 | | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all? was Re: LEGO Factory sets
|
|
(...) Interesting idea, but I'm not sure that I would agree with you. --off-topic personal viewpoint-- This is a similiar line of thinking to the way that the record industry believed (still believes?) that digital music and filesharing was going to (...) (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
