Higher Prices for US Aircraft Kit Subjects?

"Royabulgaf" wrote

That is true, but not the context of the sub-thread you entered. "Stopped caring" explained why companies no longer compete for or even seek out model companies to use their logos.

KL

"Kurt Laughlin" wrote in news:o6rTc.1851$si.325@trndny06:

Somehow I don't see Trumpeter or Revell challenging Boeing in the real airplane or aftermarket business. I think the issue is reasonableness. How does allowing people to make replicas in a reduced size in anyway infringe on a company's real business particaularly when the reduced size replicas are of aircraft no longer in production without a prayer of going back into production orginally made by companies whose corporate identities no longer exist.

I have no problem with a company seeking to protect it's corporate identity. But it should also be reasonable in cases where such uses don't even come close to hurting it's actual line of business. In the case of military equipment I say, to bad. It belongs to the US governemnt and by extension to those that paid for it. In the case of cars or commercial aircraft or in regards to markings of race car sponsors or commercial aircraft operators or other enterprises - Disney, Aliens, etc where there are real copyright or trademark issues certainly that is a different story. I would think that if they received a small royalty that would not be a problem. Or if they intended to profit directly, Disney for example, than so be it.

So Revell now has to pay royalties to Boeing or Airbus (a state owned company? how does that make sense?) for the aircraft and to the airline for the livery. Fine. And if someone doesn't want to play then screw them.They just shouldn't be surprised if there is enough demand to make pirated copies a reality, copies over which they have no control. Free markets and the mind of man you know. Dickheads in $800 suits only think of themsleves as masters of the universe. The universe has other ideas.

But if it has been practice in the past to allow it or to even work with the model companies does it make any sense to allow them to suddenly squeeze them?

To Lockheed I say Lick(my)head! And to Union Pacific I say UP yours!

There are simply to many people anymore that are either irresponsible or worried about the wrong things. At my new job you would not believe the required lecture on privacy I got. To all of which I said DUH! I've been in DP for 15+ years and handled plenty of confidential information. Were I not respnsible I would not be where I am. As another new employee said, the lecture seesm not directed at people like you and I who understand all this, but for those who don't understand the neccesity of keeping people's personal health information confisential. And those people probably wouldn't understand the lecture anyway and should not have been hired in the first place.

"Gray Ghost" wrote

They won't but that's not the issue. It is simply their trademark.

As has been discussed already, that depends on what the contract with the Government said. It is NOT uncommon for the vendor to retain rights.

And if the infringers get caught and get sued, screw them.

Sounds like you are against ALL trademarks, patents, and copyrights in principle? Because some people steal and I can't stop them, I'm a d*****ad for trying to prevent further theft?

This sounds like you have other issues besides copyrights. . .

Now Frank, here's where I'd expect your bullshit detector to ring. What evidence do we have that anyone is actually being "squeezed"? Have we seen any royalty agreements in person? As I recall from the FSM article some years ago, Boeing's view was that they just wanted to be asked first. For all we know, a model company didn't even bother asking and got a C&D letter from Boeing. Now they're going around telling the World that the sky is falling. What evidence - real, factual, publishable, attributable, evidence - is there that any model company is being forced to pay royalties that would amount to a "squeezing"?

Good thing this is Saturday. . . Maybe by Monday they can get a statement out and prevent their stock price from dropping too far. . . This is ridiculous Frank. What are you going to do, demand that the USAF NOT buy the F-22A (or pay more to L-M so that the shape and name is public domain) or boycott any product shipped on the UP? Hah!

I understand your view Frank, but I also deal with security and similar safety briefings. Yes, what that other guy said does ring true. However, you should realize that the more experienced people ARE often the problem because they THINK they know the rules, and THINK they know where they can cut corners. My company tracks security violations and publishes the data. I can't remember the last time (in ~13 years I've been there) that the violator had LESS than five years experience on the job. I think the average is like 11 years or something like that. All of them, if asked, would probably say they understood what their responsibilities were, but apparently they didn't. We had one guy who was a department safety rep break his shoulder because he was climbing on desks to get something and fell - he THOUGHT he understood what was safe and what wasn't.

KL

I hear what you are saying Kurt, but look at it this way - plastic kits of F-16s are a good PR for the Air Force. How many current fighter jocks probably started on their career path by making kits of aircraft?

Or how about this - let's say your the head of Kurt Air, a large airline, who wants to screw Revellogramfix for a hefty licensing fee. They instead decide to go to JM International who say "great idea, its all publicity for us!". You walk into your hobby store and the shelves are stacked with kits of your biggest rival airline. How is that going to make you feel?

Sure, business's are out to make money, yes they have to protect their trademarks as well, but I think that becomes a grey area when we are talking about a big chunk of metal rather than a logo. What I think people are saying here is that there should be a modicum of common sense involved. And the amount of money they would be likely to make from a license is probably peanuts in the scheme of things to them. Would Boeing (or whomever) rather kids be buying kits of their aircraft of their rival?

Back in the 60s, 70s and even the 80s the approached of the aircraft companies, when approached by kit companies, was almost always "yeah, go for it". In fact, Hawker Siddley were always badgering Airfix to do a kit of their latest aircraft because they could see the PR value in it.

There clearly used to be something going for the concept Kurt because for decades that's how it used to operate. The social/enomomic climate has changrd where companies - or maybe perhaps their accountants o corporate lawyers - are now looking for a way to make money at every opportunity.

From my own experience I can tell you a story of how, back in the 90s, I was approached to write an article on a small museum that was always looking for new supporters, being acharity and all that etc... I contacted them and told them I'd been asked to write an article - which was effectively going to be a free four page advert for them in a national magazine read by hundreds of thousands - and asked when I it would be convenient for me to pop down and have a chat. Their response was that if I wanted to write an article, they would charge me £100 (which was more than I was being paid) for taking photos! I told the editor and he said they could get stuffed.

The moral of thats tory is that sometimes people can't see good PR when its kicking them in the butt, and I think its the same when it comes to licenses for airctraft kits.

I think they ought to challenge in court the items which were produced under government contract - "F/A-18 Hornet" for example, not the use of a corporate name or logo.

I think that would be a slam dunk (might not even get to court) and the winning of only one such case would stop such future foolishness.

I wonder how much the companies pay for copyright on Hot Wheels, Corgis, Hongwells, etc.?

Diecast cars sell far more than plastic kits, so aybe they can afford it.

Tom

"Kurt Laughlin" wrote in news:GQsTc.2043$si.72@trndny06:

Absolutely not. Private property rights are the foundation of a civilized society.

Scads. I think that a lot of pure profit over everything. While to a simple minded freemarketer that might sound OK, in the end there are other considerations for the long haul, not just the next quarter. And the next insane undeserved bonus.

From what I have heard so far, which is admittedly very little. Mainly Sikorsky going after people on eBay, some kind of issue with the jeep logo affecting kit makers, etc. I would like to see companies working with model companies to allow it and to make more accurate model kits. I thought it was mentioned earlier that whoever owned what was North American was going to seek royalties for P-51 Mustangs, etc. Which I think would be way out of line.

Please like I would make the slightest difference!

There are just to many idiots who can't keep focused on the purpose. it makes it tough for everyone.

"Jonathan M" wrote

I thought this had been pretty well explained before, but I'm game to go again.

That's swell, but the Air Force isn't claiming copyright on anything. . .

That's quite a suspension of disbelief there, to suppose that the CEO of a large airline would ever set foot in a hobby shop, but I can do it. . . I would be indifferent. I would ask my marketing guy to find out if JMI had sold any additional seats because of this. When he reported back "No" (as I'm certain he would), I would shake my head and move on to something that would build valuable PR, like being on time 5% more than our direct competitors at each airport.

And that is the long and the short of it.

Kids do not buy airliners. Adult model builders do not buy airliners. People responsible for buying airliners do not make choices based upon model kits. Any CEO or stockholder who found out that the purchasing manager of the airline chose A over B because A cooperated with Revell while B didn't would be fully within their rights to have the PM filleted and salted. You can also substitute fighters for airliners, Defense Secretary for CEO, and congressman, fighter pilot, or taxpayer for stockholder with the same result.

Good for them, that was sweet.

Yes, and also not to waste it.

I assume you are are talking about H-S. . . How many extra aircraft do you think they'd sell to the MoD or whoever based on your article? Probably zero, right? Don't you think they could figure that out, too? Zero is also value of your article to them. There would however, be costs, like for one or two people to spent about a half a day keeping you company. That would likely run about -L 500, so even after your fee they'd still be L 400 in the hole.

Trust me, they know good PR - they pay people to create good PR. Look at Farnborough, the Paris airshow, or one of the defense expos. The big companies will be giving out all manner of gimcracks, free food, booze, and hookers just for good PR. They'll spend more for giveaways in three days than Revell makes in six months. What the poor souls on this newsgroup and this hobby just don't understand - or just won't accept - is that they don't matter. We are not the target audience. We do not make decisions. We do not sign $10 billion (milliard) contracts.

Sorry guys, but that's the way it is and really the way it has always been.

KL

I think you're missing the point Kurt - its not about selling seats, its the basic marketing concept of "brand recognition". One of the key lessons of marketing is to get your brand out there and get people talking about/loking at it, because if you don't, your competitor will.

The problem in recent years is that that lesson is getting lost in the backwards step of trying to eek as much $£$ and losing sight of the value of free advertising.

I think you're being a little pedantic now. Think bigger picture.

You've totally missed the point there - I was talking about model kits.

And it worked, it was better for them and better for hobby.

So employing lawyers over spurious licensing issues is not waste of money?

Kurt, if you read what I said, I was talking about a small museum, and not even aviantion related.

Well, if we don't matter, why the problem over licensing then?

"Jonathan M" wrote

We don't matter in their business except that our hobby's unlicensed use of their trademarks affects their ownership of said trademarks which affects their business.

It's obvious that it is you guys who don't get it. "PR" or "Brand Recognition" or "Goodwill" or whatever you want to call means nothing in it's own right. If it doesn't have a tangible benefit in increased profits, now or in the future, it does not have a value. You folks just can't wrap your brains around the idea that many people - not just one CEO, not just one company, not just one industry - have come to the conclusion that cooperation with the hobby industry incurs costs and risks that have no offsetting benefit to the organizations providing the cooperation.

Wake up guys, the free ride (*) is over. Deal with it and move on already.

(*) Assuming, as I mentioned before that there is in fact an issue. Everything reported has been third-hand or worse to date, and most sounds suspiciously like sour grapes after a company was zinged for not asking first.

KL

What "costs" and "risks" specifically?

Kurt, beleive it or not, the concept of "brand recognition" still plays a big part of almost every companies marketing strategy (I do freelance for a couple marketing companies). The idea of a "tangible benefit" is moot one because for some people that's figures on abalance sheet whereas for others its just getting the publicity, the basic premise of which is "if it aint us, its gonna be our rival".

In some instances, "brand recognition" is costing companies just to get their name out there, so any CEO with a sound marketing background would see the benefit our hobby gives in providing cost effective PR for them. Sure, some companies have a trademark to protect, but all it takes is a modicum of common sense to weight up the pros and cons of the situation. And for the most part, this is how a lot of deals are done in the hobby industry. Alas, there has been tendancy amongst a few organistaions to look for a quick balance sheet return rather than the long-term benefits.

One of the companies I deal with sends its clients media cuttings every time their name gets mentioned and in the case of magazine features, works out what the cost would have been in advertising space. Going back to my dealings with said museum, no one there weighed up the value of what a four-page feature would havemeant to them. They valued £100 on a balance sheet more than 200,000 people reading about their museum, the work they do, the problems that they face and the support they are looking for. In the end, they'll spend probably 10 times that £100 in trying to market themselves. They were a one off though as other organisations I've dealt with bend over backwards to be helpful.

The point is that those companies that start looking at anything like this see it purely as a balance sheet exercise are making fundemental marketing errors - and that's not me saying that, that's something you'd be told by anyone working in marketing. There is value in "free" PR, that's why there's a huge industry out there that works to get a brand name mentioned even on something as small as a column inch for the basic reason that better your name be there than your competitors. I'm not saying we contribute $$$$$ to their coffers but in as part of any marketing strategy you need to be "out there" on many fronts.

Going back to the hobby, for the most part aircraft or car manufacturers or airlines do work with the kit companies because they realise the value of it. Sure, some license fees are agreed, but usually this is worked out amicably and isn't a problem. The issue would appear to be when corporate lawyers or accountants with no understanding of PR side of things start throwing their weight around, as happend with BMW when they tried to enforce the "MINI" trademark when they acquired the brand name, which turned into a PR nightmare for them.

Well exactly. So far I've seen rumours of licenses but nothing more.

Kurt, if 'brand recognition' doesn't mean so much why do tobacco companies, beer breweries and auto manufacturers pay large doller$ to the movie industry to have their product or logo shown in a film?

-- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger

Lighten up. You're starting to act like a dick.

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

"Digital_Cowboy" wrote

Have you considered the following:

A) The person watching a home improvement show is likely to already own some tools and likely to purchase more in the future.

B) The person building a model kit likely does not own an aircraft nor are they likely to purchase an aircraft in the future.

C) The person building a model kit likely has not chosen an air carrier based upon the markings on a model aircraft nor are they likely to choose an air carrier on this basis in the future.

D) The person owning a model railroad likely has not purchased petroleum products based upon the markings on a piece or rolling stock nor are they likely to choose a petroleum product on this basis in the future.

Do you guys understand that the marketing of consumer goods is different from the marketing of industrial goods? Haven't you ever wondered why you only see Boeing commercials during the Sunday morning talk shows? Ever wonder why they don't advertise during Saturday Night Live, Monday Night Football, or Days of Our Lives? Did you ever notice that you don't see ads for Pampers in Aviation Week, or BWXT Nuclear Fuel Services in People? Where is the product placement for $350,000 computer controlled machining centers? How come the people who make blast furnaces don't buy ads on the Cartoon Network?

Is it possible - JUST POSSIBLE - that the airplane companies have made the correct decision about marketing when deciding to ignore scale modeling?

Naah. Obviously they are all wrong and it is you marketing geniuses who are correct.

Sure. That's got to be it.

KL

Then explain why Boeing had to spend millions (and I forget just how many millions it was, but it was several) just to come up with the simple combination of the McDonnell "bug" and the Boeing name in the "proper" font after the so-called "merger" as it's new Corporate logo?

And just why did the company bother to do so?..

...or spend all that money on PBS and network ads hawking the ISS?

Hmmmn...I think I want to buy one of those after all, now...

" WmB" wrote

You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not a dick, I'm an asshole. (Most recent poll shows asshole, 45%, dick but 7%.)

KL

"Rufus" wrote

Probably because it was to their benefit in the long run to link the two legacies. This isn't a "New Coke" class decision we're talking about, guys, if that's what you are thinking. It may take awhile to recoup that expense, but do you think they lost any customers over the logo?

You aren't the target audience for those commercials any more than you are the target for a Tampax commercial during a Friends episode you watched. Charity is a combination of a tax deduction and a moral sop to those who feel the need to address "good corporate citizenship". The people who make those $150 million/item decisions watch the Sunday talk shows. Putting the issue in their head before their Monday meeting with the AIA lobbyist is a very profitable exercise. Making a bunch of 45 year-old glue sniffers happy doesn't do shit for them, and ignoring them doesn't do any harm.

You're a military pilot or the like, right? You above anybody on here has actual hands-on experience with product in question. Would you shade - even unconsciously - an evaluation report of a new plane to slight Boeing because you're pissed that they stopped helping Revell? Would you be happy to learn that you're flying a second rate aircraft because the guy making the decision was stoked about his latest model being design with the cooperation of Boeing? My guess is that you hope to hell that the planes you fly are simply the best with procurement decisions unaffected by marketing or even cost impacts. That being so, how can you support Boeing having anything to do with the COMPLETELY unrelated business of model kits, except to satisfy a selfish desire to have a cooler looking or more detailed model to put on your shelf? I would think you'd want an end to ALL "marketing" activities relating to military hardware, INCLUDING cooperation with kit companies.

KL

----- Original Message ----- From: "Kurt Laughlin"

Newsgroups: rec.models.scale Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 10:34 PM

Subject: Re: Higher Prices for US Aircraft Kit Subjects?

Now now dont sell yourself short here. You are both............................

"Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me, And A True Gentleman Never Will"