Subject:
|
Re: Holy Mackerel! LEGO survey...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:19:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6541 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> * Would you buy LEGO toys for children 0-11? Y/N
Yes.
> * Why / Why not?
LEGO continues to be an excellent product, encouraging creative play and
original thinking.
> * What feature(s) would you add if you were the marketing director of LEGO?
Like others have stated, I am a bit unclear as to exactly what it is your
asking. Are you referring to product features, or packaging features. At this
point, I believe that LEGO's problems are related to the actual product being
sold, and not its marketing.
However, I do believe an fan magazine targeted at AFOLs might be an appropriate
additional promotion packaged in sets targeted at older buyers. Many AFOLs who
may not be tied into the online community, or an existing LUG might be
appreciative of such a promotion.
> * How would you change existing LEGO products if you wanted to sell them for
> more money?
Greater piece selection. New sets lack the piece diversity necessary to hold my
interest. Accordingly, I find it difficult to purchase many sets at full price.
Sets need to include an increasing number of basic bricks for me to justify
their purchase.
> * What new products would you launch?
This is a difficult question, as it is obviously a matter of personal taste. I
have no market research to support my opinions, however I would like to see the
return of some of the classic themes from the 1980s and early 1990s. Town,
Space, and Castle were the backbone of LEGO. Somewhere in the 1990s, they seem
to have been forgotten. Sets need to include a decent number of basic elements,
promoting the creation of multiple models. I would like to see LEGO return to
its roots, focusing on building sets, rather than playsets.
> * What should LEGO be doing that it isn’t now?
LEGO has moved too far away from its roots. As a group, you have been somewhat
short sighted. The creation of too many specialized elements, and an ever
inflating (until now, of course) colour palette has resulted in a poor play
experience for today's children. Simply put, new sets do not include the
necessary basic elements to create a wide variety of diverse and interesting
alternate models. Limit the number of new elements you produce each year. The
company needs to place greater emphasis on building.
Sets have become simple models or playsets, with little or no long term play
value. As a construction or building toy, LEGO has always been King. If you
want to regain your market, you need to return to those roots. You need to
retool your thinking. LEGO needs to try and find lasting appeal with today's
children. Lets face it, lines like Knight's Kingdom II, and Dino Attack may
attract children for a brief period, but do they offer enough diversity to keep
that child interested for several years?
A really good question is 'What ever happened to the Idea Book?' It seems to
me, that somewhere along the line LEGO ceased being a building toy, and simply
became 'another toy'. You need to play up your strength as the world leader in
children's construction toys. Bring back the Idea Book. Look at the amazing
MOCs that AFOLs have been creating. You need to show children just what is
possible when playing with LEGO bricks!
In short, reduce the number of molds you produce annually, and increase the
number of basic bricks you package with most sets.
Again, thank you for taking the opportunity to speak with us.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
