| |
In lugnet.events.brickfest, Allister McLaren wrote:
snip
> If it was a question of cost or whatever, then I could almost understand it, but
> since Jake has pointedly denied that I can only conclude that the design lab has
> a screwed up perspective on what children's priorities are when they choose Lego
> sets off the shelves.
I think it should also be mentioned that the color change's delta (i.e. the
difference between the old color and the new color) is probably less that the
delta between the actual color and the color depicted on the external box
artwork. IOW, the box skews the actual color (for a multitude of reasons I'm
sure) more than the actual color change we have seen. For a good example of
this, parse thru the pile of NBA sets until you come to the one where the player
appears to have white hair. Buy the set (if your willing to spend the buck) and
you will find the more pedestrian tan hair.
Executive Summary: if impulse point-of-sale were the primary reason for the
color change, this could have been easily done (and apprently already has been)
via tweaking the colors on the box art-work.
> You want kids to buy sets, Lego? Then make sets that they want to buy. They
> don't care what colour they are if the set is a cool design.
>
> Allister
Ray
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: general session starting.
|
| (...) Where did he accuse Jake of lying? The gist I got from the post was that if that indeed was the reason for the change, then it was a stupid one and the people in the design lab need a boot up the clacker. I do know that from the perspective of (...) (20 years ago, 18-Feb-04, to lugnet.events.brickfest, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
70 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
