| |
In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
>
> > I remember them very well. I also remember that the models in the box and
> > showcased on the back of the box weren't as sophisticated as they are today.
> > Not only because of a wider range of pieces, but an improved sense of design
> > and realism has made the models more detailed, better looking and somewhat
> > more complicated. I was actually looking through an old idea book last night
> > and was chuckling about how far LEGO design has come. (But really, aren't
> > today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
>
> Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models of 10,
> 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and
> attractiveness.
**snip**
> IMHO, by every parameter, Town, Castle, and Space sets of yesteryear were
> designed with greater detail, attractiveness, and *care*. I'd wager that
> almost every AFOL here would agree that set quality has dropped precipitously
> since the early 90's.
James has identified a fundamental problem facing LEGO in the current and
future market. We're all aware (and some of us are great fans) of
competitors in the construction toy market, at least one of which has made
great strides in providing huge quantities of basic bricks at considerably
lower cost than LEGO. No, the quality isn't yet the same. No, many AFOLs
will never buy clone brands. No, clones aren't the "same" as LEGO. But the
fact remains that the retail presence of clone brands has increased
dramatically over the last few years.
Aside from ABS quality, the only things LEGO has going for it are customer
loyalty and brand name recognition, and these are diminishing slowly but
surely. Every so often someone here posts an "I bought a clone set and it
didn't suck" message, or observes that one can acquire over 650 grey 2x4
bricks in a single $50 clone set, along with a horde of other grey pieces,
rather than spending more than twice that amount at S@H. Many people here
even refer to "legos" in the same way people elsewhere refer to kleenex's
and xerox's. At most retail outlets I find clone brands occupying the very
same shelf as--and in some cases interspersed with--true LEGO sets. At some
point there will be nothing to distinguish LEGO from a clone except the fact
that the clone charges $20.00 for a 700-piece kit while LEGO charges $89.99.
That will be rather an ultimate moment for the market, I should think, and
it should give LEGO considerable pause now, while efforts can still be made
to reverse this trend.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models of 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and attractiveness. Yesteryear: Garage Doors Today: No garage doors Yesteryear: Cars with doors (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
81 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
|
|
|
|
