 | | | | | |
Just as an FYI, the LEGO discussion boards have added this as a topic (thanks
Matt Chiles and everyone else who submitted this as a topic).
The board's topic and intro line read as follows:
New grey and brown colors
A discussion on the replacement colors of brown, grey and dark grey. Is it a
good thing or a bad thing? Will you build more with the new colors or the old
colors? Would you rather buy sets with the new colors or the old colors?
It can be found at the following link.
<http://boards.lego.com/default/topic.jsp?topic_id=000f1f03eb69000000fb2fa892d2000a>
Remember, the target audience for the message boards is kids, so please watch
your language and attitude. Also, perhaps we can point out the aspects of the
color change that will affect younger builders.
Rick Clark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rick Clark wrote:
> New grey and brown colors
> <http://boards.lego.com/default/topic.jsp?topic_id=000f1f03eb69000000fb2fa892d2000a>
>
> Remember, the target audience for the message boards is kids, so please watch
> your language and attitude. Also, perhaps we can point out the aspects of the
> color change that will affect younger builders.
Well, as the boards are moderated, I guess we will have to wait for all
the positive feedbacks to appear. After that, a trickle of slightly
disagreeing posts might eventually pop up, to fake diversity.
And 99% of the posts will go straight to the bin.
Yours, Christian
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Rick Clark wrote:
> > New grey and brown colors
> > <http://boards.lego.com/default/topic.jsp?topic_id=000f1f03eb69000000fb2fa892d2000a>
> >
> > Remember, the target audience for the message boards is kids, so please watch
> > your language and attitude. Also, perhaps we can point out the aspects of the
> > color change that will affect younger builders.
>
> Well, as the boards are moderated, I guess we will have to wait for all
> the positive feedbacks to appear. After that, a trickle of slightly
> disagreeing posts might eventually pop up, to fake diversity.
>
> And 99% of the posts will go straight to the bin.
Boy... you're harsh! :)
If you review the message boards in general, you'll see that we don't often
decline posting Message Board posts, and rarely edit them. When we do it's for
inappropriate content (cuss words, violent language, incomprehensible language,
etc.) and not ideas that we like or don't like.
In fact, check out the link you reference now. I just noticed the moderators
have pushed through several posts...none of them are "LEGO cheerleading".
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> > Rick Clark wrote:
> > > New grey and brown colors
> > > <http://boards.lego.com/default/topic.jsp?topic_id=000f1f03eb69000000fb2fa892d2000a>
> > >
> > > Remember, the target audience for the message boards is kids, so please watch
> > > your language and attitude. Also, perhaps we can point out the aspects of the
> > > color change that will affect younger builders.
> >
> > Well, as the boards are moderated, I guess we will have to wait for all
> > the positive feedbacks to appear. After that, a trickle of slightly
> > disagreeing posts might eventually pop up, to fake diversity.
I think your theory might prove to be untrue. Based on what I'm seeing there
right now I would have to agree with what Jake says below. There's very little
'cheerleading' going on.
Have you posted your comments?
> If you review the message boards in general, you'll see that we don't often
> decline posting Message Board posts, and rarely edit them. When we do it's for
> inappropriate content (cuss words, violent language, incomprehensible language,
> etc.) and not ideas that we like or don't like.
This is being shown by the comments being posted in that thread. From what it
looks like right now the majority of the comments seem to be in favor of
changes, but not in favor of dropping the old colors altogether. Didn't that
also turn out to be the running theme of the follow-ups to your 'Nicely now...'
thread.
> In fact, check out the link you reference now. I just noticed the moderators
> have pushed through several posts...none of them are "LEGO cheerleading".
Jake, I hope (in all sincerity) that LEGO will pay attention to what is said in
that thread. If they are looking for feedback on the decision, they are getting
it... free of charge. From what I've read so far, the comments seem generally
well-mannered, well-written and sincere.
I was actually surprised there weren't more people saying, "ah it's not that big
of a deal... the new colors are fine... stop worrying." :)
Best regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi, Jake,
Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> > And 99% of the posts will go straight to the bin.
> Boy... you're harsh! :)
Well, I just took into account how the whole issue has been handled so
far. Decisions from the corporate ivory tower were surrounded by a cloud
of holyness (Mantra: The colour change will not be reversed, the colour
change will not be reversed,...), and, as such, are not to be criticised.
Obviously - and I am very happy about this! - this seems to have
changed, and, for once, this is a good change.
> If you review the message boards in general, you'll see that we don't often
> decline posting Message Board posts, and rarely edit them. When we do it's for
> inappropriate content (cuss words, violent language, incomprehensible language,
> etc.) and not ideas that we like or don't like.
Well, the Lego boards are usually filled with positive reactions (some
of them look actually quite artificial to me, as if an adult tried to
write kiddy-style), and they are not exactly user friendly (at least not
for regular, professional use), so I don't browse them as regularly as
the relevant boards (Lugnet, 1000steine).
So far, I was unable to locate *any* reference to the colour change as
far as I've browsed the boards, and I considered this as a hint on the
editors attitude to this topic, alongside the long time it took for this
issue to become a topic at all.
For declining and editing I can only take your word, as one usually
never sees the original. Removing inappropriate content as you defined
it is acceptable in an environment targeted at kids, though.
> In fact, check out the link you reference now. I just noticed the moderators
> have pushed through several posts...none of them are "LEGO cheerleading".
After several hours, the posts appeared - even mine - and I stand
corrected. I admit I made a mistake, and please accept my apologies. And
believe me, I am really happy to stand corrected on this issue.
Now, if those guys and gals in Billund would do the same and correct
their mistake, I'd be even happier.
Yours, Christian
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Hi, Jake,
>
> Jake McKee wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> > > And 99% of the posts will go straight to the bin.
> > Boy... you're harsh! :)
> Well, I just took into account how the whole issue has been handled so
> far. Decisions from the corporate ivory tower were surrounded by a cloud
> of holyness (Mantra: The colour change will not be reversed, the colour
> change will not be reversed,...), and, as such, are not to be criticised.
>
> Obviously - and I am very happy about this! - this seems to have
> changed, and, for once, this is a good change.
Good to hear you're happy about this!
I'm not sure that I would agree that there is a "cloud of holyness" surrounding
this issue. Just because we've said that we're not reversing the decision,
doesn't mean that we're stupid or clueless.
I know people are quite upset with the color change, and for valid reasons. But
we've made a decision (right or wrong is another thread) based on real thought,
and we have to stick with it long enough to see what happens over all. Remember,
Bionicle was flamed more months (perhaps years) here, and turned out to be our
best selling product of all time.
(And before I start a flame war directed straight at me, no, I'm not saying one
way or the other what the success of the color change is or is not going to be.)
> > If you review the message boards in general, you'll see that we don't often
> > decline posting Message Board posts, and rarely edit them. When we do it's for
> > inappropriate content (cuss words, violent language, incomprehensible language,
> > etc.) and not ideas that we like or don't like.
> Well, the Lego boards are usually filled with positive reactions (some
> of them look actually quite artificial to me, as if an adult tried to
> write kiddy-style), and they are not exactly user friendly (at least not
> for regular, professional use), so I don't browse them as regularly as
> the relevant boards (Lugnet, 1000steine).
I've been involved in this project since the very beginning (I helped design and
implement the boards). I've never once heard anything like that. To be 100%
clear: We are in not in any way EVER "faking" posts to be more positive, or
editing messages to be more "cheerleading".
The issue is, as you mention, the boards are more kid oriented. They are on
LEGO.com, so kids are the majority. If you check any other kid oriented
discussion board on the Web, you'll see a similar style of interaction and
conversation style.
It's not surprising, or upsetting that you don't visit the boards regularly.
After all, a non-German speaker probably doesn't hang out on 1000steine that
much. That's no reflection on 1000steine, just means that it's not the right
place for them to spend time.
> So far, I was unable to locate *any* reference to the colour change as
> far as I've browsed the boards, and I considered this as a hint on the
> editors attitude to this topic, alongside the long time it took for this
> issue to become a topic at all.
First, there was another post on the Message Boards (linked to in another part
of this thread) that deals with the color change.
Second, does this speak more to the fact that we are overbearing, filtering
corporate ogres or to the fact that the boards, being vastly kid oriented
haven't noticed or don't care about the color change? (Or some other reason
besides the ogre one)
Keep in mind that the non-AFOL consumer (especially the kids on the boards)
probably hasn't realized there IS a color change. Many of this year's products
aren't out yet (Harry Potter for instance, isn't out until the movie time around
May). If they have the products, it may take them a while to notice a
difference. If they notice a difference, I'm not sure a large percentage will
care. Think about what the creations kids build typically... many many of them
are multi-, mixed- color. Browse the galleries in the online LEGO Club, and
you'll not see much color consistency.
(Again, I'm not discounting the fact that this is an issue for you. Just
offering another view to this particular topic that we're filter based on
opinions we don't like.)
> For declining and editing I can only take your word, as one usually
> never sees the original. Removing inappropriate content as you defined
> it is acceptable in an environment targeted at kids, though.
Yes, you never see the original because if you did, that'd be an unmoderated
board... not kosher for the LEGO site, or a kid audience.
> > In fact, check out the link you reference now. I just noticed the moderators
> > have pushed through several posts...none of them are "LEGO cheerleading".
> After several hours, the posts appeared - even mine - and I stand
> corrected. I admit I made a mistake, and please accept my apologies. And
> believe me, I am really happy to stand corrected on this issue.
No problem! But it's a good example of having some faith that we aren't just the
money grubbing fools that people expect us to be because we're a company.
Companies aren't just big, cold, faceless organizations. Companies aren't
inherently evil, they're groups of people trying to do best they can in business
and in life. (At LEGO, more life than I've ever seen at any company, ever)
Jake
----
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> > Hi, Jake,
> >
> > Jake McKee wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> > > > And 99% of the posts will go straight to the bin.
> > > Boy... you're harsh! :)
> > Well, I just took into account how the whole issue has been handled so
> > far. Decisions from the corporate ivory tower were surrounded by a cloud
> > of holyness (Mantra: The colour change will not be reversed, the colour
> > change will not be reversed,...), and, as such, are not to be criticised.
> >
> > Obviously - and I am very happy about this! - this seems to have
> > changed, and, for once, this is a good change.
>
> Good to hear you're happy about this!
>
> I'm not sure that I would agree that there is a "cloud of holyness" surrounding
> this issue. Just because we've said that we're not reversing the decision,
> doesn't mean that we're stupid or clueless.
>
> I know people are quite upset with the color change, and for valid reasons. But
> we've made a decision (right or wrong is another thread) based on real thought,
> and we have to stick with it long enough to see what happens over all. Remember,
> Bionicle was flamed more months (perhaps years) here, and turned out to be our
> best selling product of all time.
>
> (And before I start a flame war directed straight at me, no, I'm not saying one
> way or the other what the success of the color change is or is not going to be.)
Jake,
Just out of idle curiosity... can you speak as to how LEGO will measure the
success of the color change ? I think it is obvious that sales are problematic
(for lack of a better word) is some areas. I presume that is, at least partly,
responsible for the change. Are there other measurement metrics at play here
(other than a change in sales number, which could be affected by more than just
the color change) ? Just curious.
I can understand the logistics involved in making this change in the first
place. I don't even want to think about how much sea space it would require to
turn the ship around once again. From other remarks, I have the impression that
this was not a snap decision, it took quite a bit of careful planning. Somewhere
back there in the beginning, someone saw what they thought was/were valid
reason(s) for doing this. A lot seems to be riding on proving those reasons. My
suspicion is that the rational did not take into account the AFOL part of the
LEGO buying/building community. Not really a slight, more like an omission.
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
*snippage*
>
> I'm not sure that I would agree that there is a "cloud of holyness" surrounding
> this issue. Just because we've said that we're not reversing the decision,
> doesn't mean that we're stupid or clueless.
Jake, I love ya like a brother, but I'm going to take exception to that claim!
I've been a big-time fan of LEGO bricks for almost 39 years, and this is by far
the DUMBEST thing the LEGO Company has done in that time.
I'm seriously starting to think the company is run by idiots...
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
snip
> Keep in mind that the non-AFOL consumer (especially the kids on the boards)
> probably hasn't realized there IS a color change. Many of this year's products
> aren't out yet (Harry Potter for instance, isn't out until the movie time around
> May). If they have the products, it may take them a while to notice a
> difference. If they notice a difference, I'm not sure a large percentage will
> care. Think about what the creations kids build typically... many many of them
> are multi-, mixed- color. Browse the galleries in the online LEGO Club, and
> you'll not see much color consistency. • snip
> Jake
> ----
> Jake McKee
> Community Liaison
> LEGO Community Development
So if kids aren't noticing the color change now, and might not notice it ever,
what was the point? If the change will not increase sales from the people that
supposedly account for 95% of the market, why did TLC do it?
Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
> I know people are quite upset with the color change, and for valid reasons.
> But we've made a decision (right or wrong is another thread) based on real
> thought, and we have to stick with it long enough to see what happens over
> all. Remember, Bionicle was flamed more months (perhaps years) here, and
> turned out to be our best selling product of all time.
Ah, but there are a few fundamental differences between the two situations.
Firstly, and most importantly, BIONICLE had no immediate direct impact on the
fate of any of the other contemporary themes, and it was left to stand or fail
solely on its own merits. BIONICLE succeeded where Galidor failed, but neither
has resulted in the abandonment of the 2x4 brick (to the contrary, the failure
of Galidor was probably part of the decision to focus on core products this
year). (Most of) those who objected to the BIONICLE theme eventually figured
out that it posed no threat to their chosen building style. Changing core
colors across the board affects every single theme, and deeply.
Secondly, it's easier to judge the success of BIONICLE or Galidor than it is to
judge the success of a color change. If the product line sells, it's
successful. if it doesn't, it's not. In 2004, where every single theme is
affected by the color change, how do you tell if the success or failure of a
theme was affected more by the color issue or the merits of the set design
itself?
Third, we keep hearing that the color change is not going to be reversed. New
themes are never given "sacred cow" status. Never. They have to prove
themselves year after year, or they get dropped. Every time I've asked about
the long-term future of the BIONICLE theme, the answer has always been preceded
by "as long as it keeps selling". Thus far, there has been no official
indication that this decision stands any chance of being corrected. We keep
hearing that our opinions are being collected and passed up the ladder, but we
also keep hearing that it's here to stay, seemingly in complete disregard for
all of those opinions that are being collected. I guess the question that needs
to be answered is when we're told that the color change is not going to be
reversed, what exactly does that mean? Is it set in stone, doesn't matter if
the company goes belly-up, never ever ever going to change; is it not going to
be reversed "at this time", but subject to reversal the instant it becomes clear
that it is harming the future of the company; or is it somewhere between those
two extremes?
> Keep in mind that the non-AFOL consumer (especially the kids on the boards)
> probably hasn't realized there IS a color change. Many of this year's
> products aren't out yet (Harry Potter for instance, isn't out until the
> movie time around May). If they have the products, it may take them a while
> to notice a difference. If they notice a difference, I'm not sure a large
> percentage will care. Think about what the creations kids build typically...
> many many of them are multi-, mixed- color. Browse the galleries in the
> online LEGO Club, and you'll not see much color consistency.
That brings up a very important point that I'm shocked noone has asked about
before. If the kids don't notice it at all, or don't care one bit when they do,
and the AFOLs are (for the most part) vehemently opposed to it...who exactly was
the color change aimed at (my guess is still that it was aimed at the accounting
department, and that the new colors are cheaper to produce than the old ones,
because all of the official reasons that we've heard fall apart either under
close examination or by complete lack of evidence)? It's had an immediate and
severely negative impact on the AFOL market (and yes, I've heard the AFOL
community only comprises 5% of the total market, but I have to wonder if that's
measured by quantity of customers, or by total spending), largely eliminating
significant portions of it, but I've yet to see a single person, adult or kid,
come out and state that they not only love the color change, but plan to
increase their annual spending directly as a result of it. Sure, I've seen kids
say that the prefer the new greys over the old, but I've also seen many of the
same kids complain that they can't collect the entire line anyways, so I doubt
parents are suddenly going to start buying them more just because their kids
like the new colors better. I was a kid once, and I can tell you for a fact
that my parents didn't bat an eye when I explained to them that the new batch of
toys was even better than the previous batch, and that therefore I needed more
of them.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message
news:HuFG0F.1pKI@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> That brings up a very important point that I'm shocked noone has asked • about
> before. If the kids don't notice it at all, or don't care one bit when • they do,
> and the AFOLs are (for the most part) vehemently opposed to it...who • exactly was
> the color change aimed at (my guess is still that it was aimed at the • accounting
> department, and that the new colors are cheaper to produce than the old • ones,
> because all of the official reasons that we've heard fall apart either • under
> close examination or by complete lack of evidence)?
[ ... snipped ... ]
I made a very similar point a couple months ago.
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=805
If we ever get hear the real story I suspect this will show up as a cost
cutting measure. Nothing else passes the laugh test. Even though we have
been told this was a carefully calculated change with lots of research, LEGO
has not demonstrated any evidence to the contrary through their marketing
campaign.
Why don't new S@H catalogs have a big splash across the cover touting the
release of new and improved colors? Same for the LEGO.com web site? Why
don't the new sets feature a sticker or a splash which says something like
"New and improved grays and browns inside!".
To the best of my knowledge, any maybe someone who was there can state
otherwise, LEGO didn't play up the color change at the Toy Fair either which
doesn't make sense if the change was made to improve the product line.
My $0.02, YMMV.
Mike
PS: Have I stopped buying? No. I am very much looking forward to some of
the new sets, particularly the Knights bus. I hope the color problems with
the Kight's Bus are resolved before it shows up in stores though.
--
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Mike Walsh wrote:
> I made a very similar point a couple months ago.
Whoops. So you did. I even remember reading it, but I guess the short little
bit where you mentioned asking your son what he thought slipped out of my mind
as I read through the fictitious conversation portion. However, since noone
(particularly anyone from TLC) replied to your post, it certainly can't hurt to
ask this question again.
> If we ever get hear the real story I suspect this will show up as a cost
> cutting measure. Nothing else passes the laugh test.
Not for the brown/grey bit, but the explanation for the licensed minifig color
change does (more on that below).
> To the best of my knowledge, any maybe someone who was there can state
> otherwise, LEGO didn't play up the color change at the Toy Fair either which
> doesn't make sense if the change was made to improve the product line.
They really pushed the minifig color change, stating that their marketing
partners (big chain stores, I'm guessing) have been asking for it for years, and
are elated that it has finally happened. However, there was a serious bit of
confusion when I asked Brian, my 3-time showroom guide, about the "color
change". He thought I was referring to the minifigs, and I was referring more
to the grey/brown issue, and a little bit to the fact that the BIONICLE color
pallete has been even more drastically changed (dark red, dark blue, dark
"forest" green, and some funky, unhealthy-looking new shade of brown instead of
basic red, blue, green, and brown). It wasn't until we were at the very last
section (HP) before I realized that we were talking about different things, and
I believe his response at that point was basically that they're looking into the
situation. But in the five hours that I spent in the showroom, and for all that
the minifig color change was pointed out as a positive selling point, I never
once heard anyone else mention the replacement of the old grey/brown colors.
Granted, I ended up going on Tuesday, so I was pretty much the only person there
who wasn't paid to attend (except perhaps Nathan Sawaya, who hadn't officially
started his new job), and I can't say for sure how much that question popped up
on Sunday (the prime day for press attendees).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
> I guess the question that needs to be answered is when we're told that the
> color change is not going to be reversed, what exactly does that mean? Is
> it set in stone, doesn't matter if the company goes belly-up, never ever
> ever going to change;...
If Lego does go belly-up, then the first thing I am going to do is raise all the
prices in my Bricklink store by a lot. What a position to be put in - demise of
Lego corp. = more money to me.
Bob
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Bob Parker wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
| |
I guess the question that needs to be answered is when we’re told that the
color change is not going to be reversed, what exactly does that mean? Is
it set in stone, doesn’t matter if the company goes belly-up, never ever
ever going to change;...
|
If Lego does go belly-up, then the first thing I am going to do is raise all
the prices in my Bricklink store by a lot. What a position to be put in -
demise of Lego corp. = more money to me.
|
(shudders)...don’t even say that.
If LEGO goes bankrupt, think of what will happen. All LEGO currently circulating
will be come collectors items (LFB will take grand prize there, methinks),
because nobody will want to use them anymore for fear of devaluing them.
BrickLink will become a ghost site and LUGNET will be nothing but a bunch of
LDRAW sketches.
-Mike
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
I just have a question. If color must change why are the new colors so
carelessly manufactured. So far I have seen three diffrent variants of the new
dark gray in the new mini starwars sets. I have complained and returned the sets
to Lego. I got new in return but with exactly the spread in color variants.
The same problem has been seen with the new purple color in Harry Potter
Nightbus. Have Lego deleted quality control together with the old colors?
Mattias
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
> I know people are quite upset with the color change, and for valid reasons. But
> we've made a decision (right or wrong is another thread) based on real thought,
> and we have to stick with it long enough to see what happens over all. Remember,
> Bionicle was flamed more months (perhaps years) here, and turned out to be our
> best selling product of all time.
For various reasons I'm almost wholly untouched by changes to LEGO colors, but I
would suggest that, although Bionicle is a smash hit, other significant
departures, such as Galidor and ZNAP, were remarkably unsuccessful. It's not
sufficient for TLG to see the gray and say "It Is Good." TLG has declared other
things "Good" in the past, and, the last time I checked, my local TRU had half a
dozen "Nick" action figures on clearance for $0.99 a piece.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Dave Schuler wrote:
> For various reasons I'm almost wholly untouched by changes to LEGO colors,
Somehow I'm not surprised...
> but I would suggest that, although Bionicle is a smash hit, other significant
> departures, such as Galidor and ZNAP, were remarkably unsuccessful.
Some Train-heads still like ZNAP for bridge-building purposes, but I don't even
remember hearing about it prior to the release of BIONICLE. By then it was
pretty much dead, and that suggests that it wasn't marketed the way it should
have been. So does the fact that I can't remember ever seeing it listed in a
pack-in catalog.
> It's not sufficient for TLG to see the gray and say "It Is Good." TLG has
> declared other things "Good" in the past, and, the last time I checked, my
> local TRU had half a dozen "Nick" action figures on clearance for $0.99 a
> piece.
The Galidor series was a great concept, with better excecution than I would have
expected out of any other toy company. It fit perfectly with the non-violent
focus of TLC, despite the fact that the Ooni got hit with a listing on the Dirty
Dozen toy list (or whatever it's called). It was only missing one thing. A
market. If the exact same TV show was done twenty years ago, it would have
probably succeeded, but it just doesn't come anywhere close to the kind of stuff
that's been popular for the last five years or so. Without an audience for the
show, the toy line was doomed from the start, no matter how well it was
developed.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
> Some Train-heads still like ZNAP for bridge-building purposes, but I don't even
> remember hearing about it prior to the release of BIONICLE. By then it was
> pretty much dead, and that suggests that it wasn't marketed the way it should
> have been. So does the fact that I can't remember ever seeing it listed in a
> pack-in catalog.
ZNAP was carried by TRU. I assume that it was also carried by S@H, but not sure
about that. I have seen bits of it at Tuesday Morning and Dollar General (small
bits to be sure). I know one TRU that still has the ZNAP polybags hanging around
(don't they ever learn ?).
ZNAP was not marketed at all well. To the best of my knowledge, TLC never
promoted ZNAP as an add-on to System. This can be done, and works quite well in
some applications. IMHO, ZANP is the sturdiest building medium that TLC has ever
made. Possibly ever better than K-Nex.
Oh yes, you can build things other than train bridges with it, like...
my fully operational ferris-wheel (using a ZNAP motor and a train power supply)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=6513
Ray
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> writes:
>
> Some Train-heads still like ZNAP for bridge-building
> purposes, but I don't even remember hearing about it prior
> to the release of BIONICLE. By then it was pretty much
> dead, and that suggests that it wasn't marketed the way it
> should have been. So does the fact that I can't remember
> ever seeing it listed in a pack-in catalog.
Just for the record, in Germany it was available at all the usual places.
Didn't help to sell it, though, in the end they did get rid of it
only at very deep discounts.
Jürgen
--
Jürgen Stuber <stuber@loria.fr>
http://www.loria.fr/~stuber/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > For various reasons I'm almost wholly untouched by changes to LEGO colors,
>
> Somehow I'm not surprised...
Am I that transparent? 8^)
> The Galidor series was a great concept, with better excecution than I would have
> expected out of any other toy company. It fit perfectly with the non-violent
> focus of TLC, despite the fact that the Ooni got hit with a listing on the Dirty
> Dozen toy list (or whatever it's called).
I didn't know that--what criterion put it on the list?
> It was only missing one thing. A market. If the exact same TV show was
> done twenty years ago, it would have probably succeeded, but it just doesn't
> come anywhere close to the kind of stuff that's been popular for the last
> five years or so.
I can agree with that. The modular-figure concept meshes well with Micronauts,
which I recall to have been quite popular during their heyday.
> Without an audience for the show, the toy line was doomed
> from the start, no matter how well it was developed.
Yeah, the folks in Market Research really kind of fumbled on that one. And for
that reason, it doesn't seem strange to me that AFOLs have less-then-absolute
faith in TLG's vision regarding other new product directions (though I applaud
the signs that TLG"s color decision was apparently not writ in stone.) Change
may sometimes be good, but change-back is sometimes better!
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Am I that transparent? 8^)
Only slightly. Highly translucent, maybe?
> I didn't know that--what criterion put it on the list?
Basically it seems to boil down to the fact that the Ooni was a monster action
figure that was intended to turn a profit. Ooh, scary! Anyways, I was much
more impassioned about it when I wrote my editorial (incidentally, it points
back to the post on LUGNET that first mentioned this absurdity):
http://www.maskofdestiny.com/article.asp?i=10659
> I can agree with that. The modular-figure concept meshes well with
> Micronauts, which I recall to have been quite popular during their heyday.
They were, but the rereleased stuff doesn't seem to be doing nearly as well. In
fact, I'd have to say that Galidor sold better locally than the Micronauts
(granted, that might have had something to do with the fact that the only store
in town that sold the new Micronauts was Sam Goody, and they were in the same
price range).
> though I applaud the signs that TLG"s color decision was apparently not writ
> in stone.
I'm still unsure what the current situation is on that. Jake said they're
collecting opinions on it, Brian said the same thing at Toy Fair, but I guess it
was stated at BF/PDX that the new colors are going to stay (only given my TF
experience, I'm unsure if that means the new minifig colors or the new
greys/brown). I can't say with certainty that the old colors stand a chance of
being brought back, but for the time being I'll remain somewhat hopeful.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jake McKee wrote:
> No problem! But it's a good example of having some faith that we aren't just the
> money grubbing fools that people expect us to be because we're a company.
> Companies aren't just big, cold, faceless organizations. Companies aren't
> inherently evil, they're groups of people trying to do best they can in business
> and in life. (At LEGO, more life than I've ever seen at any company, ever)
Dear Jake,
I would never attribute an action to malice if it can easily be
explained by blunt stupidity ;-)
Honestly, in the last years, the TLC management has made a lot of plain
stupid decisions, and some quite good. And with plain stupid I really
mean stupid, i.e. lauthingly obvious mistakes. Just for the record, I'm
listing the more obvious ones:
Take Spybotics & similar sets: TLC wants kidproof quality stuff, so each
of the electronic single use black boxes for these projects come with
heavy investments in R&D, just to save a few cents in the end product. A
generic (and therefor more Lego-like) solution would have been the use
of the RCX for all kinds of programmable systems, thereby spreading the
calculated R&D and all the support costs over a larger number of lots.
Taking into account that the plain material and production costs of an
RCX are nearly neglectable (I'd daresay that a competent production
facility could build an RCX for about US$10-15 apiece, testing
included), this would have spread the influx of R&D costs over larger
numbers, which could propably negate the factor of having more different
parts in the set, besides giving the customer a way better and more
Lego-ish product. (Spybotics have been scrapped)
Take Duplo vs. Explore: When this "Explore" stuff popped up to replace
Duplo, my first idea was that TLC had to remove the Duplo brand name for
some stupid legal reason. It can't be a sane business decision to burn
an established brand with such a high recognition rate for the sake of
change alone. Parents who had Duplo as kids are astonished to hear that
Duplo is no more, and, when presented with an "Explore" box, tend to
say: But that IS Duplo! (Duplo is Duplo again)
Take Clothing: Among the Dumbest Things(TM) I've seen with a LEGO tag is
kiddies clothing. Again, if you want the customer to experience the
quality Lego was once known for, and you don't have the experience
in-house, you're either bound to make all the experiences yourself
(which can easily hurt ones renown), or you have to buy good external
experience (and boy, they usually charge!). Plus, a lot of external
production capacity must be paid for. (Clothes have been scrapped, AFAIK)
Take Galidor: My first contact with Galidor was the "Random piece of the
Day" at Peeron, which sported a Galidor leg (or arm, I don't really
remember). I investigated to see those Galidor figures and my first idea
was that TLC has finally lost it. In times of crisis, stick to what you
can do best, and if you want to expand, expand into the unexplored (like
with Bionicle), and not right into the turf of the big boys. I consider
it common sense that if one wants to beat Barbie or He-Man, one would be
better of if selling a better product cheaper than with selling a worse
product at propably higher prices. Alas, common sense is no longer
taught at business schools. (Galidor has been scrapped)
Take the new colours: Making a change to a core parameter of a system,
then call it improvement, then saying our main customer group will not
notice it anyway, than the complete absense of marketing of something
initially thought as an improvement, while stubbornly sticking to a
decision which has only lead to an outcry of rage and calls for
boycott... (OK, I stop here, there have been enought rants about this).
Take the Shop at Home Exclusives: It's nice to know that in a corner of
the internet there is a site that sells the really interesting sets to
customers in a few selected countries. Most potential customers will
never know about this secluded corner. Take grandparents, for example.
The typical granny hunting for a present for grandson/-daughter will go
to a shop to make a purchace decision. Some of them just pick their
stuff at random form different brands, some pick them from a selection
on the recipients wishlist. I can hardly see a grandmother shopping
gifts at Shop at Home. I personally dislike online shopping (despite
being on the internet for nearly 15 years now, i.e. since before there
was a "web", so one could hardly call me a technophobe), as I want to
see the box, see the model, pay for it cash and take it home at once,
instead of seperating the shopping and the "having" experience by
purchasing it online and waiting for a delivery. The main contact, the
primary exposure of a brand or physical product is still the classic
brick-and-mortar shop, and, judging from the ever decreasing shelf space
for Lego sets in the shops around here, this contact will be lost in the
next few years.
So there have been a lot of blunt, obviously stupid decisions so far.
Mistakes can always happen, that's human. But the topics I listed were
not just mistakes, they were really stupid mistakes which should not
happen to professionals.
On the positive side there is the opening of Lego to the adult customers
(which I considered long overdue). Big thanks to you and Kate to be our
contact persons. Another big, big plus is the opening of brand stores,
which finally make some of the S@H-exclusives available to those people
who dislike or -trust online shopping. Another big plus is the concept
of the Pick-A-Brick walls (although the selection could be bigger and
better).
I sincerely hope that - with KKK at the helm - things will change for
the better.
Now, back to the topic: No, I don't consider Lego "evil". This is not
the reason why I suspected TLC to suppress negative reactions on the
boards. But after those business decisions in the last years I wouldn't
put it past TLC to pull such a stunt to vindicate the colour change out
of sheer "We Are The Managers, We Know All, You Know Nothing" stupidity.
As I said, I take your word for the content neutrality (a view which
held, as far as I followed the discussion boards), and offer my
apologies to those reviewers I may have offended.
Yours, Chrstian Treczoks
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Take Spybotics & similar sets: TLC wants kidproof quality stuff, so each
> of the electronic single use black boxes for these projects come with
> heavy investments in R&D, just to save a few cents in the end product. A
> generic (and therefor more Lego-like) solution would have been the use
> of the RCX for all kinds of programmable systems, thereby spreading the
> calculated R&D and all the support costs over a larger number of lots.
> Taking into account that the plain material and production costs of an
> RCX are nearly neglectable (I'd daresay that a competent production
> facility could build an RCX for about US$10-15 apiece, testing
> included), this would have spread the influx of R&D costs over larger
> numbers, which could propably negate the factor of having more different
> parts in the set, besides giving the customer a way better and more
> Lego-ish product. (Spybotics have been scrapped)
The RCX as-is would have looked hideous when tossed in with the sleek color
schemes of the Spybotics sets (speaking as someone who was thrilled to see black
gears finally see production, as well as trans-purple Bohrok eyes, I love the
color schemes enough to have bought three for the non-electronic parts).
Perhaps a good compromise (from our viewpoint) would have been to redesign the
RCX-terior, but leave the guts relatively unchanged (beyond any physical layout
adjustments that might have been necessary). New and simpler software
(essentially whatever they loaded into the Spybotics modules to begin with)
would have answered the problem of handing over an RCX to younger kids who were
more interested in running the intended missions, but allowing the full RCX
software package to be loaded in would have satisfied the Mindstorms crowd, as
well as offering the possibility of advancing interested kids to the next level.
The downside would have probably been a $30-50 jump in price, which would have
been the point where most store chains wouldn't have even carried the line to
begin with, and the line would failed even worse with the target market, but
might have seen a significant jump in business from the hardcore Mindstorms
crowd.
> It can't be a sane business decision to burn an established brand with such
> a high recognition rate for the sake of change alone.
My understanding is that the TECHNIC name was dropped from packaging
specifically because they had themes that were crossing the system boundaries
(most notably the Racers theme, and to a lesser extent, Star Wars), and they
wanted the themes to appear more unified than presenting them with multiple
systems allowed. I suspect that the idea behind dropping the DUPLO name was
like-minded, where they wanted the expanded EXPLORE theme, but they didn't want
to have some things be released as EXPLORE/DUPLO, while others were just
EXPLORE.
> Parents who had Duplo as kids are astonished to hear that Duplo is no more,
> and, when presented with an "Explore" box, tend to say: But that IS Duplo!
Therein lies the biggest problem. Parents and grandparents would have kept
buying DUPLO product hand over fist in 2003 if they'd known what to look for,
but all they know to look for is that familiar little DUPLO logo. It's like if
Coke was renamed "Shizzle Pop" and the Coca-Cola Company never bothered to
inform the public. Pretty soon they'd lose a lot of business to the other
brands.
> (Duplo is Duplo again)
And TECHNIC is TECHNIC again...for basic non-themed stuff (though the showroom
booklet lists them as Make & Create "Technical Wonders". BIONICLE, Racers, and
(if they ever release more of them) Star Wars product will not sport the TECHNIC
logo on their boxes, but the four non-themed TECHNIC sets this year should. One
thing to note, however, is that some of the DUPLO product is too close to
release for the packaging to be redesigned (I think this is pretty much limited
to the Dora the Explorer batch), so they'll still end up shipping under the
EXPLORE logo.
> (Clothes have been scrapped, AFAIK)
Not t-shirts, from the looks of things. There's a new Metru Nui-themed t-shirt
listed both online and in the S@H catalog. Of course, t-shirts are t-shirts,
and all you really have to do is bulk-purchase them from a quality manufacturer
and stick your design on them (or have them delivered with the design already
added). All you need at that point is a good purchasing agent and a graphic
design team, and those are integral to the company already.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Purple Dave wrote:
> The RCX as-is would have looked hideous when tossed in with the sleek color
> schemes of the Spybotics sets [...]
Yes, but putting a different cover/box/whatever onto the existing design
wouldn't change the interior. There is no natural law for RCXs to be
yellow/grey forever.
> > (Clothes have been scrapped, AFAIK)
> Not t-shirts, from the looks of things.
OK, T-shirts and baseball caps as simple promotional items are a
different thing, though. I was talking about real clothing, trousers,
coats, etc. where Lego had a whole collection of.
Yours, Christian
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Rick Clark wrote:
> Just as an FYI, the LEGO discussion boards have added this as a topic (thanks
> Matt Chiles and everyone else who submitted this as a topic).
> ...
> <http://boards.lego.com/default/topic.jsp?topic_id=000f1f03eb69000000fb2fa892d2000a>
>
> Remember, the target audience for the message boards is kids, so please watch
> your language and attitude. Also, perhaps we can point out the aspects of the
> color change that will affect younger builders.
I posted a reply 3/9, very carefully watching my language and attitude, making sure they
were very neutral. Yet I haven't seen it make it to the topic (when I added my comment,
there weren't any replies showing at all at the time).
I don't really expect to ever see it there. Something as negative as mentioning I went
from $10K+/yr over 6 years to *zero* so far in 2004 sets will probably never make it up
there. It would make too much sense in the argument against the color change.
You'd think that TLG would actually pay attention to $10K, with how badly they are
doing...
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rick Clark wrote:
> Just as an FYI, the LEGO discussion boards have added this as a topic (thanks
> Matt Chiles and everyone else who submitted this as a topic).
> The board's topic and intro line read as follows:
> New grey and brown colors
> A discussion on the replacement colors of brown, grey and dark grey. Is it a
> good thing or a bad thing? Will you build more with the new colors or the old
> colors? Would you rather buy sets with the new colors or the old colors?
> It can be found at the following link.
> <http://boards.lego.com/default/topic.jsp?topic_id=000f1f03eb69000000fb2fa892d2000a>
And, as if there was not enough confusion already, there is just another
forum for the same theme:
"Comments on the color changes involving light gray, dark gray and
brown. Do you like it? Do you care?"
<http://boards.lego.com/club/topic.jsp?topic_id=000f1f03eb69000000fae5c04d340d96>
The latter is available since 4th of March, the basic direction is the same.
Yours, Christian
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Rick Clark wrote:
> > Just as an FYI, the LEGO discussion boards have added this as a topic (thanks
> > Matt Chiles and everyone else who submitted this as a topic).
> > The board's topic and intro line read as follows:
> > New grey and brown colors
> > A discussion on the replacement colors of brown, grey and dark grey. Is it a
> > good thing or a bad thing? Will you build more with the new colors or the old
> > colors? Would you rather buy sets with the new colors or the old colors?
> > It can be found at the following link.
> > <http://boards.lego.com/default/topic.jsp?topic_id=000f1f03eb69000000fb2fa892d2000a>
> And, as if there was not enough confusion already, there is just another
> forum for the same theme:
> "Comments on the color changes involving light gray, dark gray and
> brown. Do you like it? Do you care?"
> <http://boards.lego.com/club/topic.jsp?topic_id=000f1f03eb69000000fae5c04d340d96>
> The latter is available since 4th of March, the basic direction is the same.
>
> Yours, Christian
Hi all
I responded to the latter topic on the 12th of March. 1 week later my response
has not yet been approved, and indeed there are no responses later than March
11th on either board. It seems to me that it used to take a couple of days at
most for posts to appear; those from the 11th were there that quickly.
So I'm wondering if anyone knows what's up with that. I hesitate to speculate in
the current climate. How many others out there are waiting to see their own
posts? Who else thinks that the message boards are poorly implemented? Instead
of allowing you to rate specific comments, you're given a random sampling; the
text entry box is miniscule(1); pages take ages to load... Does the term
'byzantine' occur to anyone else?
Peace and pot-stirring,
Professor Whateverly
(1) I'm reminded of that joke about complaints and a tiny box to register them
in.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Ley Ward wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I responded to the latter topic on the 12th of March. 1 week later my response
> has not yet been approved, and indeed there are no responses later than March
> 11th on either board. It seems to me that it used to take a couple of days at
> most for posts to appear; those from the 11th were there that quickly.
>
> So I'm wondering if anyone knows what's up with that. I hesitate to speculate in
> the current climate. How many others out there are waiting to see their own
> posts?
I'm waiting too.
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Dan Walker wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ley Ward wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I responded to the latter topic on the 12th of March. 1 week later my response
> > has not yet been approved, and indeed there are no responses later than March
> > 11th on either board. It seems to me that it used to take a couple of days at
> > most for posts to appear; those from the 11th were there that quickly.
> >
> > So I'm wondering if anyone knows what's up with that. I hesitate to speculate in
> > the current climate. How many others out there are waiting to see their own
> > posts?
>
> I'm waiting too.
>
> Dan
Not that this is particularly urgent, but in the interest of fairness and in
case it isn't common knowledge, the post to which I refer is now on the board
along with some 26 pages of others. So, what appeared broken, appears to have
been fixed. Thank you LEGO for letting us vent.
Peace and discussion,
Professor Whateverly
| | | | | | |
