Subject:
|
Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 May 2004 05:46:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4909 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 11-May-04, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
| (...) <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 (...) (20 years ago, 11-May-04, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Bar Does Not Go Down
|
| "Rocco J Carello" <rogue27@mac.com> wrote in message news:HxIzw6.17uB@lugnet.com... [snip] (...) has (...) and (...) kids (...) probably (...) kids (...) these (...) they (...) In my mind, this actually raises another important question... should (...) (20 years ago, 11-May-04, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
59 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
