| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> [...] The numbers on usage of lego.com are proprietary but they are
> stunning blowouts in areas like satisfaction, number of visits, number of
> repeat visits, stickiness, etc, *among the target market* for lego.com. That
> target market is not us, except peripherally.
I'm surprised to hear that, but if it's true, then it's good news, and it
would make things a lot clearer. So, what then *is* the target market for
lego.com, and how were things like satisfaction measured?
> A site with the millions of visits that lego.com gets is not
> something that you change willy nilly, you have to have a rigorous rollout
> and promotion process.
And usability testing, of course. :-)
> [...]
> What I find most ironic is the slamming of LD for not moving fast enough and
> for not experimenting and for not doing things incrementally at the same
What is meant mean by "not experimenting"? I missed that flame.
> time that the website and the bulk assortment and other things are being
> slammed for not being perfect on the first try. Gimme a break.
I don't think it was being slammed for not being perfect on the first try.
I think it was being slammed for totally sucking on the third try (2000),
after mildly sucking on the second try (1998), after not so badly sucking on
the first try (1996). But that's an AFOL view, and I understand what you are
saying about AFOLs not being part of the target market for the site. Kids
probably think it's better now than it ever was. More power to them.
> [...]
> But there are things that LD can and will do to help clubs, in areas like
> formation, ongoing support, better contact points, etc. And there are things
> that LTCs can do to help LD as well. This discussion, in depth, took up a
> substantial part of the day.
Awesome!
--Todd
|
|
| |
LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
that the things we want are different than what
kids want. I hear just about every day from
a very reliable source that parents and kids
hate juniorized sets. They want sets with more pieces.
They want sets with more "bricks" rather than special pieces.
They *really* want "girl sets that you can build like
the boy sets." Even parents buying Duplo want more bricks,
less tubes. They want mid-sized Technic sets so they don't
have to buy Mindstorms or Silver Champion to get some Technic
parts. They want sets they can build the main model, the alternate
models and their own ideas using all of the pieces in the set.
I'm not making this stuff up, this is what actual parents
and kids say every day while making LEGO purchasing decisions.
If LEGO is going to include the adult demographic in their
target market that's great! I hope they also realize that
most of the rest of their target market wants the same things.
They want sets that are fun and challenging to build. They want
pieces they can re-use.
My guess it that their current strategy focuses more on playing
than building. The problem is that LEGO is a building toy. It
inspires the creative mind through the building process. This is
because it is only a coarse representation of reality. The mind
must fill in the gaps. Play-focused toys are much more articulate,
but infinately less configurable. LEGO should return to focusing
on the building experience. Playablility still plays a minor role,
quite naturally after the building is complete, but it should
not be the primary focus.
KL
In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [...] The numbers on usage of lego.com are proprietary but they are
> > stunning blowouts in areas like satisfaction, number of visits, number of
> > repeat visits, stickiness, etc, *among the target market* for lego.com. That
> > target market is not us, except peripherally.
>
> I'm surprised to hear that, but if it's true, then it's good news, and it
> would make things a lot clearer. So, what then *is* the target market for
> lego.com, and how were things like satisfaction measured?
>
>
> > A site with the millions of visits that lego.com gets is not
> > something that you change willy nilly, you have to have a rigorous rollout
> > and promotion process.
>
> And usability testing, of course. :-)
>
>
> > [...]
> > What I find most ironic is the slamming of LD for not moving fast enough and
> > for not experimenting and for not doing things incrementally at the same
>
> What is meant mean by "not experimenting"? I missed that flame.
>
>
> > time that the website and the bulk assortment and other things are being
> > slammed for not being perfect on the first try. Gimme a break.
>
> I don't think it was being slammed for not being perfect on the first try.
> I think it was being slammed for totally sucking on the third try (2000),
> after mildly sucking on the second try (1998), after not so badly sucking on
> the first try (1996). But that's an AFOL view, and I understand what you are
> saying about AFOLs not being part of the target market for the site. Kids
> probably think it's better now than it ever was. More power to them.
>
>
> > [...]
> > But there are things that LD can and will do to help clubs, in areas like
> > formation, ongoing support, better contact points, etc. And there are things
> > that LTCs can do to help LD as well. This discussion, in depth, took up a
> > substantial part of the day.
>
> Awesome!
>
> --Todd
|
|
| |
Kevin Loch wrote in message ...
> LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
> that the things we want are different than what
> kids want. I hear just about every day from
> a very reliable source that parents and kids
> hate juniorized sets.
I am a mom, sons 4 (almost 5) and 1. My son has had no interest in Jr. sets
past the age of three. He likes my town sets, from the early 90's and 80's
because of the detail, like garage doors. I talk to my friends about their
kids and Lego, I talk to people in stores about Lego, I talk to anyone about
the merits of Lego and I listen to what they don't like and what they want
to see. My firends really struggle to find sets to buy for their daughters.
But this is an old issue that has been stated before, the creator series is
a step towards this, but I hope Lego has a lot more in store for us females.
They want sets with more pieces.
> They want sets with more "bricks" rather than special pieces.
> They *really* want "girl sets that you can build like
> the boy sets." Even parents buying Duplo want more bricks,
> less tubes. They want mid-sized Technic sets so they don't
> have to buy Mindstorms or Silver Champion to get some Technic
> parts. They want sets they can build the main model, the alternate
> models and their own ideas using all of the pieces in the set.
I agree.
>
> I'm not making this stuff up, this is what actual parents
> and kids say every day while making LEGO purchasing decisions.
>
> If LEGO is going to include the adult demographic in their
> target market that's great! I hope they also realize that
> most of the rest of their target market wants the same things.
But their market analysis shows otherwise. This is according to a post from
someone from Legoland, CA.
>
> They want sets that are fun and challenging to build. They want
> pieces they can re-use.
>
> My guess it that their current strategy focuses more on playing
> than building. The problem is that LEGO is a building toy. It
> inspires the creative mind through the building process. This is
> because it is only a coarse representation of reality. The mind
> must fill in the gaps. Play-focused toys are much more articulate,
> but infinately less configurable. LEGO should return to focusing
> on the building experience. Playablility still plays a minor role,
> quite naturally after the building is complete, but it should
> not be the primary focus.
But I think some of the detail is being left out in favor of faster building
toys. My son likes the models that "do" stuff. I guess this follows their
marketing strategy to a certain degree. Take the King Leo's Castle, they
provided some pretty good playabilty (the shooting stuff is fun) but they
wasted those precious secret hiding places under the foundation. I end up
playing with the Lego with my son, so I appreciate the playabilty factor,
but don't mistake this for their streamlining of the building process.
I happen to like the way they package the new sets into separte poly bags,
if you really want the challenge of sifting through parts then you can just
open all the bags and have at it. But this method makes it easier for my son
and I to build sets together.
For myself the playabilty is a lesser part of the experience, I enjoy the
building process more. But as I stated my son wants me to play with him so I
do take playabilty into consideration.
I am still learning to build, a few years ago I tried to build houses with
2X bricks, it doesn't work very good. From building houses out of the old
basic set instructions I have gotten better at this and I figured out why
Lego gives you so many 1X bricks. My friends (moms) want to build with their
daughters (and sons) but they don't have the building skills if they did not
play with Lego as a child. I told one friend of mine to buy the building
books but then she had the problem that they didn't have the right bricks.
The bulk bricks do help with this problem some. I miss the old basic books,
where they showed you how to build cool houses, because this is what I
always want to build with my son because it is how I relate to my childhood.
I really like the building instructions in the new catalog, I never thought
of building a "bus " station like that.
|
|
| |
Well said!
My LEGO Retailer friends tell me these same things all the time. Their customers
are very frustrated.
-Suz
In lugnet.trains, Kevin Loch writes:
> LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
> that the things we want are different than what
> kids want. I hear just about every day from
> a very reliable source that parents and kids
> hate juniorized sets. They want sets with more pieces.
> They want sets with more "bricks" rather than special pieces.
> They *really* want "girl sets that you can build like
> the boy sets." Even parents buying Duplo want more bricks,
> less tubes. They want mid-sized Technic sets so they don't
> have to buy Mindstorms or Silver Champion to get some Technic
> parts. They want sets they can build the main model, the alternate
> models and their own ideas using all of the pieces in the set.
>
> I'm not making this stuff up, this is what actual parents
> and kids say every day while making LEGO purchasing decisions.
>
> If LEGO is going to include the adult demographic in their
> target market that's great! I hope they also realize that
> most of the rest of their target market wants the same things.
>
> They want sets that are fun and challenging to build. They want
> pieces they can re-use.
>
> My guess it that their current strategy focuses more on playing
> than building. The problem is that LEGO is a building toy. It
> inspires the creative mind through the building process. This is
> because it is only a coarse representation of reality. The mind
> must fill in the gaps. Play-focused toys are much more articulate,
> but infinately less configurable. LEGO should return to focusing
> on the building experience. Playablility still plays a minor role,
> quite naturally after the building is complete, but it should
> not be the primary focus.
>
> KL
|
|
| |
Kevin Loch wrote in message ...
> LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
> that the things we want are different than what
> kids want. I hear just about every day from
> a very reliable source that parents and kids
> hate juniorized sets. They want sets with more pieces.
Larry and Todd were specifically referring to the Lego.com *website* in
those messages though. From the kids I used to do "Technic class" with, they
really loved the Lego website and visited it *a lot*. Between what kids and
adults want from a website is a much wider gulf than what kids and adults
want from sets.
Kevin (another one :-) )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Craftsman Lego Kits & Custom models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
Brickbay Lego parts store: http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
eBay Lego auctions: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/kevinw1/
The Guild of Bricksmiths: http://www.bricksmiths.com
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Kevin Wilson writes:
> ...
> From the kids I used to do "Technic class" with, they
> really loved the Lego website and visited it *a lot*.
> ...
I feel very strongly that:
Effectiveness is not the same as Quality.
Popularity does not equal Elegance.
Appreciating a fine wine for example, takes much experience and taste
development.
I thought The LEGO Company believed that "Only the Best is Good Enough."
-Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> I feel very strongly that:
>
> Effectiveness is not the same as Quality.
> Popularity does not equal Elegance.
Agreed.
> I thought The LEGO Company believed that "Only the Best is Good Enough."
Evidently, they changed their minds...
-Shiri
|
|
| |
"Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G891Jy.AqG@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > I feel very strongly that:
> >
> > Effectiveness is not the same as Quality.
> > Popularity does not equal Elegance.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I thought The LEGO Company believed that "Only the Best is Good Enough."
>
> Evidently, they changed their minds...
Think they finally realised that having a the best product does not mean you
automatically get the best sales.
Marketing strength will be product quality every time.
regards
lawrence
|
|
| |
"lawrence wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesfamily.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:G891v5.BHJ@lugnet.com...
> Think they finally realised that having a the best product does not mean • you
> automatically get the best sales.
>
> Marketing strength will be product quality every time.
sorry.
Marketing strength will BEAT product quality every time.
regards
lawrence
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Shiri Dori writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > I feel very strongly that:
> >
> > Effectiveness is not the same as Quality.
> > Popularity does not equal Elegance.
>
> Agreed.
Apple Computer, Inc. understands this!
> > I thought The LEGO Company believed that "Only the Best is Good Enough."
>
> Evidently, they changed their minds...
TLC should hire Steve Jobs!
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> Marketing strength will BEAT product quality every time.
But do they have to be mutually exclusive?
--Todd
[followups to .general]
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Rose Regner writes:
>
> Kevin Loch wrote in message ...
> > LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
> > that the things we want are different than what
> > kids want. I hear just about every day from
> > a very reliable source that parents and kids
> > hate juniorized sets.
>
> I am a mom, sons 4 (almost 5) and 1. My son has had no interest in Jr. sets
> past the age of three. He likes my town sets, from the early 90's and 80's
> because of the detail, like garage doors.
My sons are ages 5 and 7. The younger one loves to build and can easily build
sets labeled ages 8-12, for instance. The worst trouble he has is finding the
pieces, so I agree with Rose that the newer inside packaging into separate poly
bags helps in that regard. My seven-year-old, however, is one of those kids
who just doesn't have the patience to build. He wants to play with the
finished model right away, and often his little brother ends up building his
sets for him. And this is in spite of the fact that this kid has a mom who
is an AFOL and has been exposed to LEGO in one form or another practically
since birth. I think there are plenty of kids out there like this, and TLC is
trying to direct some of their product at this type of child (who I'm afraid is
becoming more and more common).
> My friends really struggle to find sets to buy for their daughters.
> But this is an old issue that has been stated before, the creator series is
> a step towards this, but I hope Lego has a lot more in store for us females.
My sister-in-law requested I get my 5 year old niece some girl's LEGO, and she
didn't want what she called "the cheesy Belville stuff" (not my opinion BTW).
I couldn't bring myself to waste one of my Poolside Paradise sets on a five
year old, so I ended up giving her Playmobil. But I do have to say, I remember
when the Paradisa sets were out in the stores (circa 1992-95), and they really
didn't sell well. I ended up getting my 6411's and 6416's from MacFrugal's.
And I picked up several 4151 and 4161 girls' Freestyle sets on clearance at
Walmart. So there is a reason LEGO isn't putting out many sets aimed at
girls-- while WE may buy them, the fact is, most people won't.
>
> I am still learning to build, a few years ago I tried to build houses with
> 2X bricks, it doesn't work very good. From building houses out of the old
> basic set instructions I have gotten better at this and I figured out why
> Lego gives you so many 1X bricks. My friends (moms) want to build with their
> daughters (and sons) but they don't have the building skills if they did not
> play with Lego as a child. I told one friend of mine to buy the building
> books but then she had the problem that they didn't have the right bricks.
> The bulk bricks do help with this problem some. I miss the old basic books,
> where they showed you how to build cool houses, because this is what I
> always want to build with my son because it is how I relate to my childhood.
> I really like the building instructions in the new catalog, I never thought
> of building a "bus " station like that.
I agree, I would love more books that have ideas for basic building details. I
have always built with 2xn bricks, only using 1xn's in areas where the 2xn's
wouldn't work well, until a fellow AFOL, when negotiating a possible trade,
seemed surprised that I built this way (and then offered to trade me his 2xn's
for my 1xn's). Until then, the advantages of building with 1xn's didn't even
occur to me. I too liked the instructions for the little school house as well
as those for the LEGOland truck trailer that was in the catalog a couple of
years ago.
Maggie C.
|
|
|
