 | | | | | |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their systems
so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
Tim
|
I work for a publisher here in NYC and one of the requirments from our Editor in
Chief is ‘keeping the sku count low’ (number of different books we produce, not
quantities of each title that we print). I’m not 100% sure this is the
reasoning for keeping the sku count low but, an operating/overhead cost is
worked into the P&L for each book we develop and produce. It is automatically in
there. There is no way to get it out. It includes salaries, rent, employee
benefits, kitchen coffee & milk, etc. If the sku count goes up really high,
operating costs for the year automatically go up with them. So, keeping a cap on
the sku count, keeps operating costs down and within a predetermined operating
budget.
I think this might be typical for all/most businesses.
Jonathan
don’t know where to set FUT.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jonathan Lopes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
Tim
|
I work for a publisher here in NYC and one of the requirments from our Editor
in Chief is ‘keeping the sku count low’ (number of different books we
produce, not quantities of each title that we print). I’m not 100% sure this
is the reasoning for keeping the sku count low but, an operating/overhead
cost is worked into the P&L for each book we develop and produce. It is
automatically in there. There is no way to get it out. It includes salaries,
rent, employee benefits, kitchen coffee & milk, etc. If the sku count goes up
really high, operating costs for the year automatically go up with them. So,
keeping a cap on the sku count, keeps operating costs down and within a
predetermined operating budget.
I think this might be typical for all/most businesses.
Jonathan
don’t know where to set FUT.
|
Having a manufacturing background, and having worked a little ops management..
the more SKU’s you have, the more associated costs you’re going to have (for
example--just boxes alone: -more boxes to design and print--adds money to
product, -more time required to print more boxes, as you have to figure in
setup time for each box run (more cost), -area needed to store those boxes
(still more cost, and can you find the area to store?),
When planning resource allocations, more SKU’s means more variables in the mix
that have to be managed.
When the product is packaged at the warehouse, you then have to store the items
separately as well--again, more cost, and can you find the space?) Then you
have shipping and storage space at retailers’ locations. (Granted, maybe that
part is not a big issue right now for the LEGO factory, but all the others
apply.
There are a lot of other factors, but I wanted to look at a small part, just to
see what that does to costs.
Scott
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jonathan Lopes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
Tim
|
I work for a publisher here in NYC and one of the requirments from our Editor
in Chief is ‘keeping the sku count low’ (number of different books we
produce, not quantities of each title that we print). I’m not 100% sure this
is the reasoning for keeping the sku count low but, an operating/overhead
cost is worked into the P&L for each book we develop and produce. It is
automatically in there. There is no way to get it out. It includes salaries,
rent, employee benefits, kitchen coffee & milk, etc. If the sku count goes up
really high, operating costs for the year automatically go up with them. So,
keeping a cap on the sku count, keeps operating costs down and within a
predetermined operating budget.
I think this might be typical for all/most businesses.
|
I think ones that used fixed burden accounting, yes, but many companies have
switched to variable burden, or even Activity Based Costing. I believe the cost
that LEGO fears lies elsewhere.
FUT trimmed to just lugnet.dear-lego
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
|
It’s not a matter of simply adding more numbers to the system. As was pointed
out elsewhere, each new product brings added complexity to the system, as well
as additional development costs. Designing and printing one box, for example, is
always going to be cheaper than designing two boxes or certainly 10 boxes.
Each time a new product is inserted into the system (not the number only, but
the physical product itself), costs increase from things like distribution,
storage, management, development, quality assurance, marketing, planning... the
list goes on.
With SAH exclusives, we have a smaller market overall compared to, say, retail.
So there’s not as much flexibility to create an unlimited number of products.
Heck, for that matter, we don’t even created “unlimited” product lines even in
retail.
Hope that helps.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
| |
.
| |
I’m 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is “we don’t have enough SKUs”...
This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their
systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more.
|
How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!
|
It’s not a matter of simply adding more numbers to the system. As was pointed
out elsewhere, each new product brings added complexity to the system, as
well as additional development costs. Designing and printing one box, for
example, is always going to be cheaper than designing two boxes or certainly
10 boxes.
Each time a new product is inserted into the system (not the number only, but
the physical product itself), costs increase from things like distribution,
storage, management, development, quality assurance, marketing, planning...
the list goes on.
With SAH exclusives, we have a smaller market overall compared to, say,
retail. So there’s not as much flexibility to create an unlimited number of
products. Heck, for that matter, we don’t even created “unlimited” product
lines even in retail.
Hope that helps.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Team
|
Just looking at shop.lego.com, I find:
- 13 keychains
- 4 pens
- 4 backpacks
- 15 books
- 1 watch
- and 55 ‘other’ - mostly Bionicle shoes, t-shirts, and costumes
Even this listing leaves out tons of other items that can be found in a Brand
Retail store - pencils, erasers, picture frames, basketballs, etc.
Perhaps if TLC were to focus more on its core business - as it is forever
promising to do - there would be more SKUs available for actual LEGO sets.
Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
> <snip>
> Perhaps if TLC were to focus more on its core business - as it is forever
> promising to do - there would be more SKUs available for actual LEGO sets.
I, for one, like some TLC's non-brick offerings. This one sticks out in my
mind:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/bricksland/bricklink/spacecap1.jpg
-Orion
| | | | | | |
