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 / 653
652  |  654
Subject: 
Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego
Date: 
Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:17:25 GMT
Viewed: 
7811 times
  
In lugnet.build.microscale, Jonathan Lopes wrote:
   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.

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, -more time required to print more boxes, as you have to figure in setup time for each box run (more cost), -area needed to store those boxes (still more cost, and can you find the area to store?),

When planning resource allocations, more SKU’s means more variables in the mix that have to be managed.

When the product is packaged at the warehouse, you then have to store the items separately as well--again, more cost, and can you find the space?) Then you have shipping and storage space at retailers’ locations. (Granted, maybe that part is not a big issue right now for the LEGO factory, but all the others apply.

There are a lot of other factors, but I wanted to look at a small part, just to see what that does to costs.

Scott



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

47 Messages in This Thread:





















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

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