Subject:
|
Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:41:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
10883 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
But that’s exactly the point. It’s not that they weren’t aware of us at all.
It’s that they thought we were an inconsequencial fraction of the total
market, and thus not worth catering to at all. And strictly in terms of the
total customer base, that’s very likely true. When you start to consider one
AFOL who spends upwards of $1000 per year vs. one child who might receive the
odd $10 LEGO set as a gift, those assumptions don’t really square up. When
you consider how the much-lamented “juniorization” lines up with the period of
time in which The LEGO Company had not one but two years that showed a net
annual loss (something which not even the color change managed to do), it
speaks to the fact that they need to develop their product with both halves of
their market base in mind.
|
Both halves? Do adult fans represent 50% of the market?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
CO Legeaux
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Improving the adult image of LEGO
|
| (...) But that's exactly the point. It's not that they weren't aware of us at all. It's that they thought we were an inconsequencial fraction of the total market, and thus not worth catering to at all. And strictly in terms of the total customer (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.general)
|
63 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
