MTH and UP - What goes around....

[AntonioFP45]

RailroadJay,

Look at it from a "business standpoint". Whether we like it or not..........UP is vital to our economy and as Poppa_Zit just indicated Union Pacific is a "billion dollar" corporation (that also pays millions of dollars in taxes, inspite of the loopholes). As much as some of us say "we hate" UP, chances are the building materials in your home, the clothes you're wearing, your stereo, TV, electronic toys, or appliances were likely hauled on a UP train.

Breaking UP into it's former fragments is just a fantasy for us as railfans. With today's corporate structure it would not likely ever happen.

The Dale Earnheartd (r.i.p) example quoted above makes a very strong point. We enjoyed years of not paying for railroad trademarks, now we have to. Big deal.

Let's move forward.

[bcammack]

Gotta agree with everybody. UP has every right to look the fool by nickel and diming model railroaders who, for some strange reason, are fond of them, while generating billions in revenue every year hauling freight. I'm sure they'd be out of business within a decade were it not for the oceans of $$$ generated via their licensing scheme. [:)]

[Poppa_Zit]

Please stop insulting our intelligence by saying you've "advertised UP on your layout for free for years." Who sees your layout? Fortune 500 execs who are potential UP shippers stop by your basement?

If you're angry about unfairness and really want to boycott someone over this, boycott companies like Athearn. I just saw an ad in MR for Athearn locomotives, and if you choose the UP paint over other road names it costs an extra $5.

Huh. Except Athearn only has to pay UP something like $1.10 for the licensing rights for that one locomotive. I guess it's okay to round up to the nearest $5.

Ben Dover.

[AntonioFP45]

Excellent point, Poppa_Zit!

Re: Those extra $5.00 I think the terms that apply would be:

1. Profit Padding.[:O]
2. Price Gouging [B)]

[bcammack]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poppa_Zit

Please stop insulting our intelligence by saying you've "advertised UP on your layout for free for years." Who sees your layout? Fortune 500 execs who are potential UP shippers stop by your basement?

Speak for yourself. My intelligence isn't insulted by that argument and there's a fair-to-middlin chance that I'm quite a bit smarter than the average bear. There's such a thing as "promoting goodwill" and placing a corporation's image before eyes.

My point has always been that it's a trivial issue that they're trying to make $$$ off of when they ought to charge no more than is necessary to protect their image, not attempt to create a revenue stream from people who are favorably predisposed towards them and do, in fact, promote the corporation to the public, even if on a modest scale.

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poppa_Zit

Please stop insulting our intelligence by saying you've "advertised UP on your layout for free for years." Who sees your layout? Fortune 500 execs who are potential UP shippers stop by your basement?

Originally posted by bcammack
Speak for yourself. My intelligence isn't insulted by that argument and there's a fair-to-middlin chance that I'm quite a bit smarter than the average bear. There's such a thing as "promoting goodwill" and placing a corporation's image before eyes.

PZ: I do speak for myself, and I think for myself too, thank you. And even though I'm just an average bear, I'm smart enough to understand there's a major difference between "advertising" and "promoting goodwill." Sorry, I cannot believe anyone would be naive enough to buy UP rolling stock to run on a layout with the sole purpose of "promoting goodwill" for a company they have absolutely no stake in or relationship with.

My point has always been that it's a trivial issue that they're trying to make $$$ off of when they ought to charge no more than is necessary to protect their image, not attempt to create a revenue stream from people who are favorably predisposed towards them and do, in fact, promote the corporation to the public, even if on a modest scale.

PZ: Here's where we can agree. What Union Pacific is charging for licensing rights isn't out of line when compared to the logo industry norm. What is out of line is the proviso that a manufacturer must surrender all related tooling, etc., if the agreement expires or is terminated. But UP is doing nothing different than Tommy Hilfiger, Nike, Coca-Cola and, yes, even Lionel have been doing for eons. As an aside, I think it is two-faced for Lionel to insist vendors pay a licensing fee to manufacture Big L-related products, yet refuse to pay UP what it should rightfully be getting for Lionel's use of its brands.

If UP was really smart, they would have done a "goodwill" move by announcing all monies derived from the licensing program would be used to continue funding its active steam program. While I read so much vitriol here against UP, all of us should be grateful it's keeping 3985 and 844 rolling, along with the E-9 passenger train.

Most of us would be hard-pressed to oppose direct funding of UP's steam operations.