no this wasnt planned, or a reverse piece of genius phsycology, but there have been more orders this weekend than ever, far outweighing cancellations and as such pushing both projects even further forward.

So with renewed vigor, full steam ahead (yes I know,lol)

 

Cheers

Dave

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now can we all agree on 2 things please?

 

1) that I've been a bit of a berk this weekend and

 

2) let's all move on for the sake of our hobby!

 

So, quite weirdly, and no this wasnt planned, or a reverse piece of genius phsycology, but there have been more orders this weekend than ever, far outweighing cancellations and as such pushing both projects even further forward.

So with renewed vigor, full steam ahead (yes I know,lol)

 

Cheers

Dave

Absolutely, to use a ghastly cliché, call it a learning opportunity. I don't think there was anything bad intended by any party and it is probably best if we all put it behind us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly both DJ Models and Revolution have invested a lot of time, money and effort on this prospective model and it’s not difficult to appreciate the deep frustration for all concerned.

 

I must say I don’t really understand one or two of the more tribal and hysterical responses - I have a lot of time for both these new companies who, to me, have a great deal to offer our hobby (especially in n gauge).  They’ve already inspired a fair amount of well-deserved excitement and anticipation about their about their current and (mostly) future products thanks in part to a refreshing engagement with contributors to this and other forums as well as a healthy visibility at many shows. 

 

I hope they can find some kind of mutually agreeable accord and that neither will be too much out of pocket so they can get on with the job of producing what promises to be a couple of outstanding ranges. 

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now can we all agree on 2 things please?

1) that I've been a bit of a berk this weekend and

2) let's all move on for the sake of our hobby!

So, quite weirdly, and no this wasnt planned, or a reverse piece of genius phsycology, but there have been more orders this weekend than ever, far outweighing cancellations and as such pushing both projects even further forward.

So with renewed vigor, full steam ahead (yes I know,lol)

Cheers

Dave

 

Can't see how you have been a berk?

 

I'm pleased your planning future releases as I can see it allowing you to produce models without using crowdfunding at some stage, class 89 please ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well I think both parties have attempted to do the right thing and having it in the open is the honest route, a little upset now saves a lot of upset later.

 

Now we know, let market forces decide..

 

So at risk of being cheeky..., we've had it said there's 2 class 86s and / or 87, Bachmann doing a 90 and neither confirmed nor denied of a 92 elsewhere, maybe its time for a new plan: 

A - cl 86,

B - cl 92,

C - cl 81 ?

The list of vendors doing AC electrics must be nearly exhausted at this point, making it a safe bet :-)  [tells me the chances of an 82,3,4 are still in the very long grass]

 

Maybe its time to have a coordinated annual date for the smaller manufacturers to announce their intentions.

 

Its unfortunate but not unique.. Polish modellers have had to face this issue not once, but twice, with the same two manufacturers in both instances.. the PKP market is much smaller than the UK market but due to confusion is served with two competing models of the EU07 and one year later repeated itself with the SU45 ! at the cost of delaying the ET22 as both thought the other was doing it !

 

The risk of the crowded market place is not the customer buying, but the cost of duplication could lead manufacturers to model obscure prototypes instead, with less risk of another manufacturer doing it... maybe a class 80 ? [but then again we did have two companies producing 10000/1 too ?]

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that point. You've been someone thinking carefully about his commercial and legal position. The overwhelming view seems to be a high degree of respect for you. I share that view.

Ok, now can we all agree on 2 things please?

1) that I've been a bit of a berk this weekend and

Link to post
Share on other sites

Collusion definition from Wikipedia:

 

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[

 

I have put in bold what this particular case potentially represents. It is probably - from a legal point of view - best to be transparent about such incidents which nearly occur because the penalties are extremely serious.

From personal experience, back in the 90s, one model shop nearly took another to court because they held exclusive rights as the sole UK retailer supplier of a famous German HO/N/Z kit buildings manufacturer (and I will say no more but it settled down friendly).

Even vague cases can lead to serious consequences and it is law that is like "guilty until proven innocent".

 

Personally, I don't think Revolution Trains and DJM have the resources for an all out duplication war, my hunch reading between the lines are that Revolution were particularly targeting the N gauge model with the OO gauge if no one else had plans period. Which is not the case. So - my assumption is - the DJM OO model will be fairly unique while N may be duplicated (even here the liveries may have some exclusive parts to one make or another).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that point. You've been someone thinking carefully about his commercial and legal position. The overwhelming view seems to be a high degree of respect for you. I share that view.

More that he revealed another company's plans after they contacted him in confidence...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is time this thread moves on, but for what it is worth I think he did the right thing in this case. He had been put in an impossible position **if** there was any possible breach of legislation by the offer of market sharing then it did not come from Dave.

 

More that he revealed another company's plans after they contacted him in confidence...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AY Mod locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...