Subject:
|
Re: Lego changes CEO after new losses
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:17:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5730 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego changes CEO after new losses
|
| (...) I'd have to agree there. (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego changes CEO after new losses
|
| (...) 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: (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.general)
|
61 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
|
|
|
|
