The question at BAM’s Q3 town hall led with choice, not price. The submission offered the trade up front: “many owners would prefer to pay more” to buy their LEGO somewhere other than corporate. The first ask was for the right to choose a supplier. The chief executive counted the opt-out opportunities for the room: none. The exchange is below, in full, beside the record of what these “independently owned” stores are already required to buy.
PRIMARY SOURCEthe franchisee question: “what opportunities do we have… to opt out of having corporate be our Lego direct… supplier and go back to toy house or another option? Many owners would prefer to pay more”PRIMARY SOURCEthe CEO’s answer: “the answer is none just being very, very blunt, uh, with Lego it’s an all or nothing deal”CONFIRMEDthe standing record: stores are required to buy from corporate, are described in every disclosure as independently owned and operated, and the next question read to the room was “how do you expect trust and collaboration”
Read from the queue by the company’s marketing director, in the franchisee’s words:
“What opportunities do we have, uh, or can we have to opt out of having corporate be our Lego direct direct supplier and go back to toy house or another option? Many owners would prefer to pay more for consistency as well with the… costs increasing due to the changes coming on Shopify and FedEx. Are we even cost competitive?”
It does not claim corporate’s supply is too expensive; it offers to pay more. It does not ask corporate to leave the supply chain; it asks for “another option” beside it. What it asks for is the thing a business that owns itself has by default: the right to pick who it buys from. And it disarms the standard defense in advance. Central purchasing is defended as savings; the question waives the savings up front and asks for the choice anyway.
The stores asking are the ones every BAM disclosure describes as independently owned and operated. They are already required to buy from corporate. The requirement’s most recent month, the company’s own logistics director told the same meeting, was “a disaster,” four times.
“Well, so I can, I can jump in real quick with the understanding, um, first and foremost that, um, the answer is none just being very, very blunt, uh, with Lego it’s an all or nothing deal. So just, but I will say just like with toy house, it will continue to improve again, those who saw the system when it was, uh, first implemented with toy house and our, our structures and, and, and the, the growth that they had to take, um, some of the same issues we’re dealing with, but, but it took us one month to identify and one month to make the change. And yes, we’re experiencing some of the same challenges, but we’re also seeing an immediate, uh, you know, like improvement in that capacity. So, uh, and, and when it comes to cost, uh, competitive, I’m going to say, absolutely. We are more than cost competitive compared, uh, to the, the, the previous, uh, side of things. So, um, I guess if, if necessary, we can, we can, you know, individually walk through stores and, and show them, you know, like the, the, the difference in orders and, and some of the things that were happening previously. Um, but, you know, hopefully you, you understand that, but Paul, do you have anything or Matt to add to that there?”
The count comes first, and it is complete: “the answer is none.” Not none for now. Not none pending review. The reason offered belongs to the vendor: “with Lego it’s an all or nothing deal.” On the company’s own framing, every store’s supply runs through corporate because corporate’s LEGO arrangement permits no store to leave it. The lock is stated as a fact of the deal, and the deal is corporate’s.
The rest of the answer works the question’s second half, cost: “more than cost competitive,” with an offer of proof, “individually walk through stores and, and show them” “the difference in orders.” So the two halves of one question got two kinds of answer. Price got a defense, a comparison, and an audit offer. The right to choose got one word. The invitation to add anything named two people, Paul and Matt. The Director of Product and Logistics declined, “I’d say the same,” and the chief operating officer added nothing.
Then the queue moved on, and its order said the rest. The next question read to the room: “how do you expect trust and collaboration” after the meeting’s opening.
The fair reading, and its limit. Central purchasing is common in franchising, and a single national LEGO account may genuinely be all-or-nothing on LEGO’s side of the table; if so, that structure is the vendor’s term, not BAM’s choice. The CEO answered plainly rather than deflecting, the bluntness is a form of candor, and the cost-competitive claim came with an offer to open the numbers store by store. “Many owners would prefer to pay more” is one submission’s characterization of sentiment, not a poll. What remains the record’s: the ask, before price, was for choice; the count of opt-out opportunities, from the top, was “none”; and the stores hearing it are the ones described to every regulator as independently owned and operated.
Sources. BAM’s Q3 franchise town hall, primary source: the submitted supplier question and the CEO’s answer, quoted in full above, and the logistics director’s reply. The standing record is at the links: the required-purchases record, the independence record, and the trust question and the month around it.
The BAM Map is independent reporting on matters of public concern. Nothing here is a finding of any person’s guilt; every official named is presumed to have acted lawfully. Sources are linked so readers can check the record. · Home · Map · The law · Bodycam