 | | Re: Fed UP!!!!!!!! —Justin Pratt
| | | | (...) (Marshall Fields customer stuff snipped) There is a disconnect here. The AFOL segment is largely disconnected from the Lego-buying parent segment, even if there's overlap between the two groups (at 5%, there can only be so much overlap with (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.color, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | What 5% ? (was Re: Fed UP!!!!!!!!) —Thomas Stangl
| | | | | (...) That's where you're wrong, Justin. TLC is LOSING money. Alienating up to 5% of their customer base is NOT the way to tip the balance to MAKING money. ***** One thing I would like clarified, that Jake nor anyone at TLC seems to have done - are (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.color, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What 5% ? (was Re: Fed UP!!!!!!!!) —Justin Pratt
| | | | | (...) Yes, they lost money in 2003. Yes, this is bad. No, AFOLs still don't count. From the 2003 Lego Annual Report: "At the end of 2004, it was decided to change the business strategy and set out a series of specific intiatives in order to ensure a (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.color, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What 5% ? (was Re: Fed UP!!!!!!!!) —David Eaton
| | | | | (...) *Either* way? Now that's just silly. If AFOL's were 5% of the customers (granted, they aren't), and your typical AFOL buys 20 times as much annually as a typical child's parents (not an overly bad estimate, I think), then we're about 51% of (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jul-04, to lugnet.color)
| | | | | | |
