Mule Team flipping

[yablanowitz]

I hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure the only workable solution is to scuttle the Mule Team project as we know it. It has been a generous gift from Sal to us, and I for one greatly appreciate it. It's too bad that a few bad apples have to ruin everything, but that seems to be human nature.

[Bill1170]

I hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure the only workable solution is to scuttle the Mule Team project as we know it. It has been a generous gift from Sal to us, and I for one greatly appreciate it. It's too bad that a few bad apples have to ruin everything, but that seems to be human nature.

I tend to agree, provided "workable" means the same as, "not needing to be detectives holding abusers accountable." Police work is all well and good, but not really the province of a knife company. Police work would be better spent combating counterfeits, in my opinion.

[Pinetreebbs]

Sal,

Raise the price, if people are actually paying secondary market prices, that is what the item is worth. If the problem is some folks didn't jump on a mule sale and are now complaining about the price, that is another problem, entitlement. If the problem is opportunity to purchase, I suggest selling just 50 or 100 blades per week over several weeks might give more buyers a chance to purchase. Setting up a collectors club or tracking purchases would put an undue burden on Spyderco and I would prefer to have you spending your time designing and building knives.

I just looked at eBay, there are several MT blades for sale. I found one seller that was offering five of the same blades, but most are selling individual blades. Other that the seller with five of the same blade, I don't see this as a big problem. In the listing for the five blades he even says he bought them for an investment but needs money now.

I have a large collection of Spyderco knives, many new in the box. While I gifted a lot of them I keep buying more. When I die or get too infirm to care, some or all of them will be sold for whatever they are worth at the time. Some will likely sell for more than I paid and undoubtedly, some for less than I paid. I bought them and myself or my heirs should be able to sell them for what the market will pay. I don't see a difference in that situation or a dealer stocking a few more of a popular item to sell. Anyone buying something to sell also runs the rick of paying up front for things they cannot sell later.

[Ankerson]

Not sure if there is anything one could do legally and that would be only way to really stop it.. I am pretty sure laws are being broken though.

Each one would have to be tracked down and made to pay the price legally.

Maybe internet fraud... Among other things.

Once the items are acquired illegally or fraudulently then everything that is done with those items are also illegal, Could lead to mail fraud also.

Also I am sure those people aren't legal businesses so maybe the IRS could look into it also once it's found out who those people are. A detective agency could be put on it and they could find them without much of an issue. And they would find out how it's happening also and were the real issues are and there would be more than one.

It wouldn't be all that hard to find out who those people are, it's not like they are hiding. I would guess they are the same ones who are doing it with a lot of limited runs from a lot of companies.

It would just take a real effort to find out who they are, gather evidence and go after them though the proper State and or Federal Agencies.

In the end possible huge fines, confiscation of property and maybe jail time.

And Spyderco could get with some of the other Knife Companies and maybe they could help also, get 3 or 4 Knife Manufacturers together going after these people... That would put a huge dent in the problem once the word got out.....

It's a much broader problem than just with the Mule Team project.

[bearfacedkiller]

The issue is basic economics. These are supposed to be a test platform but many people want them as users. The problem is ( I hate to say it) that they are priced so low. If the price is that far below the value than opportunistic individuals are going to seize that opportunity. I hope there is a solution other than pricing them at their actual value because that rules me out.

I believe this project is a genuine benefit to the future of knives and must be preserved.

[FCM415]

I'm known around these parts as the anti flipper #1. Been in the middle of heated debates... With that in mind:

A few recent posts here suggest raising the price. I am totally opposed to that. Part of the purpose of the Mules is to bring forth an affordable way to test out new steels. Raising the price of these "blanks" that don't come with a handle and sheath totally defeats the purpose. Overpricing them because of a few bad apples shows that they won and say they charge $140 for one... Some fans will either lose interest because of the price and others will be forced to pay $200 from these same flippers anyway. It will deter the flippers, look at the BBS Military, a knife that flippers simply can't do nothing with but is that what we really want? How many bought that knife, two? It will never be sold out from BBS. Raising the price is simply not a good enough compromise. If they raise it a little, flippers will simply flip it higher. If they raise it to a ridiculous amount like BBS, no one will buy it and many will accuse Spyderco for being overpriced. $150 for a blank simply doesn't make any sense.

It has gotten to a point that something does have to be done. JNewell and a few others including myself have said that limiting to ONE will not stop these flippers in their tracks but I now realize that it may be the best thing to do. It may not stop them but it would make it that much harder to order multiples. I ordered two each of the past several Mules but for the sake of preserving this gift from Sal, getting only one to help get more out to more end users is worth that sacrifice.

Making a second run while makes sense to us would be too much of a burden for the company... Production slots are already very tight and a program that is not for profit doesn't make business sense and will only slow down other projects.

SFO team I imagine worked hard to weed out duplicate orders and the project takes their time away from their other duties. It's a program they do for our benefit and I'm grateful for that. They are doing the best they can and hope the program continues without an unnecessary artificial increase in price. Let's try limit of one... The last two releases are magnified because of the steels used, while the Mules are gaining popularity, I don't think we'll see this kind of frenzy at every release. Most stay available for weeks up to months.

So in short, let's try limit of one AND upping the number to say 1000 pcs on the obvious hot steels. S110v and K390 being examples. It isn't too hard to guess:steels like K294 and 10v 1000 pcs...4V, 600 pcs. And if the extras don't sell, then bump it to limit 2!

[Mallus]

Limiting the amount to one would only make even more people to avoid using their Mule Teams, which would be counterintuitive to the very idea of the program - to get to try new steels.

The idea of offering identical re-releases, if there is sufficient demand, would probably work the best. I realize it might affect the sales of some less hyped MTs, and be yet another burdening task on top of managing a tedious program of unique small scale steel releases. As such, it mightn't be very practical as an automatic response to every re-release request, but as a possibility, if clearly stated by the company when the Mules are released, would likely burts the biggest balloons.

[FCM415]

Limiting the amount to one would only make even more people to avoid using their Mule Teams, which would be counterintuitive to the very idea of the program - to get to try new steels.

The idea of offering identical re-releases, if there is sufficient demand, would probably work the best. I realize it might affect the sales of some less hyped MTs, and be yet another burdening task on top of managing a tedious program of unique small scale steel releases. As such, it mightn't be very practical as an automatic response to every re-release request, but as a possibility, if clearly stated by the company when the Mules are released, would likely burts the biggest balloons.

Its a sacrifice we might have to make... Using our one Mule team.

Making a second run while makes sense to us would be too much of a burden for the company... Production slots are already very tight and a program that is not for profit doesn't make business sense and will only slow down other projects. Upping the number on obvious hot steels like K294 and 10v is a move worth considering instead.

[Mallus]

Forgot to say: My best thanks for the Mule team program! Even with it's troubles to the company, it's very valuable to us customers! I hope we get to enjoy it also in the future!

If you limit the collectability by making re-releases an option, you'd get much more knives out of the cupboards into the field, an would get more feedback.

[Evil D]

The only solution is to know who is buying and be able to track that. On other words, limit who can buy them. If for example you had to be a member of the forum for a certain amount of time and have a certain amount of posts, or even a collector's club kind of thing where you had to be a member to buy. This wouldn't be fool proof but it would weed out the flippers quite a bit and then any that are being flipped would be easier to track because there would only be so many possible buyers. I'm sure this isn't going to be a popular option but to control something you need to have control and right now everyone is invited and it's a free for all.

[xavierdoc]

Sadly there probably isn't really anything that will be hugely effective. Maybe it could be slowed a little by limiting it to 2 per credit card/paypal account.

I ended up with 4 of the K390 mule, instead of 2 mules and two forum Natives (separate orders), due to an ordering error (most likely mine). I contacted Spyderco who said I could either keep them or send the back to the USA. I kept them but sold the 2 extra mules on to fellow UK aficionados at cost.

In other words, it is possible to buy more than 2 on the same payment method.

The karma balanced out as I finally have my Forum Natives en route to the UK (if they get through customs...)

[Skidoosh]

You either
1) Limit supply which drive up demand
2) Over supply which risks loss of profitability but reduces flipping.
I like the idea of a mule club and a two tier pricing system.
Is flipping a big problem with the collectors club?

[Skidoosh]

The other thought would be an agreement not to flip that is part of the purchase contract

[Buendia518]

I can't be the only one who now feels guilty for buying two. :o I have one fit with scales and sheath and I enjoy knowing I have another NIB, but I could live without it...


I'd say limiting to one per person and a large run would go a long way. A prepay system would make it a long term investment to flip the knife but that's another layer of hassle for Spyderco.

[TomAiello]

A limit of one would benefit flippers. These are people who already have a system in place to use other identities/friends to make duplicate purchases. A system with a lower limit benefits them at the expense of people who honesty abide by the limit.

[shunsui]

These are my thoughts. They are not backed by statistics or published science.

I'd recommend limiting it to one per customer. More customers would be able to buy one up front than if everyone can buy two at the go signal. Like some said, that's the price you pay for a good deal on a test knife. If you like the steel, buy another knife with handles.

As for the number made, I'd recommend a pre-order, all money up front, several months lead time. Spyderco can get an idea how many to make from the pre-orders and can have a hard limit based on factory capacity and logistics. That is to say, at some point they say that's all we can make at this time, and cut off orders.

After that, you snooze, you lose. Flippers will spread a few knives around for those willing to pay their price. If no one is willing, the flippers will be stuck with their investment. hint hint.

Oh, and Sal should charge a couple of dollars extra and throw a party for the workers. :D

[Tdog]

This is a dilemma, in that Spyderco is in business to sell knives and make a profit, and those purchasing (particularly collectors)want the value of their knives to be maintained if not increased. I have long believed that when an individual purchases an item it becomes theirs to do with it as they wish. It is a property rights issue. I also respect Sal's desire and rationale to restrict the immediate aftermarket sales of Spyderco knives at inflated prices (flipping).

Perhaps an "honor system" might be used? On the web sales page, a person could be asked to check a box, that states something to the effect "Because of the high demand for our quality products, we at Spyderco desire our knives be accessible to as many original purchasers as possible. In checking this box, I agree that neither I, nor immediate family members, nor friends are purchasing this item with the intent of immediate inflated resale". Those refusing to check the box aren't sold a knife(s) While this may not deter all "flippers" it may help reduce the problem, and at least those "flipping" know they have broken their word and betrayed a trust. Certainly in a free market society, a manufacturer/maker has the right to restrict sales in a manner of their choosing. Restricting sales may however come at a cost. Perhaps the problem is perceived to be greater than it actually is? For the most part, folks that follow Spyderco are usually able to purchase the knives they want when they become available. We all have "wants and needs". Few really NEED an additional knife.

Pride, greed, envy, anger, lust, gluttony, and sloth? With the question, comes the answer.

[The Deacon]

Sal, I don't think anything is going to eliminate, or even substantially reduce, the "flipping" of desirable Spyderco products. At least not anything that would not be either a logistical nightmare for Spyderco or carry a high risk of negatively impacting sales. In the specific case of the Mules, leaving production open ended and making that known might have some impact since the mere chance of a another batch can impact the perception of rarity. Problem is, even that's a two edged sword, because, as much as we afis hate to admit it, the success of some Sprints, Exclusives, and other "special" Spydercos has been due, at least in part, to purchases by those whose only interest is reselling for a profit.

[bearfacedkiller]

I believe that reducing it to one per customer could make it worse. The person with nine on ebay would have still got nine if they wanted to because funding was probably their limitation. Limiting to one could drive up demand and price.

The club or forum member only ideas have some merit but you would have to be careful because it sounds a little elitest. I tread lightly as I say this but as a long time lurker and recent poster that this topic really brings out the false sense of entitlement that some on here have. I believe that is what locked the forum native thread.

I missed out on some mules so I got two S110V mules in hopes of trading one for a model I want without and other profit. I don't consider that flipping but I am leveraging my purchase. That is not a solicitation on this forum.

Prepayment period of three or even better six months would deter some flipping.

Make say 800 units and release 100 units on the first of each month for 8 months?

I really hope there is a solution other than raising the price to counteract the difference between price and value because that absolutely undermines the whole point of the project and reduces its effectiveness.

[araneae]

I would limit it to one per person. Those who have a collection of unused mules are also defeating the purpose of the program and IMO are almost as bad as the flippers. The mules are supposed to be used- not hoarded or flipped for profit.

The only sure way to reduce the demand is to increase the number produced. It is basic economics- there is direct relationship between supply and demand. Make more mules, reduce incentive for flippers.