| |
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
|
|
| |
> 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.
|
|
| |
"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, 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
|
|
|
