| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Douglas R. Clark wrote:
>
> ...
> > So, personally, I do not believe the focus-group-color-palette explanation.
> ...
> Why not?
>
> What *POSSIBLE* motive would LEGO have to lie to anyone?
I can think of several possible reasons that Lego would lie. Generally
companies call it public relations or spin though. The following situations are
all hypothetical examples.
1. IF the "real" reason for the color change was that it was discovered that
the original dye formulation contained minute quantities of lead or mercury or
some other toxic substance, admitting so could open TLC up to multiple product
liablity lawsuits. Think of all the billions of grey bricks that are out there
that could be exposing the general public to some toxic substance. This is
probably not too likely, but just imagine all the potential lawsuits if this
were true.
2. IF the real reason for the color change was that TLC had either outsourced
some brick production or changed ABS suppilers to the same companies that
Megabocks use (or heaven forbid, buying bricks directly from MB), they might not
want that known to the general public. It could lead to either a general
believe that TLC was sacraficing quality or conversely that MB were of equal
quality to Lego.
This is just idle speculation with no basis in fact, but the point is that many
companies (and individuals) "lie" to protect their image/reputations, to protect
themselves from liability, and ultimately protect/enhance their bottom line.
Its not like tobacco companies were jumping at the bit to tell everyone the
negative effects of smoking or that Ford/Firestone were quick to admit there was
a defect with their tire or SUV design. Look at all the coporate financial and
safety scandals over the last several decades. TLC is no different because they
make toys for kids that we all love. They are not some super-benevolent entity.
They are a company who's sole purpose is to make money. Companies that do not
make profit in general do not exist anymore (I'm sure there are some gov't
subsidized exceptions out there but I am speaking in generalities).
> If the reason is one of the more plausable ones you suggested elsewhere,
> it would have been perfectly reasonable for them to have said as much --
> it may have still sucked, but I think any mature person could have
> still accepted the decision and reasoning.
See my example #2 above. What do you think the general reaction here would have
been if lego was buying some of its bricks from MB and that is why the colors
had changed??
> so why would LEGO do this? Simple... it has been proven
> before beyond any reasonable doubt that the color of a product *WILL*
> impact its sales,
In general I agree with the above statement. Hence the introduction of all the
new bright colors over the last several years. In the past 5 years, the
proliferation of new WIDELY available colors in lego sets has been impressive.
Orange, Green, Lime Green, Purple, Light blue, etc. However we are talking
about a very very subtle change to at most 3 staple colors and some other minor
colors. The colors involoved are greys and brown which are supposed to be dark
or neutral colors. If they made a brighter blue, redder red, then the
focus-group theory would make more sense.
If the new vs. old greys were used in the new snowspeeder (4500) I really doubt
that most people would be able to tell from the box-art. Heck, I recently
bought set 7420 and the colors on the box art had been shifted so much that I
was suprised that the cowl on the airplane was red and not brown. Thus, I
really do not think the the new colors will have any affect on sales. Like I
said before, I doubt that most people will even notice the color change at all,
conciously or unconciously. Thus for me, the focus-group story does not pass my
"common sense" test.
If you are following the debate on the new castle sets over in .castle,
set-design/asthetics, set functionality/play-ability, piece design, and overall
theme design (how all the sets in a theme inter-relate to each other) are all
more likely to impact retail sales than subtle color changes. When I saw set
4404 it screamed buy me, not because it was yellow, but because it was a
kick-butt model on the front of the box. Other factors that would have a bigger
impact on sales are the catalog design and in store displays. The mid-80's lego
catalogs rocked. I remember sitting and looking a them for hours and the MB
Dragons instore-displays are probably much more eye catching to a 5-8 yr old
than whether or not Lego is using a new "brighter" grey color.
> Most of us might think that LEGO already could have stood on its own
> merits as a quality product and didn't need superficial changes like
> this to improve their sales,
The quality difference between Lego Bricks and their competitors is diminishing.
Lego's set & theme design has been hit & miss.
Like I said before, it is MY belief that the color-palette-focus-group is not
the real reason for the color change. I also said that I could be entirely
wrong as well. It just does not pass the "common sense" test for me, but then
again I am extremely cynical about the actions of most large businesses. Not
that I'm on of those anti-globalization, anti-corporation nut jobs. I just
realize almost everything they do is motivated by $$$. Guess that comes from
working for a large corporation for the last 9 yrs. If Lego could make more
money making toasters instead of plastic bricks, what do you think they would
choose?
Anyways, we are all entitled to our own beliefs about the color change. In the
end, the reason for it does not matter. The new colors are here to stay. I do
hope that, whatever the reason for the change, Lego profits from it so that they
can continue to churn out new little plastic bricks for years to come.
regards,
drc
follup to ot.debate
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Now that I've had a chance to see the new colors
|
| Douglas R. Clark wrote: ... (...) ... Why not? What *POSSIBLE* motive would LEGO have to lie to anyone? If the reason is one of the more plausable ones you suggested elsewhere, it would have been perfectly reasonable for them to have said as much -- (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-03, to lugnet.general)
|
31 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
|
|
|
|
