Hornby cancel Titfield Thunderbolt

[AY Mod]

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

Do your homework before going public

 

It's worth mentioning that we, as in the printed media, tried to give our views at the media briefing on 07 December - before anything was publicly announced.

[1andrew1]

12 minutes ago, JohnR said:

The statement will have gone through the lawyers, no doubt Hornby's will have wanted it as bland as possible, Studio Canal's will not. So they come to an agreement. 

 

I wonder what the cost of the legal side was, and whether it would be reported in the next set of accounts? I would imagine it would also include the cost of SC's lawyers. 

I doubt that the accounts will get this granular. Hornby is not in Studio Canal's league but it's  still a £50m turnover business. 

[1andrew1]

14 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

It's worth mentioning that we, as in the printed media, tried to give our views at the media briefing on 07 December - before anything was publicly announced.

Just very strange that they ploughed on regardless. Two mistakes - the original one to try and release unlicensed models and the second one in not listening to expert feedback. 

 

They've a long history of successful licensing which makes it even stranger these models got to the catalogue stage.

Edited July 5, 2022 by 1andrew1

[Oldddudders]

9 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

It's worth mentioning that we, as in the printed media, tried to give our views at the media briefing on 07 December - before anything was publicly announced.

Further evidence of gross, misplaced arrogance, therefore. The printed media thrives on a healthy manufacturing sector, as do we customers, so your advice would have been sincere. But there is famously none so blind….

[AY Mod]

2 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

your advice would have been sincere

 

Seemingly it was 'semantics'. 🤨

[PaulRhB]

15 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

It's worth mentioning that we, as in the printed media, tried to give our views at the media briefing on 07 December - before anything was publicly announced.

Nice to know the wider industry tried to help avoid this. It does make it all the more damning though that they ploughed on?!? 
No doubt if Hornby gets in deeper trouble they’ll blame lack of orders on the current situation and conveniently forget they’ve alienated quite a bit of their traditional base. 

[JohnR]

18 minutes ago, 1andrew1 said:

I doubt that the accounts will get this granular. Hornby is not in Studio Canal's league but it's  still a £50m turnover business. 

 

Probably under the heading "Exceptional Items"

[Oldddudders]

2 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

Probably under the heading "Exceptional Items"

Which it is. Exceptionally, perversely, implausibly stupid. 

[1andrew1]

9 minutes ago, JohnR said:

 

Probably under the heading "Exceptional Items"

I doubt it's a significant enough amount to need to be mentioned. And there will have been other occasions when Hornby decided not to proceed with models after investing in R&D and tooling. 

[RichardT]

This is more than I ever expected to see in the public domain. I rather assumed there’d be an exchange of letters and apologies behind the scenes and a bland announcement that the matter had been settled with the withdrawal of Hornby’s models.  But a press release with a repeated statement that Hornby “acknowledges and accepts” Studiocanal’s rights shows how seriously SC took the infringement.  

As others have said, how *on earth* did a company that relies on IPR licences get this so wrong - both the original decision and the subsequent PR cock-up?

 

Richard T

[ardbealach]

2 minutes ago, RichardT said:

This is more than I ever expected to see in the public domain. I rather assumed there’d be an exchange of letters and apologies behind the scenes and a bland announcement that the matter had been settled with the withdrawal of Hornby’s models.  But a press release with a repeated statement that Hornby “acknowledges and accepts” Studiocanal’s rights shows how seriously SC took the infringement.  

As others have said, how *on earth* did a company that relies on IPR licences get this so wrong - both the original decision and the subsequent PR cock-up?

 

Richard T

 

Simple arrogance in my view.  (Alisdair)

[Darius43]

8 minutes ago, RichardT said:

This is more than I ever expected to see in the public domain. I rather assumed there’d be an exchange of letters and apologies behind the scenes and a bland announcement that the matter had been settled with the withdrawal of Hornby’s models.  But a press release with a repeated statement that Hornby “acknowledges and accepts” Studiocanal’s rights shows how seriously SC took the infringement.  

As others have said, how *on earth* did a company that relies on IPR licences get this so wrong - both the original decision and the subsequent PR cock-up?

 

Richard T

It appears that the Peter Principle does not apply in the case of Hornby Management…as indeed it doesn’t in other places, as witness today’s parliamentary discourse.

 

Cheers

 

Darius

[Nile]

The Dilbert Principle is more appropriate here.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Nile
link

[HonestTom]

I saw this acknowledgement pop up on my Facebook feed and it's only confirmed what I think we all suspected - that Hornby messed up. My guess would be that they were sent a C&D and one of the conditions was that they had to make a statement, but they put it off for as long as they could legally get away with it.

 

Frankly, this implies serious management issues. It's not like this was some one-man cottage industry putting out bootlegs under the radar - this is a major company that is very familiar with how licensing works. They had even negotiated the rights to The Railway Children and Paddington, both of which are StudioCanal's. It's absurd to think that they were unaware of what they were doing, yet the fact that they so openly advertised what they were doing suggests otherwise. Either someone at the top somehow forgot, or they were arrogant enough to think that the third-largest film distribution company in the world would back down.

[Paul.Uni]

4 hours 10 minutes later

 

[Nile]

Is that plan B ?

[Aire Head]

1 hour ago, Nile said:

Is that plan B ?

 

You are rather optimistic in your belief that there is infact a plan A!

Edited July 5, 2022 by Aire Head
Spelling

[frobisher]

4 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

But not apologises . . . .

 

They do if you read it all.

[darrel]

Hope everyone boycotts their model of Lion. I have already got my order in with rapido. And I won't be cancelling.

[HonestTom]

39 minutes ago, Paul.Uni said:

4 hours 10 minutes later

 

IMO, this is what they should have done from the start. That being said, I already have the coaches, so I'll probably just buy the Rapido engine.

[Enterprisingwestern]

4 hours ago, Trevor Hammond said:

I fully expect to see the Locomotive in the 2023 range  just badged as "Lion".

 

49 minutes ago, Paul.Uni said:

4 hours 10 minutes later

 

 

It will be Heljan next then, don't they have the rights to Lion?!!

 

Mike.

[Mark Saunders]

Now coming as L&MR Lion’

 

 

[wombatofludham]

Trying to save a face encrusted with so much egg it looks like an omelette.

Going toe to toe with Rapido for such a niche model, in an economic crisis, isn't going to end well for Hornby.  I imagine it's an act of desperation to try and claw back some money on their development work but I do wonder if this will be a loss maker for them, especially given the generally negative reaction to the whole Titgate affair amongst those who would have bought the majority ("Lion"'s share? Sorry) of these models which seems to be condensing out into a de-facto boycott of the brand.  Given this in no way repairs their relationship with their retail base, it doesn't change my view of how the company is perceived.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, 1andrew1 said:

I doubt it's a significant enough amount to need to be mentioned. And there will have been other occasions when Hornby decided not to proceed with models after investing in R&D and tooling. 

No doubt lots of idaes have never got past a certain stage in the past with many in the business although i do wonder how many (any?) made to to the printed catalogue before the company was forced not only to end development of them but to also post a public statement explaining why it had cancelled them (which at least made a change from them telling retailers that the models couldn't be ordered because they had sold out.

 

1 hour ago, Paul.Uni said:

4 hours 10 minutes later

 

Which opens up yet another can of worms for anyone who is actually inclined to buy it.  Who do they order it from and if they do place a pre-order will they actually get one anyway or will their order be 'allocated'?  If you order something from Rapido you can reliably place a lot of money on a bet that if they make it you will get one to match what you have ordered.  The way things are going at Hornby at present the chances of that happening seem to be getting somewhat reduced.

[HExpressD]

16 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

Going toe to toe with Rapido for such a niche model, in an economic crisis, isn't going to end well for Hornby.  I imagine it's an act of desperation to try and claw back some money on their development work but I do wonder if this will be a loss maker for them, especially given the generally negative reaction to the whole Titgate affair amongst those who would have bought the majority ("Lion"'s share? Sorry) of these models which seems to be condensing out into a de-facto boycott of the brand.  

Maybe, but again zooming out from RM Web for a moment the average model railway customer may never heard of Rapido, the hoo-haa about the Titfield Thunderbolt and they may not keep much of an eye on the modelling press. There will be a significant number of people that go to Hornby as it's the name that they know and may occasionally check Hattons/RoS. Boldly, and perhaps against the grain I'd predict that this will be a good move for Hornby once all the pitchforks have been put down.