To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.build.microscaleOpen lugnet.build.microscale in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Building / Micro-scale / 649
648  |  650
Subject: 
Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego
Date: 
Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:41:29 GMT
Viewed: 
7739 times
  
In lugnet.build.microscale, Tim David wrote:
   .
  
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.

How much does it cost to have some more numbers?!

Tim

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 for keeping the sku count low but, an operating/overhead cost is worked into the P&L for each book we develop and produce. It is automatically in there. There is no way to get it out. It includes salaries, rent, employee benefits, kitchen coffee & milk, etc. If the sku count goes up really high, operating costs for the year automatically go up with them. So, keeping a cap on the sku count, keeps operating costs down and within a predetermined operating budget.

I think this might be typical for all/most businesses.

Jonathan

don’t know where to set FUT.



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all?
 
(...) 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?
 
(...) 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)  

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all?
 
. (...) 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)

47 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR