Jump to content

Preorder email


Hilux5972
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Just checked my hattons account as I thought they had cancelled everything Hornby but the order for the tts class 08 decoder was still there.

 

So I saved them the trouble and cancelled it myself!

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 60800 said:

This tier system is now doing the rounds on Facebook and is pretty much summed up as follows; 

 

Tier 1 gets the pick of the crop 

 

Tier 2 slightly restricted but most things are delivered 

 

Tier 3 cannot pre-order stock and instead gets what is left over from Hornby's online sales.

 

Examples given are Kernow etc are tier 1, most smaller shops are tier 2 and a very small handful, including Hattons are dumped down in tier 3.

 

Take it as you will, but if this is really the case it is not good. 

 

Ordering direct from Hornby is my last resort - I'd rather join in the bun fight when stock arrives but I have certainly completely lost my faith in pre-ordering. 

 

Edit: Oh and yes, I did have one pre-order left with Hattons that I forgot about aaaand it's gone 

Obviously this can only be treated as hearsay in the absence of any confirmation, but if we assume it is true, the real question is why a retailer might be placed in tier 3? 
I am old enough to remember the discounting bloodbath of the early 1980s. Pages of adverts in the Railway Modeller advertising Hornby etc at (in many cases) half or less of RRP; but behind the scenes, much of this was fed by stock dumping from model shop closures and high street retailers like WHSmith no longer stocking 'traditional' toys and hobbies. The problem in this case is that the box shifters become king and dictate terms to the manufacturers - it ultimately doesn't end well.
The various travails of Rails and Hattons (both far and away the megaliths of the model railway retailing supply chain in recent years with multi-million pound turnovers) suggest that the willingness to cede massive retailing capacity to a third party is now being challenged. If you are a regional or local trader - fine. If you want to order product in the 000's and sell primarily online, then that is where I think the squeeze is being made. Rails and Hattons have noticeably massively ramped up both secondhand sales and their own direct manufacturing to try and address this.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 60800 said:

This tier system is now doing the rounds on Facebook and is pretty much summed up as follows; 

 

Tier 1 gets the pick of the crop 

 

Tier 2 slightly restricted but most things are delivered 

 

Tier 3 cannot pre-order stock and instead gets what is left over from Hornby's online sales.

 

Examples given are Kernow etc are tier 1, most smaller shops are tier 2 and a very small handful, including Hattons are dumped down in tier 3.

 

Take it as you will, but if this is really the case it is not good. 

 

Ordering direct from Hornby is my last resort - I'd rather join in the bun fight when stock arrives but I have certainly completely lost my faith in pre-ordering. 

 

Edit: Oh and yes, I did have one pre-order left with Hattons that I forgot about aaaand it's gone 

 

If this is the case then surely that would be illegal? And anti-competitive. To be honest I'm not happy  Hornby’s business practices 

Edited by Monkey28
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Monkey28 said:

 

If this is the case then surely that would be illegal? And anti-competitive. To be honest I'm not happy  Hornby’s business practices 

You are commenting on hearsay. And somehow I doubt that whatever Hornby is doing is illegal. They aren't market traders.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

Obviously this can only be treated as hearsay in the absence of any confirmation

 

100% yes - and I doubt we will get confirmation either way. 

 

I am aware that a significant number of the members on here do not partake in any other form of social media so I thought I would highlight the recent discussions elsewhere. Over the last day or two talk of these tiers has exploded and they all pretty much come to the conclusion I have summarised above 

 

9 minutes ago, Monkey28 said:

 

Surely that would be illegal? And anti-competitive. To be honest I'm not happy  Hornby’s business practices 

 

I wouldn't know - but seemingly if a contract has expired then Hornby has no obligation to fulfill Hatton's pre-orders? 

 

Indeed in the past, Hattons and many others have received huge cuts - the biggest before now probably being the whole Great Gathering / Great Goodbye A4 situation 

Edited by 60800
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, 60800 said:

Tier 1 gets the pick of the crop 

 

Tier 2 slightly restricted but most things are delivered 

 

Tier 3 cannot pre-order stock and instead gets what is left over from Hornby's online sales.

 

As ever, with trusting that as a source, it is at best lacking in correct phraseology and misleading at worst.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Monkey28 said:

 

If this is the case then surely that would be illegal? And anti-competitive. To be honest I'm not happy  Hornby’s business practices 

Why would it be illegal. There’s no legal requirement for Company A, to supply Company B. 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

As ever, with trusting that as a source, it is at best lacking in correct phraseology and misleading at worst.

 

I can't agree more, as I certainly don't trust Facebook as a source for anything like this and it does appear to be hearsay. No-one has been able to back it up, seemingly the only 'evidence' being what has happened with Hattons.

 

As said, this has cropped up literally in the last couple of days and has exploded. I last spoke to one of the shops I have orders with about a month ago and, at the time, they seemed to have no clue what Hornby was doing with anything and if they would get their allocations that they had ordered or not.

 

It's unsettling regardless.

Edited by 60800
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, PMP said:

Why would it be illegal. There’s no legal requirement for Company A, to supply Company B. 

 

It probably wouldn't be illegal but it would be immoral and anti-competitive to choose who you allow to have stock and who not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

 

It probably wouldn't be illegal but it would be immoral and anti-competitive to choose who you allow to have stock and who not.

Not at all, Company A has no legal obligation to supply company B with stock. In the trade some people are excluded (legally) from being able to stock those companies products. If you were to start a model shop tomorrow, there’s no legal requirement for any supplier to provide you with stock, and it’s not anti competitive to do so.

Edited by PMP
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 60800 said:

I certainly don't trust Facebook as a source

 

Don't get me wrong, it's not entirely without substance but, if those were the words used, it's devoid of detail and includes words certainly not used in the actual source so it cannot be considered accurate relaying of information.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not bothered about people posting what others are talking about, however poorly informed. However, what really grinds my gears is people who just HAVE to let people know that they know the “real” situation (by dropping unsubtle hints in their posts) but then do not share what the “real” situation actually is. You might tell us that you can’t say, which I totally understand, but my retort would be “well, apart from making you look good, what is the purpose of you telling us you know then......”.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aureol40012 said:

“well, apart from making you look good, what is the purpose of you telling us you know then.....

 

As you are obviously taking a pop at me the reason I have said what I have is to steer it away from inaccurate information. I'm certainly not doing it to 'make me look good' so I await your apology.

 

If I am given information in confidence or on trust I'm not going to tell you just because you think I should.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

 

It probably wouldn't be illegal but it would be immoral and anti-competitive to choose who you allow to have stock and who not.

Unfortunately it's part and parcel of normal business

Some companies are very choosy who can sell their products.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, PMP said:

Not at all, Company A has no legal obligation to supply company B with stock. In the trade some people are excluded (legally) from being able to stock those companies products. If you were to start a model shop tomorrow, there’s no legal requirement for any supplier to provide you with stock, and it’s not anti competitive to do so.

 

Just now, melmerby said:

Unfortunately it's part and parcel of normal business

Some companies are very choosy who can sell their products.

 

I am sure that you are both right, so I guess that I'll just settle for 'immoral in my eyes' and potentially a bit short sighted, judging from the customer reaction as seen here.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure the reasons for this are a private matter between the two parties involved. What hasn't been mentioned are the 'terms of trade' that are agreed between two companies when they agree to a contract. If either party feel these terms have been broken then either can pause or terminate the agreement which will have consequences for the end customer.  

 

Certainly when I was involved in the model retail trade some years ago, you placed your orders with the large manufacturers at the time models were announced (often at the beginning of the year or at the London Toy Fair), but there was no guarantee that you would get the quantity you ordered when the models were delivered. Additionally at that time a few suppliers had trade terms that contained clauses that were possibly illegal / immoral, such as requiring you to only sell their products at full retail price, a requirement which had been outlawed some  years before. However if you were reported for breaking the terms (by other retailers), your supplies and trading contract would stop without warning.

 

Trade relationships are invariably more complex than the retailer / modelling customer relationship.  I am not taking sides in this discussion as I have had a number of pre-orders cancelled today. I simply worked the keyboard and pre-ordered the items spread across several other retailers.

Edited by vaughan45
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
34 minutes ago, andyman7 said:

You are commenting on hearsay. And somehow I doubt that whatever Hornby is doing is illegal. They aren't market traders.

 

Don't count on it. Surprising how often people overlook the obvious. The more senior people are, the more common this is.

 

When you start studying Law, the first courses are about Contract. Why? Because it is just about the simplest.

 

Offer + Acceptance + Consideration = CONTRACT.

 

I did suggest a couple of weeks back that we really need to see Hornby's T&C's to have a full picture. There must be a retailer here who could post them anonymously.

 

But the T&Cs would normally be over-ruled by the law in respect of Unfair Contracts (1976?).

 

If a retailer has ordered x number of article X (Rxxxx) and Hornby has accepted that order, it should be delivered unless, for instance, a ship sinks on its way from China. In other cases, where stock is clearly available ( at other retailers or direct from Hornby), the retailers who have not had a delivery should be suing Hornby for loss of profits and damage to reputation. They might want to group together and pursue a joint action.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, amwells said:

Had an email today - only for a couple of generic coaches. 
 

interestingly, I’ve also been following up on my order for all of the Coronation coaches from another supplier - Jadlam. Despite selling out in lots of places, Jadlam still haven’t had any (and have not received an answer from Hornby as to why not). 
 

Fortunately (for me) I’ve cobbled a set from a couple of other retailers who still have them in stock. 

I'm in a similar boat with Jadlam and the Coronation coaches - I did manage to recieve two about 3 weeks ago, but am still waiting for the final one I had ordered to come in.

 

They have been very good at replying and giving some confidence that it'll be sorted - I'm sure it must be frustrating for them too. It's been due 'imminently' since late April, and (in my experience) they've always been fairly reliable, so I'm just keeping my fingers crossed it'll be resolved...

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, col.stephens said:

Hornby Southern 6-Wheeled coaches cancelled by Hattons.

 

I am going to email Hornby asking what their game is.  Might I suggest everyone else does the same?

 

Terry


Might  be better sending to Simon Kohler as it seems the issue is Hornby 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andyman7 said:

 If you are a regional or local trader - fine. If you want to order product in the 000's and sell primarily online, then that is where I think the squeeze is being made. Rails and Hattons have noticeably massively ramped up both secondhand sales and their own direct manufacturing to try and address this.


And so these companies forced down a route of commissioning and manufacturing themselves , thus further increasing competition . Really smart move Hornby .  

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I'm saving for the fire sale.

 

But let's be clear, whatever is going on here is not "illegal" under competition law. For lots of reasons such as Hornby and the model railway market and the impact on the public do not meet the criteria required, starting with the market being too small.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seem to remember around early 1990s there was a bit of a showdown with some of the retailers that discounted ending some no longer with us. Not sure preorder was quite so prevalent then and not the diversification of own manufacturing/special commissions either

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
48 minutes ago, PMP said:

Not at all, Company A has no legal obligation to supply company B with stock. In the trade some people are excluded (legally) from being able to stock those companies products. If you were to start a model shop tomorrow, there’s no legal requirement for any supplier to provide you with stock, and it’s not anti competitive to do so.

 

It does when it has accepted an order.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the first part of my pre-order with Hattons (about 14 items) cancelled in February. Today I had another 12 items cancelled. That now accounts for 100% of my Hornby pre-orders cancelled. Last year I had 2 items cancelled just at the time they became available, I decided to cancel the rest and place direct with Hornby.

 

Whilst I can understand that Hattons may not get their full allocation, I find that for every item to be cancelled in 2 hits very bewildering. Surely I can't be that unlucky. Incidentally I placed these orders on the day of announcement so I was hardly very late.

 

Personally I think something else is going on that they won't admit to.

  • Agree 5
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×
×
  • Create New...