General Discussion : 45767


General / 45767

Subject:	LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:21:33 GMT
Highlighted:	!! (details)
Viewed:	506 times

A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX -- During the last couple of months, adult LEGO fans have expressed their interest about the brick color change, which you can see in some 2004 LEGO sets. The rest of the article is here... <http://club.lego.com/news/default.asp?locale=2057&pagename=newsitem&contentid=4532>

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 05:15:40 GMT
Highlighted:	(details)
Viewed:	455 times

In lugnet.general, Jeff Barnas wrote: > A Gray Area? > INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX -- During the last couple of months, adult LEGO fans > have expressed their interest about the brick color change, which you can see in > some 2004 LEGO sets. > > The rest of the article is here... > > <http://club.lego.com/news/default.asp?locale=2057&pagename=newsitem&contentid=4532> Lego is basically a monopoly, they can do whatever they want because they're the only ones doing what they do. I wouldn't be so sure that the adult consumer group is much smaller than the minor group, and in any case, adults are the ones buying toys for their children. I don't know how they tested the new colors or with whom, why didn't they also use places like Lugnet to test people's opinions? The only reason I can think of is because those opinions didn't matter that much. It is a mistake to think that cooler grays could be better than warmer grays. These grays look like blues almost. A warm gray is extremely more modern and refined than a blueish gray. Grays are not secondary colors, they are the core colors along with white, that's why this change means so much. It's hard to understand how it would be so expensive to keep both versions, epecially when knowing how many new and probably ugly and irrelevant colors they have introduced over the years. Isn't there more than one red? Or more than one orange? Because they can do whatever they judge best and the only thing we can do is consume, the terms of any discussion realtive to these issues are always going to be absolutely disbalanced.

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:08:22 GMT
Viewed:	472 times

In lugnet.general, Nicolas D'Angelo wrote: > In lugnet.general, Jeff Barnas wrote: > > A Gray Area? > > INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX -- During the last couple of months, adult LEGO fans > > have expressed their interest about the brick color change, which you can see in > > some 2004 LEGO sets. > > > > The rest of the article is here... > > > > <http://club.lego.com/news/default.asp?locale=2057&pagename=newsitem&contentid=4532> > > Lego is basically a monopoly, they can do whatever they want because they're the > only ones doing what they do. It is certainly not a monopoly. MegaBlocks is a huge competitor, and is causing them an immense amount of grief. Not to mention they have to fight an increasingly shrinking portion of the toy market in general. Just because you are brand loyal, does not make them a monopoly. Sure, they are the best at what they do. Your not gonna get better from MegaBlocks or BestLock, and that is probably why everyone is upset. There really isn't a better product to turn to. But there are other products. > I wouldn't be so sure that the adult consumer group is much smaller than the > minor group, and in any case, adults are the ones buying toys for their > children. > I don't know how they tested the new colors or with whom, why didn't they also > use places like Lugnet to test people's opinions? The only reason I can think of > is because those opinions didn't matter that much. > It is a mistake to think that cooler grays could be better than warmer grays. > These grays look like blues almost. A warm gray is extremely more modern and > refined than a blueish gray. > Grays are not secondary colors, they are the core colors along with white, > that's why this change means so much. It's hard to understand how it would be so > expensive to keep both versions, epecially when knowing how many new and > probably ugly and irrelevant colors they have introduced over the years. Isn't > there more than one red? Or more than one orange? Yea, I don't buy it either. I think they are trying to save a little face, and this is the first step of them admitting any kind of mistake. Take it as a hopeful sign. They do pay attention to us, but what are they going to say? "Lego makes huge mistake in color change! Loyal supporters leave in droves!" And those wouldn't really be true either. But of course you are going to have spin on a company press release. > Because they can do whatever they judge best and the only thing we can do is > consume, the terms of any discussion realtive to these issues are always going > to be absolutely disbalanced. The less you consume, the more they will listen. -Alfred

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:02:38 GMT
Viewed:	454 times

In lugnet.general, Nicolas D'Angelo wrote: < good speaking snip > > It's hard to understand how it would be so > expensive to keep both versions, epecially when knowing how many new and > probably ugly and irrelevant colors they have introduced over the years. Yeah, I find this line absurd too! TLC is not understandable anymore, I'm afraid. I don't buy that excuse! Who are they kidding? If you wanna know, I don't buy that focus groups thang too. And, what do they mean by "new colors doing well in Germany and US"? Let me see if I understand TLC reasoning: "This product don't atract children, what are we going to do? Get more to the brick? Bring back old themes, therefore todays adults (that are yesterday kids) may feel willing to buy those to their kids? Try to feel some gaps in the market, like battle ships for instance, like our successful adversary is doing? Mmmmm, EUREKA!, let's change a bit some colors and there you have, we'll start selling tons of Lego. Maybe we'll sell more if you don't even advertise it, then we get kids by surprise! Great idea, now we don't have to change nothing else, our product sells are saved because of the new blues!" (1) > Isn't > there more than one red? Or more than one orange? The words they say and the excuses they give make less and lesser sense... (To me, at least.) > Because they can do whatever they judge best and the only thing we can do is > consume, the terms of any discussion realtive to these issues are always going > to be absolutely disbalanced. Absolutely! I think that there isn't really a discussion happening. Shame on TLC! (1) I took a bluisj light gray to college and asked about twenty people what color it was. Aswers were: 11 - blue or bluish; 4 - light blue; 3 - gray; 1 - banana blue; Paulo Renato

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:44:23 GMT
Highlighted:	(details)
Viewed:	508 times

Subject:	A gray area?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:22:24 GMT
Highlighted:	! (details)
Viewed:	490 times

In lugnet.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:

“and they would prefer to have both the new and the old colors.”

Actually, AFIK we would raqther have the old colors back and for the new colors be returned to the Mega Blok company.

Sad, just sad.

It’s graytarded.

--Todd

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:19:16 GMT
Viewed:	493 times

In lugnet.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote: > In lugnet.general, Jeff Barnas wrote: > > A Gray Area? > > INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX -- During the last couple of months, adult LEGO fans > > have expressed their interest about the brick color change, which you can see in > > some 2004 LEGO sets. > > > > The rest of the article is here... > > > > <http://club.lego.com/news/default.asp?locale=2057&pagename=newsitem&contentid=4532> > > WOW! TLC just does not grasp what is going on.... > > "From comments made by adults on LUGNET.com it is apparent that many fans do not > think that the new colors match the old colors they have been collecting for > years" > > We do not think they will match? There is no thinking about it - THEY DO NOT > MATCH!!! > > "and they would prefer to have both the new and the old colors." > > Actually, AFIK we would raqther have the old colors back and for the new colors > be returned to the Mega Blok company. > > > Sad, just sad. > > Mark P > LOB You are right. It is just sad. It is even sadder when obviously TLC knows what is going on here but just can't admit it. For the record: If I had to choose between both colors (old and new) and just the new colors, I would prefer both, obviously, but that doesn't mean I'd like to have both colors. I don't even like the new grayish blues. I would prefer *only* the old colors. Me don't need tons of colors. I'm tired of sorting, you know! I know i said it before and i'll say it again. 2004 products will note enter my home. Even if they go 50% off. (Very rare in Portugal.) That is how I intent to "talk" with TLC... Paulo Renato P.S. - Today is the color, tomorrow who knows?

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:27:15 GMT
Viewed:	484 times

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:41:22 GMT
Viewed:	478 times

In lugnet.general, Tobbe Arnesson wrote: > Anyone else get a 404 when trying to get to said message board? 404 owns LEGO --Todd

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:19:39 GMT
Viewed:	522 times

"Todd Lehman" <tsl@tsl.bu.edu> wrote in message news:HtKw0y.103r@lugnet.com... > In lugnet.general, Tobbe Arnesson wrote: > > Anyone else get a 404 when trying to get to said message board? > > 404 owns LEGO > > --Todd If this is indicative of the types of product testing they did, no wonder we ended up with the new grays! Apparently they don't really want anyones opinions on the color changes.... Troy

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:11:55 GMT
Viewed:	595 times

In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote: > If this is indicative of the types of product testing they did, no wonder we > ended up with the new grays! > Apparently they don't really want anyones opinions on the color changes.... Has anyone tried manually creating a new topic, I see there is a button to do so on the bottom of the page. Simon Denscombe

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:54:24 GMT
Reply-To:	mattdm@SPAMLESSmattdm.org
Viewed:	619 times

Carbon 60 <carbon60@bigfoot.com> wrote: > Has anyone tried manually creating a new topic, I see there is a button > to do so on the bottom of the page. I tried, but it just "spun", and eventually timed out. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:31:39 GMT
Viewed:	579 times

In lugnet.general, Simon Denscombe wrote: > In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote: > > If this is indicative of the types of product testing they did, no wonder we > > ended up with the new grays! > > Apparently they don't really want anyones opinions on the color changes.... > > Has anyone tried manually creating a new topic, I see there is a button to do so > on the bottom of the page. > > Simon Denscombe I subimtted a new topic "A Gray Area?" yesterday, but it says the topic has to be approved first. It took me almost an hour to get through maybe 4 screens, in order to post a message on the existing forums (I posted in the Monthly Brick thread), but it also says the messages are moderated, so who knows if it will appear or not, or how long it will take. Oh well, in the meantime, play well, with your old gray's. 8^) Tim Strutt

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:34:05 GMT
Viewed:	645 times

In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote: > "Todd Lehman" <tsl@tsl.bu.edu> wrote in message > news:HtKw0y.103r@lugnet.com... > > In lugnet.general, Tobbe Arnesson wrote: > > > Anyone else get a 404 when trying to get to said message board? > > > > 404 owns LEGO > > > > --Todd > > If this is indicative of the types of product testing they did, no wonder we > ended up with the new grays! > > Apparently they don't really want anyones opinions on the color changes.... Now now. All sites have problems from time to time. This one was just really bad timing! Everything *should* be back up and running now. If not, the techs are still working on it, but it should be back up very soon. Jake --- Jake McKee Community Liaison LEGO Community Development

Subject:	Re:Lego.com 404
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:03:18 GMT
Viewed:	583 times

"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message news:HtnI4t.22yK@lugnet.com... > > Now now. All sites have problems from time to time. This one was just • really bad > timing! Everything *should* be back up and running now. If not, the techs • are > still working on it, but it should be back up very soon. Just out of curiosity, what cities are the Lego servers in? A friend was on a tour of a Qwest datacenter once and was told that Lego servers were hosted there. I'm not sure if they ment "in that city" or just "with Qwest somewhere". ---------- "I don't love the new grays - I just hate the people who have more of the old grays than I do."

Subject:	I'd place a bet
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:04:06 GMT
Viewed:	629 times

Jake McKee wrote: > In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote: > > Apparently they don't really want anyones opinions on the color changes.... > Now now. All sites have problems from time to time. This one was just really bad > timing! Everything *should* be back up and running now. If not, the techs are > still working on it, but it should be back up very soon. As the discussion forums at the LEGO site are moderated, I'd bet that a a new discussion area about the new grey will never happen, and that postings about this topic in other areas will not be moderated and made public, except when they are positive about the change. By the way, what do the moderators do with declined applications for postings or new topics? Will the author be informed, or are they just thrown away? Yours, Christian

Subject:	Re: I'd place a bet
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:40:21 GMT
Viewed:	618 times

"Christian Treczoks" <ct@braehler.com> wrote in message news:Htoryw.6s0@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] > > By the way, what do the moderators do with declined applications for > postings or new topics? Will the author be informed, or are they just > thrown away? > > Yours, Christian It has been a while since I have posted but when the boards first started, there was no feedback what so ever if your post was not accepted. After a couple of posts, neither of which were ever "accepted", I have never been back until this thread appeared the other day. One thing I noticed in poking around the LEGO Boards is how frequently the date of the last post was quite some time ago. Most of the topics haven't been posted to this year and there are several which haven't been posted to since 2002. Mike -- Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:08:07 GMT
Viewed:	582 times

In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote: > In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote: > Now now. All sites have problems from time to time. This one was just really bad > timing! Everything *should* be back up and running now. If not, the techs are > still working on it, but it should be back up very soon. > > Jake > --- > Jake McKee > Community Liaison > LEGO Community Development Saturday the 29th....10am CST. Still not working or down again? I hope they pay you well because it can't be fun making excuses for this bunch...-Ken

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:30:55 GMT
Viewed:	635 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote: > In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote: > > In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote: > > Now now. All sites have problems from time to time. This one was just really bad > > timing! Everything *should* be back up and running now. If not, the techs are > > still working on it, but it should be back up very soon. > > > > Jake > > --- > > Jake McKee > > Community Liaison > > LEGO Community Development > > Saturday the 29th....10am CST. Still not working or down again? I hope they pay > you well because it can't be fun making excuses for this bunch...-Ken I got in fine 2/29 1130. It's probably your connection -Orion

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:03:35 GMT
Reply-To:	mattdm@mattdm.[spamless]org
Viewed:	690 times

Orion Pobursky <orion@dontaddthis.pobursky.com> wrote: > I got in fine 2/29 1130. It's probably your connection I have a really good connection, and I'm having trouble getting it to load. Two different good connections, in fact, with the same result. When it *did* load the other day, it was so miserably slow to actually try to post that I gave up. (Minutes to load a page!) Looks like the boards are actually outsourced to "informative.com" -- $ host boards.lego.com boards.lego.com is an alias for discuss001.informative.com. so that's probably where the technical blame lies. But it does seem like Lego ought to consider switching -- or at least giving them a real good talking to. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:43:42 GMT
Reply-To:	mattdm@mattdm.org^AntiSpam^
Viewed:	527 times

Tobbe Arnesson <StPnAtM@lotek.nu> wrote: > "What do you think? Do you miss the old gray bricks? Go to the message > boards and let us know!" > Anyone else get a 404 when trying to get to said message board? Yes. But not just from there; from less obscure pages too, like <http://www.lego.com/eng/play/>. Hopefully it'll be back up soon. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:46:24 GMT
Viewed:	496 times

In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote: > Tobbe Arnesson <StPnAtM@lotek.nu> wrote: > > "What do you think? Do you miss the old gray bricks? Go to the message > > boards and let us know!" > > Anyone else get a 404 when trying to get to said message board? > > Yes. But not just from there; from less obscure pages too, like > <http://www.lego.com/eng/play/>. Hopefully it'll be back up soon. Looks like the message board is back up. <http://boards.lego.com/default/category.jsp?cat_id=000802b3b625000000f392081ac95975&> But the color change isn't listed as a topic (well, at least not yet). Adr.

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:09:21 GMT
Viewed:	461 times

Jeff Barnas wrote: > adult LEGO fans > have expressed their interest about the brick color change Wow. Almost political. To call a never-seen-before storm of rage "expressing ones interest" is a sure sign how little they care for their customers. Nuff said. Christian

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:02:41 GMT
Viewed:	504 times

"Christian Treczoks" <ct@braehler.com> wrote in message news:HtL5nM.8Kt@lugnet.com... > > Wow. Almost political. To call a never-seen-before storm of rage > "expressing ones interest" is a sure sign how little they care for their > customers. That's one way of looking at it. Sure, the language is understated, but personally, I am amazed that a corporate giant such as Lego will acknowledge this in public at all. I find it quite refreshing. Jennifer

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:09:59 GMT
Viewed:	550 times

This one time, Jennifer Clark wrote: > "Christian Treczoks" <ct@braehler.com> wrote in message > news:HtL5nM.8Kt@lugnet.com... > > Wow. Almost political. To call a never-seen-before storm of rage > > "expressing ones interest" is a sure sign how little they care for their > > customers. > That's one way of looking at it. Sure, the language is understated, but > personally, I am amazed that a corporate giant such as Lego will acknowledge > this in public at all. I find it quite refreshing. Jennifer, I would too, but when TLC asked us what we think of the new grays, giving us an ear thinking we could possibly make a change and acting like they care (no, I'm not shooting Jake, the messanger). All this does is show TLC management change hasn't done anything. They just keeping going downhill, and not really care about their customers after all. I have younger brothers (ages 12, 15, and 16) who still build with LEGOs. They aren't happy about this either. TLC makes it sound like just the adults who are unhappy with this, but the little people usually only buy bricks through their parents. It's very sad, especially since TLC was here on Lugnet under the guise that they actually do care--when in fact, they don't. -Anne -- I always said I wanted to be (\`--/') _ _______ .-r-. somebody. Perhaps I should >.~.\ `` ` `,`,`. ,'_'~`. have been more specific. (v_," ; `,-\ ; : ; \/,-~) \ stripes at tigerlair dot com `--'_..),-/ ' ' '_.>-' )`.`.__.') stripes at brickbox dot com ((,((,__..'~~~~~~((,__..' `-..-'fL

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:50:50 GMT
Reply-To:	[mattdm@mattdm]StopSpammers[.org]
Viewed:	587 times

The Lego Tiger <stripes@tigerlair.com> wrote: > I have younger brothers (ages 12, 15, and 16) who still build with > LEGOs. They aren't happy about this either. TLC makes it sound like > just the adults who are unhappy with this, but the little people usually > only buy bricks through their parents. Get your younger brothers to write letters. Hand written is probably ideal. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:13:30 GMT
Viewed:	452 times

In lugnet.general, Christian Treczoks wrote:

Wow. Almost political. To call a never-seen-before storm of rage “expressing ones interest” is a sure sign how little they care for their customers.

Interesting to me is that the only thing (other than off-topic.debate) that seems to have ignited such a storm of “expressing interests” lately has been the proposal of LegoFan.net. Seems LUGNetters don’t want anyone messing with our greys, or our web sites!
James Wilson
Dallas, TX

Subject:	Re: LUGNET's mention on LEGO.com---A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SETBOX
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:25:54 GMT
Viewed:	477 times

Christian Treczoks wrote in message ... > Jeff Barnas wrote: > > adult LEGO fans > > have expressed their interest about the brick color change > Wow. Almost political. To call a never-seen-before storm of rage > "expressing ones interest" is a sure sign how little they care for their > customers. I agree with the other opinions expressed in this thread - BUT - given that this blurb is obviously written by someone whose first language is not English, I don't think we should get too subtle in our interpretations. Many meanings we could give to this text were probably quite unintended! Kevin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Farmhouse kit: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/cat-farm.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LEGO TOWN PLANNING information: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/COntent/Townplan/townplan.htm BrickLink Lego parts store: http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1 The Guild of Bricksmiths(TM): http://www.bricksmiths.com

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:43:45 GMT
Viewed:	521 times

In lugnet.general, Jeff Barnas wrote:

A Gray Area? INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX -- During the last couple of months, adult LEGO fans have expressed their interest about the brick color change, which you can see in some 2004 LEGO sets.

The rest of the article is here...

http://club.lego.com/news/default.asp?locale=2057&pagename=newsitem&contentid=4532

Here is the text if you don’t want to sign-in to read it:

FEBRUARY 2004 ISSUE 16

A Gray Area?

INSIDE THE LEGO SET BOX -- During the last couple of months, adult LEGO fans have expressed their interest about the brick color change, which you can see in some 2004 LEGO sets.

From comments made by adults on LUGNET.com it is apparent that many fans do not think that the new colors match the old colors they have been collecting for years and they would prefer to have both the new and the old colors.

LEGO Design Manager Dorthe Kjaerulff had this to say: “We have been aware of the reactions on LUGNET. We have implemented the new colors to give better support to the LEGO brand and the basic LEGO colors and I am sure that the new colors will appeal to the consumers in general.”

She adds that even though she acknowledges the concern shown by the LEGO fans, it has not been possible to take all consumer reactions into consideration when planning these kinds of changes. The new colors have been tested with very positive results among families in Germany and USA, before the final decision about the color change was made.

She also adds that it would be very expensive for LEGO Company to have bricks in both the old and the new grey colors.

What do you think? Do you miss the old gray bricks? Go to the message boards and let us know!

end of article

Too bad the ‘message boards’ link isn’t working....

My favorite quote: “it has not been possible to take all consumer reactions into consideration”. Sounds to me like ‘corporate speak’ for “oops, we never even thought about what our most loyal fans might think...”

<sigh>

JohnG, GMLTC

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:57:49 GMT
Viewed:	578 times

LEGO Design Manager Dorthe Kjaerulff had this to say: “We have been aware of the reactions on LUGNET. We have implemented the new colors to give better support to the LEGO brand and the basic LEGO colors and I am sure that the new colors will appeal to the consumers in general.”

What a bucket load of %$#*... Sounds like someone had her mind made up before the project was off the drawing board.

She adds that even though she acknowledges the concern shown by the LEGO fans, it has not been possible to take all consumer reactions into consideration when planning these kinds of changes.

Translation: I’ve made up my mind dammit...now go along with the program.

The new colors have been tested with very positive results among families in

Germany and USA, before the final decision about the color change was made.

Load number 2... It’s been tested over and over again that consumers like warmer colors (ie. no blue cast) which is why all the Lego stores use warm lighting. I’d like to know how the room was lit when they tested this as it would drasticly skew the test subjects color perception. As it seems the results were pre-determind it’s highly likely they could have presented a Lego brick and a cinder block and come up with results that “prove” people like cinder blocks better than ABS.

She also adds that it would be very expensive for LEGO Company to have bricks in both the old and the new grey colors.

Ok this takes the cake. How stupid do they think we are!?!?!? It would be no more expensive to produce grey and bley than it is to produce bley and pink or any other of the multitude of colors that have come along lately.

What do you think? Do you miss the old gray bricks? Go to the message boards and let us know!

end of article

Too bad the ‘message boards’ link isn’t working....

I’m sure they were working until they found out that they weren’t going to get the support they were looking for! It seems the cuts that were recently made in upper Lego managment should be extended to middle managment as well... starting with a certain design manager!!!!! Perhaps then they could afford to make the “very expensive” color. -Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:47:05 GMT
Viewed:	639 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

Nah, I doubt it was the lighting so much as the questions they were asking. Warmer colors are more likable and inviting, but cooler colors are, well, cooler; they’re perceived as newer, more high-tech, and exciting. I’m trying to find the post where somebody transcribed the questions from a Lego marketing survey a couple of days ago, but I seem to remember that “coolness” was the overriding factor being measured (Is this toy cooler than your other Lego toys? Is it cooler than your friend’s toys? etc.).

This coolness-worship is probably a result of everyone buying so much Bionicle. Come on, don’t tell me you didn’t know it was wrong.

She also adds that it would be very expensive for LEGO Company to have bricks in both the old and the new grey colors.

The difference being, if you spend the money making bley and pink, the customer sees two separate colors and gets excited. If you spend the money to make bley and gray, 95% of your customers see only one color anyway, so you might as well never have spent the extra money at all. (The same argument is true for replacing Lego ABS with Mega-Bloks-like PVC, which is why I think we’re seeing so many new Lego elements in the substandard-grade plastic lately.)

But I think the production expense is the least of their worries, the biggest hit to Lego’s pocketbook would be the marketing hassle. There’s no easy way to get the average consumer to know that there are two different grays, and to be able to differentiate between them when they’re making their buying decisions. In fact the mere knowledge that there are two incompatible gray colors on the shelf adds enough extra complication to the consumer’s experience, that it acts as a deterrent to them buying Lego at all.

Subject:	PVC (not ABS) parts
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:29:25 GMT
Viewed:	672 times

In lugnet.general, Mike Rayhawk wrote:

Wait a minute. I thought I was imagining this. What elements have appeared in cheaper plastic? I thought some of the plastic in the $10 Harry Potter sets with the cheesy cardboard backdrops seemed to be made of cheaper stuff. The sound that the door made when it was closed on the prefab wall part didn’t seem right, but I just couldn’t bring myself to believe that it was because of cheaper plastic.

Hmmm, I did just make my first MegaBlok purchase, an Alien Agency set, to compare the greys. Now that you mention it, the MegaBlok plastic does remind me of the cheesy seeming lego elements. I’ll have to do some more comparisons.

By the way, the new Lego dark bley is a much closer match to the MegaBlok dark bley. The light grey in the Alien Agency set is kinda silvery so it doesn’t really match the new Lego light bley.

Also, if you look at inclued MegaBlok catalog, the knights kingdom maxifigs (especially the hands) look just like the Blok Bots. (except perhaps the Lego knights don’t transform?)

Looks like Lego is now following MegaBlok’s lead. Yikes!

Don

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Fri, 27 Feb 2004 01:40:56 GMT
Viewed:	584 times

In lugnet.general, Mike Rayhawk wrote:

But I think the production expense is the least of their worries, the biggest hit to Lego’s pocketbook would be the marketing hassle. There’s no easy way to get the average consumer to know that there are two different grays, and to be able to differentiate between them when they’re making their buying decisions. In fact the mere knowledge that there are two incompatible gray colors on the shelf adds enough extra complication to the consumer’s experience, that it acts as a deterrent to them buying Lego at all.

I know that is a chief deterrent for me right now. I am reluctant to buy sets from late last year that may contain grey because I am afraid they will actually have bley instead. And I have already shipped enough bley back to Lego to hopefully make a point.

If Lego decided to bring back grey (and brown) then I would probably go seeking some bley since a little bit could come in handy. But until then, I am in my grey ages...

-Matt :)

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:32:39 GMT
Viewed:	577 times

She also adds that it would be very expensive for LEGO Company to have bricks in both the old and the new grey colors.

She didn’t mention marketing she said it would be “expensive” to make both colors. Words mean things... don’t try to read into them what’s not there.

There would be no marketing needed. A given model would use the appropriate color and it’s that simple. The Super Chief would look absurd in blue-grey. However bley might make for good castle parts. Some Star Wars models would problably look good with parts in both colors.

They recently had a press release touting record number of Harry Potter castles sold. The most expensive part of this castle is the licencing. They could have sold many many more just adding to the profit. Instead they have to re-number the set. Switch things around a bit to try and make it look “new” and all because of the new color. THAT was expensive!

It seems clear that Lego made a decision, came up with a survay to support that decision, became compleately flustered when it blew up in their face, and now is still looking for ways to explain themselves. -Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:45:50 GMT
Viewed:	611 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

She also adds that it would be very expensive for LEGO Company to have bricks in both the old and the new grey colors.

She didn’t mention marketing she said it would be “expensive” to make both colors. Words mean things... don’t try to read into them what’s not there.

Not at all, she said it would be expensive to “have” both colors. She didn’t mention production either, you just assumed it.

There would be no marketing needed. A given model would use the appropriate color and it’s that simple.

By the very fact that you can propose that with a straight face, I can tell you’ve never worked for Billund. I can’t even express to you how contrary that is to the way things are run. To even suggest this would only result in your having to buy cake for the design floor.

They recently had a press release touting record number of Harry Potter castles sold. The most expensive part of this castle is the licencing. They could have sold many many more just adding to the profit. Instead they have to re-number the set. Switch things around a bit to try and make it look “new” and all because of the new color. THAT was expensive!

They’ve been releasing redesigns of old sets long before the invention of bley. I mean look at Star Wars. It has nothing to do with a new color, it has to do with people being more likely to make license-based purchases of toys that have the word “new” on them.

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sat, 28 Feb 2004 07:49:27 GMT
Viewed:	664 times

In lugnet.general, Mike Rayhawk wrote: Not at all, she said it would be expensive to “have” both colors. She didn’t mention production either, you just assumed it.

You’re splitting hairs. In order to have them they have to produce them. However you want to split it does not cost any more to have bley and grey than it does to have bley and (any color). The main point should be that while developing bley has problably cost a small fortune it will not ad anything to the bottom line. It is clear though that even if they think it insignifigant dropping grey will cost them.

There would be no marketing needed. A given model would use the appropriate color and it’s that simple.

They should spend more time on the company then and less on cake. I really don’t care how they see fit to do business. The fact is that compared to other companies they do a very poor job at marketing. Don’t try to argue that as it’s the reason they are whining about loosing money when the rest of the business world is looking up. And yet still, it would, in a properly run company require no additional marketing to choose between bley & gray for any given model.

Actually it has everything to do with the color and if you don’t like my term of switched around pick your own, it still has the same end result. The fact is that they hadn’t scrached the surface of the available market and now they are starting over. This would be why they can’t make money on licenced products an this would be why Harry and Luke are (as far as Lego is concerned) DOOMED after this go-around. -Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:02:18 GMT
Viewed:	736 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

In lugnet.general, Mike Rayhawk wrote: Not at all, she said it would be expensive to “have” both colors. She didn’t mention production either, you just assumed it.

You’re splitting hairs. In order to have them they have to produce them.

In order to have them they have to be able to sell them. I don’t think I’m splitting hairs at all. I was just responding to your accusation that I was reading more into the word “have” than you were, which I still think was not the case.

However you want to split it does not cost any more to have bley and grey than it does to have bley and (any color). The main point should be that while developing bley has problably cost a small fortune it will not ad anything to the bottom line. It is clear though that even if they think it insignifigant dropping grey will cost them.

I don’t think anybody’s trying to say that bley was a good idea (or even an excusable mistake).

Yes, dropping gray will cost them. I’m just saying that there are good reasons that having both bley and gray might very well cost them more.

In the same way (since you seem to feel more strongly about this than about the actual color change), a continued run of the previous HP Hogwart’s Castle would have made continued sales, maybe even posted good figures. But all the people most excited about it have already bought it, and a continued run takes up a specific amount of shelf space and mindshare that would otherwise be occupied by new products that would sell better. There’s a very limited number of models that the market will support in any category, and it’s in Lego’s best interest to cycle out old products once the blush is off. More of that set would have earned money, but replacing it earns them more money, even accounting for the additional development costs.

Even if there were no color change, they have to recycle their product lines in general, and they have to recycle the HP castle in specific in order to better match the action of whatever we see in the latest movie.

They should spend more time on the company then and less on cake. I really don’t care how they see fit to do business.

Whether or not you approve or disapprove, I don’t think ignoring reality is going to help your argument. It’s still the Lego company that’s making the colors, and they’re a real place that operates according to real methods. We might not think it’s ideal that they take cake-breaks five times a day, but that’s what we’re stuck with.

(The first Danish phrase they tried to teach me, even before I learned the words for ordering trays of bricks, was “four o’clock! time for cake!” I gave up on trying to buy cake after the first couple tries though, since my poor ability to navigate in a Danish bakery usually resulted in something nasty like chocolate-frosted carrot cake.)

The fact is that compared to other companies they do a very poor job at marketing. Don’t try to argue that as it’s the reason they are whining about loosing money when the rest of the business world is looking up.

I could argue this point but it’s secondary to the issue. Even if Lego’s marketing department did as poor a job as you suggest, it doesn’t change the fact that the company has to spend money on it.

And yet still, it would, in a properly run company require no additional marketing to choose between bley & gray for any given model.

I’m not even sure what you’re trying to argue anymore. If Lego’s entire product line consisted of that one model, then sure, but that model is part of a system with other models. When the grays don’t match between models, then consumers get confused and angry; preventing that from happening is a marketing issue. Nobody gets confused when bley doesn’t match with pink.

are starting over. This would be why they can’t make money on licenced products an this would be why Harry and Luke are (as far as Lego is concerned) DOOMED after this go-around. -Ken

Well Luke is doomed because Lucas is done putting out new Star Wars movies, so that’s the end of the license. I’m not as familiar with the HP side of things so I can’t really speak to that.

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:32:07 GMT
Reply-To:	mattdm@mattdm.orgSTOPSPAMMERS
Viewed:	759 times

Mike Rayhawk <mike@brikwars.com> wrote: > splitting hairs at all. I was just responding to your accusation that I was > reading more into the word "have" than you were, which I still think was not the > case. Hey, if you're gonna be arguing about the meaning of the word "have", take it to .off-topic.debate. :) -- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:20:35 GMT
Viewed:	738 times

In lugnet.general, Mike Rayhawk wrote:

I don’t think anybody’s trying to say that bley was a good idea (or even an excusable mistake).

You haven’t been listening to lego then. They seem to be willing to defend this with their dying breath. (wich is what I would like to avoid)

Yes, dropping gray will cost them. I’m just saying that there are good reasons that having both bley and gray might very well cost them more.

You haven’t made that point though. They have a virtual spectrum now. If more colors cost more money they should just drop every thing except the original red, white, and black.

In the same way (since you seem to feel more strongly about this than about the actual color change), a continued run of the previous HP Hogwart’s Castle would have made continued sales, maybe even posted good figures. But all the people most excited about it have already bought it,

Wrong! I know for a fact that huge numbers of kids who are HP fans have no idea this product line exists. If they knew about it they too would be exited.

It seems you are ignoring reality, it’s Lego that’s whining about all the money they’ve lost. particularly troubleing in a time when the rest of the industrialized world is moving upword.

It’s not secondary it’s the whole kit n’ kaboodel! Lego is by their own admission on a multi-year downhill run. It’s poor marketing that caused this!

You can’t argue it because it’s absurd. They have red & dark red. They have light blue & blue. They have lime & original green.They have orange & dark orange. They had very light grey, light grey, & dark grey. Adding blue-grey to the list increases operating cost no further than developing the original mix.

Well Luke is doomed because Lucas is done putting out new Star Wars movies, so that’s the end of the license. I’m not as familiar with the HP side of things so I can’t really speak to that.

Lucas may be done but there’s still 3 more movies in the cooker. Harry is going to carry on for years. It has nothing to do with that though, LEGO has publicly said they feel they can’t make money off licenced products and therfor they are going to quit trying. This decision came about at the same time they started chopping executive heads. The current “new” releases were already committed by then. I find this very sad because the failure of Lego to make money on licenced products if the falure of Lego to properly market them and not a failure of the market.-Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:16:14 GMT
Reply-To:	MATTDM@MATTDM.ORGavoidspam
Viewed:	799 times

Ken Nagel <knandjn@hotmail.com> wrote: > You haven't made that point though. They have a virtual spectrum now. If more > colors cost more money they should just drop every thing except the original > red, white, and black. For what it's worth, I just saw something on lego.com saying that Lego's current (no year given) lineup has 84 different colors. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:57:28 GMT
Viewed:	803 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

You haven’t made that point though. They have a virtual spectrum now. If more colors cost more money they should just drop every thing except the original red, white, and black.

...and yellow and blue. I’m sure there are people who would be happy if every piece that was produced from now on would be a 2x4 in one of the original five colors, but that would pretty much drive the company into the ground. They do have too many colors right now. How useful is light-yellow? Light-orange? What about bright-green? Of course, if they go back to the original five colors, that means no green, no, tan, no brown, and no greys. Granted, the original brown and greys are gone anyways. Still, going with too few colors is just as bad as going with too many. They need to have a good representative array of colors, but as popular as it would be amongst certain ranks of AFOLs to have both dark-grey and gunmetal-grey produced at the same time, I have to agree that they’re still too similar to make economic sense for TLC to keep both.

Wrong! I know for a fact that huge numbers of kids who are HP fans have no idea this product line exists. If they knew about it they too would be exited.

I’ve been told face-to-face that TLC has purposefully underadvertised when sets are selling fast enough to keep up with their production rates. Takanuva sold well enough on his own, so all of the US BIONICLE advertisement was geared towards the Rahkshi sets. Some areas of the world didn’t get any advertisement at all because everything sells pretty much as fast as they can stock it. It’s possible that this is the case with the HP sets.

It all depends on how much the coloring agents cost. Black is the second cheapest color to produce, after natural (which has a slightly translucent light beige color). Clear is extremely expensive, which is why clear LEGO elements are made from a different plastic. Without knowing what chemicals are used to color the grey/bley colors, there’s no way of knowing which one is more expensive to produce. MOBS (makers of brown stuff) got hit pretty hard when the brown coloring agent they relied on was banned with many other heavy-metal pigments, and that’s why brown and tan outlet covers aren’t nearly as common as they used to be. They still make them, but the big selling point used to be that they were a lot cheaper than any other colors. Hence the reason why entire companies would devote themselves to producing brown stuff.

They have stated on more than one occassion that they will not be dropping the Star Wars or Harry Potter lines, both of which are in the top five best-selling themes, and pulling in more money than they cost to produce. What they said was that they would not be relying primarily on licensing deals, but that they would continue to make them when they seemed appropriate (like Dora the Explorer).

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 03:05:18 GMT
Viewed:	877 times

In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:

They do have too many colors right now. How useful is light-yellow? Light-orange? What about bright-green?

I have no idea what brought you to that conclusion. One of the hottest sellers keeping the Lego stors afloat right now is the pick a brick. People are gobbeling up the colors you seem to not find useful.

as popular as it would be amongst certain ranks of AFOLs to have both dark-grey and gunmetal-grey produced at the same time, I have to agree that they’re still too similar to make economic sense for TLC to keep both.

That is the whole point of this thread and you failed to make a single argument supporting your opinion. I like “gunmetal” though. If we keep calling it that instead of bley Lego is sure to get rid of it!

I’m sure the hundreds of people they’ve layed of from their jobs with Lego production would be happy to know this.

You arn’t keeping up with current events. With the layoffs at the top of the company they said with no uncertain terms that they were dropping ALL licenced lines as they were not making enough money. The “new” sets like the multi-purple bus and Dora were planed far in advance of that anouncment. Once the licences already paid for expire so do the associated lines.-Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:05:47 GMT
Viewed:	873 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

They’re selling because they’re rare colors, not because they’re particularly useful. And I’d be surprised in a large number of them weren’t bought specifically to put on Bricklink. I still don’t see many MOCs that actually use them.

You want supporting arguments? Fine. They’d have to keep double stock of grey resin on hand, since they’d have to purchase minimum quantities of each color. That means they’d not only have to pay twice as much up front, but they’d also have to devote twice as much space to storing the resin pellets. They’d have to devote twice as much space to storing finished parts, both in the manufacturing plants and for the various Consumer Affairs divisions to pull replacement parts from. They’d have to keep track of which was which, and that’s not as easy with the light-greys as it is with other colors. Furthermore, having two colors that are so similar would either mean that one of them would get used less in favor of the other, or they’d both get used about half the time. In the former case, the shorted color would be a lot less useful than the more heavily used color, and in the latter case, both colors would be half as available as one unified color would be, making it twice as hard to collect either of them. And, when you look at the long history of the original colors, they are clearly more useful at present than the new versions will be for years, so it makes more sense to switch back now. As time goes on, and the new colors see use in higher quantities and a wider variety of parts, it will stop making as much sense to abandon them in favor of the original colors, and it will therefore be less likely to happen. Good enough for you, or do you need more?

I’m sure the hundreds of people they’ve layed of from their jobs with Lego production would be happy to know this.

As has been stated plenty of times before, the 2003 loss was every bit as much a matter of flagging toy sales in general as it was bad business practices for their specific company. Advertising might have helped boost business somewhat, but they still would have had losses, and people still would have been laid off. It still doesn’t change the fact that a new Hogwarts is going to seriously outsell a 2-year old Hogwarts in the current market, and well enough that the extra cost of developing a new version will be reclaimed in short order. Kids have had over two years now to find out about and purchase the original version. If they still don’t own it yet, the company shouldn’t bank it’s future on them all buying it sometime this year. The lifeblood of a toy company is new product. I’d still love to be able to buy the original Toa and Turaga sets, but they had to make way for newer sets that would appeal to a wider range of fans (i.e. those who already had the first batch).

They never said any such thing. The moment they announced that they were going to concentrate on their core productes, there were rampant (and unfounded) theories that this meant all licensed lines would be dropped immediately, and it didn’t take very long before such rumors were squashed (though, apparently, not as effectively as they’d hoped, if you still believe they’re all going away). If you read this press release, the third paragraph reads:

This does not mean that the company will exclude that kind of stories and themes, but just that the growth should be based on the fundamental products, where sales do not to the same extent go up and down, depending on whether or not there is a new movie this year.

I run a news site, so I try to keep regular tabs on major press releases like this on general principle, but the instant the future of BIONICLE looked uncertain (despite the fact that it’s the best-selling line in the entire LEGO catalog), you better believe I paid extra close attention to this specific turn of events.

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:47:02 GMT
Viewed:	908 times

In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:

Awfuly bullheaded of you just because YOU don’t find them useful. I’ve wittnessed hundreds of PAB purchases and the overwelming majority of them are because the people buying them because they enjoy them. As for MOCs I’ve seen many including a large scale “Wizard of OZ” “Emerald City” made largly of trans green brick.

You want supporting arguments? Fine. They’d have to keep double stock of grey resin on hand, since they’d have to purchase minimum quantities of each color. • snip...yada yada yada... Good enough for you, or do you need more?

Nice dissertation however it doesn’t hold water. The Harry Potter car had to be light blue. It the sense of the over all operation it didn’t cost them any more to make it in light blue instead of the original dark blue. Need more? Two words “Maersk Blue”. They can’t use it on models made for the public due to licencing restrictions however they still make it for the model shops.

If it was only 2003 it would be fine however 2003 was just the worst of its mulit year decline. By the end of 2003 there were plenty of toy manufacturers seeing sunny day ahead. The new Hogwarts will take off only due to sales to the same customers. You seem to keep thinking every one knows what you know and thinks what you think. There is a huge market out there that was never made aware of the Lego Harry Potter line and that is where the stagnation came from.

They never said any such thing.

http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=44690 QUOTE:

“profits stagnated because of the higher cost of producing the new products. The company now plans to stop making the electronics and movie tie-in products and return to its core mission: producing colored plastic building blocks for children.”

When they say in their own words: “The company now plans to stop making... ...movie tie-in products” I would think they are going to stop making movie tie in products.

I run a news site, so I try to keep regular tabs on major press releases like this on general principle, but the instant the future of BIONICLE looked uncertain (despite the fact that it’s the best-selling line in the entire LEGO catalog), you better believe I paid extra close attention to this specific turn of events.

Bionicle has never been in danger but you better watch the news closer.-Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 16:35:08 GMT
Viewed:	924 times

"Ken Nagel" <knandjn@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:HtwMIE.4CE@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] > > Nice dissertation however it doesn't hold water. The Harry Potter car had • to be > light blue. It the sense of the over all operation it didn't cost them any • more > to make it in light blue instead of the original dark blue. Need more? Two • words > "Maersk Blue". They can't use it on models made for the public due to • licencing > restrictions however they still make it for the model shops. [ ... snipped ... ] Maybe but I don't think so. Over the years there has been speculation that the use of Maersk Blue was restricted my Maersk, has there ever been any sort of official statement to the fact? See this article: http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=748 From what I understand, the Model Shops can't get Maersk Blue any more either making it another "retired" color. Since there isn't any "official" word on this, it is based on hearsay but IMHO, the introduction of medium blue is a change in color very similar to the changes made to the greys. YMMV. Mike -- Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:57:44 GMT
Viewed:	946 times

In lugnet.general, Mike Walsh wrote: > > "Ken Nagel" <knandjn@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:HtwMIE.4CE@lugnet.com... > > [ ... snipped ... ] > > > > > Nice dissertation however it doesn't hold water. The Harry Potter car had to be > > light blue. It the sense of the over all operation it didn't cost them any more > > to make it in light blue instead of the original dark blue. Need more? Two words > > "Maersk Blue". They can't use it on models made for the public due to licencing > > restrictions however they still make it for the model shops. > > > [ ... snipped ... ] > > Maybe but I don't think so. Over the years there has been speculation that > the use of Maersk Blue was restricted my Maersk, has there ever been any > sort of official statement to the fact? > > See this article: http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=748 > > From what I understand, the Model Shops can't get Maersk Blue any more > either making it another "retired" color. Since there isn't any "official" > word on this, it is based on hearsay but IMHO, the introduction of medium > blue is a change in color very similar to the changes made to the greys. > YMMV. > > Mike Hope you don't mind if I chime in on the subject! The Maersk blue color was made to match exactly the official color of the Maersk company to use in sets using the Maersk name. The color was not available to the LEGOLAND modelshops until the Danish park wanted to make a large airplane for their miniland airport cluster, a Maersk Seeland airplane that is... So, they were able to get elements produced in Maersk that were not previously available in the sets. The Lego people can do this for a small fee for switching the presses around. This was around the time that models were being produced for the soon to be opened Windsor and Carlsbad parks. The model builders liked the option of a different color (at this time the majority of the models being produced used only 10 basic colors: white, beige, light grey, red, yellow, blue, brown, black, dark grey, and green). Since, Maersk blue is the "official" color of the Maersk company, it cannot be used in any set that can make money for the Lego company, unless it is a Maersk promotional set. That meant, that any set they would want to produce with a light blue color would have to a different light blue than Maesrk! This all happened way before any of the color changes we are dealing with now took place. The color was officially discontinued once the Maersk promotion was done (not being in the LEGO color pallet for around 3 years). Model shops were then allowed to use the remaining stock of brick that had been produced, but could not get more made as was possible before. Hope this helps! Bill

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:58:15 GMT
Viewed:	1345 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

Go back and reread exactly what I said, as I’m pretty sure you didn’t understand it. I mentioned specifically “light yellow, light orange, and bright green”. Why? Because they’re all about the different from basic yellow, basic orange, and basic green as gunmetal grey is from dark-grey. Those three specific colors don’t have much added value over the original three, and I don’t see the point in their continued use (I also don’t see many instances of MOC use). Trans-green, however, is a completely unique color. There is no other transparent color that at all resembles trans-green. I’m not sure I entirely sure why they felt the need to have both trans-light blue (which looks flourescent) and trans-flourescent blue (which doesn’t) at the same time, since they’re pretty close, but at least they look very different under black-light.

I didn’t say anything about light-blue, either. Light-blue looks significantly different from basic blue, and I’m fine with it’s continued use. Again, reread what I wrote, because I don’t think you understood it the first time.

Need more? Two words “Maersk Blue”. They can’t use it on models made for the public due to licencing restrictions however they still make it for the model shops.

Actually, word is that they stopped producing it even for them. Oddly enough, those guys pretty much universally went with Maersk Blue over light-blue, from what I understand, but that still leaves them in a situation where they preferred one color over a very similar color, but they had the advantage of being able to choose their favorite solely on which shade they actually preferred because they never had to worry about whether a specific piece had ever been produced in that color.

No, but after collecting Star Wars action figures for close to ten years straight, I’ve heard the same complaints coming from the fans, and the same explanations coming from the company.

There is a huge market out there that was never made aware of the Lego Harry Potter line and that is where the stagnation came from.

Possibly, but you can’t know that for sure. You say there are a lot of kids who don’t even know that LEGO HP exists. Does that mean that if they did each and every one of them would own a Hogwarts by now? Very likely not. I’d actually venture a guess that the people who are still unaware of the LEGO HP line this far down the road would be even less likely to buy the larger sets than those who knew about it earlier in the game.

Ah, but they didn’t say that “in their own words”. That portion of text was written solely by Business Newswire, which apparently got the story wrong. They also said that TLC would stop making any electronic toys (in the portion that you clipped out of the middle), but we’ve since received confirmation specifically that both Mindstorms and Harry Potter would continue in the press release I linked to. Star Wars has also been confirmed to not be in danger, along with reaffirmation of MS and HP, in this post by Jake McKee. If he’s willing to risk his good name, on LUGNET, by stating point blank that none of those three lines are going away (again, no mention of Spiderman...), I’m betting he really, really, really means it.

Bionicle has never been in danger but you better watch the news closer.-Ken

There’s a log in your eye. From the way the very first statements were issued, BIONICLE was very much in a risky situation. Everything pointed to TLC returning to their core products. What’s a core product? BIONICLE features a huge number of new pieces each year (more in 3 years than Star Wars in 5), it uses very few basic System bricks, it relies heavily on collectibility as a way of generating interest, and there is a certain amount of fad status to it. “Core products” looked like it might not include BIONICLE. Since then we’ve found out that “core products” includes nearly everything they produce, and that no radical changes are being implemented. They’re just going to be a bit more careful about securing new licenses.

For the record, the instant the future of BIONICLE was uncertain in my eyes, I e-mailed one of my contacts in the PR department, and was assured that neither BIONICLE nor Star Wars would be cancelled as a result of this turn of events.

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:39:37 GMT
Viewed:	653 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

They did no such thing. The new HP Hogwarts Castle is a 100% new design. The intent was to provide something that would appeal to those who had already bought the original Hogwarts, but that could still serve as a focal set for those who hadn’t. The original Hogwars was primarily built around the main hall, IIRC. Here’s a pic of the new Hogwarts, which focuses primarily around the front entrance, and includes a motorized clock that causes the main gate to open:

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:01:25 GMT
Viewed:	666 times

In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:

OK so nobody likes my term “Switched around”. Matters not. The point is that they had nowhere near sold the original castle to all the people who would likely buy one. They couldn’t keep going with it though because of the color change. So instead of lapping up the gravy from the first one they had to develop another one, new artwork and so on and so on. This very poor business decision and others just as bad are why they can’t seem to make money off licenced lines and why it is that this is Harry’s last hurrah.-Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:35:57 GMT
Viewed:	726 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

If they tried to keep milking the original Hogwarts for every last drop, they’d be bleeding money to the Law of Diminishing Returns. There’s a point where continued production of a set becomes a liability, and when the vast majority of stores have the same copies sitting on their shelves for months on end, it’s time to move on. I’m sure the original Hogwarts will be available through S@H for a while yet, but my local Target doesn’t care if there are 20 people in California who still want to buy this set. They care about whether there’s someone there right now buying one of their copies and clearing out a space on the shelf for a new set.

In the end, TLC has to be more concerned about what the store chains will buy than what the end consumer will buy. It doesn’t do any good to develop a set that everyone wants if the stores won’t stock it (hence the reason the ISD still hasn’t shipped to retail), and it doesn’t do any good to dedicate production resources towards a set that store chains stop ordering.

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:47:43 GMT
Viewed:	754 times

In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:

The problem is that due to poor marketing they haven’t begun to scratch the surface. You may hit TRU and make it a point of checking the Lego display but most parents don’t, they scoot in buy what the child wants and leave. I know for a fact that there is a huge amount of kids who are Harry Potter fans that have no idea the Lego HP line exists.

majority of stores have the same copies sitting on their shelves for months on end, it’s time to move on. I’m sure the original Hogwarts will be available through S@H for a while yet,

Again the average comsumer doesn’t go to S@H and the sets will be gone or relegated to the outlet stores before the new set is released so as to not interfere with it.

It doesn’t do any good to develop a set that everyone wants if the stores won’t stock it (hence the reason the ISD still hasn’t shipped to retail), and it doesn’t do any good to dedicate production resources towards a set that store chains stop ordering.

Give me a break you can’t compare a $300 collectable to a $90 toy. Every kid wants a Ford Explorer too but they aren’t going to get one. The stores would not have any trouble selling the product if Lego was any good at marketing. -Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:48:00 GMT
Viewed:	763 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

Sets in the $90+ range sell in such small quantities that most stores won’t even stock them, which is why TRU can get away with jacking the price another $10 over MSRP. Comparing a $300 toy to a similar $90 toy is simply a matter of scale. The Blockade Runner sold very well through S@H, but even with an exclusive retail release, it sat on store shelves until Target got nervous enough to clearance it. The Yoda sculpture did well at S@H, and probably about as well in its exclusive retail release as most similarly-priced sets. The more expensive a set is, the less likely it is that every store can sell even one copy, and the more stores that get stuck clearancing their first shipment, the more sense it makes to go exclusive through S@H. Once they sell through a few batches, each store risks having to clearance the next shipment, and they know it. In the end, it’s not what TLC wants to ship that matters so much as what the major store chains want to buy. You can’t put everything on TLC’s shoulders in this one. Stores want product that will sell fast enough to keep ahead of the cost of having that shelf space available, and the original Hogwarts is fading in popularity. They want something new, so they’re getting it.

And, BTW, there has never been a single moment in my life that I would have wanted an Explorer. If I ever get a 4WD vehicle, I’d want one that’s not prone to flipping, which pretty much rules out all SUVs except the H1. And when I was a kid, it was all about having a Testarosa.

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 02:43:53 GMT
Viewed:	786 times

In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:

In the end, it’s not what TLC wants to ship that matters so much as what the major store chains want to buy. You can’t put everything on TLC’s shoulders in this one. Stores want product that will sell fast enough to keep ahead of the cost of having that shelf space available, and the original Hogwarts is fading in popularity. They want something new, so they’re getting it.

The store only sells merchandise. If it’s not selling then somebody is doing a pretty poor job of marketing it. That would be... oh, yea the guys with the weak shoulders... Hogwarts was expensive to produce because of the licencing fees. Instead of selling to the maximum market thus maximizing the profit they are watching it fade in popularity. That takes us back to marketing and those guys with the weak shoulders again. You can can argue this but it’s foolish as by Lego’s own admission they are failures at making a profit with licenced lines.-Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:25:53 GMT
Viewed:	841 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

The store only sells merchandise. If it’s not selling then somebody is doing a pretty poor job of marketing it.

That’s not always true. Ever heard of something called the Law of Supply and Demand? Demand has dropped because all of the people who absolutely had to buy it did. Then the people who kinda had to buy it did. Then the people who sorta wanted to buy it did. Finally, people who were holding out until it hit clearance prices did. The market for the original Hogwarts has shrunk dramatically, whether you’re willing to admit it or not. A brand-new Hogwarts will enjoy the benefit of an mostly-unsaturated market. Yes, there will be people who tell their kids that they already have a Hogwarts Castle and don’t need another, but there is no way on earth, short of selling it at reduced price, that the original Hogwarts could possibly outsell a refreshed Hogwarts in 2004.

Hogwarts was expensive to produce because of the licencing fees.

Yup, the design process for a set of that size, the development of new pieces, and the cost of actually manufacturing it have no bearing on how expensive it was to produce. None whatsoever.

Instead of selling to the maximum market thus maximizing the profit they are watching it fade in popularity.

So you think that maximizing the profit on a single set makes more sense than maximizing the profit of the company as a whole? Why not switch over to only producing new sets for a given theme every three years? That way you can make sure that every possible customer will have a shot at buying one. Of course, all of the “buy everything” customers will buy 1/3rd as much stuff, but who cares? It’s all about making sure that there’s not one unsatiated customer left on the face of the earth, even if it requires calling every family and asking them if they still need a copy.

You can can argue this but it’s foolish as by Lego’s own admission they are failures at making a profit with licenced lines.

Show me concrete proof of that statement. Show me where they specifically stated that they can’t make a profit at licensed lines. Star Wars is profitable. Harry Potter is profitable. They’re two of the top five best-selling themes. Spiderman...well, I’m sure it’s bringing in sales, but I’m not sure how many compared to the other two movie licenses (two sets wasn’t enough to hit the Top 5 list for 2002, and I haven’t seen one for 2003). Winnie the Pooh was a bit problematic, but that’s because Disney sold them the rights to produce it when they didn’t actually own said rights to sell. Galidor was a flop, but that’s because the TV show was, not because the sets were designed poorly. Bob the Builder sold well, as Dora the Explorer likely will. The Ferrari sets are drawing a lot of attention already, though some of the NASA sets (the Mars mission sets, in particular) should have been released much closer to the Rover landings.

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 16:02:53 GMT
Viewed:	847 times

In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

The store only sells merchandise. If it’s not selling then somebody is doing a pretty poor job of marketing it.

Of corse I’ve heard of supply & demand. I’m the first to admit the castle sales slowed. That left Lego with two choices... 1)redesign the set 2)increase the demand. One of these choices is signifgantly more costly. Since they are whining about monetary loses the sensible thing to do would have been to make more people aware of the original product thus increasing the demand.

You don’t seem to know as much about business as you think you do. Keeping the original set would have greatly increased the profit margin while all the new surrounding sets would have kept the buy everything crowd ocupied. I don’t think saving themselves from a very poor marketing plan would require calling every family.

You can can argue this but it’s foolish as by Lego’s own admission they are failures at making a profit with licenced lines.

Show me concrete proof of that statement

http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=44690

“profits stagnated because of the higher cost of producing the new products. The company now plans to stop making the electronics and movie tie-in products...”

Concrete enough?-Ken

Subject:	Re: Article text
Newsgroups:	lugnet.general
Date:	Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:58:11 GMT
Viewed:	864 times

In lugnet.general, Ken Nagel wrote:

Both cost considerable amounts of money. In fact, I’d be surprised if designing a new Hogwarts didn’t cost significantly less than a huge advertising campaign would (and anything less isn’t going to have the impact that you seem to desire). Major advertisers are capable of spending millions of dollars per day just to push their product, and if you want to really hit a nation-wide audience (much less a world-wide one), you’ve got to play with the big boys. Hogwarts Castle costs $90 in the US. Retail products generally have a 50% markup over manufacturer price, so that means about $45 per Hogwarts goes back to TLC. We’ll be (very) generous and pretend that half of that is clean profit about production/packaging/shipping costs. That’s $22.50 per set that would stick around after expenses. At that level of profit (which is unreasonable), they’d need to sell about 45,000 copies per day just to recoup their investment on a measly $1 million/day advertising campaign without actually making any profit. The entire run of the set was only about 22 times that amount, which means that a 1-month ad campaign would have exceeded the amount of revenue that they pulled in with the entire original run. When you consider that they’re probably only pulling in a few dollars of profit per Hogwarts, they start losing money in under a week. And that assumes that the major store chains would even bother to reorder it (and, since they probably wouldn’t, all that advertising would be wasted money). Or they can invest a much smaller amount of money in designing and producing a completely new Hogwarts that will attach to the original section, and know that they’ve got a 100% unsaturated market that should buy well enough copies to turn a profit.

You don’t seem to understand the economics of selling an expensive toy. Hogwarts nearly broke 1 million copies produced. Impressive, huh? Well, for a $90 toy, yes it is. However, as of a year ago, the BIONICLE line has sold as many as 34 can/pod sets per minute (number quoted to me at Toy Fair 2003), which equates to roughly the same dollar value as the entire Hogwarts run in about 20 days, and an average of about 1.5 million total copies of each can/pod set produced. And, given the way things usually work, a higher percentage of profit on all of those sets. Judging by my own experiences as a kid, the biggest value of the larger $90+ sets is that they generate a lot more interest in the rest of the line, and thereby cause the smaller sets to sell a lot better. In other words, it’s advertisement that you get paid for instead of the other way around.

Nope. TLC trumps Business Newswire when it comes to statements about what products they will or will not continue to produce, and they’ve confirmed that SW, HP, and mindstorms are all still part of TLC. Besides, you pay for the full term of the license whether you actually produce anything or not. Dropping movie licenses like those at this stage would be a horrifically bad business decision. They’re both selling very well (top 5 best-sellers in 2002, as I keep mentioning), they’re both profitable (despite what Business Newswire assumed from the various quotes that they included), and they’ve both got years left to go before the licenses run out.