| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Meno wrote:
| |
Hi all,
This is from a friend of mine, Gareth Bowler:
Got into my first 2004 sets today; the MINI star destroyer set, and
promptly scrapped them for parts, only to find, to my shock and dismay,
that the colors don’t match. Further more, the studs are rounded, making
connections significantly weaker, and the parts overall just have a cheaper
feel to them.
The two parts labelled “old” are both from 2003 sets, and have never had a
chance to yellow or been exposed to sunlight. The photo was not altered in
any way and is the raw output from my scanner.
|
Color me.. disappointed.
I think it’s kind of entertaining that several folks have counseled either a
‘wait and see’ approach or that they personally were just going to sit back and
see how it pans out. Honestly, what choice do we have? TLC has said on
numerous occaisons that AFOLs are just not a big enough market segment. Given
that, then we shouldn’t factor into this decision much if at all. If we write
letters or whatever.. seems unlikely we will get an answer (hopefully I’m wrong
on that).
I’m not convinced that the color change or chamfering is based on anything other
than economics. I’m can’t see why tweaking colors will sell more lego to the
8yr old boy market segment. Perhaps the chamfering (if it’s there) shaves
1/1000 of the weight of the brick (stretching here).. ? Saved weight means less
plastic and saves money?
In terms of color, perhaps they are trying to make the colors more stable or
perhaps they subcontracted and that’s how they came out. It seems they have had
other subcontracting problems such as the train wheels. However, someone posted
that they had word from an insider that it was intentional.. and there was more
to come... that was the most ominous/worrisome non-information on this topic!
Perhaps cheaper dies or cheaper process that affects the color are the cause?
I just have to believe it’s direct production ecnomics more than anything else.
On a side note, I came across some mega blocks I had from the early 1990’s.
This set had light yellow, dark red and navy blue. To my knowledge TLC only
introduced these in fairly recent times. Is that true? Or were those out by
TLC even at that time?
I concur with the sentiment that the two grays are colors they really should not
mess with. A lighter brown.. okay, I often desire a color between tan and
brown. I would much rather see them just transition the use of the basic colros
to alternate if color shifting is a goal of some kind -- like light yellow for
regular yellow. It is interesting that sets like knockturn alley and privets
drive have almost none of the historic basic lego colors in them.
Even if this is some short term glitch in the subcontracting or whatever, then
there is still the hassle that peeron and bricklink will probably need to
address this. Also, knowing what you are getting on ebay is a hassle already,
is it faded, is it light or dark etc. some of the images are horrible.
If someone could get a solid answer out of lego -- seems that’s all we can try
for at this point.
Ken
|
|
| |
Ken Koleda wrote:
> TLC has said on
> numerous occaisons that AFOLs are just not a big enough market segment.
Are you serious???
If by "big enough" they mean more than 50% of the actual head-count,
they may be right... but I'd bet anything that if they looked at the
bottom line, how much money gets spent, they'd find that more is spent
annually on LEGO that ends up being in the hands of adults than kids
(simply because adults actually _have_ more money than kids in the first
place).
If you ask me, it's probably completely the opposite and LEGO knows it.
But if LEGO began to appeal too much to the AFOL market, the adult
LEGO consumption could conceivably end up dominating the market (with
expensive specialized parts and sets, and serious hobbyist magazines),
with kids feeling somewhat left behind, sort of like what's happened
with the hobby of playing with electric trains.
>> Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Ken Koleda wrote:
>
> > TLC has said on
> > numerous occaisons that AFOLs are just not a big enough market segment.
>
> Are you serious???
>
> If by "big enough" they mean more than 50% of the actual head-count,
Yes, he's serious. By "not big enough", if memory is serving me correctly (too
lazy to go digging through Lugnet's back catalogue of conversations), they mean
"less than 5% of our sales volume"
95% of the Lego that leaves the shelves ends up in the hands of a kid.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Ken Koleda wrote:
>
> > TLC has said on
> > numerous occaisons that AFOLs are just not a big enough market segment.
>
> Are you serious???
>
> If by "big enough" they mean more than 50% of the actual head-count,
> they may be right... but I'd bet anything that if they looked at the
> bottom line, how much money gets spent, they'd find that more is spent
> annually on LEGO that ends up being in the hands of adults than kids
> (simply because adults actually _have_ more money than kids in the first
> place).
Actually, Brad Justus and Jake McKee have always told us that they believe
the adult LEGO buyers to make up less than 5% of the retail market. We AFOL's
think it's a bit higher, but not much. A good way to put it into perspective is
this: go to a store where you buy LEGOS and look at everything on the shelf.
Then ask yourself what percentage of that store's stock you buy in a year. It's
probably less that 5%.
Of course, AFOL's buy WAY more than the average kid, but kids who buy LEGOS
outnumber adults who buy LEGOS by so much that we're not LEGO's main focus
group.
David "Fuzzy" Gregory
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Brown wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> > Ken Koleda wrote:
> >
> > > TLC has said on
> > > numerous occaisons that AFOLs are just not a big enough market segment.
> >
> > Are you serious???
> >
> > If by "big enough" they mean more than 50% of the actual head-count,
>
> Yes, he's serious. By "not big enough", if memory is serving me correctly (too
> lazy to go digging through Lugnet's back catalogue of conversations), they mean
> "less than 5% of our sales volume"
>
> 95% of the Lego that leaves the shelves ends up in the hands of a kid.
Same reasoning why they don't cater to the Macintosh with their computer
products - too small an audience.
Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Ken Koleda wrote:
>
> > TLC has said on
> > numerous occaisons that AFOLs are just not a big enough market segment.
>
> Are you serious???
Mark... they're serious.
Speaking as someone who used to share your opinion it's important to note that
this argument has come up many times in the past. The general opinion has
always ended up that this statement is correct.
> If by "big enough" they mean more than 50% of the actual head-count,
> they may be right... but I'd bet anything that if they looked at the
> bottom line, how much money gets spent, they'd find that more is spent
> annually on LEGO that ends up being in the hands of adults than kids
> (simply because adults actually _have_ more money than kids in the first
> place).
It might be more accurate to say that more money is spent on LEGO by adults vs.
children. However, do all those bricks end up in the hands of adults? No,
probably not. It's safe to say that the vast majority of adults buying LEGO are
doing so for their children, not for themselves. Adult fan builders really are
the minority, there is no getting around this fact.
> If you ask me, it's probably completely the opposite and LEGO knows it.
But ask yourself this question: If LEGO knew it, wouldn't they immediately
change marketing tactics and put out sets aimed exclusively at adults?
> But if LEGO began to appeal too much to the AFOL market, the adult
> LEGO consumption could conceivably end up dominating the market (with
> expensive specialized parts and sets, and serious hobbyist magazines),
> with kids feeling somewhat left behind, sort of like what's happened
> with the hobby of playing with electric trains.
This contradicts your earlier statement. If the adult fan base who buy bricks
is so large (as you suggest) then the scenario above is a good one, not a bad
one.
It needs to be said that many people feel the company (especially the LEGO
Direct arm of the group) has, in fact, embraced the fan community in many ways.
The Event Kits, the recent Designer, Advanced Designer and Inventor sets, as
well as some of the Legend series of sets are examples of positive changes.
Several of these things suggest a shift not necessarily toward the adult
community but at least toward the core values that made LEGO so special to begin
with. This is a good thing and to someone who use to gripe about this stuff on
an almost daily basis, this is good enough. I am delighted with many things the
company has done in the last couple of years. There has been much change and we
need to recognize that.
So you began your post by asking if the comment about adult fans and the market
share they represent was serious; I think you can see that it is. LUGNET is a
slanted view of the adult LEGO community. Look at another point of view. I
work with around 45 people in my office. There is one adult LEGO fan.... me!
But there are probably 12 - 15 kids getting LEGO for birthdays, Christmas etc.
Do I buy as much for me as those parents are buying for those dozen or more
kids? Not by a long shot. My vote doesn't count as much as theirs does. The
good news, as noted above, is that things seem to be changing in ways that are
exciting and will continue to please both kids and many adults for a long time
to come.
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford wrote:
> It might be more accurate to say that more money is spent on LEGO by adults vs.
> children. However, do all those bricks end up in the hands of adults? No,
> probably not.
Kid fans of LEGO eventually grow up... and they either become adult fans
of LEGO, pass them on to their kids (in which case not as much LEGO is
bought for the successive generation, as there is already ample supply),
sell them via bricklink, ebay, or some other place, or (perish the
thought) the garbage. So all LEGO either ultimately ends up in one of
two places: the trash bin, or the hands of adults.
It would be interesting to actually do some population sampling and find
out exactly how big the numbers are and where.
> If the adult fan base who buy bricks
> is so large (as you suggest) then the scenario above is a good one, not a bad
> one.
As I said... the playing with electric trains began as a children's
hobby many years back and as adults began to get interested in it, a
market was specifically developed to cater to it (at higher markup
rates, typically). This adult market now _DWARFS_ the child's market in
for hobby railroading. It is perfectly reasonably for TLC to be leery
of inadvertently starting down this one-way road and might explain their
refusal to cater to the adult market.
> So you began your post by asking if the comment about adult fans and the market
> share they represent was serious; I think you can see that it is. LUGNET is a
> slanted view of the adult LEGO community. Look at another point of view. I
> work with around 45 people in my office. There is one adult LEGO fan.... me!
> But there are probably 12 - 15 kids getting LEGO for birthdays, Christmas etc.
> Do I buy as much for me as those parents are buying for those dozen or more
> kids? Not by a long shot.
Not at any one time, no... but over the course of an entire year?
Maybe... just maybe.
> All the best,
> Allan B.
Thanks Allan.
>> Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Allan Bedford wrote:
>
> > It might be more accurate to say that more money is spent on LEGO by adults vs.
> > children. However, do all those bricks end up in the hands of adults? No,
> > probably not.
>
> Kid fans of LEGO eventually grow up... and they either become adult fans
> of LEGO, pass them on to their kids (in which case not as much LEGO is
> bought for the successive generation, as there is already ample supply),
> sell them via bricklink, ebay, or some other place, or (perish the
> thought) the garbage. So all LEGO either ultimately ends up in one of
> two places: the trash bin, or the hands of adults.
>
> It would be interesting to actually do some population sampling and find
> out exactly how big the numbers are and where.
>
> > If the adult fan base who buy bricks
> > is so large (as you suggest) then the scenario above is a good one, not a bad
> > one.
>
> As I said... the playing with electric trains began as a children's
> hobby many years back and as adults began to get interested in it, a
> market was specifically developed to cater to it (at higher markup
> rates, typically). This adult market now _DWARFS_ the child's market in
> for hobby railroading. It is perfectly reasonably for TLC to be leery
> of inadvertently starting down this one-way road and might explain their
> refusal to cater to the adult market.
I am no expert on this aspect, but I don't think the logic is that sound here.
I recall an article in a train magazine noting the 'graying' of the hobby. They
worried that the average age of subscriber was like 56yrs old. I don't think
catering to the older hobbyist killed the child market. I suspect that other
competing diversions killed the train hobby market. Kids watch more TV (I
think), they have video tapes/dvds, TV, handheld and computer based video games,
and probably other distractions that did not exist when I was in my formative
years. I think the fear is that as the train hobbyist began litterally dying
off, where is the next geneartion of hobbyists .. not growing up on trains...
they will long for PS1 and what not for notalgia.
I think that even as they embrace the AFOL, they know full well the kid market
is the bread and butter. My suspicision is that a fair amount of what appears
to be catering to AFOLs is actually catering to adults that buy not fo
themselves but for their kids or other's kids. I don't think star wars means to
kids now what it means to me, a 40yr. I know when I shop for my kids it's
easier for me to be drawn to something thinking.. 'man I wish I had that when I
was a kid." Or in the case of the legends how about... "Wow, I always wanted
that one." Those thoughts, I think translate into increased sales... to adults
for kids.. adults that are no longer builders.
> > So you began your post by asking if the comment about adult fans and the market
> > share they represent was serious; I think you can see that it is. LUGNET is a
> > slanted view of the adult LEGO community. Look at another point of view. I
> > work with around 45 people in my office. There is one adult LEGO fan.... me!
> > But there are probably 12 - 15 kids getting LEGO for birthdays, Christmas etc.
> > Do I buy as much for me as those parents are buying for those dozen or more
> > kids? Not by a long shot.
>
> Not at any one time, no... but over the course of an entire year?
> Maybe... just maybe.
>
> > All the best,
> > Allan B.
>
> Thanks Allan.
> > > Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Gregory wrote:
> Actually, Brad Justus and Jake McKee have always told us that they believe
> the adult LEGO buyers to make up less than 5% of the retail market
While I agree with this, what keeps adults buying Lego instead of the cheaper
clones which have appealing set designs than when we were kids?
The answer is brand loyalty. The parents played with Lego when they were kids,
not MegaBlocks. These are the same parents who grew up knowing that typical
Lego clones were clearly inferior.
The challenge for Lego is to maintain that image of superiority in the current
generation of kids. If kids today don't think Lego is superior, they won't
become adults that buy Lego for their kids, which is 95% of Lego's current
customers. Unfortunately, for AFOL's, this doesn't necessarily mean higher
quality bricks. It could mean sets that are more "fun" or "easier to build".
It could also mean sets that contain other brand images such as Star Wars or
Spiderman (I can still recall how I wished for official Star Wars Lego back in
the late 70's).
It could very well be that this is a very forward looking change in order to
maintain and build Lego's brand image with today's children.
Jeff
|
|
|
