Statement On Recently Deleted Post

Some people may have noted that an article we posted online last week mysteriously disappeared on Thursday night.

Without going in to too much detail of the post in question – it related to an upcoming sale and featured pages of an unreleased catalogue.

As any Bricking Around reader will know, the mid-year toy sales are one of the busiest times of the year. With most major retailers dropping prices Bricking Around is committed to making sure LEGO fans know all there is to know about the sales.

Every year during the sales period we spend hours going through every catalogue and compiling comprehensive lists that can be sorted and compared. We are quite proud of our mid-year toy sale coverage. It was one of the first things that Bricking Around did when launched in June 2013.

It is this commitment to saving our readers money that lead to the recent situation. Bricking Around was anonymously sent some scans of the LEGO section of a catalogue and, as we would have done with any other catalogue, we compiled a list of sets on sale. We did not stop to consider what might happen from sharing this information ahead of the official release of that catalogue.We just like posting about sales.

The day after the post went live we received contact from lawyers requesting that the post in question be removed. After extensive consultation with our crack legal team (pictured below) we decided that it would be best to comply with the request and remove the post.

Bricking Around Legal Team

Yes, Bricking Around does have ads on the site, but that revenue barely covers the annual hosting charges. We don’t have the resources to take on one of Australia’s largest retail companies.

So what does this mean for the future? We don’t hold grudges; our coverage of the retailer in question won’t change so our 2015 toy sales coverage will go ahead as it should. Once the catalogues are released online we plan to share that information.

We have seen a few posts online with the same content that we posted, from other sources. Even though the information is now readily out there, to avoid escalating the issue we won’t be posting that catalogue until it is released online. Hopefully that will be soon.

Finally to clear up any rumours (I haven’t actually heard any of these, but you can’t be too safe);

  • We didn’t remove the post to cover up a fake.
  • This was not a viral marketing campaign to drum up interest in the sale.
  • Yes I still intend on using “Friends & Family” vouchers from the retailer in the future. They probably won’t check if we’re actually friends.

14 thoughts on “Statement On Recently Deleted Post

  1. Shea Reply

    I didn’t realise that you guys ran ads. I’ve disabled my adblocker on this domain, as I try to do to support sites that I enjoy reading.

    • Michael Post authorReply

      Thanks Shea. They should be fairly non-obtrusive Google ads.

  2. Dave Reply

    I’m so sick of your egotism (especially writing “we” when this is just a one-man operation). With talk of grudges and “taking on” the victim of corporate espionage, you sound like a sore loser who denies doing anything wrong. There’s no need for “extensive” legal advice from anyone; you were publishing information that you weren’t even meant to know yourself.

    Those sales always last at least a week; there will still be ample opportunity for you to benefit from other people’s business.

    • Michael Post authorReply

      Thanks for taking time to comment on the article. It may not have come across correctly, but the intended tone of this article was supposed to be fairly light and non-serious. The talk of grudges and “taking on” anybody was meant sarcastically. I had hoped that the picture of Unikitty as our “crack legal team” would help that come across.

      The issue that occurred was one of naivety not malicious intent – I got details about a catalogue, was told I could post it, so I did. I did the wrong thing. I took down the content within 10 minutes of receiving the request to do so. Those aren’t the actions of somebody who thinks they are in the right.

      As for benefiting from other people’s business – I am not sure how to really respond to that criticism. A single article about a sale might earn me $1 in ad revenue on a very good day. If one person decides to make a purchase because of the post, then that retailer is definitely getting more benefit from that post. Australia also doesn’t have the kind of affiliate programs that they have in the US.

      I probably won’t be able to get feedback from the big retailers, but I will try and talk to the smaller Australian retailers and see how they feel about my content. If they feel that I am benefiting from their business then I am happy to address those concerns.

      As for using “We” in posts rather than I – if I was egotistical, then I’d be using my name on everything. I try and always use I in reviews, as that’s my personal opinion. I honestly thought “We” was common in news type articles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosism If it bothers other people I can stop doing it.

    • Andy Reply

      Gezzz relax “dave”. Michael and Bricking around are very helpful to the AFOL community. And also helpful to you since you know of this website.
      So why don’t you put aside any criticism you have aside and help the AFOL community by providing thoughtful comments in this scenario and any future sales you may know of. Since you already know of this website that provides key information of sale events that you may already benefit from in the past.

  3. Adam Reply

    What a shame they made you pull it. Half the fun/interest in LEGO blogs/fan sites is all the pre-release gossip/rumours/leaks. Ahh well, keep up the good work TwistedD! Poor old Dave reminds me of Dave the Octopus from the Penguins of Madagascar movie. If you imaging him like Dave the Octopus, his comments are quite funny… 😉

  4. The Other Michael Reply

    Still, let me know something was going to be in store, was in store, and is now in my to-do pile… Without the stress of shopping during the sale!

  5. Mark Reply

    Oh Well, on a positive note at least you know your blog has wide readership if it reaches their marketing/legal team. As such I will reiterate one of my comments…the retailer in question needs to place personal shopping limits on Lego sale sets. Individuals buying whole cages of Lego, whilst they are being unpacked, is not fair to the majority! I’m actually surprised it is not part of their contract with the Lego Group already.

  6. Sals Reply

    I agree with you mark they really need to place shopping limits but i say that the limits should only be enforced when a product goes on sale as lego is quite expensive anyway so buying bulk for the purpose of business would be close to redundant.

    Michael you keep up the good work on this blog it is wonderful and without I wouldn’t know of any sales. P.S i find the aesthetics of this site well maintained so i stick to it.

    Once again keep up the good work

    • Michael Post authorReply

      Thanks, I checked for that catalogue last night and it wasn’t up yet. Will post something about that later today.

  7. Bah Humbug Reply

    @Dave, seriously? Move long…you won’t be missed. Leaked sales are published in a lot of places everyday. If you want to point fingers, point it at the person who leaked it in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.