| |
I just know I'm going to get flamed for this. I'm putting on my flame suit
early. What follows are my opinions. Take them as you wish. I don't plan on
doing much with this thread, so don't expect too many replies from me.
It seems to me, for some people at least, the change of color issue is only a
part of the problem. I think, for some people, the bigger problem is with LEGO
company's frame of mind. I know there are a few people at least who's problem
with the color change issue is not with the color change itself, but the idea
that LEGO never asked the AFOL for input before.
But the LEGO company has said that "We know what we're doing," it was "based off
good thinking." Ok, if you say so. Look at Bionicle, they know what they're
doing, don't they?
So very frequently we hear how much Bionicle was a nasty risk and it took off.
Bionicle is such a success. Bionicle is the thing that probably is saving LEGO
right now. I'm not going to argue that. I agree, for the most part, that
Bionicle is a great success.
But let's look at the bigger picture here. Yes, LEGO has been a successful
company for many many years. Yes, LEGO has taken mighty big risks in it's day.
Plastic instead of wood? Heresy! Minfigs with arms? Blasphemy! New colors
besides the basic 6? Profanity! But what about the other risks LEGO has taken
in the last ten years?
Yes, Bionicle was huge risk. Yes, Bionicle has made LEGO an awful lot of money.
But what about the imfamous Galidor. That was a risk. LEGO knew what they were
doing then, right? Galidor tested with with all the focus groups, right? That
wasn't a really great success.
Changing Duplo for to Explore... that was a risk. LEGO knew what they were
doing then, too, right? Explore sounds so much better than Duplo, it sounds so
much more educational. Did it test well with the focus groups too? LEGO turned
around on its decision there, it's back to Duploe. That wasn't really a great
success.
Scala, Belville and the other LEGO for girl buiding sets (Clickits aside)? LEGO
knew what they were doing, didn't they? Girls love LEGO! They love pinks and
purples and barbie doll sized figs! Girls love pink and purple LEGO with barbie
doll sized figs, right? Bet it tested well with the focus groups. I've never
seen Scala or Belville on store shelves, and it's always going on sale on
shop.lego.com, but LEGO knows what it's doing, right? I don't know if I'd call
it a success.
ZNAP! LEGO knew what they were doing, didn't they? They were going to compete
and blow connects and all the other beam oriented buiding set companies out of
the water with this new product! It tested well with the focus groups perhaps?
I wouldn't call it a great success either.
Throwbots and Robo-riders were a good idea, right? Robots and cars that were
almost violent! Boys would love that, and it would introduce them to Technic!
Did it test well with the focus groups? There are still Robo-riders at my local
hole-in-the-Wal-Mart. I'm not sure if you could call that a success.
LEGO Sports! Now there's an idea! Bring all the action, excitement and
exercise of sports indoors! Tested well with the focus groups, right? I've
heard bad things about NBA in Europe, and I've seen bad things about Soccer here
in the states. A partial success, to say the most.
LEGO Studios, Jurassic Park, Dinosaurs! HERE's a multi-million idea! Give kids
a camera, let them make their own movies, throw in some dinosaurs and big names.
These HAD to have tested well in the focus groups. But the camera was too
expensive, and I always saw all the sets in large quantities on sale. A
success?
Mindstorms! Ok, now we're getting somehwere. Mindstorms is a great product. I
bet it tested fantastically. I don't own Mindstorms, but I've seen that they're
great. But there's the problem: Price prohibitive. Now Minstorms is almost
entirely limited to schoolastic endevours, and out of the hands of the general
public. A fantastic success for schools, a mild success overall.
Video games! Bring LEGO home to your Playstation, build in virtual reality! I
bet that tested very well. LEGO sure knew what it was doing with that, right?
Recent press releases have stated LEGO is dropping all it's electronic products,
so I guess this wasn't a success.
Star Wars! Harry Potter! Big success stories, right? Tested well with the focus groups. LEGO must have hit it square on the head. Recent press releases have stated that LEGO is dropping or limiting their licensed products. I guess fees are getting too much? Perhaps set design with so many pieces for the lower cost is cutting into profits? I don't know. I do know that there are original Harry Potter sets still on sale at my Wal Mart and my TRU, and a few of the other Star Wars sets from seasons passed as well. A used-to-be-a success?
Bionicle, LEGO's golden goose... right? Tested well with focus groups, I'm
sure. LEGO KNOWS what it's doing, right? I'm not so sure. All of my local
stores are DESPERATELY trying to get rid of older bionicle sets. They're just
not selling. MY TRU is running a sale: Buy a new bionicle get any old bionicle
off the shelf for free. I guess the market is saturated with ball and socket
technic bits, I'm no expert. I just call em as I see em. A success, yes. But
is it STILL a success? Many kids, but more parents to be sure, I've overheard
in stores have said that they're fed up with Bionicle. Definately, though, a
success.
I'm sure I've missed something, so feel free to correct me for any of my
opinions that mis-interprate the facts and heresay as I see/hear them. Feel
free to correct me if I've left a success out.
The color change? Tested well with focus groups. LEGO knows what it's doing.
But let's look at the record here: In the last ten years or so, I've listed 13
or so big risks LEGO has taken on, and so far of those 13 I say 3 (1 + 0.5 + 0.5
+ 0.5 + 0.5) have been successes. Only 1 was a true, honest, success. All in
my opinion of course.
Yes, Bionicle was attacked by AFOLs. Unpure! Unclean! Evil! Yes, we called
that one wrong. But I think it's fair to say that overall, we AFOLs know what
we're talking about. I'd wager we have a higher success rate for calling good
and bad ideas that LEGO has had in the last ten years. Can you really say,
LEGO, that you KNOW what you're doing because ONE of your experiements happened
to be a big success?
There's the thing. LEGO keeps taking these risks, trying to set new trends, be
better, different, cutting edge. I'm sorry to tell you LEGO, ten, twenty years
ago, your sets were better. You set the bar. You constantly set the bar. All
other sets are compared to the bar. All clone bricks are compared to the bar.
The height of the bar is why LEGO is synonymous with 'construction toys'.
The bar does NOT go down!
For some people, the color issue is LEGO missing the bar. LEGO set the bar very
high after having 30 years of never changing an existing color. 30 years is a
long time. Changing a core color, even if it wasn't a core color 30 years ago,
is vaulting way under the bar for these people. LEGO bricks from 30 years ago
match perfectly with the color of bricks from a year ago, I know it, I own 30
year old bricks, I own Classic Space and Classic Town sets.
Current LEGO set design, aside from Licensed sets, is very spotty and
questionable in my opinion. LEGO set the bar ten, twenty years ago. LEGO can't
seem to reach the bar without a push from an outside source (Star Wars, Harry
Potter). The 80's and early 90's in Castle, Space, Town, and most all other
themes are, arguably, the best sets LEGO has produced in 20 years.
How can you raise the bar when you can't reach the bar? This isn't limbo I'm
talking about, this is not a question of 'How low can you go?'
Therein lies the problem, I think. Some people's problem with the color change
lies in LEGO letting them down... again. And again. (and again).
And I could be wrong. I could be wrong about everything I've said. I have
merely posted to maybe bring up a thought. And that is that even though your
focus groups tested your products well, and even though you 'KNOW' what you're
doing, the past does not lie. AFOLs could hold the key to what the public would
purchase over your competitors.
Yes, AFOLs have no right to expect anything from you. Yes, LEGO is it's own
company. Yes, LEGO does not have to listen to the ranting and raving of a very
small percentage of it's consumers.
However...
In my humble opinion, LEGO does not KNOW what it's doing. LEGO does not KNOW
what's best for the company.
In my humble opinion, LEGO THINKS it knows what it's doing. LEGO THINKS it
knows what's best for the company.
I'm not asking (or telling) LEGO to do change the colors back, or to build
better sets. I mearly ask that LEGO turn around and see where the footprints in
the sand come from.
Please, learn from the past LEGO. A they say, those who fail to learn from the
past are doomed to repeat it. I'd rather not repeat parts of the last ten
years.
--Anthony
Lugnet Member #1312
http://www.ikros.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Anthony Sava wrote:
-snip-
Well done Anthony, I have to agree what you posted.
-Abner
|
|
| |
Anthony Sava wrote:
> Please, learn from the past LEGO. A they say, those who fail to
learn from the
> past are doomed to repeat it. I'd rather not repeat parts of the
last ten
> years.
Thank you, Anthony, I could not have said it better than your post did.
Although I'd rate this spybotics stuff an even bigger failure than
making the RCX too pricey...
Yours, Christian
|
|
| |
Very well put, I couldn't agree more. Another analogy of the whole situation is
that Lego is like a blindfolded kid desperately swinging at the pineata with no
luck at all.
--member 1893
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Anthony Sava wrote:
> But let's look at the bigger picture here. Yes, LEGO has been a successful
> company for many many years. Yes, LEGO has taken mighty big risks in it's day.
> Plastic instead of wood? Heresy! Minfigs with arms? Blasphemy! New colors
> besides the basic 6? Profanity! But what about the other risks LEGO has taken
> in the last ten years?
>
> Yes, Bionicle was huge risk. Yes, Bionicle has made LEGO an awful lot of money.
>
> But what about the imfamous Galidor. That was a risk. LEGO knew what they were
> doing then, right? Galidor tested with with all the focus groups, right? That
> wasn't a really great success.
They were "following the trends in the children's toy market". Look at Pokemon,
Power Rangers, and the like. Enormous success stories with incredible revenue
from toys over the years. The stinking Pokemon toy market won't die! My kids
bought the new Pokemon Colluseum game for Game Cube the first day they could
(paid full price). This is the market Lego thinks they want to be in. They
want to find a fad that takes off.
Bionicle did that, the others didn't.
> Changing Duplo for to Explore... that was a risk. LEGO knew what they were
> doing then, too, right? Explore sounds so much better than Duplo, it sounds so
> much more educational. Did it test well with the focus groups too? LEGO turned
> around on its decision there, it's back to Duploe. That wasn't really a great
> success.
Agreed, this was stupid. Adults buy Duplo, not kids. I'll bet that most kids
that play with Duplo can't even go to the bathroom without adult help. Changing
the name of the brand that adults know and love was really stupid.
> Scala, Belville and the other LEGO for girl buiding sets (Clickits aside)? LEGO
> knew what they were doing, didn't they? Girls love LEGO! They love pinks and
> purples and barbie doll sized figs! Girls love pink and purple LEGO with barbie
> doll sized figs, right? Bet it tested well with the focus groups. I've never
> seen Scala or Belville on store shelves, and it's always going on sale on
> shop.lego.com, but LEGO knows what it's doing, right? I don't know if I'd call
> it a success.
Lego has never known how to sell to girls. They want a piece of the maket that
Barbie plays in. The problem is that even the makers of Barbie are loosing hold
of this market. Newer, cooler, toys like Bratz are seriously eating into the
Barbie market. Barbie still sells well, but only to adults. The girls I know
would rather buy newer, cooler toys.
Lots of ideas that didn't take off snipped...
> Mindstorms! Ok, now we're getting somehwere. Mindstorms is a great product. I
> bet it tested fantastically. I don't own Mindstorms, but I've seen that they're
> great. But there's the problem: Price prohibitive. Now Minstorms is almost
> entirely limited to schoolastic endevours, and out of the hands of the general
> public. A fantastic success for schools, a mild success overall.
Mindstorms is doing well, but you can't directly market it to kids. The price
point is so high, you have to market it to adults, which includes teachers and
schools.
> Video games! Bring LEGO home to your Playstation, build in virtual reality! I
> bet that tested very well. LEGO sure knew what it was doing with that, right?
> Recent press releases have stated LEGO is dropping all it's electronic products,
> so I guess this wasn't a success.
Again, an example of Lego trying to push itself into a new market and extend its
"brand" image. Not exactly a success. Kids that love to play with Lego seem to
like real bricks. That's not to say they don't like video games too, but why
play with virtual Legos? That's an adult concept.
> Star Wars! Harry Potter! Big success stories, right? Tested well with
> the focus groups. LEGO must have hit it square on the head. Recent press
> releases have stated that LEGO is dropping or limiting their licensed
> products. I guess fees are getting too much? Perhaps set design with so
> many pieces for the lower cost is cutting into profits? I don't know. I do
> know that there are original Harry Potter sets still on sale at my Wal Mart
> and my TRU, and a few of the other Star Wars sets from seasons passed as
> well. A used-to-be-a success?
I have to disagree with you here. I would have [killed] for Star Wars Lego back
in 1977! My friends and I (about six to eight years old) played Star Wars with
our Legos all the time, but the models we made were really lame by today's
standards. Lego missed the boat on this back in 1977. Look how successful Star
Wars toys were in the late 70's and the 80's. Without a doubt, they set the bar
in terms of non-construction toys for boys.
> Bionicle, LEGO's golden goose... right? Tested well with focus groups, I'm
> sure. LEGO KNOWS what it's doing, right? I'm not so sure. All of my local
> stores are DESPERATELY trying to get rid of older bionicle sets. They're just
> not selling. MY TRU is running a sale: Buy a new bionicle get any old bionicle
> off the shelf for free. I guess the market is saturated with ball and socket
> technic bits, I'm no expert. I just call em as I see em. A success, yes. But
> is it STILL a success? Many kids, but more parents to be sure, I've overheard
> in stores have said that they're fed up with Bionicle. Definately, though, a
> success.
My son loves Bionicle sets, but he still has the Bionicle movie sitting in the
shrink wrap. He got it for his birthday in February. The tells me that he
wants to play with his Lego, not watch it on TV or play a Lego video game on the
computer. Even his Bionicle Gameboy Advance game doesn't get played much. What
does? Pokemon! That kid has every Pokemon game he can get his hands on.
> Yes, Bionicle was attacked by AFOLs. Unpure! Unclean! Evil! Yes, we called
> that one wrong. But I think it's fair to say that overall, we AFOLs know what
> we're talking about. I'd wager we have a higher success rate for calling good
> and bad ideas that LEGO has had in the last ten years. Can you really say,
> LEGO, that you KNOW what you're doing because ONE of your experiements happened
> to be a big success?
>
> There's the thing. LEGO keeps taking these risks, trying to set new trends, be
> better, different, cutting edge. I'm sorry to tell you LEGO, ten, twenty years
> ago, your sets were better. You set the bar. You constantly set the bar. All
> other sets are compared to the bar. All clone bricks are compared to the bar.
> The height of the bar is why LEGO is synonymous with 'construction toys'.
>
> The bar does NOT go down!
Again, I have to disagree. 20 years ago Lego wouldn't do Star Wars sets, or
other liscenced sets, but the demand was there. I would have also killed for a
Space: 1999 Eagle done in Lego. Again, I had to make my own, but they were
pretty lame.
> For some people, the color issue is LEGO missing the bar. LEGO set the bar very
> high after having 30 years of never changing an existing color. 30 years is a
> long time. Changing a core color, even if it wasn't a core color 30 years ago,
> is vaulting way under the bar for these people. LEGO bricks from 30 years ago
> match perfectly with the color of bricks from a year ago, I know it, I own 30
> year old bricks, I own Classic Space and Classic Town sets.
So do I, but 30 years ago, that was just about all you could buy! Take a look
at the catalogs.
Take a look at Classic Space. It was a huge, monstorous success! It didn't
look much like anything on TV or in the movies at the time, yet it sold like
crazy and caused lots of spin-off lines (Futuron, Space Police, Blacktron, Space
Police II, Blacktron II, Unitron, and etc). Some of the spin-offs were less
successful, but Space, in some form or another, has always been a key to Lego's
success.
> Current LEGO set design, aside from Licensed sets, is very spotty and
> questionable in my opinion. LEGO set the bar ten, twenty years ago. LEGO can't
> seem to reach the bar without a push from an outside source (Star Wars, Harry
> Potter). The 80's and early 90's in Castle, Space, Town, and most all other
> themes are, arguably, the best sets LEGO has produced in 20 years.
In your opinion, as an adult. Lego has to market to today's kids. I'm 35 and I
realize that the things my kids think is cool, I find a bit weird. Pokemon is
an example. Power Rangers is an even better example. I hate both of them, but
the kids really love them.
> How can you raise the bar when you can't reach the bar? This isn't limbo I'm
> talking about, this is not a question of 'How low can you go?'
The bar has to be set so that kids can jump over the bar. If the bar gets
raised too high, only AFOL's will buy Lego. Look at the model train market.
How many kids buy model trains? Few to none. How many adults buy model trains?
Lots more than kids. But the overall market for model trains likely isn't as
large as the market for Lego. Why? Because as adults, hobbies are many and
varied.
Adult hobbies go to extremes in many ways which limits their appeal to very
small markets. If Lego wants to maintain its marketshare, they have to market
to kids. They have to do things that adults think is "stupid". This means that
many times, they'll "blow it". Why? Lego is run by adults and adults have a
very hard time figuring out what kids think is cool. They have an even harder
time [predicting] what kids will think is cool. That's the nature of the toy
business.
> Therein lies the problem, I think. Some people's problem with the color change
> lies in LEGO letting them down... again. And again. (and again).
>
> And I could be wrong. I could be wrong about everything I've said. I have
> merely posted to maybe bring up a thought. And that is that even though your
> focus groups tested your products well, and even though you 'KNOW' what you're
> doing, the past does not lie. AFOLs could hold the key to what the public would
> purchase over your competitors.
Here I think you're wrong. When your market is kids, adults aren't much help.
Because of this, your arguments fall flat.
If Lego wanted to shrink its market and become like model trains they could, but
what management of any company wants to shrink their sales and fire countless
people that are no longer needed? What executives want sales to fall off so
their own pay can be cut to match the size of the smaller company?
We're dealing with human nature here. Lego wants to grow. Unfortunately their
market is kids and its [hard] to predict what kids want, especially if
management is old enough that their kids are having kids.
Jeff
|
|
| |
Anthony Sava wrote:
> Feel free to correct me if I've left a success out.
More than five decades as a successful company. Um, make that a successful
company with global name recognition, fan clubs & conventions, etc.
> And that is that even though your focus groups tested your
> products well, and even though you 'KNOW' what you're
> doing, the past does not lie.
Hmmm... that, I thought, was a point in LEGOs favor.
> In my humble opinion, LEGO does not KNOW what it's doing. LEGO
> does not KNOW what's best for the company.
OK, fair enough. But keep in mind stock prices are not set on "opinions", but
usually long-term performance.
> A they say, those who fail to learn from the
> past are doomed to repeat it. I'd rather not repeat parts
> of the last ten years.
On that (as a primarily technic-oriented AFOL), I'd have to sadly agree. But
I will whole-heartedly look forward to the next fifty years if they are even
half as successful as the last fifty.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Anthony Sava wrote:
> > But let's look at the bigger picture here. Yes, LEGO has been a successful
> > company for many many years. Yes, LEGO has taken mighty big risks in it's day.
> > Plastic instead of wood? Heresy! Minfigs with arms? Blasphemy! New colors
> > besides the basic 6? Profanity! But what about the other risks LEGO has taken
> > in the last ten years?
> >
> > Yes, Bionicle was huge risk. Yes, Bionicle has made LEGO an awful lot of money.
> >
> > But what about the imfamous Galidor. That was a risk. LEGO knew what they were
> > doing then, right? Galidor tested with with all the focus groups, right? That
> > wasn't a really great success.
>
>
I agree with most of the replys.
As a 42 year old AFOL, I see what some of the kids are looking at.
They see these hugh sets made by other companies like Mega___--, it hurts to
even type the name.
Lego needs to make more sets to compete with Megablocks.
Lego also needs to work on their prices, a $20.00 Megablock set in lego quality
would cost around $50.00.
Yes I would like to see more colors, not replacement colors, but lets make the
sets more affordable. I buy from Lego shop at home , but I also look for close
outs, because of the prices.
I was forced to buy a Megablock battle ship for my Nephew; and I hate to say it
but it stays locked together pretty good.
But if you look at the nice large Lego sets they run from $40.00 - $100.00 and
more. Who can afford that for their kids? I know I wanted a mindstorm set for a
long time, and findly caught it on close out for $150.00.
MAybe Lego knows we are hooked on their product, therefore they may keep the
prices up.
Look at Bricklink, 1000's of people buying and selling Legos, not megablocks.
Someone purchased the Legos, before reselling them, so Lego made their money.
Just my $00.02
Al
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Anthony Sava wrote:
lots of good points and rambling snipped
| |
LEGO bricks from 30 years ago
match perfectly with the color of bricks from a year ago, I know it, I own 30
year old bricks, I own Classic Space and Classic Town sets.
|
I agree with most of your post, but I must take issue with this. I’m 40, and I
got my first LEGO as a gift in 1969 or 1970 (that’s the only one I still have
the box for, too). I own bricks from the late 60’s to now, and I can pick out
my “old” bricks just by looking at them (and the stud logo confirms it).
They’re all yellowed. The old blue and white ones are the most noticeable. I
also have a non-quantifiable feeling that the ABS the old bricks were made from
is harder than the stuff made in the late 90s and now (they’re NOT the
“samsonite” Lego, either).
So, IMO, the quality of the brick has NOT been steadfast, but it’s always been
better than anything else. My main problem with the color change at this point
is LEGO’s attitude - they can make parts in the old colors (hence the request
for list of parts we feel are “necessary”), but they don’t want to.
James Wilson
Dallas, TX
Lugnet Member # 1783
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Anthony Sava wrote:
Anthony,
Coming from another industry driven by fan interest and marketing to children
(video games), I can agree with a lot of what you say. TLC has made some very,
very bad choices over the past couple of decades. It makes me wonder where they
get the kids that they include in their focus groups.
As far as the quality of set designs, I’m not sure I agree that the peak of TLC
design quality was when you say it was, but I do see a much higher quality of
models built outside TLC (mostly by AFsOL) than inside (Legoland work is a
bright exception).
Someone else (Brian Davis) in a reply cautioned you to understand that many
factors affect a company’s stock price - I guess he forgot TLC is not a
publicly traded company.
I think that Al Broussard made an exceptionally important point - price point is
very likely a key to TLCs problems with their core product lines, and if they
don’t solve this issue as their competitors raise their quality bars (without
raising their prices) then they will cease to exist.
Personally, I like to see and build the occasional cool set but I’m FAR more
interested in what I can build.
.Steve Coallier
“Attack life, it’s going to kill you anyway!”
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Al Broussard wrote:
> Lego also needs to work on their prices, a $20.00 Megablock set in lego
> quality would cost around $50.00.
The most important word there is "quality". TLC uses ABS, while MB uses
polystyrene. ABS is styrene with a couple of additives that make it a lot
stronger, but also more expensive. The higher cost of the sets is partly due to
the higher cost of the raw materials, and without cheaping out the materials,
there's not really anything that can be done to offset that cost.
> MAybe Lego knows we are hooked on their product, therefore they may keep the
> prices up.
They lost money last year. If the prices were lower, they might lose even more
money. One of my all-time favorite dumb corporate quotes is, "We lose a penny
on every unit we sell, but we'll make it up in volume."
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Brian Davis wrote:
> OK, fair enough. But keep in mind stock prices are not set on "opinions", but
> usually long-term performance.
Stock prices aren't relevant here; LEGO is privately held.
However, I agree with your point. Let's have a little optimism here folks!
--Bill.
|
|
| |
I sometimes to wonder if Lego’s designers are all incompetent, but I often
convinced that they are not.
Sets like Red Baron’s Plane, Sopwith Camel, and many other shop at home
exclusives, show that there are some designers working for TLC that can build
great models.
However, the great sets seem to be few and far between these days. The HP line,
with it’s open designs, was disappointing to many people. However, it sold out
very fast when it was first released. Unfortunately, it seems as if the market
got sick of it. Harry Potter CoS sets that came out the following year seemed to
linger on store shelves longer and wind up on clearance much faster.
StarWars has some great set designs in a lot of places. It even had some very
successful ideas such as the Mini Line. However, TLC decided to release new
minis each year, with each new line costing more than the previous one. With the
second set of minis being 50% off on S@H, I would have to assume that the market
is sick of them by now.
Orient Expedition was pretty decent in a lot of ways, but those sets just hung
out on store shelves and sold poorly.
Why is everything doing so poorly?
I think price is the main reason. Minis for $4 are great, especially with 2
small models per package. Minis for $7 are a bit too much. Minis for $8 are
ridiculous. I won’t touch them.
Lego frequently sells tubs and buckets for about 2 cents per part. A typical
lego set generally charges 9-12 cents per part. Why the huge gap? I understand
that you are paying for the efforts to design the sets, but 5 times the price?
Besides that, in a typical minifig scale set, most of the parts are
significantly smaller than the average bricks you get in a bucket or tub.
The Creator/Designer sets really shed some light on this. With a creator set,
like the big Helicopter one, you are getting an incredibly well designed set,
with instructions for two more models and ideas for several beyond that. In
addition, you are getting the parts for about 7 cents each. All of the Designer
sets I’ve seen have been priced much worse than a plain tub of bricks, but
noticeably better than most minifig scale sets.
I believe moving the price down a bit more would be wise. Unfortunately, the
prices in 2004 seem to be higher than they were last year so I guess that idea
went out the window. TLC needs to reduce costs, but they keep doing something
they repeatedly tell us is an expensive process. Making new molds!
It’s okay to make new molds. People are usually excited whenever there is a new
minifig accessory or some other part that aids in building. However, there seem
to be too many one-use parts lately. The dewback. The yeti. The tiger thing.
Then there is this upcoming castle line with 5 new visors, a new sword, and a
new helmet. I’m sorry, but that just seems a bit excessive, especially since the
visors and sword are all pretty stupid looking.
Scorpion palace comes with a big onion dome top. Another large one-use part.
Then they even ruin it by making it so you can’t build a complete dome with two
of them. Did they even think of this for more than a couple minutes?
It’s almost as if they are no longer trying to sell Lego sets that you are
supposed to take apart and build other things with. It seems like they’re now
trying to sell static playsets that just happen to require assembly and come
apart easy.
Lego should be about making pieces that can be used in a vast number of ways to
build anything you can imagine. The poorly designed and one-use parts they make
lately are hurting set designs, costs, and replay value.
There needs to be more simplicity and elegance to this stuff. Air blazers was an
incredible design from just last year, so they obviously still have what it
takes to make cool stuff. Now they just need to make it affordable and slow down
on the production of strange un-needed parts.
TLC says they want to get back to their core values. Well, I’m waiting.
|
|
| |
| |
It’s almost as if they are no longer trying to sell Lego sets that you are
supposed to take apart and build other things with. It seems like they’re now
trying to sell static playsets that just happen to require assembly and come
apart easy.
Lego should be about making pieces that can be used in a vast number of ways
to build anything you can imagine. The poorly designed and one-use parts they
make lately are hurting set designs, costs, and replay value.
There needs to be more simplicity and elegance to this stuff. Air blazers was
an incredible design from just last year, so they obviously still have what
it takes to make cool stuff. Now they just need to make it affordable and
slow down on the production of strange un-needed parts.
TLC says they want to get back to their core values. Well, I’m waiting.
|
You hit the nail on the head. I could not agree with you more. I hope that
some one from TLC reads this. It could make them great again.
Mark Wilson
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Mark Wilson wrote:
| |
| |
It’s almost as if they are no longer trying to sell Lego sets that you are
supposed to take apart and build other things with. It seems like they’re
now trying to sell static playsets that just happen to require assembly and
come apart easy.
Lego should be about making pieces that can be used in a vast number of ways
to build anything you can imagine. The poorly designed and one-use parts
they make lately are hurting set designs, costs, and replay value.
There needs to be more simplicity and elegance to this stuff. Air blazers
was an incredible design from just last year, so they obviously still have
what it takes to make cool stuff. Now they just need to make it affordable
and slow down on the production of strange un-needed parts.
TLC says they want to get back to their core values. Well, I’m waiting.
|
You hit the nail on the head. I could not agree with you more. I hope
that some one from TLC reads this. It could make them great again.
Mark Wilson
|
Thanks, I’m glad you appreciate my comments. I hope somebody from TLC will read
them as well. Unfortunately, I intended to post this off of the first post in
this thread so it would get good exposure and I guess I wasn’t paying attention.
Anyway, I want to expand a bit on what I was saying.
We don’t need new parts right now. Lego should pick a year, 2005 would be ideal,
and work with the restriction that all new sets that year have to use existing
parts.
Lego Direct works under those restrictions already, and, between the Legends,
Sculptures, MOCs, and UCS, they are producing some of the best sets each year.
Further proof that we don’t need new molds. Finding as many uses as possible for
an existing piece is far more creative than saying, “Hey, we need an onion dome
and a big yeti, go make some new molds!”
We need models that look good, are priced competitively, and have lots of useful
pieces to encourage creative building.
Those are your core values, LEGO. That is why we fell in love with these toys as
children and are still here today.
Bring us back to the old days!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Rocco J. Carello wrote:
| |
I believe moving the price down a bit more would be wise. Unfortunately, the
prices in 2004 seem to be higher than they were last year so I guess that
idea went out the window. TLC needs to reduce costs, but they keep doing
something they repeatedly tell us is an expensive process. Making new molds!
It’s okay to make new molds. People are usually excited whenever there is a
new minifig accessory or some other part that aids in building. However,
there seem to be too many one-use parts lately. The dewback. The yeti. The
tiger thing. Then there is this upcoming castle line with 5 new visors, a new
sword, and a new helmet. I’m sorry, but that just seems a bit excessive,
especially since the visors and sword are all pretty stupid looking.
Scorpion palace comes with a big onion dome top. Another large one-use part.
Then they even ruin it by making it so you can’t build a complete dome with
two of them. Did they even think of this for more than a couple minutes?
|
This has been a complaint of AFOL’s since before Lugnet. Unfortunately, new
parts (new molds) is part of Lego’s strategy. They can patent new parts and
copyright new sets (instructions) so that the competition can’t copy them.
Besides, every time I see a “one use part” that I think can’t possibly be used
in any other way, someone online finds a way to incorporate it into their own
creation. I saw a design in the Lugnet Space newsgroup not long ago that used
lots of the old, brown, boat hull pieces. That ship looked way cool.
| |
It’s almost as if they are no longer trying to sell Lego sets that you are
supposed to take apart and build other things with. It seems like they’re now
trying to sell static playsets that just happen to require assembly and come
apart easy.
|
That’s what some customers want. A friend of mine used to build his sets
according to the instructions and then never take them apart again. Weird,
but there are customers that do that.
| |
Lego should be about making pieces that can be used in a vast number of ways
to build anything you can imagine. The poorly designed and one-use parts they
make lately are hurting set designs, costs, and replay value.
|
To a certain extent, I agree. Too many single use parts just drives up
production costs and you end up paying too much per piece. The buckets are so
cheap because they largely use existing pieces, not new ones.
| |
There needs to be more simplicity and elegance to this stuff. Air blazers was
an incredible design from just last year, so they obviously still have what
it takes to make cool stuff. Now they just need to make it affordable and
slow down on the production of strange un-needed parts.
TLC says they want to get back to their core values. Well, I’m waiting.
|
I agree, to a point. The point where I diverge is the point where Lego has to
make sets that appeal to today’s kids. As I said earlier, I’m 35 and my kids
(make me) buy lots of toys I hate, but the toy companies still get my money.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Rocco J. Carello wrote:
> It's okay to make new molds. People are usually excited whenever there is a
> new minifig accessory or some other part that aids in building. However,
> there seem to be too many one-use parts lately. The dewback. The yeti. The
> tiger thing. Then there is this upcoming castle line with 5 new visors, a new
> sword, and a new helmet. I'm sorry, but that just seems a bit excessive,
> especially since the visors and sword are all pretty stupid looking.
>
> Scorpion palace comes with a big onion dome top. Another large one-use part.
> Then they even ruin it by making it so you can't build a complete dome with
> two of them. Did they even think of this for more than a couple minutes?
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
There is no such thing as a limited use part, set, or whatever. If anything is
limited it is the imagination and innovation of the builder.
-Orion
|
|
| |
> I've said it before and I'll say it again:
>
> There is no such thing as a limited use part, set, or whatever. If
> anything is limited it is the imagination and innovation of the builder.
>
> -Orion
Brilliant how you make that sound like an insult to my creativity!
Anyway, if what you say is true, how come Lego sets (aside form the designer
series last year) almost never have alternate models on the back of the boxes
anymore?
There a lot of parts that TLC only uses in one set, so from that perspective,
they are still screwing up the ppp (price per part) by making it and using it
only once.
There are also lots of big parts that are so specifically detailed that they are
very difficult to use in any other way. I mean, a yeti is a yeti. It will never
be the wing of a spaceship, but it could certainly be a statue (of a yeti).
There are also lots of juniorized parts. A 4x1x2 arch is more limited in it's
usefulness than a 4x1x1 arch and 2 1x1 bricks. There is no situation where the 3
parts cannot be used in place of the one, but there are many situations where
the one cannot be used in place of the three. For the sake of increasing the
modularity and flexibility of the parts, TLC should have never spent money
developing the 4x1x2 arch when the other 3 parts have already existed for years
and are ultimately better.
These are 3 ways that TLC is wasting their money (and making up for it by
charging us more) to develop parts that are not needed and do not provide much
benefit to building or creativity. We are paying extra so TLC can reduce
creativity! That is totally against what Lego is about!
I'm not saying Lego should not make new parts, but they need to slow down a bit
and focus on what is important. They are out of control with new parts lately
and it's killing them.
|
|
| |
| |
This has been a complaint of AFOL’s since before Lugnet. Unfortunately,
new parts (new molds) is part of Lego’s strategy. They can patent new
parts and copyright new sets (instructions) so that the competition can’t
copy them.
|
Well, they can patent an infinite number of new sets and instructions with the
existing parts.
Regarding new parts, they seem to be making as many new molds as possible lately
because they don’t want to leave any possible shapes available for Megablocks to
start making. Unfortunately for us, this raises price. Unfortunately for TLC, I
think Megabloks is doing so well because of the price, not because Megabloks has
a part that Lego doesn’t.
TLC is attacking on the wrong front. This is going to put them six feet under.
| |
Besides, every time I see a “one use part” that I think can’t possibly be
used in any other way, someone online finds a way to incorporate it into
their own creation. I saw a design in the Lugnet Space newsgroup not long
ago that used lots of the old, brown, boat hull pieces. That ship looked
way cool.
|
Two things about that. First, I am continually amazed by the ways people think
of to use some parts as well. It’s one of the reasons I never get tired of
brickshelf. However, regarding boat hull pieces, even if nobody found another
use for them, there have been lots of sets that used boat hull pieces so at
least TLC got their money’s worth out of the mold.
| |
That’s what some customers want. A friend of mine used to build his sets
according to the instructions and then never take them apart again.
Weird, but there are customers that do that.
|
Yes, and I understand that large pre-molded parts make those models easier to
build and maybe look a little better for people who want to do that. However, do
they have to please one crowd by punishing the other?
| |
| |
Now they just need to make it affordable
and slow down on the production of strange un-needed parts.
|
I agree, to a point. The point where I diverge is the point where Lego has
to make sets that appeal to today’s kids. As I said earlier, I’m 35 and
my kids (make me) buy lots of toys I hate, but the toy companies still
get my money.
|
Well, I must admit that I truly wouldn’t have any notion of what things kids
think are “cool” today. I don’t have any children of my own, so you probably
know better than me here.
However, I have to ask - what happened? We had more than a decade where kids
were happy with town, castle, and space Lego sets in yellow boxes. Did these
sets start to lose popularity so TLC had to adapt to stay trendy, or did they
start to lose popularity because TLC was trying to be trendy?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Rocco J. Carello wrote:
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Mark Wilson wrote:
| |
| |
It’s almost as if they are no longer trying to sell Lego sets that you are
supposed to take apart and build other things with. It seems like they’re
now trying to sell static playsets that just happen to require assembly and
come apart easy.
Lego should be about making pieces that can be used in a vast number of
ways to build anything you can imagine. The poorly designed and one-use
parts they make lately are hurting set designs, costs, and replay value.
There needs to be more simplicity and elegance to this stuff. Air blazers
was an incredible design from just last year, so they obviously still have
what it takes to make cool stuff. Now they just need to make it affordable
and slow down on the production of strange un-needed parts.
TLC says they want to get back to their core values. Well, I’m waiting.
|
You hit the nail on the head. I could not agree with you more. I hope
that some one from TLC reads this. It could make them great again.
Mark Wilson
|
Thanks, I’m glad you appreciate my comments. I hope somebody from TLC will
read them as well. Unfortunately, I intended to post this off of the first
post in this thread so it would get good exposure and I guess I wasn’t paying
attention.
Anyway, I want to expand a bit on what I was saying.
We don’t need new parts right now. Lego should pick a year, 2005 would be
ideal, and work with the restriction that all new sets that year have to use
existing parts.
|
That really resounds with me. When an MOC or a design hailed by many as a work
of art, it is not because of the extensive re-working or introduction of a new
part. What is important is what you do with what you have, LEGO should be
following this principle too.
If a new part is introduced, it needs to address a construction
quality/integrity problem. When I returned to LEGO product as a customer in
1992, I noticed a few new parts that introduced great solutions that
complemented my pre 1985 product. They did not make shortcuts or faster
construction, just more solid and realistic construction from basic bricks.
The way new parts seem to be introduced in the last ten plus years seems to ask
the question, “How can we get the builder to the finished product faster with
fewer steps and bricks, and make it look more like something NOT made of LEGO
elements?” How crazy is that?!
The success of LEGO Bulk element sales, to me anyhow, illustrates the point that
LEGO sets cost too much to get the kind and quantity of parts BUILDERs want.
Some have even been tempted to the dark side, Mega Blocks, because sets are
available with real parts at low prices.
The only exception to non-standard parts not as usable in multiple constructions
that I am happy with are mini-figures (due to articulation issues) and the parts
and tools that clothe/accessorize them.
Certain mini-figure scale animals would be fine to mass mold, as they have been
with horses and cats for years. But the mentioned monsters from the Orient
Expedition Adventurers line, the Rock Raiders rock monster, or even the good-old
Dragon mold do not really need a dedicated mold. It’s a waste of expense for
LEGO, and relatively useless for most other projects.
Pre-fab construction walls or bits are unnecessary as all get out. Basic
bricks, plates, tiles and rounds really do a lot to inspire creations and are
cheap to keep producing. Sadly, Mega Blocks understands the desire to have
these in many construction and play sets. LEGO is going the route of Playmobil,
and Playmobil has nearly worked themselves out of the consumer market with
expense and over specialization. Can LEGO be far behind?
How many of us that have “Too Much Brick”, otherwise known as AFOLs, planned
life out so that it would include LEGO product beyond childhood? None, for
certain. we stuck to it because we like the formula and basic construction
ability with available parts.
A new part every now and again can be fun and it can fuel creativity to find a
use for it. Constant reworking and addition of new parts will serve only to
make it more difficult to find quantity and quality basic building elements.
Every year, every set, there seems to be a new part or color to get Wal Mart
type stores to see that it’s not the same product as last year. But is it
really that important and integral to getting it on the shelf??
What would be truly interesting would be to count up the number of elements
introduced within a production period and the profit generated by sales in that
period.
LEGO, people have been online for years now. You’ve seen what we build. You’ve
seen what we like and what we want. Act.
|
|
| |
"Rocco J Carello" <rogue27@mac.com> wrote in message
news:HxIzw6.17uB@lugnet.com...
[snip]
> > I agree, to a point. The point where I diverge is the point where Lego • has
> > to make sets that appeal to [today's] kids. As I said earlier, I'm 35 • and
> > my kids (make me) buy lots of toys I [hate], but the toy companies still
> > get my money.
>
> Well, I must admit that I truly wouldn't have any notion of what things • kids
> think are "cool" today. I don't have any children of my own, so you • probably
> know better than me here.
>
> However, I have to ask - what happened? We had more than a decade where • kids
> were happy with town, castle, and space Lego sets in yellow boxes. Did • these
> sets start to lose popularity so TLC had to adapt to stay trendy, or did • they
> start to lose popularity because TLC was trying to be trendy?
In my mind, this actually raises another important question... should TLC
even TRY to be "trendy"? Let me explain. From what I can tell, "trendy"
toys are the flash in the pan here today, gone tomorrow toys. How many
times each Christmas do we hear of a toy that everyone is trying to get for
their kids but by the next Christmas, it's old news? How long do those toys
last (in a child's eyes)? Not very long as far as I can tell. I only have
one toy from my childhood - Lego. It's was the only toy that stuck.
"Trendy" does not mean old, stale, etc. As with anything, Lego should
always strive to remain current and relevant to our times. While I was
growing up, Lego stayed current by introducing the space line. More
recently, the Star Wars and HP licences has helped keep Lego current.
Current and relevant, however, do NOT equal "trendy". This is where I think
Lego management has missed the boat. They have been so focused on being the
next "trendy" toy, that they got away from being the best toy period. In my
opinion, "trendy" is the last thing Lego should ever try to be.
Now, by refusing to be "trendy", would Lego fail to appeal to "today's
kids"? If we define "today's kids" as kids who are only interested in
getting the next cool must-have toy, then yes. But would that necessarily
be bad? As far as I can tell, Lego has NEVER appealed to that type of kid.
Lego is a toy that takes imagination, creativity and PATIENCE. Although
many kids today ("today's kids") do not have enough of an attention span
where Lego would appeal to them, there are still many who DO. And are
"today's kids" realy so different from "yesterday's kids"? I grew up in the
1970s and 1980s with a lot of kids who thought "Legos" were stupid, uncool
toys for nerds. No matter what Lego might have done to try to market to
these kids, they were not ever going to be Lego customers. Legos were dumb
and they wouldn't be caught dead playing with them. And there's the
lesson - some kids, no matter what, are not going to like Lego, PERIOD.
Stop trying to appeal to those kids (what I have called here"today's kids")
and focus on those kids to whom Lego does appeal.
Does this mean they should not try to attract new audiences or penetrate new
markets? Of course not. Every company needs to be flexible, have new and
innovative ideas, and be able to adapt to changing market conditions.
However, a business that over the last 40+ years has successfully built one
of the most recognizable brands in the world should not abandon that success
in pursuit of the next "trendy toy". But as the old saying goes, you dance
with the girl who got you there.
Tim
|
|
| |
"Orion Pobursky" <orion@dontaddthis.pobursky.com> wrote in message
news:HxIx9M.q1v@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Rocco J. Carello wrote:
> > Scorpion palace comes with a big onion dome top. Another large one-use • part.
> > Then they even ruin it by making it so you can't build a complete dome • with
> > two of them. Did they even think of this for more than a couple minutes?
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again:
>
> There is no such thing as a limited use part, set, or whatever. If • anything is
> limited it is the imagination and innovation of the builder.
Orion:
While true, your statement may be a bit simplistic. I believe the original
poster was not trying to say that there are NO creative uses for such
elements, but rather that, with some more forsight and thinking on the part
of the piece designers, the elements in question could have been so much
MORE useful in so MANY MORE ways. And I agree. I am sure that there are
many creative uses for those half+ onion domes pieces but why were they
designed so that two halves make MORE than a whole dome? That appears to
have been just plain short-sightedness on the part of the piece designer.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Anthony Sava wrote:
> Please, learn from the past LEGO. A they say, those who fail to learn from the
> past are doomed to repeat it. I'd rather not repeat parts of the last ten
> years.
>
> --Anthony
> Lugnet Member #1312
> http://www.ikros.net
Some random thoughts on this...
I'm definitely not saying that Lego has made wise descisions lately. However,
maybe what we're seeing is based on simple economics.
Most of the problems I see with sets these days has to do with too few parts,
which cause lame designs, etc, etc. But this all goes back to TLG trying to cut
costs on sets.
I've realized that the sets I'd *really* like to see simply couldn't be sold at
the roughly 10 cent/piece price point most retail sets seem to be at. A good
castle set would be, what, like 200 or 300 bucks?? I remember 'Main Street' set
sold for $54 in 1984, how much more would that be today with inflation?
I guess what I'm saying is that maybe the incredibly deflated prices of
Chinese-made products is making it hard for TLG to continue making their
high-quality product at what everyone *thinks* is a fair price.
IMHO, they're one of the few companies that still makes quality toys and doesn't
use the veritable slave-labor such as Wal-Mart, Hasbro, etc. does in
manufacturing. If they keep up their high product and human standards, I'll pay
whatever they charge when I have kids.
(Note, this isn't a knock against Chinese, my own wife is Asian. But I hate the
PRC government, and it disgusts me that so many Western businesses are willing
to deal with them just to make a buck.)
Anyways, I'm definitely not trying to be a TLG fan-boy or anything, but I just
wanted to put my thoughts in regarding this.
Take care,
Gary
|
|
| |
Steven Coallier wrote:
| |
Someone else (Brian Davis) in a reply cautioned you to understand that many
factors affect a company’s stock price - I guess he forgot TLC is not a
publicly traded company.
|
Hmm... Clearly, since two people have brought up the point, I worded it
poorly. I never said (nor did I mean to imply, which I think was the problem)
Lego had publicly-traded stock. My point was that long-term performance tends to
be one way (often but not always a good way) to judge how well a company is run.
Lego has done rather well in this regard, quite opposite what the original
poster seemed to be implying. If there is someone here who has successfully
run a toy (or any other) company for more than a couple of decades, I would
regard their opinion of marketing practices rather highly. I’ve not seen such an
analysis yet, either from qualified members of the AFOL community or the Lego
group, so I’ll have to withhold judgement on the wisdom of such marketing
practices.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
| |
> In my mind, this actually raises another important question... should TLC
> even TRY to be "trendy"? Let me explain. From what I can tell, "trendy"
> toys are the flash in the pan here today, gone tomorrow toys.
Excellent! Somebody picked up on the hook I left in my last post.
Growing up, there was GI Joe and Transformers. Then they both went away. Then
there was teenage mutant Ninja turtles. Then they went away. Then there were
power rangers and other things I don't even know about, and they faded away,
then GI Joe and transformers came back and nobody buys them. Then turtles came
back... etc. Through all of that, Lego has always been there. Lego has been
around for decades. Lego is not supposed to be a trendy toy. It is a classic
toy, one of those things that are timeless.
TLC has lost sight of this.
In some ways, the success of Bionicle is to blame.
Bionicle is a success. I will not argue that. Lego wanted to tap into the action
figure audience and it worked great. Lots of people who weren't into Lego
started buying Lego products because of Bionicle. Many people even say that
Bionicle is what keeps TLC profitable right now.
TLC wanted to repeat the success of Bionicle, so they tried marketing Galidor to
a slightly younger audience. NBA and NHL stuff to the sports crowd. These new
Knight's Kingdom things to the mentally handicapped crowd.
The Galidor and sports stuff failed miserably as far as I can tell. The KK stuff
doesn't appear as if it will do well either.
In the trendy toy market, TLC hit once and missed 3 times. Regardless of how
profitable Bionicle is, those profits were probably destroyed by all of the
misses.
Speaking of Bionicle. I read a story once, perhaps here on Lugnet, about a
father who bought a Bionicle set for his son on Christmas. His son had wanted
it, so his father gave in and got it for him. Then his son opened the package
and looked disappointed because it was in a bunch of pieces. "You mean I have to
put this together? Dad, can you do it for me?"
That should have turned on a burning red warning beacon in Denmark. As soon as
TLC began selling a product that kids "didn't want to put together", they should
have realized that it should not say LEGO on the package.
> Lego is a toy that takes imagination, creativity and PATIENCE. Although
> many kids today ("today's kids") do not have enough of an attention span
> where Lego would appeal to them, there are still many who DO. And are
> "today's kids" realy so different from "yesterday's kids"? I grew up in
> the 1970s and 1980s with a lot of kids who thought "Legos" were stupid,
> uncool toys for nerds.
I know there are some bright kids out there. Last fall, I saw a Lego Mindstorms
competition where a bunch of 4th - 9th grade students had put together and
programmed robots to perform tasks in an obstacle course. In each class of 30
students, there may have been 3-6 kids who were doing this. That would mean at
least 10-20% of all kids in school do have the intelligence, creativity, and
patience to enjoy Lego.
Now, what toy company would not a toy that 10-20% of all kids will be into for 6
or more years of their life? That is probably about how Lego was selling in the
80s. Back then, your typical department store would have an entire aisle for
Lego - left and right, floor to ceiling. The success didn't come from making a
trendy toy that 40% of the kids liked for a couple years and gave up on. It was
by selling to 10-20% but keeping that 10-20% for a long time. Or, in the case of
some, for a lifetime.
Lots of Lego was selling back in the 80s. An insane amount. Lego would be passed
down to children by parents and siblings who had played with Lego when they were
growing up. TLC would have never run out of customers had they stuck with
whatever they had been doing. By the early 90s, it had been working for 30 solid
years and they had a strong customer base. In the latter half of the 90s, when
parents and older siblings went to buy toys for younger kids, they looked at the
Lego offerings and they were puzzled. "What is this? Where are the regular
parts? Why does it cost so much?"
An iceberg lies ahead, but there is still time to steer the ship. They need to
salvage their operation and get back to doing what Lego is supposed to be doing
before their shelf space shrinks to nothing. I haven't bought a single Lego set
at retail this year. It's not because of new colors, it's just that the shelf
space is so small and the set designs are so bad now that the stores haven't had
anything that interested me.
> Stop trying to appeal to those kids (what I have called here"today's kids")
> and focus on those kids to whom Lego does appeal.
Exactly. I believe they would sell more in the long run if they made the kinds
of things Lego fans want to buy. It would take a few years - maybe an entire
generation - to build up a customer base like they had in the 80s, but it will
pay off in the long run. The bionicle crowd is not going to remain a fan of TLC
after bionicle crashes. They will move on to the next big thing and never look
back.
When that happens, will TLC try to please us fans of the brick, or will they
continue trying to create the next trendy toy until they sink?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Gary Thomas wrote:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Anthony Sava wrote:
> > Please, learn from the past LEGO. A they say, those who fail to learn from the
> > past are doomed to repeat it. I'd rather not repeat parts of the last ten
> > years.
> >
> > --Anthony
> > Lugnet Member #1312
> > http://www.ikros.net
I'll add my own $0.02 as well. When I was a kid (I'm 30 now, so this would be in
the late 70's to mid 80's), there were only a few themes - Town, Space, Castle -
that appealed to a 10-ish year old. And these themes persisted for many years,
so a child would grow up with a theme, building up his or her collection, for 7
or 8 years. Imagine that - kids and parents buying a few sets a year for nearly
a decade - now that is how you sell stuff! Today, the themes change almost every
year, or we get the same fire station, coast guard station, and police car, each
time. In the 80s, you could buy everything you needed - gas station, trash
truck, utility repair truck, stables, regular cars, hospital, main street, cargo
station...tons of buildings, that were in the line for 2-3 years, so you could
build up a city! And how awesome and playable were those sets?
Castle and space were the same too! You had armories and catapults. Research
vehicles, launch pads, and bases. These all encouraged buying more sets to build
up your collection, and since the parts were all similar, you could build your
own great looking creations in the same themes (or others) easily.
So, my parents would spend a lot of money, and I spent a lot of my allowance,
buying these great sets. And the parents, who spend most of the money, could
easily see the value in Lego - enhancing imagination, creativity, and nonviolent
play.
Instead, today, you get a giant 'Scorpion Palace' today, with parts that you can
use for other things, but a lot of them are just not that universal. And then it
goes on clearance in just 6 months, and a new theme appears to replace it. How
does TLC expect people to stick with them for the 10 or so years of childhood
when things change so rapidly? And how much does it cost to invent all themes,
make new packaging, create new parts, and introduce a few new colors each year?
I agree wholeheartedly with the previous posters - TLC should realize that
flash-in-the-pan fads are not their bread and butter. Right now, the parents who
are buying Lego ar ethe people who grew up with Lego when sets were in their
golden ages in the 80s. If they decide Lego is junk now, they won't buy it for
their kids, and those kids won't grow up into Lego buyers. Now is a very
important time to ensure Lego returns, at least partly, to its roots.
Build on,
Roy
|
|
| |
Aaron West wrote:
> Pre-fab construction walls or bits are unnecessary as all get out. Basic
> bricks, plates, tiles and rounds really do a lot to inspire creations and are
> cheap to keep producing. Sadly, Mega Blocks understands the desire to have
> these in many construction and play sets. LEGO is going the route of Playmobil,
> and Playmobil has nearly worked themselves out of the consumer market with
> expense and over specialization. Can LEGO be far behind?
Well, around here, Playmobil has about two or three times the shelf
space than Lego has. And it sells well, because the size/price-ratio is
way better than Lego (even if one takes the differences in scale into
account).
Their big advantage is that they still do decent and cheap sets, that
they have quite high quality standards and address customer complains
very quickly, and, listen up, Lego, you can easily order any available
part in any quantity for a reasonable price. They even publish their
parts numbers in the instructions and leaflets to make this easier.
Take the "Police" theme, for example. Lego offers a paramilitary police
force that is more based on B-quality action movies and gives children a
quite unrealistic idea of policemen and their work. Playmobil caught my
eyes recently with a nice small set: A (normal, everyday) policeman with
a very recognizeble radar speed trap. This set is not only based on the
police work that can be seen in the real world and re-enacted by the
children at home, it also makes a fun gift for some adult that recently
earned him/herself a ticket ;-)
Just a bit food for thought...
Christian
|
|
| |
> Castle and space were the same too! You had armories and catapults. Research
> vehicles, launch pads, and bases. These all encouraged buying more sets to build
> up your collection, and since the parts were all similar, you could build your
> own great looking creations in the same themes (or others) easily.
I still remember getting the 6973 Deep Freeze Defender from Santa when I
was a kid.
That copy is long gone but I have since acquired enough (using parts from
the secondary market plus some from the regular retail sets I have bought
and also instructions from BL) to be able to rebuild it and it is great.
Even though I already "own" it (in the sense that I have enough parts to
build one plus a set of instructions), if TLC re-issued it, I would buy it
in a heartbeat. Same with anything else Ice Planet (especially since they
have almost no grey in them).
In fact, I would have to think long and hard before I said "no" to ANY
"Golden Age" Space set.
Some (like M:Tron and Blacktron II) I would be less likely to buy than
others due to the color selection (it would also depend on how many changes
were made e.g. change to new greys, change to new helments for classic
space etc)
But any Space set that TLC were to release I would definatly consider very
hard before saying no to.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Rocco J. Carello wrote:
> > In my mind, this actually raises another important question... should TLC
> > even TRY to be "trendy"? Let me explain. From what I can tell, "trendy"
> > toys are the flash in the pan here today, gone tomorrow toys.
>
> Excellent! Somebody picked up on the hook I left in my last post.
>
> Growing up, there was GI Joe and Transformers. Then they both went away. Then
> there was teenage mutant Ninja turtles. Then they went away. Then there were
> power rangers and other things I don't even know about, and they faded away,
> then GI Joe and transformers came back and nobody buys them. Then turtles came
> back... etc.
Are you in a completely different universe than the rest of the world? Have you
seen the top ten new toy categories for boys, or followed sales at both the
retail and customer levels?? Joe and Transformers command far more brand and
buying power than LEGO, heck, they even moved into territory "owned" by LEGO.
Heard of BTR. Man, Hasbro is eating miles per minute with sales of those, not
to mention how TMNT is reaping rewards for a until-relaunch Playmates toys is
commanding cash. Ban-Dai is still pounding out an annual supply of Power
Rangers for the hungry 5 year old masses, and going strong. Nobody indeed.
FYI, Hasbro recently released stock information, saying that most of their
increased profit in the toy world for 2003 was due to the Transformers line
which grew from already giant sized portions another 75% upward.
This kind of whining rant is why LEGO does not ask us what we think. They DO
know more sales trend figures and facts than most AFOLs who are buried in brick
tubs.
For the record. I have sunk more hard earned cash/credit into the reliable old
Joe vs COBRA and Transformers in the last 3 years than in LEGO. Why? Product,
pricing, wow factor, my kids love them and a lot of nostalgia.
Just cause they are pop-culture and tv/comic/movie tied should not lead you to
generalize falsely about them, whatever you feel.
They are a different kind of toy with a different purpose.
|
|
| |
I gotta say one thing in favor of flash in the pan fads:
LEGO clearances at Target and Wal-Mart.
I build up bigtime and don't spend as much as I would have 10-20 years ago.
Good for me.
:o)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Rocco J. Carello wrote:
> > In my mind, this actually raises another important question... should TLC
> > even TRY to be "trendy"?
<snip>
No, it shouldn't. I ran a survey just recently as part of my Year 11 Maths
studies course (last year, i'm in year 12 now) which ascertained that if people
are going to give up lego, they will do it at about 7-9 years of age. This is
exactly when kids are getting into "trendy" stuff, but then they learn that it's
too hard to keep up with (I know, I got involved in pokemon and got badly burnt
as a result), and go back to lego. Most of the year 12s that enjoy lego in my
school are of the nerdy variety, and that is where lego's niche has always been,
always will be. i have a saying, I may have picked it up from somewhere, "You
cannot make someone do something they do not want to do, no matter how hard you
try". I stick by this. Our robotics group started again last week, great to see
some familiar faces! I don't try and recruit others though, because they have
their interests, sport, girls, etc. (Having said that, yes, I do have a
girlfriend, we are very happy :) )
> Growing up, there was GI Joe and Transformers. Then they both went away. Then
> there was teenage mutant Ninja turtles. Then they went away. Then there were
> power rangers and other things I don't even know about, and they faded away,
> then GI Joe and transformers came back and nobody buys them. Then turtles came
> back... etc. Through all of that, Lego has always been there. Lego has been
> around for decades. Lego is not supposed to be a trendy toy. It is a classic
> toy, one of those things that are timeless.
Exactly, I could not have put it better if I tried. I have had Lego since
forever. I started playing with DUPLO when I was 4 months old! Last year, before
all of the not-to-be-mentioned-topic crises started,I made a vow to stick with
Lego until my deathbed. I still stand by that oath, but I do wish Lego would see
the error of their ways. I dearly loved the 1990's kits, and my fave kit of all
time is the Black Aeroplane (can't remember number, sorry), technic, circa
1997ish. It was perfect, but even then it cost $150 AU (I think,i'm not sure if
it was on sale or not). Prices are a tad high, to say the least. I remember when
our local Myer centre had one house-sized room on the 3rd floor with floor to
ceiling Lego, wall to wall (I probably should have bought the snowspeeder when
it was available - D'oh! :) ). Now it is a very small corner right up on the
fifth floor. why did most department stores put Lego at the back of their toy
departments? Because for people to get to them, they had to wade through the
other toys, and I still used to see people going straight there! the reason for
this shrinkage? People only buy Lego if it is on SALE!, 25-50% off this week
only!, and stores can't get rid of it, so they order less, it takes less shelf
space, they still sell the same amount, and everyone (except TLC) is happy. It
cannot be that hard to reduce the cpp to around 4-5c pp, when the manufacturing
cost is about 1.5cpp!
> In the trendy toy market, TLC hit once and missed 3 times. Regardless of how
> profitable Bionicle is, those profits were probably destroyed by all of the
> misses.
Agreed, I could ask some of my friends who are doing econ about this, but
selling 10 kits for $10 each is better than selling 1 kit for $25. Bionicle sold
so well because it was really cheap. People will look at a $25 price tag and
think, hmm, I could buy some extra groceries this week, or some school books and
pens etc for that! whereas people will look at a $10 kit and think, hmm, right,
I'll buy that!!! Yep, mine mine mine mine mine! (BTW, I was the only person to
buy a Williams from Myers in the city as far as I know - there were 5 on the
shelf. Let me see, if each if those williams had cost $100 instead of $220,
profit = $500 for selling 5 (they would have sold very fast) or $220 for selling
1. Umm, you do the math :) )
> Speaking of Bionicle. I read a story once, perhaps here on Lugnet, about a
> father who bought a Bionicle set for his son on Christmas. His son had wanted
> it, so his father gave in and got it for him. Then his son opened the package
> and looked disappointed because it was in a bunch of pieces. "You mean I have to
> put this together? Dad, can you do it for me?"
I remember that one.
> That should have turned on a burning red warning beacon in Denmark. As soon as
> TLC began selling a product that kids "didn't want to put together", they should
> have realized that it should not say LEGO on the package.
Indeed. People will buy model cars etc if they want something stationary to put
together. People will buy action figures if they want something to throw around.
Bionicle is neither good looking enough to have as a complete model permamently,
nor sturdy enough to throw around. (having said that, I type this with Kopaka
Nuva on my desk, the only bionicle I feel is worthy to retain that position.
also the only one I ever bought)
>
> > Lego is a toy that takes imagination, creativity and PATIENCE. Although
> > many kids today ("today's kids") do not have enough of an attention span
> > where Lego would appeal to them, there are still many who DO. And are
> > "today's kids" realy so different from "yesterday's kids"? I grew up in
> > the 1970s and 1980s with a lot of kids who thought "Legos" were stupid,
> > uncool toys for nerds.
It is, isn't it? :D Just kidding, I'm pretty popular at school. Someone (they
shall remain unnamed) decided that my Lego building made me less popular. I
challenged him to first a math contest, then a straight out race (200m). I won
both. Lego isn't necessarily for nerds, it's just that the "cool" clique have
decided that to play with Lego is to be really stupid and "uncool"
Being a teen gives me something of an interesting perspective. I can see why
people stop using the child within (they start chasing girls) and why Lego is
not really a good thing to be marketing to teens. Technic will keep people in
for longer, but unless they discover their old collection when they are
20-25ish, they miss the boat (This doesn't apply to most of you, I know, it's
just a general thing)
> I know there are some bright kids out there. Last fall, I saw a Lego >Mindstorms
> competition where a bunch of 4th - 9th grade students had put together and
> programmed robots to perform tasks in an obstacle course. In each class of 30
> students, there may have been 3-6 kids who were doing this. That would mean > at
> least 10-20% of all kids in school do have the intelligence, creativity, and
> patience to enjoy Lego.
Maybe. We had the robocup state challenge last year, over 300 students attended
(admittedly, I was the oldest one there, but still) from all over the state. It
was a lot of fun, I expect we will be seeing them again. Some of the people
there were exceptionally bright
> Now, what toy company would not (want) a toy that 10-20% of all kids will be into for 6
> or more years of their life? That is probably about how Lego was selling in the
> 80s. Back then, your typical department store would have an entire aisle for
> Lego - left and right, floor to ceiling. The success didn't come from making a
> trendy toy that 40% of the kids liked for a couple years and gave up on. It was
> by selling to 10-20% but keeping that 10-20% for a long time. Or, in the case of
> some, for a lifetime.
Precisely.
> Lots of Lego was selling back in the 80s. An insane amount. Lego would be passed
> down to children by parents and siblings who had played with Lego when they were
> growing up. TLC would have never run out of customers had they stuck with
> whatever they had been doing. By the early 90s, it had been working for 30 solid
> years and they had a strong customer base. In the latter half of the 90s, when
> parents and older siblings went to buy toys for younger kids, they looked at the
> Lego offerings and they were puzzled. "What is this? Where are the regular
> parts? Why does it cost so much?"
Or in the case of my Mum, "what happened to the bricks? Why are there all of
these stupid 1 stud pieces around?" Actual quote.
> An iceberg lies ahead, but there is still time to steer the ship. They need to
> salvage their operation and get back to doing what Lego is supposed to be doing
> before their shelf space shrinks to nothing. I haven't bought a single Lego set
> at retail this year. It's not because of new colors, it's just that the shelf
> space is so small and the set designs are so bad now that the stores haven't had
> anything that interested me.
Well, Titanic references aside, a good thing to do is apply the brake to the
overcreation of new parts, reduce the prices, and begin to include more of the
classic brick in sets. Parents are turned off (and, for that matter, so am I) by
sets that look nothing like Lego, although most would be happy to see more sets
like the sopwith camel, red baron and Wright flyer, simply because you can
actually see some studs and classic plates and bricks in the construction, but
they still look awesome! (I realise these are Lego Direct models, but is it that
hard for standard designers to be creative?)
> > Stop trying to appeal to those kids (what I have called here"today's kids")
> > and focus on those kids to whom Lego does appeal.
Absolutely. See above for ranting on this issue :)
> Exactly. I believe they would sell more in the long run if they made the kinds
> of things Lego fans want to buy. It would take a few years - maybe an entire
> generation - to build up a customer base like they had in the 80s, but it will
> pay off in the long run. The bionicle crowd is not going to remain a fan of TLC
> after bionicle crashes. They will move on to the next big thing and never look
> back.
Like what I did with pokemon, dragonball Z, many other fads (too many to name!).
This will not go on, Bionicle cannot stay popular forever.
> When that happens, will TLC try to please us fans of the brick, or will they
> continue trying to create the next trendy toy until they sink?
Or, to put it another way, will they create so much gravel and crud that it
outweighs the small gems and then the only people who buy it will be Opal
miners?
Very much my $.02, and a LOT of personal opinion
cheers, hoping for a better future for a dear company,
Matt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Make it so"
|
|
| |
I'm a citizen of Legoland travellin' Incommunicado
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@rmspam.eds.rmspam.com> wrote in message
news:HxI8rG.FA9@lugnet.com...
<snip>
> Power Rangers, and the like. Enormous success stories with incredible • revenue
> from toys over the years. The stinking Pokemon toy market won't die! My • kids
> bought the new Pokemon Colluseum game for Game Cube the first day they • could
> (paid full price). This is the market Lego thinks they want to be in. • They
> want to find a fad that takes off.
Good points but you have to appreciate Pokemon games do well because the
games are (usually) very good. The marketeering cash in stinks but if the
basis is there (a strong foundation of solid games) it will perpetuate. LEGO
games have always been very poor and in support of product as opposed to
being good with cruddy supporting product :)
--
James Stacey
------
www.minifig.co.uk
Lugnet Member #925
|
|
| |
> Are you in a completely different universe than the rest of the world? Have you
> seen the top ten new toy categories for boys, or followed sales at both the
> retail and customer levels?? Joe and Transformers command far more brand and
> buying power than LEGO, heck, they even moved into territory "owned" by LEGO.
> Heard of BTR. Man, Hasbro is eating miles per minute with sales of those, not
> to mention how TMNT is reaping rewards for a until-relaunch Playmates toys is
> commanding cash. Ban-Dai is still pounding out an annual supply of Power
> Rangers for the hungry 5 year old masses, and going strong. Nobody indeed.
> FYI, Hasbro recently released stock information, saying that most of their
> increased profit in the toy world for 2003 was due to the Transformers line
> which grew from already giant sized portions another 75% upward.
What would be interesting to know is how well the Mega Blocks Turtles and
Power Rangers lines are doing...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Daniel Warren wrote:
> Very well put, I couldn't agree more. Another analogy of the whole situation is
> that Lego is like a blindfolded kid desperately swinging at the pineata with no
> luck at all.
>
> --member 1893
What is a pineata?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Tim David wrote:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Daniel Warren wrote:
> > Very well put, I couldn't agree more. Another analogy of the whole situation is
> > that Lego is like a blindfolded kid desperately swinging at the pineata with no
> > luck at all.
>
> What is a pineata?
As I'm given to understand, it's a giant pinecone
that is filled with candy. That's a little silly
given that pinecones *are* candy, but still. (Well,
they are where I'm from, anyways. You need to get
better pine trees.)
LFB
XFUT ->.o-t.fun
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Aaron West wrote:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Rocco J. Carello wrote:
> > > In my mind, this actually raises another important question... should TLC
> > > even TRY to be "trendy"? Let me explain. From what I can tell, "trendy"
> > > toys are the flash in the pan here today, gone tomorrow toys.
> >
> > Excellent! Somebody picked up on the hook I left in my last post.
> >
> > Growing up, there was GI Joe and Transformers. Then they both went away. Then
> > there was teenage mutant Ninja turtles. Then they went away. Then there were
> > power rangers and other things I don't even know about, and they faded away,
> > then GI Joe and transformers came back and nobody buys them. Then turtles came
> > back... etc.
>
> Are you in a completely different universe than the rest of the world? Have you
> seen the top ten new toy categories for boys, or followed sales at both the
> retail and customer levels?? Joe and Transformers command far more brand and
> buying power than LEGO, heck, they even moved into territory "owned" by LEGO.
> Heard of BTR. Man, Hasbro is eating miles per minute with sales of those, not
> to mention how TMNT is reaping rewards for a until-relaunch Playmates toys is
> commanding cash. Ban-Dai is still pounding out an annual supply of Power
> Rangers for the hungry 5 year old masses, and going strong. Nobody indeed.
> FYI, Hasbro recently released stock information, saying that most of their
> increased profit in the toy world for 2003 was due to the Transformers line
> which grew from already giant sized portions another 75% upward.
>
> This kind of whining rant is why LEGO does not ask us what we think. They DO
> know more sales trend figures and facts than most AFOLs who are buried in brick
> tubs.
One thing that have mssed in your comments is the global position of some of the
brands (I'm not arguing either way, just pointing out) GI Joe is pretty much
unknown here in the UK. Transformers were big but don't seem to have kept going
or had a revival, the same with Power Rangers. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles may
be set for a revival, I'm not sure.
I don't know the figures but my guess for Lego sales distribution would be about
50% US/Canada 35% Europe, 5% Australia 10% the rest of the world.
Tim
|
|
| |
> Are you in a completely different universe than the rest of the world?
> Have you seen the top ten new toy categories for boys, or followed sales at
> both the retail and customer levels?? Joe and Transformers command far
> more brand and buying power than LEGO, heck, they even moved into territory
> "owned" by LEGO.
I never said that trendy toys don't sell well. In the case of GI Joe and
Transformers, one has ebbed and flowed in and out of existence for several
decades, while the other is on at least it's second return, the first of which
was very short lived.
> This kind of whining rant is why LEGO does not ask us what we think. They
> DO know more sales trend figures and facts than most AFOLs who are buried
> in brick tubs.
Well, maybe they could price their toys more competitively if they didn't spend
so much effort analyzing markets that they have traditionally never been
successful in. (ie action figures)
> They are a different kind of toy with a different purpose.
Yes, and that is why Lego should not be trying to play that game.
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> > MAybe Lego knows we are hooked on their product, therefore they may keep the
> > prices up.
> They lost money last year. If the prices were lower, they might lose even more
> money. One of my all-time favorite dumb corporate quotes is, "We lose a penny
> on every unit we sell, but we'll make it up in volume."
IMO They did lose because they were not selling ENOUGH, not because
their prices were too lower to cover costs.
There is always a possibility (no certainty) that lower price will
generate higher sales.
The cheap Bionicle stuff is the only thing which seems to move in my
nearby department store. The other sets are lying there for years and
their shelf space is getting squeezed, the expensive stuff is not here
at all. I haven't see _ANY_ 2004 set yet, except for... Bionicle.
And the european prices are much higher. Here the cheap
sets/Bionicle/Racers are about 1.10x expensive than US ones. SW and
action stuff is about 1.50x, basic tubs are 2.00x. +19% of VAT on each.
6-8x lower buying power. With such pricing LEGO is definitely a 'luxury'
item here.
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
| |
> I'm not so sure. All of my local
> stores are DESPERATELY trying to get rid of older bionicle sets. They're >just
> not selling.But
> is it STILL a success?
Bionicle was TLC's #1 seller in 2003 and is trending to be #1 in 2004 as well.
-Rich
Admin -- BZPower.com
Rich@BZPower.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Tim David wrote:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Daniel Warren wrote:
> > Very well put, I couldn't agree more. Another analogy of the whole situation is
> > that Lego is like a blindfolded kid desperately swinging at the pineata with no
> > luck at all.
> >
> > --member 1893
>
> What is a pineata?
(that was probably a Typo... :)
A Pinata....
http://www.bry-backmanor.org/holidayfun/pinata.html
paper mache animal (usually) filled with candy/treats/prizes/etc...
that you smack with a stick blind-folded
Ben Medinets
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Their big advantage is that they still do decent and cheap sets, that
> they have quite high quality standards and address customer complains
> very quickly, and, listen up, Lego, you can easily order any available
> part in any quantity for a reasonable price. They even publish their
> parts numbers in the instructions and leaflets to make this easier.
I've actually been paying attention to Playmobil recently. Does anyone know how
they're doing financially? Both Lego and Playmobil cater to a similar audience
(although Lego tries to reach a broader age-range), so I'd expect that if there
really is a problem in the toy industry in general, Playmobil would be reacting
similarly to Lego.
I actually think the biggest problem with Lego is that it started becoming more
of a regular toy (action figures & playsets) rather than a generic building toy.
Generic building toys have always had a little niche market-- nothing huge, but
it's always been there.
Regular toys absolutely dominate the market, but are highly fad-driven. Who'da
thought that Pokemon would catch on, but Galidor wouldn't? There's a fine line
between what kids love and what they find boring. And time after time it's been
proven that it's incredibly difficult to test kids for a toy that'll really
catch on.
The building toy market is different though-- kids will *build* what they love,
NOT what they find boring. So it's sort of an escape clause. If you can provide
a toy that has the potential to *become* something kids will love, it'll always
have some success. It'll never be as popular as the big fads, but there will
always be a market for it.
How many of us as children built fad toys out of Lego? I remember building
Transformers, Star Wars, and M*A*S*K things out of Lego, either because I didn't
own the "actual" toy, or because I was coming up with something new that fit
into those genres. Lego was generic enough to build any of these. And just about
any other fad toy out there.
But nowadays, the focus is on becoming more like Mattel or Hasbro. The marketing
for an Alpha Team set is that it's an Alpha Team set. Not that it's Lego. Each
character is built up so you know exactly who the bad guy is, who the brainy guy
is, who the hulking macho-man is, etc. Same goes with Harry Potter, Johnny
Thunder, the new Knights' Kingdom, Star Wars, Spider Man, etc. Kids aren't
encouraged to want them because it's Lego-- they're encouraged to want them
because they're some action-packed toy.
Compare Playmobil. A playmobil character is fantastically generic, much in the
same way that a minifig from the 80's was. A playmobil policeman could be the
brainy one, the macho one, an evil one, a dumb one, whatever. He's whatever a
child can imagine. But "Crunch" will always be "Crunch". So a child can pick up
a playmobil set, and imagine whatever s/he wants. But a modern Lego set is
telling the child from the get-go exactly what this toy should be.
Lego's wandered into this direction as far back as the 70's. With the advent of
LegoLand, sets were very much sold as a particular model. Set 611 is a police
car, and marketed as a police car. Set 497 is a space ship, and is marketed as a
space ship. In the late 80's and early 90's it went a bit further. 6986 Isn't
just a space ship-- it's a Space Police ship. 6082 isn't just a castle, it's a
Dragon Master's castle. And today, we not only get things like a specific theme,
but we're told a lot more about who each character is, and what the
vehicle/building is for. And not only that, but there's a lot *less* focus on
alternate models, which encourage kids to take sets apart and re-build them,
rather than just leave it as the advertised model.
Nowadays I go into the store to buy Lego, and I don't hear parents say "Oh, my
kid wants Lego", they say "My kid loves the Harry Potter sets", or whatever the
theme of the day is. It's almost as though one Lego set/theme relates in no way
whatsoever to another, the same as a Barbie, which has nothing to do with Hot
Wheels, even though they're both made by Mattel. Lego is advertising itself as
less of a system and more of independant systems.
Lego's strong point in the past was that all its products focused on their
flexibility and consistancy of the system. An investment in Lego was an
investment in whatever your child could imagine, no matter what set or theme you
bought.
The trick is to find that happy medium between too generic and too specific. Too
generic isn't flashy enough to be interesting, and too specific doesn't
encourage imagination. Personally, I think Playmobil's got it nearly spot-on.
Ideally I'd love to see Lego go to that level of genericness, which probably is
about the level they were at back in the 80's.
But on that note, I've been absolutely overjoyed with the designer sets. A great
(maybe even a bit too generic) series of sets that show off the Lego system, and
not just a certain model or two. If these are a sign of what's to come, I really
think Lego may be going back to what it does best-- Not being a huge toy giant
who's the best name brand with families, but being a steady company who can
always be trusted for making a timeless building toy.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
There is no such thing as a limited use part, set, or whatever. If anything
is limited it is the imagination and innovation of the builder.
-Orion
|
Ah, how true. That Tiger, for instance, can also be...a Siberian Tiger. Or a
leopard (if you close your eyes). Or a Jaguar (if you close your eyes). Or a
panther (if you close your eyes).
It’s a question of degree, but I can show you at least a few dozen parts from my
collection that have extremely limited versatility.
.Steve Coallier
“Attack life, it’s going to kill you anyway!”
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Brian Davis wrote:
| |
Steven Coallier wrote:
| |
Someone else (Brian Davis) in a reply cautioned you to understand that many
factors affect a company’s stock price - I guess he forgot TLC is not a
publicly traded company.
|
Hmm... Clearly, since two people have brought up the point, I worded it
poorly. I never said (nor did I mean to imply, which I think was the problem)
Lego had publicly-traded stock. My point was that long-term performance tends
to be one way (often but not always a good way) to judge how well a company
is run. Lego has done rather well in this regard, quite opposite what the
original poster seemed to be implying. If there is someone here who has
successfully run a toy (or any other) company for more than a couple of
decades, I would regard their opinion of marketing practices rather highly.
I’ve not seen such an analysis yet, either from qualified members of the AFOL
community or the Lego group, so I’ll have to withhold judgement on the wisdom
of such marketing practices.
|
Got it, Brian. My company (Electronic Arts) has been in business for over two
decades with only a single unprofitable quarter, and has what is considered one
of the most successful marketing organizations in children’s entertainment
(toys/videogames/videos). I’m not in our marketing organization, but I do know
how it works and why it is successful.
TLC, on the other hand, has had some very bad years, and as Anthony pointed out
have made a double handful of marketing decisions that were demonstrable flops
and less than a single handful of marketing decisions that were demonstrable
successes.
.Steve Coallier
“Attack life, it’s going to kill you anyway!”
|
|
| |
well, I’m certainly glad that your company was asked by LEGO to do it’s software
games!!
-Scott Lyttle
|
|
| |
> Ideally I'd love to see Lego go to that level of genericness, which
> probably is about the level they were at back in the 80's.
Great post! I completely agree.
> But on that note, I've been absolutely overjoyed with the designer sets. A
> great (maybe even a bit too generic) series of sets that show off the Lego
> system, and not just a certain model or two. If these are a sign of what's
> to come, I really think Lego may be going back to what it does best
Yeah, I thought the Designer sets were the best thing Lego's done in a few
years. I hope they are doing well, and I hope they will create designer sets in
more themes as time goes on.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > Are you in a completely different universe than the rest of the world? Have you
> > seen the top ten new toy categories for boys, or followed sales at both the
> > retail and customer levels?? Joe and Transformers command far more brand and
> > buying power than LEGO, heck, they even moved into territory "owned" by LEGO.
> > Heard of BTR. Man, Hasbro is eating miles per minute with sales of those, not
> > to mention how TMNT is reaping rewards for a until-relaunch Playmates toys is
> > commanding cash. Ban-Dai is still pounding out an annual supply of Power
> > Rangers for the hungry 5 year old masses, and going strong. Nobody indeed.
> > FYI, Hasbro recently released stock information, saying that most of their
> > increased profit in the toy world for 2003 was due to the Transformers line
> > which grew from already giant sized portions another 75% upward.
> What would be interesting to know is how well the Mega Blocks Turtles and
> Power Rangers lines are doing...
Depends where you look. In Western PA, sales appear to be steady, but not
overwhelming. I understand that the Power Rangers and other Bandai licenses not
yet available in North America are selling quite well in Asia.
But Aaron is a little off-base with BTR. Although I'm greatly impressed with
the brand, I'm bummed out that it appears destined for abandonment. I discussed
the brand (in my usual, concise fashion) here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/clone-brands/?n=2164
I would be surprised if Hasbro supports the brand much longer.
Dave!
|
|
| |
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
news:HxKEsp.tHy@lugnet.com...
>
> I've actually been paying attention to Playmobil recently. Does anyone • know how
> they're doing financially? Both Lego and Playmobil cater to a similar • audience
> (although Lego tries to reach a broader age-range), so I'd expect that if • there
> really is a problem in the toy industry in general, Playmobil would be • reacting
> similarly to Lego. • <Snip some exellent points>
> DaveE
I agree with you totally on this . I think one of the reasons the late 70's
early 80's sets were so popular compared to later ones is because they had
struck a happy medium. The sets were themed, but much less rigidly than
today. As for playmobil, I posted this link to .mediawatch a while ago, it
makes some good points LEGO should listen too http://tinyurl.com/2ksug
--
James Stacey
------
www.minifig.co.uk
Lugnet Member #925
I'm a citizen of Legoland travellin' Incommunicado
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, David Eaton wrote:
> Compare Playmobil. A playmobil character is fantastically generic, much in the
> same way that a minifig from the 80's was. A playmobil policeman could be the
> brainy one, the macho one, an evil one, a dumb one, whatever. He's whatever a
> child can imagine. But "Crunch" will always be "Crunch". So a child can pick up
> a playmobil set, and imagine whatever s/he wants. But a modern Lego set is
> telling the child from the get-go exactly what this toy should be.
I mostly agree with your post, but you omit to mention that Crunch isn't always
gonna be crunch... It can be a pair of legs for another Minifig, a torso with
different arms for a spec. ops. cop in your city, a head for a thief in your
castle (actually, I think crunch wouldn't do very well as a castle head, but you
get the point).
At first, I wasn't happy with the "new" (back in the days) heads. Up to this
point, there were 2-3 male heads and you took smily and put girl hair on him if
you wanted a female minifig. I was happy with that. But now, I wouldn't want
only generic minifigs faces. I love al those "new" faces, those different
personnalities that are obvious at first glance.
As long as they keep them yellow...
I say that LEGO as gone wrong somewhere. True, Designer sets are awesome, one
of the best series in years. But for the rest...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Scott Lyttle wrote:
| |
well, I’m certainly glad that your company was asked by LEGO to do it’s
software games!!
-Scott Lyttle
|
Ah, would that this were true. EA publishes the Lego software. We do not
develop it. I wish we did!!!
.Steve
“Attack life, it’s going to kill you anyway!”
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Terry Prosper wrote:
> I mostly agree with your post, but you omit to mention that Crunch isn't
> always gonna be crunch... It can be a pair of legs for another Minifig, a
> torso with different arms for a spec. ops. cop in your city, a head for a
> thief in your castle (actually, I think crunch wouldn't do very well as a
> castle head, but you get the point).
You're right, but that's not quite the point-- An Alpha Team set can still be
integrated into the rest of your collection. An onion dome piece can still be
used as an engine on a space ship. And a Harry Potter head can be any other
figure with glasses and a little scar. The point is that it's less likely to be
than some other more generic piece. A child presented with a He-Man action
figure can still pretend that it's a mailman. But it's less likely. The more
specific you make something, the less likely you are to spark creativity. But
conversely, you also need some degree of specificity to get the ball rolling.
The point I was trying to make is that I think Lego's gone a bit too far in
recent years. Its goal for the past few years was to be the best brand name in
households with children. They've tried to expand into all sorts of places, and
to become another Mattel-style toy company, mixed with Disney's reputation for
being wholesome (not to start up a Disney debate). And they've tried to broaden
the appeal of their toys by targeting certain markets, the same way that other
fad toys do.
To broaden the appeal, they've made the toys more flashy and more specific. And
they've given them storylines. Remember Transformers from the 80's? They were
actually marketed earlier, and totally flopped. But Hasbro got ahold of them,
gave them a storyline, and they flew off the shelves. Lego's done the same
thing. They've tried to give more of a storyline and specifics and flare to sets
to make them appeal to a greater audience.
Was it successful? Uh, to some extent. Certainly with Bionicle. Not with
Galidor. Has it made Alpha Team more successful sales-wise than a more generic
cops/robbers theme? I couldn't tell you. But I do believe that a more generic
cops/robbers theme fits more with the Lego system than Alpha Team.
If you really liked an Alpha Team set, there's very little reason to associate
it with, say, a Harry Potter set. Some family that buys Alpha Team for their kid
is probably not too likely to buy a Harry Potter set. But when you make the sets
more generic, they relate to each other better. The focus moves more from being
"an Alpha Team toy" to being "a building toy", because less importance is put on
the aspects that make it an "Alpha Team" set. And suddenly, a family that's
buying one Lego product or theme is more likely to buy others. As someone
pointed out, after a while, "the customer no longer goes to a toy store to buy
'toys' - he goes there to buy Lego".
> At first, I wasn't happy with the "new" (back in the days) heads. Up to this
> point, there were 2-3 male heads and you took smily and put girl hair on him
> if you wanted a female minifig. I was happy with that. But now, I wouldn't
> want only generic minifigs faces. I love al those "new" faces, those
> different personnalities that are obvious at first glance.
I sort of agree. Like I said before, there's a happy medium somewhere in the
middle, and it's not just minifig heads. It's the way the sets are marketed
now-- and the enhanced character faces are just one aspect of that. I too like
having minifig heads with a bit more character than simple smileys, and I hope
they keep them. I just hope they can start to put the focus more back on being a
building toy. And if that means losing some of the flashy cartoonyness, and
losing a few developed-character-minifig-heads, well, I can live with that. I
just want that happy medium back.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, David Eaton wrote:
> The focus moves more from being "an Alpha Team toy" to being "a building toy", because less importance is put on the aspects that make it an "Alpha Team" set.
I think that's why most of us loved the sets from the 80-90s period. There were
only a handful of themes (Castle, Town, Technic, Space, Train, Basic) and there
was so much room for creativity.
Not saying that we can't be creative now, but every time I see a head with
glasses and scar, grey torso and legs, I have trouble seeing anything other than
Harry Potter in his Hogwarts uniform.
-Bryan
|
|
| |
Not only is Playmobil creatively generic, but the boxes only picture the
contents in a variety of ways. The pictures, as they say, speak a thousand
words. I find myself saddled with a huge LEGO collection, but often wishing I
had invested the money in Playmobil, which seems to "get it". I personally
prefer my own, non-sold-out imagination to Trendy Fad toys. I don't buy those
same LEGO fad sets for the fad, but for the parts. Rarely do I build the set
from instructions any more. Simply not inspired by them. But then, I am an
adult. Play has changed for me quite a bit.
Half-a-cent.
-Aaron-
Orderly In Charge Of Useless Information
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Orion Pobursky wrote:
<snip>
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again:
>
> There is no such thing as a limited use part, set, or whatever. If anything is
> limited it is the imagination and innovation of the builder.
Orion,
Have it with Darth Vader's helmet. Its a tough one. I've only seen it in one
non-LEGO design.
Kevin
>
> -Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
Have it with Darth Vader’s helmet. Its a tough one. I’ve only seen it in
one non-LEGO design.
|
I’m not sure it’s the one you’re talking about, but I’ve seen your mini-Vader
walker (I’d love to see instructions for that, BTW), and I’ve also built one MOC
that uses it (DTotS was just a one-time modification of a pre-existing MOC):
I also have an idea for making a vehicle with it someday. Someday...
Anyways, I agree with Orion to the extent that a lot of people casually dismiss
pieces as “useless” for no reason other than that they fall outside of their
realm of experience, but I don’t agree that it’s purely a matter of limited
imagination. The large Throwbot visors are pretty much useless without a
Throwbot head to be attached to, since they’re too flat to attach to a TECHNIC
fig helmet. On the flip side of that, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an RCX being
used for purely structural purposes instead of as an electronic control system.
There are parts that are very generic and there are parts that are very
specialized. The generic parts are the ones that get used in the vast majority
of MOCs by the vast majority of builders. The more specialized a part is, the
less often it will be used...but the more rewarding it will be when you figure
out a new use for it. The important thing is that you don’t casually disregard
a new piece as useless without putting serious thought into possible uses for
it. And picking it up with the sole intent of proving that you can’t think of
any uses for it is cheating. Don’t view it as a waste of plastic. View it as a
challenge.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I've said it before and I'll say it again:
> >
> > There is no such thing as a limited use part, set, or whatever. If anything is
> > limited it is the imagination and innovation of the builder.
>
> Orion,
>
> Have it with Darth Vader's helmet. Its a tough one. I've only seen it in one
> non-LEGO design.
>
> Kevin
>
> >
> > -Orion
I remember the Stupid Parts building contest a while back. Some of the entries
were quite good even though they used such things as the manta ray and the
pirate dingy (parts that are commonly thought of as one use only). I Googled it
to see if the page still existed but unfortunately no.
In fact I remember discussion here on Lugnet to the tune of "Bionicle is useless
in 'real' models" but that statement has been proven wrong more than a few
times.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
I remember the Stupid Parts building contest a while back.
|
Ah, you must mean the Lame Parts
contest.
| |
Some of the entries were quite good even though they used such things as the
manta ray and the pirate dingy (parts that are commonly thought of as one
use only).
|
Don’t forget the Throwbot discs...
| |
I Googled it to see if the page still existed but unfortunately no.
|
Yeah, Allister did set up a webpage for the winners at one point, but the link
he posted is dead.
| |
In fact I remember discussion here on Lugnet to the tune of “Bionicle is
useless in ‘real’ models”
|
It still pops up from time to time.
| |
but that statement has been proven wrong more than a few times.
|
To a certain extent. As with regular System, BIONICLE has pieces that are
tremendously useful (Bohrok eye) and parts that are not so useful (McToran
throwing arm). Dismissing the entire range of parts shows a refusal to
excercise one’s imagination, but even those of us who build primarily with
BIONICLE pieces have our favored parts and our not-so-favored parts.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
I remember the Stupid Parts building contest a while back.
|
Ah, you must mean the Lame Parts
contest.
| |
Some of the entries were quite good even though they used such things as the
manta ray and the pirate dingy (parts that are commonly thought of as one
use only).
|
Don’t forget the Throwbot discs...
| |
I Googled it to see if the page still existed but unfortunately no.
|
Yeah, Allister did set up a webpage for the winners at one point, but the
link he posted is dead.
|
Dunno about any of the others, but my entry was
this. Still together,
too (mostly).
T’was a fun little compo. I’d agree that nearly any part can be used in a
creative and original way that has never even been thought of before... perhaps
another lame parts competition is in order to remind us of that ;)
Michael
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Michael Dallaston wrote:
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
I remember the Stupid Parts building contest a while back.
|
Ah, you must mean the Lame Parts
contest.
| |
Some of the entries were quite good even though they used such things as
the manta ray and the pirate dingy (parts that are commonly thought of as
one use only).
|
Don’t forget the Throwbot discs...
| |
I Googled it to see if the page still existed but unfortunately no.
|
Yeah, Allister did set up a webpage for the winners at one point, but the
link he posted is dead.
|
Dunno about any of the others, but my entry was
this. Still
together, too (mostly).
T’was a fun little compo. I’d agree that nearly any part can be used in a
creative and original way that has never even been thought of before...
perhaps another lame parts competition is in order to remind us of that ;)
Michael
|
I just went to Yahoo to see what was going on with that link and perhaps getting
it reinstated. However, it seems that Yahoo no longer has free webpages for
members.
I did toss out the idea late last year for another run at the comp, but there
was no response so I never bothered. The space seed part is a fairly similar
idea too, and that doesn’t get much response either. Maybe after Mark’s contest
has run it’s course I’ll have another go. I think I’ll make the rules a lot
simpler this time to encourage more entries.
The choice of lame sets is a bit more limited now though, so picking a prize may
be tricky. Anyone for Clikits?
Cheers,
Allister.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
Have it with Darth Vader’s helmet. Its a tough one. I’ve only seen it in
one non-LEGO design.
|
I’m not sure it’s the one you’re talking about, but I’ve seen your mini-Vader
walker (I’d love to see instructions for that, BTW), and I’ve also built one
MOC that uses it (DTotS was just a one-time modification of a pre-existing
MOC):
I also have an idea for making a vehicle with it someday. Someday...
|
David,
I was referring to this:
It walks using a little red micromotor.
| |
Anyways, I agree with Orion to the extent that a lot of people casually
dismiss pieces as “useless” for no reason other than that they fall outside
of their realm of experience, but I don’t agree that it’s purely a matter of
limited imagination. The large Throwbot visors are pretty much useless
without a Throwbot head to be attached to, since they’re too flat to attach
to a TECHNIC fig helmet. On the flip side of that, I don’t think I’ve ever
seen an RCX being used for purely structural purposes instead of as an
electronic control system. There are parts that are very generic and there
are parts that are very specialized. The generic parts are the ones that get
used in the vast majority of MOCs by the vast majority of builders. The more
specialized a part is, the less often it will be used...but the more
rewarding it will be when you figure out a new use for it. The important
thing is that you don’t casually disregard a new piece as useless without
putting serious thought into possible uses for it. And picking it up with
the sole intent of proving that you can’t think of any uses for it is
cheating. Don’t view it as a waste of plastic. View it as a challenge.
|
I was not disagreeing with Orion very hard. There is a scale of reusability,
and some parts have a very low reusability score. Orion’s point is that there
are no parts that are 0, and I agree. I was primarily just whining about the
low resuability score of Darth Vader’s helmet. In both our cases, we used the
helmet to make a take off on Darth Vader. These two examples do nothing for
increasing the helmet’s reusability score from zero.
Now if someone used them for boxing gloves, that would increase the score IMHO.
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
| |
I was not disagreeing with Orion very hard. There is a scale of reusability,
and some parts have a very low reusability score. Orion’s point is that
there are no parts that are 0, and I agree. I was primarily just whining
about the low resuability score of Darth Vader’s helmet. In both our cases,
we used the helmet to make a take off on Darth Vader. These two examples do
nothing for increasing the helmet’s reusability score from zero.
Now if someone used them for boxing gloves, that would increase the score
IMHO.
|
I agree with both of you. So far the only uses for this helmet (in either size)
I’ve been able to come up with that aren’t directly related to Darth, or some
closely related thing like SpaceBalls, aren’t really suitable for a family
forum, or are horribly contrived.
So this part has a reusability index much closer to 0 than your average “special
purpose” part but I expect some clever builder to come up with a use for it that
will blow us away any day now.
|
|
|
