| |
In lugnet.castle, David Carriker writes:
> My guess would be that Lego catagorizes their lego sets by whatever
> they have currently available when they create the listing
Correct (AFAIK).
btw, I have a number of their "product structure" diagrams from different
years. It'd probably be useful if those were all displayed on a single page
somewhere.
I've seen a set change its catagorization from one year to the next, or from
one catalog to another. For example, LEGO DUPLO sets which had their own
categories moved under a bigger "Play themes" heading when TLC divided
role-play away from basic brick play. example:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/2681
And when Micky Mouse came on the SYSTEM scene, there was this new catagory
called "Playthemes." (maybe because they didn't know what to do with licencing?)
And Belville went from being LEGO>SYSTEM>Belville to just LEGO>Belville, as
did Star Wars sets then.
[Sorry for rambling on and on, but, as someone who loves order with a capial
'O', TLC appears to have marketing schizophrenia.]
Up until a few years ago, TLC worked on 5? year product schedule. Now things
are being developed so fast.. I imagine TLC's newly-more-powerful marketing
folks have ability to make quick changes in reaction to new data and profit
predictions.
I'm not so sure there's strong consistancy-enforcement, or even great
communication, between groups like the print catalog makers, the S@H catalog
makers and the website folks. Even on a single ad, some imbalance of power
between advertising, PR or marketing, and design departments could cause an
inconsistancy. And then there's the divisions between countries...
It may not be a big priority for TLC right now to strive for clearly
defined, long-lived product lines. But that sure makes it tough for people
like us. And for (I'd guess) collectors of the product.
> If Lego ever released an "official" listing of all sets, in specified
> catagories, then we might want to go with that. But I have never seen
> anything official from Lego in this regard.
I think, to some extent, we catagorized their data for them.
> Since Lugnet is a fan used and operated site, it would make the most
> sense to use fan-supported and fan-useful catagories,
The site is also used by collectors, parents, and even employees of TLC. So
I don't think there's any obvious single answer and I don't believe we
should shoot for one. But I hear ya.
Ideally, I'd like a fuzzy database. There should really be many
simultaneously 'correct' ways to organize the sets. And users should be
allowed to have input to their particular group's way.
For now, simply adding a keywords field that would work in set searches
would be a huge improvement.
-Suz
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Themes (was: Payback time)
|
| I do not believe that Lego ever had an organized database of sets. Otherwise, why would we ever see multiple different sets released with the same number? While it does seem that Lego has some sort of organization in effect for more recent sets, (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.admin.database)
|
25 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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
