I just wish I could take someone from RC2 on a retail store tour with me. I may not be their sample audience, but I could definitely point out what their loser cars are.

Tom, this dude uses market specific terminology, which makes me inclined to believe that he knows exactly what he's talking about. Sounds like he does this for a living or has seriously studied it. I would also have to agree with his reasoning on market researching and "sampling". What we here say we will buy does not necessarily translate into what we actually do buy. We aren't as "random" a sample as you might think either.

As a degreed mathematicain I totally and completely disagree dude based on what I already posted. The terminology he used is basically math specfic terminology in the sense he used it NOT overall market terminology. Sheeeesh. That's a foolish statement. We are a "perfect" example of a random sample as we choose to post ourselves, we are NOT a selected group by someone to specifically post about a particular/one-sided taste or feeling. How much more random can you get for tastes??? How can you NOT understand that??????? Also, why would someone lie about what he buys, that's a sentence that make NO sense at all dude. I'm totally dumbfounded by a disconnected statement like that.

For the record. Peter (Modsquad) e'd me and he totally agrees with me. We have butted heads many times before over disagreements before so I this is very cool. Thanks Peter.

As an example of 'brain-dead' marketing I present to you: Resto Rods - Cancelled. A series that held great potential that maybe also a hold over from the pre-RC2 days. Instead we get Norman Rockwell.

Actually, it was the other way around. I sat in on the meeting at RC2 about Resto-Rods. Norman Rockwell was first in the works at PM. I suspect Restos were cancelled due to the extensive tooling and time required for new chassies, wheels, etc. I wouldn't be suprised to see this one pop up later down the road. The idea was very popular when it was presented.

The first person I thought of when I posted this thread was Peter. Kind of suprised/dissapointed he hasn't chimed in yet. Then again his major beef seems to be with distribution and not with pegwarmers.

As a degreed mathematicain I totally and completely disagree dude based on what I already posted. The terminology he used is basically math specfic terminology in the sense he used it NOT overall market terminology. Sheeeesh. That's a foolish statement. We are a "perfect" example of a random sample as we choose to post ourselves, we are NOT a selected group by someone to specifically post about a particular/one-sided taste or feeling. How much more random can you get for tastes??? How can you NOT understand that??????? Also, why would someone lie about what he buys, that's a sentence that make NO sense at all dude. I'm totally dumbfounded by a disconnected statement like that.

Interesting topic. It looks to me like Pushin50 knows a little something about sampling procedures and research. Statisticians define "random sampling" as a procedure in which everybody in the population of interest (JL buyers, presumably) has an equal chance of being included in the sample (folks from whom we actually hear opinions). It's a procedure we try to use in any behavioral research to ensure that our sample is representative of the larger group.

In no way does even a large sample of folks choosing to post on HT meet the criteria for statistical randomness. All self-selected, all with computer access of some kind, all posting on a single board, to some degree because of common interests. Plus, the only opinions they get on the "marketing" topics are those who are particularly concerned about those topics. Much as I might share the overall opinions of the board on the recent direction of JL product/distribution/customer service (and I do), our group is about eight degrees removed from any statistical notion of "random." Not every JL collector has an equal probability of being included in this sample.

... I suspect Restos were cancelled due to the extensive tooling and time required for new chassies, wheels, etc.
This just substantiates my position even more, that new releases that RC2 'has to spend some money on', are pushed back or outright cancelled.

Pre-RC2, you folks released an amazing number of new castings, year in and year out. Maybe you can answer this question for me. Since RC2 has taken over, how many new Johnny Lightning castings are pure RC2 ideas that RC2 has developed and funded?

Dan

For the record. Peter (Modsquad) e'd me and he totally agrees with me. We have butted heads many times before over disagreements before so I this is very cool. Thanks Peter.
I thought Mod was a graphic artist. He's a mathematician too?

The comment about "impulse buying" made me think..... do you think all impulse buying is done only in the mass market stores? Or do you think some "impulse buying" occurs on the internet (ie someone surfing an auction service late at night and finds an auction ending in 5 minutes and makes a quick decision to purchase; pays by paypal (instant payment) and then gets their item 2-3 days later by priority mail). And when you make the "impulse purchase" in the mass market store, what is it about the product that causes you to purchase? Did you have "mad money" in your pocket you planned on spending and chose the best diecast of what was available or was there something special about the item that made you spend the grocery money you had earmarked for a steak and potato (so that you now have to eat beans and rice for dinner)?

I'll tell you what impulse buying is in my case. For at least the last month I go to WM in hopes of seeing a JL car I don't have. I have a desire to buy a car or I would not waste the trip. When I get there all I see for the most part are Monoply and Clue cars. Now in my case, I will not be these cars. I broke down and bought a couple of Street Freaks but they are not really my cup of tea either. So instead I might buy a superfast MB or Dub car that I otherwise would have never thought of buying had there been decent JL on the pegs.

I consider impulse buying like on ebay to be a bit different. In that case I believe the product is something you actually want. There are too many steps involved in making the purchase to make it a truly impulsive decision, IMHO.

Interesting topic. It looks to me like Pushin50 knows a little something about sampling procedures and research. Statisticians define "random sampling" as a procedure in which everybody in the population of interest (JL buyers, presumably) has an equal chance of being included in the sample (folks from whom we actually hear opinions). It's a procedure we try to use in any behavioral research to ensure that our sample is representative of the larger group.

In no way does even a large sample of folks choosing to post on HT meet the criteria for statistical randomness. All self-selected, all with computer access of some kind, all posting on a single board, to some degree because of common interests. Plus, the only opinions they get on the "marketing" topics are those who are particularly concerned about those topics. Much as I might share the overall opinions of the board on the recent direction of JL product/distribution/customer service (and I do), our group is about eight degrees removed from any statistical notion of "random." Not every JL collector has an equal probability of being included in this sample.


While quantitative statistics relies greatly on having as much statistical randomness to validify their results, qualitative statistics does not. Because of the cost involved in doing a truly random statistical analysis I believe it would be far cheaper not to mention easier to do a qualitative case study on what cars e-tailers are selling. Not an absolutely accurate picture but a decent one.

Interesting reading.

I think everyone should refrain from judgement until an accurate interpretation has actually been made regarding the definition of "winners." It seems like a lot of people here are quick to make their own conclusions when no one really knows anything about the statement, since it is so vague.

Winners could mean no Mavericks, Pintos, or Gremlins, since they target a smaller community than Camaros, Mustangs, and Corvettes.

Winners could mean Mavericks, Pintos, or Gremlins, since not many other diecast companies dare to make them, therefore Johnny Lightning could corner the market quickly.

Winners could mean no low riders or dubs, since they are already being overdone by a bunch of other companies, or it could mean the opposite, since they seem to do okay, for now.

What worries me is less production numbers and less series. Johnny Lightning has a bunch of very nice castings and I'd hate to see a lot of them put on the forgotten shelf like the Funny Car Legends '71 Camaro.

I have said this a few times now, but I think RC2 needs to bite the bullet and do some tailored advertising in magazines and the "Speed" Channel. Advertise the Mustang set in Ford and Mustang magazines. Same with Chevy Thunder, Mopar or No Car, VW's, Truckin', etc. Most people don't buy them if they don't know they exist. Coca Cola and Wal-Mart never need to advertise again, but they do because they know that people watch and the commercials affect and influence those people by reminding them that they are still #1.

Interesting reading.

I think everyone should refrain from judgement until an accurate interpretation has actually been made regarding the definition of "winners."

how about what will sell and what won't. aaccurate enough? how come do we need interpeters?

Woah nellie! Did we ever establish that Pushing50 is an RC2 Employee?? If he (?) is don't run him off by immediatly jumping down his throat. Be glad that they are here and are looking at what we have to say and are posting. Give them a chance. I know that this group is a great group of people and given a chance we can probably have a positive reflection on what RC2 would consider. Give him the consideration we give anyother new board member.

This is a repost from another string but I feel it applys here as well

Pushin50


Great input and thanks for your views. I didn't agree with everything you had to say but I sure like the way you said it. Welcome, keep posting and after a little time it shouldn't be you vs. the board.;)

Great thread guys! GREAT!

I think RC2 needs to bite the bullet and do some tailored advertising in magazines and the "Speed" Channel. Advertise the Mustang set in Ford and Mustang magazines. Same with Chevy Thunder, Mopar or No Car, VW's, Truckin', etc. Most people don't buy them if they don't know they exist. Coca Cola and Wal-Mart never need to advertise again, but they do because they know that people watch and the commercials affect and influence those people by reminding them that they are still #1.

You mean you didn't see the $60,000 ad that ran at 2AM a year and a half ago, for about two weeks on a premium cable channel seen by fourteen people and then disappeared forever? Surely that counts! (insert rolling-eyes emoticon here.)

When budgets get tight, the first thing to go was advertising. Which makes no sense to me, but then I had no formal marketing or business training either, so what do I know?

jk

Great reading and interesting points, glad to see a newbie is willing to speak up. You guys and your assumptions....... you crack me up!!! :lol:

My interpretation:

"RC2 has plans to devote their vast resources to researching and creating only winners for the Johnny Lightning line"

More cars that sell.

"They have committed to reduce production numbers on some releases if warranted"

Fewer cars that don’t sell.

Seems like a good strategy to me

My guess for today is 92....thanks for the contest!!!
[sorry I spent the weekend in front of a stage balsting my ears with LOUD alternative Christian rock...]

I'd just like to know what these vast resources are? I thought it was just Mac and Tony over there?

My interpretation:

"RC2 has plans to devote their vast resources to researching and creating only winners for the Johnny Lightning line"

More cars that sell.

"They have committed to reduce production numbers on some releases if warranted"

Fewer cars that don’t sell.

Seems like a good strategy to me



My guess for today is 92....thanks for the contest!!!
[sorry I spent the weekend in front of a stage balsting my ears with LOUD alternative Christian rock...]

http://accordionguy.blogware.com/Photos/2004/12/stryper.jpg

Darn I was going to pick 92!

Pushin50


Are your initials, "Del Torgerson" ;) and if it was, would you admit it?

Remember, I guessed right on Robdog's contest too. Am I two for two here?

Lots of neat thoughts here!

My guess for today is 92....thanks for the contest!!! :lol:

I'd just like to know what these vast resources are? I thought it was just Mac and Tony over there?

Mac and Tony are the only PM people at RC2, other than Tom Lowe. But I have spoken to others there devoting time to Johnny Lightning. I assume by "vast resources" they are referring to their production resources too.

Maybe HobbyTalk can be included in the "Vast Resource" reference (hopefull thinking)

OK, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.

I assume by "vast resources" they are referring to their production resources too.

[i](hopefull thinking)

Mid you are too funny!!!!! How about this instead?

Mid you are too funny!!!!! How about this instead?


what is the name of that band? Sprockets? ;)

http://www.viruete.com/Descargas/dieter.jpg

I still think that RC2 has bitten off more that they can chew. I just love it when everyone assumes the worst when a statement is made from the corporation. When in the end it will probably be alright. So they are reducing the numbers of cars made, therefore less stock left over in the warehouse to sell later to Dollar General, et al. Plus, with production down, they can focus on making the cars better than they already are. Just my 2 cents....

Kevin

I thought Mod was a graphic artist. He's a mathematician too?

I just have found to respect his input & find it comforting he agrees. Never said he was one did I?

Interesting topic. It looks to me like Pushin50 knows a little something about sampling procedures and research. Statisticians define "random sampling" as a procedure in which everybody in the population of interest (JL buyers, presumably) has an equal chance of being included in the sample (folks from whom we actually hear opinions). It's a procedure we try to use in any behavioral research to ensure that our sample is representative of the larger group.

In no way does even a large sample of folks choosing to post on HT meet the criteria for statistical randomness. All self-selected, all with computer access of some kind, all posting on a single board, to some degree because of common interests. Plus, the only opinions they get on the "marketing" topics are those who are particularly concerned about those topics. Much as I might share the overall opinions of the board on the recent direction of JL product/distribution/customer service (and I do), our group is about eight degrees removed from any statistical notion of "random." Not every JL collector has an equal probability of being included in this sample.

Your looking at it from the we contact them view, which is fine. In that case yes, they all need the same contact opportunity. We don't have that situation/set-up here. I'm looking at it from the "Please contact us and give us your opinon/view". That is the set-up we have to deal with in this example. The site is here for any JL person to give views (basically asking for input) and that is very very random. Maybe that is where we are disconnecting. I believe we are looking at it from two different perspectives.

Once again, everyone has basically an equal chance of being selected, uder the "please contact us senerio. BECAUSE no one is purposely being singled out as NOT being allowed it's an excellent ramdom view. Therefore complete AND total randomness. We are not asked to join IF we like a certain car type/color OR whatever. That in it self defines randomness and should be very clear but is apparently not to a few select people. This is a reverese type input, like my senerio, where random people, not people who think of the BB as biased towards anything in particular, except JL products which is the base for the inference, which is fine because that's exactly what you want. Self-selected is just fine in this particular case IMHO.

This has been beat to death and I'll stand by my input and am glad to have been able to.

I just have found to respect his input & find it comforting he agrees. Never said he was one did I?
Based on the argumnets you were presenting, then your post about Mod agreeing with you, logic (remember that??) would dictate that Mod had some expertise in the area that you were arguing; mathematics...

A little 'touchy', aren't we??? Sheesh....:rolleyes:

Tom, it's OK to admit when you're wrong...

Based on the argumnets you were presenting, then your post about Mod agreeing with you, logic (remember that??) would dictate that Mod had some expertise in the area that you were arguing; mathematics...

A little 'touchy', aren't we??? Sheesh....:rolleyes:

Tom, it's OK to admit when you're wrong...

Yup, sure is, I just never said he was a mathematician....but that I appreciated his approval, that's all. I know he's very knowledgeable & intelligent and he apparently agreed with me. Very simple.

The common interest is JL. That is/would be the basis of a statistical inference. The randomness is the like dislike with in the group. Once again, everyone has basically an equal chance of being selected BECAUSE no one is purposely being singled out as NOT being allowed. It's an excellent ramdom view. Therefore complete AND total randomness. We are not asked to join IF we like a certain car type/color OR whatever. That in it self defines randomness and should be very clear but is apparently not to a few select people. Just because someone does not have a computer they should be considered as ruining the sample. When the people calling for input to elections call do thet first ask if they have a computer, a TV, A radio....I think not. This is a reverese type input where ramdom people, not people who think of the BB as biased towards anything in particular, except JL products which is the base for the inference, which is fine because that's exactly what you want. Self-selected is just fine in this particular case IMHO.

That definition of randomness isn't one that any statistician would recognize. Purposeful exclusion by the "researcher" isn't required to make a sample non-random. Any procedure in which some members of the population (JL collectors) have a non-equal chance of inclusion by definition makes a sample non-random. And regarding self-selection, it isn't a matter of opinion. One of the first lessons of sampling is that self-selection is one of the biggest threats there is to getting a representative sample of views.

And HT is about as self-selected a sample as you can get. There are lots of JL collectors who don't post here, and it's easy to imagine that their views are lots different from the kinds of things we say. The people who love the themed stuff, for instance, don't post here very much. It isn't because they don't exist (some of those lines sell very well). It's probably for other reasons -- perhaps because they wouldn't find a lot of folks here who share their enthusiasm. That's just one of many ways that RC2 would get a non-representative sample just by reading this board.

Yup, sure is, I just never said he was a mathematician....but that I appreciated his approval, that's all. I know he's very knowledgeable & intelligent and he apparently agreed with me.
Yet 3 or 4 others who DO seemingly have a background in the area have disagreed with you, but as long as a graphic artist sees eye to eye with you, that's OK in your little world...
Very simple.

yes you are...

But you keep beating it to death, OK?? Maybe when you're done, all the garbage men, cops, marketing people and touch up painters will agree with you too...

The second post I've been heavily involved in recently that goes over 1000 posts. Never thought that would ever happen again. Controversy is sometimes good...as long as it doesn't get out of hand. I don't think it did and I thank Mid & Bobby for letting this be discussed.

Anyone wanna discuss Quantitative Multi-Variate Regression Analysis? Just kidding. I did a paper on it in college and really enjoyed regression analysis. Actually did it on various types of cars and the various charactaristics with variables such as weight, horsepower, rear-axle ratio, tire size, etc. Also used dummy variables such as transmission type, maunfacture type, etc. Tied them all to gas mileage as the target variable. It was very interesting but I can't rememeber the outcome details.

Yet 3 or 4 others who DO seemingly have a background in the area have disagreed with you, but as long as a graphic artist sees eye to eye with you, that's OK in your little world...


yes you are...

But you keep beating it to death, OK?? Maybe when you're done, all the garbage men, cops, marketing people and touch up painters will agree with you too...

Ya got to stand up with what ya think is right. Who says they are right?????Seemingly is a long word that has no factual basis. Thank you...very very much...thank-you....and the people on this BB probably in any of the professions you mentioned probably don't appreciate your references. That is very tacky. Hey, you got personal first.

The second post I've been heavily involved in recently that goes over 1000 posts. Never thought that would ever happen again. Controversy is sometimes good...as long as it doesn't get out of hand. I don't think id did and I thank Mod & Bobby for letting this be discussed.

Anyone wanna discuss Quantitative Multi-Variate Regression Analysis? Just kidding. I did a paper on it in college and really enjoyed regression analysis. Actually did it on various types of cars and the various charactaristics with variables such as weight, horsepower, rear-axle ratio, tire size, etc. Also used dummy variables such as transmission type, maunfacture type, etc. Tied them all to gas mileage as the target variable. It was very interesting but I can't rememeber the outcome details.

THAT sounds way cool. I've had my students do regressions in which they predict baseball players' income with various measures of performance (lifetime home runs, etc.) They like it (it's a highly sports-oriented campus), but I would probably enjoy cars more.

THAT sounds way cool. I've had my students do regressions in which they predict baseball players' income with various measures of performance (lifetime home runs, etc.) They like it (it's a highly sports-oriented campus), but I would probably enjoy cars more.

Now that would be very interesting. Don't let them find out the results they may try for even bigger bucks.

Seemingly is a long word that has no factual basis.

My dictionary says seemingly is an adjective.

....and the people on this BB probably in any of the professions you mentioned probably don't appreciate your references. That is very tacky. Hey, you got personal first
I just picked a random sample of professions represented on the board[/QUOTE]

....Hey, you got personal first
I didn't get personal at all, you misinterpreted it.

My dictionary says seemingly is an adjective.


I just picked a random sample of professions represented on the board


I didn't get personal at all, you misinterpreted it.[/QUOTE]

"your own little world".....I take that as a personal remark that I don't care for. Others may not but I do......based on what is typically meant by it. It's very demeaning to me.

That random sample idea was very tacky.

Seemingly is the same as possibly, which could mean being wrong.

It just struck me that this thread reminds me a lot of the "where the heck did the Rebel Rods go" thread that we got into back when Zingers were first coming out. This board insisted that RR were the best thing ever, but PM was hearing from retailers that they couldn't sell them and wouldn't take the line. I believe it Was JK who reminded me then that the opinions expressed on this board, however passionate, weren't necessarily representative of the universe of JL collectors.

It just struck me that this thread reminds me a lot of the "where the heck did the Rebel Rods go" thread that we got into back when Zingers were first coming out. This board insisted that RR were the best thing ever, but PM was hearing from retailers that they couldn't sell them and wouldn't take the line. I believe it Was JK who reminded me then that the opinions expressed on this board, however passionate, weren't necessarily representative of the universe of JL collectors.

Even if for some reason they are not, it's all they got the way things are now unless they do a paper survey or telephone calls which is not likely to happen.

Let's try to keep this thread open guys. Thanks.

Now that would be very interesting. Don't let them find out the results they may try for even bigger bucks.

:lol: Good point. Not to get too off-topic, but that kind of analysis is what is helping some GMs find measures of performance that predict success and are also undervalued by the market. Oakland, Dodgers, and Boston are all doing this now -- it may make scouting obsolete eventually (not to get too controversial or anything).

All the mathematics on the world do nothing for the feel of the collector and the progression of the market. No one has the ability to tell the future. Predictions are just a theory. It's like a boxer that has no fighting talent, or a race car driver that has no feel for racing. They can learn the theory, but could never be competitive.

Predicting what will or won't sell is a best guess that is made by someone that must have some collecting passion, be in tune with the largest mass of collectors, and keep in touch with the economy to predict the expendable cash that people may possess at any given time. In a lot of cases, if it doesn't feel (or look) right, it won't go over with the collector. If you are making the product, but wouldn't be proud to have it on display in your home or office, then most likely, it won't sell too good.

Getting back to the topic, yes, as Bobby stated, winners sell, but what RC2 considers winners is what I would like to know.

Let's try to keep this thread open guys. Thanks.

I'm done, just fun stuff now......but I'll be careful and try not to tick anyone off. I still think basically the discussion was very good and I think my view of the discussion was from a different angle which caused opinon differences, which I'm very OK with.

:wave:

"your own little world".....I take that as a personal remark that I don't care for. Others may not but I do......based on what is typically meant by it. It's very demeaning to me.

That random sample idea was very tacky.

Seemingly is the same as possibly, which could mean being wrong.
good bye, Tom. It's been fun...

:lol: Good point. Not to get too off-topic, but that kind of analysis is what is helping some GMs find measures of performance that predict success and are also undervalued by the market. Oakland, Dodgers, and Boston are all doing this now -- it may make scouting obsolete eventually (not to get too controversial or anything).

They (GM) must be using the wrong varibles for input, their sales, as you know has gone south. That's another nasty thread. Actually if there was an equation out there to work off of then the I should get this because he got that would possibly be less relevant. All they would have to do is utilize an equation. Interesting, very interesting.

Even if for some reason they are not, it's all they got the way things are now unless they do a paper survey or telephone calls which is not likely to happen.

Yeah, that's the big issue. The problem is that even good samples, much less truly random ones, are hard to come by, and can be expensive to get. And that's where the marketing folks, I'm sure, know a whole lot more than I do about the process. What I'm hoping is that at least RC2 will recognize HT as a sort of "political base" that they need to keep happy.

Yeah, that's the big issue. The problem is that even good samples, much less truly random ones, are hard to come by, and can be expensive to get. And that's where the marketing folks, I'm sure, know a whole lot more than I do about the process. What I'm hoping is that at least RC2 will recognize HT as a sort of "political base" that they need to keep happy.

That is exactly right. Here is the BEST FREE input RC2 could ever want at this time. I do sincerely hope things get better but recently it's been very trying finding the same old stuff or nothing at all.