DJ Models Announcement 01/05/19

[Oldddudders]

Do other crowdfunders suffer these malicious fakes? Or is this poor man just inordinately unlucky? Life seems to deal him an impressively tough hand. 

[MGR Hooper!]

Thanks for the clarification guys!

[MGR Hooper!]

3 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Do other crowdfunders suffer these malicious fakes? Or is this poor man just inordinately unlucky? Life seems to deal him an impressively tough hand. 

 

Oddly enough, only this unlucky chap....! No one else seems to be getting hundreds of fake orders.

[MarkSG]

4 hours ago, JSpencer said:

 

As I understand it, There were a lot of expressions of interest for the RMweb special yellow J94, but very few actually ever paid up and in the end Kernow (maybe Hattons as well) took the rest.

 

One of the specific issues with the RMweb J94 was that expressions of interest were never acknowledged. So many people (including myself) submitted the form multiple times, in case it hadn't gone through the first time. And Dave simply assumed that every form submission represented an order, even if  there were duplicate orders from people (like me) who weren't sure whether the original order had actually been received. So considerably more were manufactured than there were people who had actually wanted them.

I did pay for the one I wanted (and the only one I thought I had ordered!), and so did most of the people who wanted one. It's a nice little model, and I don't regret buying it. But that still left a lot unsold.

That wouldn't have happened had the sign-up system been better managed. Every expression of interest should have been acknowledged. Duplicate orders from the same email address should have been investigated (or, at the very least, discarded). Everyone on the order list should have been contacted before production started, to check that they still wanted the model. And only the orders which were still firm at that stage should have been used to determine the production run.

 

I don't have a problem with the pre-order/crowdfunding business model per se. It can be a useful way of getting a product to market that would otherwise represent too big a risk to be worth taking, or for more esoteric things that aren't likely ever to be on the manufacturer's radar. It works effectively in other sectors, and there's no reason why it shouldn't work for model railways as well. But it has to be done properly to work. The RMweb J94 was almost a textbook example of how not to do it properly. Unfortunately.

[njee20]

I’d forgotten the phantom orders on the APT, that was ridiculous! IIRC it was suggested that someone had hacked people’s email accounts purely to submit expressions of interest for the APT, meaning Dave was too quick to say it had the go ahead.

 

I don’t recall any of these people being identified though... 

[Oldddudders]

4 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

 

One of the specific issues with the RMweb J94 was that expressions of interest were never acknowledged. So many people (including myself) submitted the form multiple times, in case it hadn't gone through the first time. And Dave simply assumed that every form submission represented an order, even if  there were duplicate orders from people (like me) who weren't sure whether the original order had actually been received. So considerably more were manufactured than there were people who had actually wanted them.
 

People have mentioned unsound business practices in this thread. This revelation gives credence to their view. 

[MarkSG]

12 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Do other crowdfunders suffer these malicious fakes? 

 

Yes, actually, sometimes they do. And sometimes they suffer from people who submit an expression of interest and then genuinely forget that they have. And sometimes people change their minds, but would prefer not to admit it, so they claim never to have placed the order in the first place. And sometimes people misread the web page and don't realise that they're placing a definite pre-order. And so on.

 

There are all sorts of reasons why unconfirmed (ie, without a deposit) pre-orders end up being non-orders rather than confirmed orders. But that's precisely why the order management system has to be robust enough to cope with all this, and has to be designed in such a way as to minimise it. And the financial planning for the product has to be based on a realistic (in fact, it's safer to be pessimistic) prediction of what proportion of pre-orders won't ever be confirmed.

[jjb1970]

I think that if you enter into a commitment to buy a crowd funded model then you should honour that commitment. One of the reasons I don't get involved is that I can't face having commitments accumulating and hanging over me. 

 

That said I would also consider that the supplier has made a commitment to supply the product within a certain delivery window and if things were running very late with no sign of progress and poor communication then I would get to a point where I would happily walk away based on the suppliers failure to uphold their side of things. Ditto for pre-order models if I got into pre-ordering models. 

[BR Blue]

I really think it depends a lot on who is running the crowdfunding. Personally with DJM's trackrecord to date I would not give a penny to a DJM project. Other suppliers have managed it far better.

[The Stationmaster]

53 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I think that if you enter into a commitment to buy a crowd funded model then you should honour that commitment. One of the reasons I don't get involved is that I can't face having commitments accumulating and hanging over me. 

 

That said I would also consider that the supplier has made a commitment to supply the product within a certain delivery window and if things were running very late with no sign of progress and poor communication then I would get to a point where I would happily walk away based on the suppliers failure to uphold their side of things. Ditto for pre-order models if I got into pre-ordering models. 

I apply exactly the same principle to pre-ordering and would only cancel if a model doesn't get anywhere near coming up to scratch (i.e. fails to meet the spec against which it was ordered).   As for crowd funding I would only ever go to a trusted source with a track record of achievement although I don't like the idea anyway.  But I have occasionally paid a pre-order deposit despite not being keen on the idea - but only with a reputable supplier with a track record of delivering the goods.

 

But I do know from people in the trade that there can be a drop-out rate on pre-orders although any sensible retailer (and presumably any savvy manufacturer etc?) will make an allowance for that in their financial planning and also in their product/production ordering.  If they can't manage that and their business gets into problems I suspect they might not have too far to look for the reasons unless they are totally new to the game and haven't had the chance to build experience or haven't listened to advice.

[Great Western]

107,000+ views about an announcement about an announcement, that wasn’t actually an announcement!

 

A record ? 

[jjb1970]

Given the reaction the announcement generated you would have hoped that DJM would have gone into damage control and rebuild bridges mode. They could have done that by publishing a comprehensive update on the status of all of their projects. If a project manager cannot do that basically by extracting a bit of data from their project management tools (which may be a few simple excel and word documents) in next to no time then it basically indicates that they are not doing their job. I have managed projects in the past including some pretty big ones (such as warship power and propulsion systems and re-engineering a power plant) and it is part of the territory to be asked to provide status reports, budget and delivery info etc at the drop of a hat. If I was unable to provide such info pretty much on the spot I suspect that I would have quickly been looking for new employment. 

 

If things are not great then this might have been the moment to go for a reset. Cards on the table, it may not look great but here is my project recovery and turnaround plan. That could potentially alienate a lot of people but those who have paid DJM money to fund projects in good faith based on promises deserve an upfront and honest update and it might pour oil on troubled waters. The other thing that might help are clear statements to accept his own responsibilities for a lot of his problems and a very explicit and unambiguous statement that he has no intention of trying to use his registering of CAD IP for a monetary shakedown and to try and derail projects at Accurascale, Revolution etc. 

 

Given the reaction, the asinine and somewhat empty clarification /retraction was grossly inadequate. Made worse by then going deep. 

[MGR Hooper!]

2 hours ago, njee20 said:

I’d forgotten the phantom orders on the APT, that was ridiculous! IIRC it was suggested that someone had hacked people’s email accounts purely to submit expressions of interest for the APT, meaning Dave was too quick to say it had the go ahead.

 

I don’t recall any of these people being identified though... 

 

Still trying to wrap my head around. Wonder who had so much time to actually hack several people's accounts to place a pre-order/expression of interest.

 

One really does get some good stories out of DJ.

 

Maybe DJ should consider a career in writing adventure/fiction books.

[Steamport Southport]

5 minutes ago, MGR Hooper! said:

 

Still trying to wrap my head around. Wonder who had so much time to actually hack several people's accounts to place a pre-order/expression of interest.

 

One really does get some good stories out of DJ.

 

Maybe DJ should consider a career in writing adventure/fiction books.

 

Why would you need to hack accounts?

 

Someone who knows what they are doing can set up thousands of fake accounts in minutes.

 

Haven't you heard of bots?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_bot

 

 

Jason

[njee20]

Yes, of course, but that’s not what Dave claimed,  he said it was existing modellers targeted to legitimise the orders or something. 

 

Edit: from page 20 of the OO gauge APT thread:

Hi guys,

 

Yes there has been a large drop out rate, but nothing that endangers the project at all.

 

The people who were 'hacked' got in touch right away upon receiving their mails to say they had either no idea, or realised they had been hacked but not that this order had been placed.

 

I suppose 'attempted fraud' would be a better phrase especially if they had tried to intercept mails to the hackee's (is that a word), and use their details to purchase an APT model.

 

what is amazing is that this seems to be a concerted attack against this project but (and i cross my fingers here) has not affected the 92 in either gauges or the King in N.

 

Quite amazed at the amount of railway modellers had been targeted like this to be honest. Quite a high percentage really in the overall numbers.

Edited May 11, 2019 by njee20

[Ravenser]

10 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The other thing that might help are clear statements to accept his own responsibilities for a lot of his problems and a very explicit and unambiguous statement that he has no intention of trying to use his registering of CAD IP for a monetary shakedown and to try and derail projects at Accurascale, Revolution etc. 

 

Given the reaction, the asinine and somewhat empty clarification /retraction was grossly inadequate. Made worse by then going deep. 

 

Having taken a second look at the DJM Statement and Clarification today, they don't improve on seconding reading. You start seeing things that didn't register through the shock first time:

 

We took the view that the Clarification was in fact a retraction of the claim to IP in "the shape of a 14xx/92/APT-P etc", and possibly didn't really read what DJM was actually saying

 

DJM Clarification 2/5/19

 

Quote

as most of you know, i have not got use of my tools and there have been various mails on the internet by trolls saying that they can supply models from my tools. This protects DJM by making sure that although my tools can be sold on (after all i don’t have them in my possession in the UK) the new ‘owner’ wont be able to do anything with them, and neither will the factory they now reside in. Now this means they wont be able to make models from my tools to sell to UK shops, any of my models.  [Emphasis added by Ravenser]

 

I don't want to analyse what/who DJM may be referring to as "trolls" here 

 

But I'm afraid this is a clear statement in quite the opposite direction. We know from DJM's design registrations some of what DJM regard "my models from my tools".  They include the O2, 1361, 14xx, J94, Class 71, D600, Class 92, and APT-P in OO and Class 17, 92, and King in N

[Markwj]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I think that if you enter into a commitment to buy a crowd funded model then you should honour that commitment. One of the reasons I don't get involved is that I can't face having commitments accumulating and hanging over me. 

 

That said I would also consider that the supplier has made a commitment to supply the product within a certain delivery window and if things were running very late with no sign of progress and poor communication then I would get to a point where I would happily walk away based on the suppliers failure to uphold their side of things. Ditto for pre-order models if I got into pre-ordering models. 

I have read a few times in the other threads before the latest storm that people who signed up should honour their commitment but as you also rightly point out it works both ways as it would appear the project manager isn't managing the projects effectively. In this circumstance I can't justify throwing more money at it but I expect we the crowdfunders will be blamed if the project folds.

[Ravenser]

Just now, Markwj said:

I have read a few times in the other threads before the latest storm that people who signed up should honour their commitment but as you also rightly point out it works both ways as it would appear the project manager isn't managing the projects effectively. In this circumstance I can't justify throwing more money at it but I expect we the crowdfunders will be blamed if the project folds.

 

It might have helped if there had been clear terms and conditions.

 

As it is, in the course of this thread I've read suggestions about "Crowd-funding" ranging all the way from a legal right to cancel and reclaim all money paid at any time prior to delivery ,even if the money has been spent on legitimate development work, CAD and tooling and is gone - right through to the proposition that "crowd-funders" have a legal obligation to pay all future instalments in full

 

Nobody actually knows because there's no T&Cs and no precedents

 

All I will say is that if two parties shake hands on an arrangement and each party has a very different understanding of the terms then it is going to end in tears and recriminations.

 

(But I'm sure that if any of these projects folds then posters on RMWeb will be blamed in some quarters for any ensuing financial losses by any party involved)

[classy52]

1 hour ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Maybe DJ should consider a career in writing adventure/fiction books.

 

Yeah the Class 92 adventure...I think I can, I think I can, I think I can......

 

[DavidH]

36 minutes ago, njee20 said:

Yes, of course, but that’s not what Dave claimed,  he said it was existing modellers targeted to legitimise the orders or something. 

 

Edit: from page 20 of the OO gauge APT thread:

 

 

I have only ordered DJM stuff through Kernow, so I have no experience of his early pre-order system, but had he set it up the usual way so you received a link to click to confirm the order? Or had he set up a system with a loophole that you could just type in an email and it woujld register interest there and then? I recall that for the yellow J94 some people made multiple orders as they didn't get a confirmation, so at some point the system didn't have a basic check built in.

[njee20]

Another issue afflicting Dave was that there was no acknowledgement of any expressions of interest, they all mysteriously bounced, so people didn’t know if they’d been successful or not, there was no confirmation required (nor possible). 

[antrobuscp]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I apply exactly the same principle to pre-ordering and would only cancel if a model doesn't get anywhere near coming up to scratch (i.e. fails to meet the spec against which it was ordered).   As for crowd funding I would only ever go to a trusted source with a track record of achievement although I don't like the idea anyway.  But I have occasionally paid a pre-order deposit despite not being keen on the idea - but only with a reputable supplier with a track record of delivering the goods.

 

Same here really. I have only once paid substantially in advance for a model, the D600, that being to lock in the cost. I did so also because I appreciated that Kernow had stuck with the project through a number of difficulties and because I believed them to be established and stable traders. I also paid a little in advance on the Bulleid diesel - to do with the manufacturer wanting payment by a certain date. When making the D600 payment I did say that I did not really like doing so and that I would not do so in future. What I was really saying was that I hoped prepayment would not become the norm.

 

I would, I believe, never get involved in crowd funding no matter who ran it. There are just too many things that may go awry. One of my old professional contacts delighted in repeating the  phrase "There's many a slip between cup and lip". Too often forgotten nowadays.

 

Colin

[jjb1970]

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Having taken a second look at the DJM Statement and Clarification today, they don't improve on seconding reading. You start seeing things that didn't register through the shock first time:

 

We took the view that the Clarification was in fact a retraction of the claim to IP in "the shape of a 14xx/92/APT-P etc", and possibly didn't really read what DJM was actually saying

 

DJM Clarification 2/5/19

 

 

I don't want to analyse what/who DJM may be referring to as "trolls" here 

 

But I'm afraid this is a clear statement in quite the opposite direction. We know from DJM's design registrations some of what DJM regard "my models from my tools".  They include the O2, 1361, 14xx, J94, Class 71, D600, Class 92, and APT-P in OO and Class 17, 92, and King in N

 

That's why I think he should make a clear statement it is not his intention, as it seems pretty obvious that he seemed to think his IP gave him a virtual monopoly for certain prototypes. The backlash we've seen against the announcement will pale into insignificance compared to what we'll see if he really does try and prevent Accurascale releasing their 92 or tries to ransom Kernow over the D6xx. At the moment I think it is fair to say DJM have an image problem and some of their crowd funded projects are at risk if customers lose all confidence in the brand and walk away. If he goes ahead and does try to shakedown other companies then the image of DJM really will be toxic and the impact to future prospects will negate any short term gains that might be made and more. Not to mention the old truism that if you are thinking of making a threat then you have to be willing to follow through otherwise you just become a laughing stock when the bluff is called. If he wants to go down the legal route it is for him to initiate action and defend his claim to IP, that means bills, risk and maybe falling flat. Is a company that has been forced to rely on crowd funding really in a position to go down that route? If they do then I think whatever hope there is of turning the business around will be flushed down the pan.

[stock_2007]

My God are we really on page 47 already? Sorry but the only thing I can find to worry about is where is my next 48xx is coming from if not from DJ, odd thing is a big seller has dropped the price on them wonder if I should stock up

[Covkid]

On 10/05/2019 at 09:42, classy52 said:

 

I respectfully disagree with the above post.

I am personally supporting Accurascale, Cavalex, Dapol & Hatton's by purchasing their products because at the end of the day they have and will deliver unlike DJM which means we are not going back to the good olde days of just Hornby & Bachmann and putting up with their same tired old models.

The like's of Accurascale & to a certain point Hatton's are shaking up the market with their detailed models which is great because the big players such as Hornby & Bachmann will need to up their game which is great for all of us, like I said DJM is being left behind and more than likely end up as a casualty for the reasons already discussed here and elsewhere and I personally cannot support DJM in it's current state.

 

I think you are generalising, and allowing a mild rant to take place when you mention "their same tired old models". Hornby and Bachmann have released award winning models in the last few years, the Hornby Peckett being a beautiful and smooth running loco, whilst the Bachmann LMS Ivatt diesel is also a cracker.