Subject:
|
Argumentative paper I wrote for College
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Dec 2004 05:20:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2849 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello, I was recently given the opportunity to write an argumentative research
paper on any topic I wanted so, of course, LEGO® was an obvious choice.
Basically, I wrote about what I did and didn't like about the company and what
I'd do to change it. Most of it's written like, "I like this, but I'd do it a
little differently. Here's what I'd do to change it."
Not intended in anyway to offend anyone, this paper is strictly opinionative.
So please, don't get angry with me. My Professor said she really enjoyed
reading it and gave me 100%. Since many of my resources came from here, I
thought it only fair that I share my work with you. Special thanks to the
members of LUGNET™ for all the valuable help, and keep on building!
Matt
It's a bit long, but here it is:
Matthew Hocker
Professor Lauria
English 101
3 December, 2004
Picking up the Pieces
Turn the clock back to 1932, and transport yourself to Denmark (The
Ultimate, 10). A carpenter before the Great Depression, Ole Kirk Christiansen
diversified into making toys and created the earliest known Lego blocks in 1949
(The Ultimate, 12). “Only the best is good enough,” became the company’s motto,
showing how Christiansen strongly believed in the idea of quality over quantity
(The Ultimate, 10). Unfortunately, in recent times Lego appears to have been
ignoring this belief, making poor decisions that’d have their beloved founder
rolling in his grave.
I’ve always loved Lego products and still do. Many hours of my childhood were
devoted to tinkering with the ingenious plastic interlocking bricks. In my
opinion, 1985 to 1995 were the golden years of Lego toys. Castle, Town, Space,
and Pirate sets reigned supreme, and almost all were well designed. However, in
recent years they’ve left me and several other adult fans bitter for many
reasons. As a matter of fact, most of the sets of recent years just don’t have
the appeal of their forefathers and seem like a waste of money.
Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the new Lego sets are many of the designs.
To be quite frank, they’re lacking that certain magic which made the sets of my
youth so appealing. Creative genius that had often been worked into the sets of
old seems to have all but disappeared.
Around 1997, I first noticed the quality of their products, Lego System in
particular, begin to rapidly decline. Left disgusted, I still bought them
anyway since I had no other way of obtaining new pieces. It was obvious that
detail didn’t seem to matter anymore. Cars didn’t really resemble cars anymore,
and the buildings weren’t much better. Bigger blocks were incorporated,
resulting in smaller piece counts in comparison to sets from the good ol’ days.
For example, they began using a part that was strictly a chassis for the
vehicles, a huge one at that. Such changes meant fewer possible combinations
when building and babyish looking, over simplified, sets.
When I was a kid, no set was impossible to complete, some quite challenging but
definitely not impossible. No one, at least me anyway, wanted a fire engine
that resembled a box on wheels. Although they’ve improved a wee bit over the
past two or three years, there’s still vast room for improvement.
The recent Castle, now known as Knight’s Kingdom, series is a prime example of
poor design. Considering that previous series in the Castle line were always
imaginative and well done, these are quite possibly the ugliest I’ve laid eyes
upon. Felix, a Lego fan, made an excellent point saying, “I don’t think the
common consumer would even recognize they are some type of castle-like creation
unless they had a castle looking mini-fig with them” (Greco, par. 3). In other
words, the structures are nothing without the knight figures.
The Knights themselves aren’t much to look at either. You ever heard of Sir
Lancelot being fitted with sky blue or purple armor? And the swords … they’re
in off-the-wall colors like yellow and red! As Felix noted, the buildings
aren’t much better and in fact, are the worst part of the whole deal. Who
really wants a castle made of oversized pieces? All it does is limit the
possibilities in making your own original creation. Drab color schemes and poor
looking buildings are put to shame by castles of their Harry Potter line.
Many may not consider Lego’s licensing deals a threat to set design, but one
problem with licensing is that deals are usually made over fads like Harry
Potter and Star Wars. Sure, these products were pretty popular when they came
out, but now they’ve lost their appeal with the majority of youth. In fact,
even the Lego Company itself has gone so far as to blame its record-breaking
losses in 2003 on relying too much on licensing (Carter). Pretty hard to
dispute something coming straight from the horse’s mouth, isn’t it?
Merchandise based on franchises are a good idea in limited numbers, but children
want sets that are new and fresh in design, things they may not have even seen
yet. For example, take Lego’s previous space series. They displayed some of
the most imaginative sets ever conceived; a battery operated monorail with
flashing lights, an alien ship with fiber optic lighting, and other gigantic
ships that could be sectioned apart into separate spacecraft.
Many kids have seen what Star Wars vehicles look like, and Lego’s already
reintroducing many types of vehicles that were produced in their line a couple
years ago. Perhaps they may be put together a little differently, but my point
is that the overall design is still pretty much the same. That’s why Harry
Potter made up a big chunk of last year’s $239 million dollar loss (“World
Business”).
Now that I’ve pretty much made my case as to what I believe Lego’s done
completely wrong, let me explain some of their stronger points. Lego seems to
be in the early stages of realizing that they need to broaden their idea of what
potential consumers want. This means appealing to all ages and a variety of
interest groups.
One such type of product line is their advanced designer series, which consists
of intricate models such as the Red Baron’s and Wright Brother’s planes, the
Statue of Liberty, and even a two foot tall Lego man! These sets range anywhere
from seventy to three hundred dollars.
You might ask yourself, why produce such expensive products, and who on earth
would by them? Well, the adult Lego fan base is larger than you might think,
and challenging sets would interest many of them. People who enjoy putting
together models in general would love these, especially since they were
carefully designed to appeal to the most discriminating of consumers. Not only
that, famous subjects used in the creation of these sets would certainly attract
those who are interested in the subject matter, research, or collect memorabilia
pertaining to it.
For instance, the Red Baron’s Triple Decker Plane appeals not only to fans of
the Baron himself, but aviation enthusiasts and World War I history buffs. See
what I’m trying to get at here? Their potential consumers broadened enormously
from mainly children. Thus, these sets can help boost sales and popularity of
the company at the same time. Lego was wise to produce these products and
should continue the advanced designer series for years to come.
Two other great examples of Lego’s product designs are the Santa Fe Super Chief
train and the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander. The train has ingeniously been scaled
down to minifigure scale and looks pretty darn close to the real thing. As for
the Lunar Lander, I put one together and was amazed by how much it resembled the
actual spacecraft, with retractable landing gear even!
Despite the superior quality of these products, there’s a downside. It seems
that special sets like these are released to a limited number of stores, and
some such as the Lander are only found exclusively in Lego’s mail order catalog.
If you ask me, hiding your best products like that isn’t a good way to do
business. If anything, Lego must try to push those sets the hardest to help
promote the company and increase sales.
Another good idea was Lego’s Legends series. In order for a set to become a
Legend, it must already be discontinued. Then a variety of popular models from
the past are chosen to be posted on Lego’s website for people to vote for which
set(s) should be reborn.
Unfortunately, this series has been poorly promoted. Even I, an avid Lego
enthusiast, had absolutely no idea that such a thing was going on until I
stumbled upon them in a catalog. If the majority of people don’t even know
about the Legends series let alone that they can vote for them, how can they be
expected to buy them? Ads in magazines and on television ought to be used,
letting the public know what’s going on. This in turn would stimulate interest
in the products and create a larger network of potential buyers.
Like the Super Chief and Lunar Lander, Lego Legends have also suffered from
either being released in limited quantities or a limited number of stores. Once
again, Lego must quit hiding their best products and put more emphasis on
advertising them. I remember about two years ago when Lego re-released a pirate
ship, the Black Seas Barracuda. Hailed by many as the best one of all, it was
the first sailing vessel in the Pirates Theme. Unfortunately, they sold out in
just a couple months, leaving me and many others feeling left out.
Lego ought to have known that the demand would’ve been high, especially since it
was undoubtedly one of the most popular pirate ships. Similarly, there were
other pirate sets turned Legends that sold out almost as quickly. If Lego’s
going to let people vote on what set gets to be reproduced, then they sure as
hell should make plenty of sets over the course of the year to meet with demand.
Also, the company desperately needs to diversify the types of products that are
available for each theme. For instance, they seem to believe that the town
series should be predominately made up of police and fire stations. Gone are
the good old days of variety, with hospitals, houses, and even mobile homes.
Rescue sub-themes are all good and fine, but they really need to widen the
spectrum here. Kids are going to grow sick of having a ton of cops and firemen
with no city to protect.
Recently, one of Lego’s biggest problems has been the multitude of new colors
for pieces flooding into their products. At first, it started out with beige,
and within the last two years, they’ve been shoving more colors down our throats
than I can remember. Multiple shades of red, green, and blue, and other new
colors are in response to the variety used in knock-off brands like Mega-Bloks.
Listen, I’m all for adding more to the existing palette. After all, variety’s
the spice of life. I just feel that introducing so much in so little time has
been a bit of a mistake. There are hundreds of different pieces, but since new
colors are only used in a few select parts, they’re actually limiting as to what
you can make with them (Filz).
Look at poor blue, red, and yellow. If you glance through a new Lego catalog,
it appears as if they’re all but being replaced by these newbies. Since so many
are now out there, it’ll be difficult for a child to put together a house and
not have it be a multicolored nightmare. Yes, I know that not all kids are too
particular in building when it comes to color schemes, but there are enough who
are.
So how can we introduce new colors without the insanity? Perhaps Lego should
give everyone a chance to vote on a new color each year, so as not to overwhelm
everyone. For Pete’s sake, they do it with M&M’s so why not Lego’s as well?
Not only that, the consumer’s going to know what he/she wants more than the
company does.
New colors should also be limited as to what sets they’re in. Personally, I
think Lego should produce service packs, bags with several bricks of a
particular part in the new color, to give the public a taste of what’s to come.
Or they could use their special freestyle buckets to market the majority of
their new bricks, which might be popular since they’d contain a large variety of
bricks in a new color, rather than the tiny quantities found in a set.
Therefore, it’d eliminate the problem of buying multiple sets only to find you
can’t quite mix them together to make a house unless you really want it to
resemble something painted by Jackson Pollack.
Within the last year, another color problem arose. Without warning, tints of
already existing grey, dark grey and brown were altered. By holding an original
grey piece next to the recent version, I’ve seen the tragedy firsthand. The
original seemed to have a yellow tint while the newer appeared bluish. Since
they don’t clash well together, this poses quite a problem, and the new grey
makes the original look older than it actually is.
Not only that, it’s going to leave many fans bitter. Since the light grey is
now lighter, it looks nearly white in the instructions and that has confused
some consumers (Green). The same grey that was changed had already existed for
almost thirty years, and a recent poll on LUGNET™ showed eighty-one percent of
fans who voted were unhappy with the changes (Wilson).
Perhaps most of those polled were adults, but children are noticing the changes
as well. In fact, Lego’s target audience has also been finding fault with their
decision. Dan Walker recalled one day when he came home how one of the first
things his younger brothers did was tell him how they disliked the new grey and
thought it was too “blue” (Walker, 1). One mother’s twelve year old daughter
received a new Harry Potter set and wasn’t blind to the changes either:
Happy to get the new sets, she dumped them out on the table. Her face changed to
a confuse expression and she said HUUH? What’s this?
I said What?
She said, This gray, it’s different, it looks weird or something.
So I told her that Lego is making this new color now and left it at that.
She said, This is dumb, I don’t like these grays, It’s too blue and besides,
how’s it posed to match all my other Harry Potter sets? I wish I could tell
Lego this is dumb.
She said, I really like Buckbeak, but he’d be a lot better if he was the same as
they used to make. I don’t want these sets Mommy, you keep them. (qtd. in
Fields).
Shouldn’t they have asked for child input before making such a move? Smooth
move, Lego.
Why take an already excellent formula and change it all of a sudden? Remember
when Coke changed their ingredients to taste more like Pepsi? Well many were
appalled and raised hell over it. If Lego fails to fix this within the next
year, then I’m afraid history is doomed to repeat itself. Already in a
financial crisis, changing old colors probably wasn’t the smartest marketing
move.
Of course, Lego’s many other problems are due to the leaps and bounds in
technology over the past two decades. Now-a-days, it seems like every Tom,
Dick, and Helen owns some sort of video game system. Lego’s wised up a little
and tried their hand at making games, but they need to retool their ideas.
Most of the software Lego’s been manufacturing feature pre-built worlds centered
on one of their existing themes. What’s wrong with that you ask? Well, it sure
seems to abandon the purpose of Lego blocks altogether. Everything’s already
there for you, so children can’t use their creativity to design their own world
and interact with it. I mean come on, that’s what makes Lego blocks stand out
from the rest of the crowd. Action figures will always be action figures, and a
computer game, for the most part, will still remain the same design-wise. A
pile of Lego’s, on the other hand, can one day be an enchanted castle and on
another a towering skyscraper. Possibilities are endless with bricks, so why
take all of that away in creating a video game?
Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s a smart idea to market software for children,
but they’re going about it all wrong. The only game ever put out that came
close to allowing a child to use their imagination was called Lego Creator.
With this program, one can build virtual models, print building instructions,
and even bring creations to life with ease. However, the only problem is that
many Lego pieces were unrepresented in the final product, which again limits the
possibilities in what can be made.
Out on the internet, a Lego CAD program, LDraw, can be downloaded, one that
contains most parts and is constantly being updated with new ones. Not only
that, it doesn’t cost a single cent. If Lego were to follow suit but make the
program easy to use for kids, they’d certainly have a hot product on their
hands.
Over the past seven years or so, Lego, makers of the famous plastic interlocking
building bricks, have found themselves in a bit of a rut. Unfortunately, most
of it is due to poor marketing decisions as previously described and failing to
keep up with the times. One thing’s for sure though, they need to make some
changes fast.
Lego employee Jake McKee said that the company will now include both adult and
child fans in their product testing when it comes to modifying the product (1).
With promising news like that, Lego fans need to take advantage and seize the
opportunity to let them know what they should do differently. Otherwise, they
could come tumbling down like a tower of, well, Lego’s. And since the company’s
been around for over sixty years, it’d be a crying shame to see the ultimate toy
become nothing more than a faded memory.
Works Cited
Carter, Ben. “Lego marketers face 400 job losses.” Marketing 4 March 2004: 1.
Fields, Melanie K. “From the mouth of babes.” Online posting. 9 May 2004. 5 Dec.
2004 <news: lugnet.dear-lego>.
Filz, Frank. “Re: Nicely now. What do you think of the new colors?” online
posting. 15 Jan. 2004. 5 Dec. 2004 <news: lugnet.lego, lugnet.general>.
Greco, Felix. “Knights’ Kingdom is ugly.” online posting. 2 July 2004. 6 Dec.
2004 <news: lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.castle>.
Green, Suzanne Rich. “Re: Color change: Let’s go straight to the CEO!” online
posting. 28 Nov. 2004. 5 Dec. 2004 <news: lugnet.color, lugnet.lego,
lugnet.general>.
McKee, Jake. “Color Change – Final Update.” Online posting. 5 May 2004. 5 Dec.
2004 <news: lugnet.general, lugnet.announce, lugnet.lego>.
The Ultimate LEGO Book. New York: DK Publishing Inc., 1999.
Walker, Dan. “LEGO’s Worst Mistake Ever!” online posting. 13 March 2004. 6 Dec.
2004 <news: lugnet.lego, lugnet.general>.
Wilson, James. “Now that it’s official, what do you think of LEGO’s decision to
replace some colors?” 2004. 5 Dec. 2004
<http://members.lugnet.com/polls/results/?n=170>.
“World Business Briefing Europe: Denmark: Big Loss for Lego.” The New York Times
9 Jan. 2004: W.1.
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
