| |
In lugnet.lego, Adrian Egli wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Arne Lykke Nielsen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just noticed this press release:
> >
> > http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=pressdetail&contentid=12504&countrycode=2057
> >
> > Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen retires, and LEGOLAND parks will be a seperate company,
> > after new losses this year.
> >
> > Arne, Copenhagen
>
> Local news has gotten the story-
>
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041022/news_1b22lego.html
>
> Adr.
I thought this part of the article was completely off base:
Dennis Speigel, president of International Theme Park Services,
a consulting firm, said Legoland has a high-quality product but
it appeals to a limited segment of the population: families with
small children.
"People have always had a good experience there," Speigel said.
"It is a very narrow demographic. It does not appeal to teenagers
or adults."
My guess is that this statement is based simply on data on the ages of visitors
to Legoland. and does not take into account the background of the parents.
My guess is that families who go to Legoland have at least one parent who is an
AFOL, or at the very lest, has fond memories of playing with LEGO as a child.
I'd like to know how many "families with young children" have at least one
parent who played with LEGO as a child.
My guess is that yes Legoland does appeal to a limited segment of the
population. It appeals to parents who loved playing with LEGO as a child.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jeff Findley wrote:
> I thought this part of the article was completely off base:
>
> Dennis Speigel, president of International Theme Park Services,
> a consulting firm, said Legoland has a high-quality product but
> it appeals to a limited segment of the population: families with
> small children.
>
>
> "People have always had a good experience there," Speigel said.
> "It is a very narrow demographic. It does not appeal to teenagers
> or adults."
>
> My guess is that this statement is based simply on data on the ages of
> visitors to Legoland. and does not take into account the background of the
> parents.
>
> My guess is that families who go to Legoland have at least one parent who is
> an AFOL, or at the very lest, has fond memories of playing with LEGO as a
> child. I'd like to know how many "families with young children" have at least
> one parent who played with LEGO as a child.
Is the article off-base, or just not specific? I mean, it sounds completely
accurate to me.
Most kids who grew up in the 70's and 80's in the US (who are becoming parents
now) had some experience with Lego. As a kid, almost everyone I knew had *SOME*
Lego. Maybe only a set or two, but nevertheless it was pretty much a universal
toy. Hence, it's sort of irrelevant.
But my guess is also that the crowd it attracts is parents with small children
who PLAY with Lego. If your kid isn't a Lego fan, they're not dying to go off to
LegoLand, and unless as a parent you're trying to urge your child INTO playing
with Lego, why take them to LegoLand versus some other park and/or museum?
Plus, LegoLand sounds like a gigantic advertisement; but moreso understood (I'd
guess) than, say, DisneyLand. I think people nowadays think of DisneyLand not as
much as an advertisement for Disney products, but as an amusement park. I mean,
think about the impression you'd have if they came out with HotWheelLand or
something. Just sounds to a casual observer more like a "Buy our products!"
ploy. And parents often avoid things that only encourage their kids to want
more-- especially when it's an expensive product like Lego.
The downfall of LegoLand is just as the article claims-- it misses out on the
demographics that matter most: older kids, teenagers, and adults without kids.
Those are HUGE demographics. Attracting parents with kids is more of a
small-timey operation. Like a children's museum or something. Not an entire
theme park. To be successful, LegoLand's got to broaden its appeal, or shrink
its scale.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> Is the article off-base, or just not specific? I mean, it sounds completely
> accurate to me.
I'd have to agree there.
> But my guess is also that the crowd it attracts is parents with small
> children who PLAY with Lego. If your kid isn't a Lego fan, they're not dying
> to go off to LegoLand, and unless as a parent you're trying to urge your
> child INTO playing with Lego, why take them to LegoLand versus some other
> park and/or museum?
That's possibly a big problem with their location. Firstly, they're in
California, one of the two biggest concentrations of amusement parks in the
nation, along with FloriDisney World. Secondly, they're not right next door to
any of the major theme parks. That hurts them twice right off the bat. If
you're an average person on a short vacation to California, you're probably
going to put Disneyland, Universal Studios: Hollywood, and SeaWorld at the top
of your theme park list, and they're all close enough that you could get a
single hotel room and visit each of them in three consecutive days. LEGOLAND is
far enough off the beaten path that you'll probably need to switch hotel rooms,
and unless you're doing both amusement parks and nature parks in the same trip,
and you want to stop by the Carlsbad Caverns, you'll probably skip it. Parents
with little kids might actually prefer it to Disneyland because it's probably
got a much slower pace and you won't have to be scouring the park for things to
do that don't involve standing next to a height gauge...but the vast majority of
kids are going to push for Disneyland before all else. Local residents can be
counted on to pick up annual passes, but that's because annual park passes are
usually killer deals, where a regular visitor is only paying a few bucks for
admission, plus receiving a number of free Guest Passes to hand out to visiting
friends/family, and when you're able to attend whenever you have a few free
hours, there's less incentive to stay and buy park-priced food.
> The downfall of LegoLand is just as the article claims-- it misses out on the
> demographics that matter most: older kids, teenagers, and adults without
> kids. Those are HUGE demographics.
Not only that, but they're often less spend-thrifty. Teens often have part-time
jobs and no bills to pay. All other things being equal, a childless couple will
have a lot more free spending cash than a similar couple with even a single
child, much less 2-3. And the more likely they are to do repeat visits.
Anyways, the part of this article that I found most interesting is that The LEGO
Company could very well end up selling off the LEGOLAND parks to the very same
family holding company that the Christiensen family set up to own them. In
other words, the parks would be spun off into an independant company that would
have to stand or fail on its own (and wouldn't be affecting the bottom line for
the main LEGO Company), but they'd still be part of the compined LEGO family.
That should be a lot more bearable for hard-core FOLs who don't want to see it
handed off to a company that doesn't care about the Brick very much, and might
turn the bulk of what people like about LEGOLAND into a backlot side attraction,
while filling the bulk of the park with rides that have nothing to do with LEGO
bricks.
|
|
|
