Subject:
|
NY Times article on strategy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:02:30 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2597 times
|
| |
|
|
The New York Times had an article on TLC today focusing on the Bionicle line
and TLC's positioning of this product as a form of "interactive" type
"action figure" geared toward the 10 year old market - the age at which kids
traditionally abandon these toys. Sorry, but no web link.
I suppose that the whole strategy is to combine "video game" computer games
and interactive type play figures equipped with various tools (TLC took
offense at the term weapons)in a mixed media play environment.
IMO, this falls into the "lowering to the lowest common denominator"
approach. What TLC seems to fail to reallize is that their base has NEVER
been the huge MASS of kids but those who posses attention spans, creativity
and imagination - those that WANT to make things. Legos were never the play
toy of choice for the video game obsessed kid, but the toy kids used to
develop a wide range of skills - moootor skills, visualization, imagination,
etc. Parents bought Legos for kids they thought were bright and creative -
or bought them to make them that way. Legos let kids CREATE. They created
things, real and imaginary. They created whole worlds. "Star Wars
Adventure" - the land created by my youngest son has good guys and bad, Hans
Solo and Indians, Darth Vader and Knights, Robin Hood and Cavalry. There
are castles, speeders, boats, cars and lots of treasure. My oldest is deep
into robotics, e-lab and such. He's making motorized creations not to be
believed. He is CREATING - and learning. Legos let children create their
own worlds, not simply play along in some pre-defined experience. I predate
classic Lego myself - not that my family could have afforded the collections
my kids have - but would have killed for access to what my children have.
You can make TONS of really COOL things. I see this in the elementary
school "enrichment" courses I teach. These 4th and 5th graders (the supposed
target group of TLC's strategy) are enthralled by the chance to REALLY
create things. They are drawn to the selection of parts available in the
older Technic kits.
IMO, TLC has had a few things going against them in the kid market.
First - price. Parents are put off by the cost, knowing that one kit is
only the beginning, they refrain from that first purchase - even if the
child is interested. A worthwhile collection of parts - one that really
allows unrestrained imaginative construction can get quite pricey. We
addressed this by specifying "LEGO" as a gift of choice. Please no
Playmobil, Waffle Blocks, erector sets, etc. Build one good common base.
Subheading - the Mindstorm branding needs strengthening to make parents feel
that it is MORE than JUST Legos. I've seen resistance on price to the
robotics kits from some parents who really did not understand what was
involved. This ESPECIALLY applies to school environments where most parents
don't have a clue what Mindstorms really represents. "My kid is playing
with Legos in Tech class??!!" Yeah, just like the students at MIT.....
Solution - Try cutting prices. How about MORE intermediate levels for
Technic. Try different levels between the $14.99 and the $149.99. How
about build your own motorized car (different gears and tire/wheels) with a
shut-off switch bumper. Much of the Dacta stuff could be moved over to
Technic as part of kits. Maybe TLC SHOULD position "Technic" and
"Mindstorm" as a more elitist product. It seems that these kits are only
readily available at Zainy Brainy, Learning Center, independent toy stores
and such anyway. The mass marketers - TRU and KB seem to only have really
abused stuff on hand - when they have it. I do think that the "Design your
own kit" concept will do well - if not obscenely priced.
Second - time. Not on the part of kids, but parents. Despite the noise
about "quality time" few parents have or are willing to spend large blocks
of time working with a child building - or helping build - Lego kits. This
seems especially true with those parents lacking mechanical skills. Few
fathers want to display their inability to figure out Lego instructions to
their 6 year old. I see this especially with Mindstorms kits. Parents
routinely buy these kits thinking that this is good. "Science, robotics,
programming. Hi-tech. Cool stuff." The parents don't have a clue what to
doo....hardly inspiring confidence in their 10 year old. Most of the kids
are intimidated by the kits, their parents don't help and they end up in the
closet. I suppose that a short attention span and low frustration tolerance
in today's kids doesn't help but these are overcome readily with some adult
involvement. These are great things to address and overcome these issues in
kids. On the other hand, the kids in my robotics class - with a minimal
amount of guidance, get past the initial fear and intimidation. Even the
girls have to be pryed away at the end of class. More than half of those
taking the class got Mindstorm sets for the holidays - and I suspect a few
wanted them but the parents were put off by the cost (ironic in seeing what
some spent on sports equipment).
Subheading - parents HATE picking up Legos. As most parents I know have yet
to train their kids to pick up their own rooms, this becomes an issue.
Parents especially seem to steam when vacuuming up parts they paid for -
parts their kid is looking for 2 minutes later.
Solution - the instructions CAN be better. Does Megablock have a patent on
the 80% shading on already assembled work??? Try more than one view to
illustrate a difficult step. And DESPITE the lack of time - do NOT make the
kits TOO simple. I have no solution to lack of parental involvement except
perhaps TLC should view schooll courses and programs as a supplement to
Marketing. I know I'm responsible for more than a few sales. Some real
discounts to those serving this area might help. Teachers seem to buy an
awful lot out of pocket. How about discounts for PTA purchases? I just got
another inquiry from an after school program about robotics. The curent
move to interchangeable subassembly may be a positive step, allowing some
flexibility without complete rebuilding. As far as picking up......short of
making them metallic - GET OUT THE MAGNET! ......hey, they're Legos.
Regarding the whole interactive thing.....wasn't that supposed to be
Cybermaster's niche. I saw some "this is the future" articles but in
general, it seemed to have bombed. I didn't see the point, though the set
provied some great parts for Mindstorms roboootics - I liked the coded touch
sensors especially.
I have to note that my 5 year old went into deep depression for 2 days at
Nursery school this week when they removed the Lego bin from the room. Never
mind the bins and bins at home. He requested that they get them back and
was thrilled today when they reappeared. This boy is about as "typical" a
boy as they come. He and his buddies have a very imaginative play style -
to the point of having each of themselves represented as a Minifigure being
a knight, cowboy, ninja or whatever.
It's ironic, but TLC wants to stay away from violence in toys but they show
Vision Command used to target dart firing robots, introduce catapults and
"cannons" to the castle lines.......well, you know what I mean. I suspect
this would be more successful if done less hypocritically. Build a Sherman
Tank and try it out against a Panther Tank....lol think about the old Marx
soldier sets and firing cannons. How about a Technic Ballista or
Trebuchet??? Hey, I've got Cub Scouts building Catapults for Koosh
balls(with contracts for how they can be used). Far more interesting than
"Recipe Card Holders" or Bird Feeders. Despite a youth filled with plastic
weapon arsenals - including a 50 cal. machine gun, and a stay at a military
academy, I'm actually an "anti-violence" type of parent. I control TV
viewing and you won't find the usual action figures here. Nonetheless, I'm
not so naive as to think that kids (boys) don't find weaponry appealing. It
can provide a "hook" and let them be directed into the fundemental science
behind it and lead them into far more complex - and less violent -
creations. As noted before, my oldest (9) is enthralled with the DACTA
E-lab, machines and pneumatics sets.
Anyway, this is way too verbose, apologies. Just some thoughts based on
what I've seen. And TLC, considering how much I've got as much invested in
Legos.......You've made more than enough $$$ from me.
John
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: John Heins' article on strategy
|
| John, your whole post was excellent. I really think that we ought to see more "Dear Lego" posts with constructive ideas like these and less kvetching. We've got to understand that TLC is saying that the crisis is that kids aren't buying Lego sets (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: NY Times article on strategy
|
| John, now THIS was a post that people pay attention to. The contents of this message fall outside my area of control, but I can tell you that this is the way to get the appropriate people within TLC to pay attention! Great work and thanks for the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Juniorization Lives, and comments on marketing strategy
|
| Dear LEGO - From what we've heard we haven't seen the last of Juniorization. I'm very disappointed about the news re: the Jack Stone line. I wasn't too excited about the line to begin with (because it isn't my thing), but to hear that its Juniorized (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.dear-lego) !!
|
40 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
