Subject:
|
Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Tue, 15 May 2001 00:55:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1603 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Thompson writes:
> > That's a nice slip into quasi-rant mode, but it's rather nonsequitor.
>
> As quasi-rants tend to be...deal!
I'd rather not, thank you, this not being the
lugnet.off-topic.debate.non-sequitor group.
> OMG, this same "tired" argument every time!
Do me a favor and address me for the posts I make, and not
for the posts that others may or may not have made in the
past.
I've been gone awhile, and may stumble into various holy-war
potholes in my posts, but I am pretty sure that my thoughts
are not completely baseless. Over-discussed in the past, perhaps?
I can't help that.
> We already know they are taking
> a bath on these kinds of sets, or at least the retailers are -- go check out
> the RR stuff on sale at TRU right now.
Rock Raider sets?
The entire point of my initial post was to comment on the
cancellation of the Pirate line. No more, no less.
Recap:
You stated that it was, in effect, completely brain-damaged of LEGO
to cancel the Pirates, since LEGO itself had noted that
the line was very popular upon its introduction. I believe
the term you used was "contradictory."
I noted that the popularity of the line in the beginning
did not mean that it was a popular line later on. If this is the
case, then it might not have been quite so brain-damaged to
drop the line. In other words, I didn't see the two bits
of data (good sales upon introduction, later cancellation)
as being necessarily contradictory.
Your subsequent responses have had very little to do with that
That's fine, of course, but they were also written in an
emotional and confrontational style that seemed to indicate
that they were designed as rebutals to my point.
That would be fine, too, but they were not rebutals to anything
*I wrote.*
And while that didn't stop me from responding (hah! :^), it's
made the conversation unsatisfying to me up to this point.
> Great, you must be a riveting conversationalist! We are not discussing "just
> about any topic", but rather a very specific one
Ah yes! Very specific! Now if we could only agree which topic
we were discussing. You are firing your shots with some zeal
at something I can't see (or at me! I see the puffs of dirt raised
by the shots), while I'm left squinting at MY target in puzzlement
and wondering why you didn't bother to shoot at the same thing. :^)
> And what I was actually saying is that your guesses are no better than mine,
In this one small case ("pirates sold well at introduction, so it was
madness to discontinue them") I disagree. At least my guess assumes
that there's a rational explanation (ie they weren't selling well
later on) rather than assuming that it was sheer madness.
And, yes, while we are both speculating, I think that it's a pretty
reasonable speculation that if the sets had been selling like hotcakes,
we would've seen more of them. LEGO seems quick to revisit
hot-selling themes (ie initial hot zones of aquazone spawning
the subsequent deluge of "underwater stuff" spinoff lines).
Pirates obviously fell into the category of hot-selling
theme at one time, judging from the source you quoted. I would
submit that if sales had maintained that initial strength, the
line would still be on the shelves.
Not having insider information, I can only quote the same sort of
observation as you -- your note that RR merchandise does not move
off the shelves. My observation is the last large Pirate ship was
similarly slow to move, requiring deep clearance to move. (I got
mine for $20, I think.) I think I recall the Islander sets being
similarly sluggish.
Now, perhaps we are getting close to talking about the same thing.
For although I have no idea why you are discussing Rock Raider
sales, I would note that there is some commonality between the
last pirate sets and the rock raider sets that just might explain
why both series sold poorly. ie big pieces and "juniorization."
Are we getting close to shooting fish from the same barrel, now?
--
Jeff <jthompson@esker.com> "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
| (...) I am willing to give the "sheer madness" argument more credence than yourself. But I'll allow that your reasoning could be sound up to a point. But I tend to think that TLC is quite out of touch with what consumers really want and what they (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
| (...) As quasi-rants tend to be...deal! (...) OMG, this same "tired" argument every time! We already know they are taking a bath on these kinds of sets, or at least the retailers are -- go check out the RR stuff on sale at TRU right now. How do I (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
79 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
|
|
|
|
