Subject:
|
Re: Holy Mackerel! LEGO survey...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:45:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6359 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> All,
>
> I know that some of you have attempted to fill out the survey announced
> yesterday on LEGOfan.org, only to be turned away with a message about the
> survey being complete.
>
> If you're still interested in helping out, my colleague running this data
> collection effort has asked me to post the questions below for feedback. She'll
> manually include this in the results as well. Feel free to answer them in line
> or email them to me.
>
> Thanks so much everyone for showing that the AFOLs are a force to be reckoned
> with!
>
> * Would you buy LEGO toys for children 0-11? Y/N
Yes. I have in the past, and I'm sure I will in the future.
> * Why / Why not?
The best toy makes the best gift.
> * What feature(s) would you add if you were the marketing director of LEGO?
I'd like to say, "I would give people the opportunity to upload CAD models and
then have them made and buy them in real life," but that's already in the works
to be reality very soon. (Woo hoo!)
I think it would be neat to add a poll where people can suggest and then vote on
a new piece to be made. I realize that new pieces are expensive (molds and
such), so there would only be one per year, and it would have to be something
useful that set designers could incorporate into future sets. Once the oddball
suggestions are weeded out by the LEGO company itself, the votes are cast, and
the winning piece gets itself made into a new sercive pack that contains just
that one piece in a few different colors. I'm tellin' ya--it would work man.
(Macaroni plates, 2X4 tiles...people would buy 'em.)
> * How would you change existing LEGO products if you wanted to sell them for
> more money?
The way this question is worded, it sounds like you're asking for ideas on how
to make a LEGO product more appealing to consumers so that they'll think that
it's worth it to spend more. (for example: "Hey, look at that LEGO set! I
think that [fancy packaging/light-up lightsabers/whatever] makes it worth paying
[$X.XX] to have it." where $X.XX is greater than what it used to be) I think I
would make sure that there are plenty of sets that have the ability to not lose
their appeal over time due to being part of a passing craze. Sometimes a few
passing craze sets are OK, because there's a demand that makes them quite
profitable (Harry Potter, Star Wars), but then there are those sets (Clickits,
soccer) that seem to cheapen the line of LEGO products.
This is where you have to look at the Long Run. A LEGO set based on a passing
craze makes money now, but in a year or so the kid loses interest. The parent
looks at their kid's pile of pieces and thinks, "I can't believe I actually
bought my kid that." This could impair the parent's decision to buy LEGO sets
for their kid(s) in the future. On the other hand, a simpler set (an ambulance,
an original spaceship, a medieval shop, etc.) has the potential to maintain its
appeal for years to come. A child's LEGO city will always need cars and
trucks...but not Ron Weasley. Thus simpler/original sets could possibly hold a
child's interest longer.
> * What new products would you launch?
More MOC sets
> * What should LEGO be doing that it isn’t now?
Still making the old gray and brown colors. Gnash your teeth at me all you
want; I'm just being honest.
David Gregory
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Holy Mackerel! LEGO survey...
|
| All, I know that some of you have attempted to fill out the survey announced yesterday on LEGOfan.org, only to be turned away with a message about the survey being complete. After some late night phone calls and early morning emails, I've been to (...) (19 years ago, 16-Apr-05, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego) !!
|
68 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
