| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Ray Sanders writes:
> Lego article on slashDot titled 'Why Can't LEGO Click?' at ...
> which in turn references an article at fastcompany ..
>
> <http://www.fastcompany.com/online/50/lego.html>
>
> some nice historical notes on TLC
Forget the Slashdot commentary... go right to the Fast Company article.
This is a very insightful and interesting piece. I think anyone really
interested in the LEGO company, where it's been and where it's going, should
read this article.
It *seems* as though the company is learning some lessons. Hard lessons....
paid for in falling profits. But it is clear from the article (I think)
that the company is still adrift. Perhaps not learning lessons fast enough,
perhaps not learning the right lessons.
There are a number of excellent points raised in the article, but I wanted
to take a moment to highlight just two of them:
1) FROM THE ARTICLE "Most companies have little relationship with their
history, let alone with their core values. At Lego, the company's history is
alive in the halls every day. The basic eight-stud red Lego brick was first
sold in 1949, it was refined and patented in 1958, and it hasn't changed --
including the recipe for the plastic used -- in almost four decades. Almost
every office and conference room at Lego contains a bowl of loose Lego
bricks so that people can play during meetings. "
MY COMMENTS - I find this quote interesting because it seems that LEGO's
history is alive and well.... and hiding out in their offices. It appears
that the brick and it's meaning are not lost on the executives, but for some
reason they are less and less willing to share it with the consumer.
Marketing the 'brand' is all well and good so long as you still have a brand
to market. If LEGO sets and brick-related products don't improve
dramatically, then all the watches, backpacks and t-shirts in the world
won't bring the books back into the black.
2) FROM THE ARTICLE "The original Legoland theme park in Billund sits
adjacent to company headquarters. The thing that is instantly striking is
the size of the place: Everything is scaled to children. There are even
child-sized toilets. In the Legoland Hotel, there are huge cushions in the
shape of Lego blocks -- and kids use them to make forts and clubhouses,
right in the public spaces of the hotel. No one discourages them. Among
dozens of randomly selected Lego employees from three countries, not one
said a single unkind or snide word about children. Nor was there a sense
within Lego that today's children are baffling or mysterious, let alone
bratty or overindulged. "
MY COMMENTS - I admire and respect LEGO for their unwavering belief in
children and the ability of children to understand their product. My
sincerest hope is that the company will put its products where its belief
system is. Children are, almost without exception, smarter and more
adaptable than most of us give them credit for. The sets I built as a kid
were simple, yes, but were built primarily from the more basic bricks for
which LEGO is so well known. Today's sets are simple, but not because they
are comprised of basic bricks... just the opposite. Today's sets do not
allow children the same depth of rebuildability and expansion that original
LEGOLAND sets once did. But again, my hope is that someday the company will
simply flip back through some of the old catalogs and see what they once
trusted children to play with.
Regards,
Allan
|
|
| |
this topic needs a place on the main page of lugnet, or "attention points" or
whatever it is that decides that.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Perry writes:
> this topic needs a place on the main page of lugnet, or "attention points" or
> whatever it is that decides that.
Members signed in via the web interface decide that, in part, by their
highlighting it. If you think it does, do that. I think the original article
reference got highlighted fairly high...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Ray Sanders writes:
> > Lego article on slashDot titled 'Why Can't LEGO Click?' at ...
>
> > which in turn references an article at fastcompany ..
> >
> > <http://www.fastcompany.com/online/50/lego.html>
> >
> > some nice historical notes on TLC
>
> Forget the Slashdot commentary... go right to the Fast Company article.
> This is a very insightful and interesting piece. I think anyone really
> interested in the LEGO company, where it's been and where it's going, should
> read this article.
>
> It *seems* as though the company is learning some lessons. Hard lessons....
> paid for in falling profits. But it is clear from the article (I think)
> that the company is still adrift. Perhaps not learning lessons fast enough,
> perhaps not learning the right lessons.
>
> There are a number of excellent points raised in the article, but I wanted
> to take a moment to highlight just two of them:
>
> 1) FROM THE ARTICLE "Most companies have little relationship with their
> history, let alone with their core values. At Lego, the company's history is
> alive in the halls every day. The basic eight-stud red Lego brick was first
> sold in 1949, it was refined and patented in 1958, and it hasn't changed --
> including the recipe for the plastic used -- in almost four decades. Almost
> every office and conference room at Lego contains a bowl of loose Lego
> bricks so that people can play during meetings. "
>
> MY COMMENTS - I find this quote interesting because it seems that LEGO's
> history is alive and well.... and hiding out in their offices. It appears
> that the brick and it's meaning are not lost on the executives, but for some
> reason they are less and less willing to share it with the consumer.
> Marketing the 'brand' is all well and good so long as you still have a brand
> to market. If LEGO sets and brick-related products don't improve
> dramatically, then all the watches, backpacks and t-shirts in the world
> won't bring the books back into the black.
>
> 2) FROM THE ARTICLE "The original Legoland theme park in Billund sits
> adjacent to company headquarters. The thing that is instantly striking is
> the size of the place: Everything is scaled to children. There are even
> child-sized toilets. In the Legoland Hotel, there are huge cushions in the
> shape of Lego blocks -- and kids use them to make forts and clubhouses,
> right in the public spaces of the hotel. No one discourages them. Among
> dozens of randomly selected Lego employees from three countries, not one
> said a single unkind or snide word about children. Nor was there a sense
> within Lego that today's children are baffling or mysterious, let alone
> bratty or overindulged. "
>
> MY COMMENTS - I admire and respect LEGO for their unwavering belief in
> children and the ability of children to understand their product. My
> sincerest hope is that the company will put its products where its belief
> system is. Children are, almost without exception, smarter and more
> adaptable than most of us give them credit for. The sets I built as a kid
> were simple, yes, but were built primarily from the more basic bricks for
> which LEGO is so well known. Today's sets are simple, but not because they
> are comprised of basic bricks... just the opposite. Today's sets do not
> allow children the same depth of rebuildability and expansion that original
> LEGOLAND sets once did. But again, my hope is that someday the company will
> simply flip back through some of the old catalogs and see what they once
> trusted children to play with.
>
> Regards,
> Allan
LEGO® needs that 'Eye of the Tiger' again...-Harvey
|
|
| |
A quote from the article:
Product cycle times are falling: In time for Father's Day this year, Lego
Direct, the catalog and Internet-sales division, produced the Sopwith Camel
biplane kit. The plane was designed in a single day, and the kit was
approved in something like two weeks.
I find it really hard to beleive that the Sopwith Camel was designed in one
day. Does anyone know if this is accurate? If it is, that makes the
Sopwith Camel even more impressive.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Wertz writes:
> A quote from the article:
>
> Product cycle times are falling: In time for Father's Day this year, Lego
> Direct, the catalog and Internet-sales division, produced the Sopwith Camel
> biplane kit. The plane was designed in a single day, and the kit was
> approved in something like two weeks.
>
> I find it really hard to beleive that the Sopwith Camel was designed in one
> day. Does anyone know if this is accurate? If it is, that makes the
> Sopwith Camel even more impressive.
IIRC...
In the previous thread that discussed this (when it was just a Fast Company
article instead of a slashdotted phenom) it was stated by someone that it
wasn't designed in a day, it was approved in a day because someone (Brad?)
walking around spotted a MOC on a designer's workstation and said "that's
our Father's Day set... produce it!" (or words to that effect).
Inadmissable as evidence because it's hearsay about hearsay.... but *noone*
can produce a production ready model in a *day*. Not even me.
|
|
|
