 | | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all? —Jason Spears
|
| | | (...) I have to agree. While I'm delighted with the idea of the lego factory sets and keen on getting the models that are available, I'm just not liking the prices. I don't make a habit of buying $40, $70, & $130 sets. $15-20 sets are more my speed. (...) (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I'm 80% sure (guesswise) that the reason is "we don't have enough SKUs"... This seems to me a sign of internal breakage, LEGO needs to fix their systems so they can have more SKUs without it costing them a lot more. (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all? —Tim David
|
| | | | . (...) How much does it cost to have some more numbers?! Tim (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all? —Jonathan Lopes
|
| | | | | (...) I work for a publisher here in NYC and one of the requirments from our Editor in Chief is 'keeping the sku count low' (number of different books we produce, not quantities of each title that we print). I'm not 100% sure this is the reasoning (...) (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all? —Scott Lyttle
|
| | | | | | | (...) Having a manufacturing background, and having worked a little ops management.. the more SKU's you have, the more associated costs you're going to have (for example--just boxes alone: -more boxes to design and print--adds money to product, (...) (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I think ones that used fixed burden accounting, yes, but many companies have switched to variable burden, or even Activity Based Costing. I believe the cost that LEGO fears lies elsewhere. FUT trimmed to just lugnet.dear-lego (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all? — Jake McKee
|
| | | | (...) It's not a matter of simply adding more numbers to the system. As was pointed out elsewhere, each new product brings added complexity to the system, as well as additional development costs. Designing and printing one box, for example, is (...) (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | SKUs (was: Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all?) —Marc Nelson Jr.
|
| | | | (...) Just looking at <shop.lego.com>, I find: 13 keychains 4 pens 4 backpacks 15 books 1 watch and 55 'other' - mostly Bionicle shoes, t-shirts, and costumes Even this listing leaves out tons of other items that can be found in a Brand Retail store (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: SKUs (was: Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all?) —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) I, for one, like some TLC's non-brick offerings. This one sticks out in my mind: (URL) (19 years ago, 24-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | |
