 | | SKUs (was: Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all?)
|
|
(...) Just looking at <shop.lego.com>, I find: 13 keychains 4 pens 4 backpacks 15 books 1 watch and 55 'other' - mostly Bionicle shoes, t-shirts, and costumes Even this listing leaves out tons of other items that can be found in a Brand Retail store (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Factory sets
|
|
In lugnet.build.microscale, Ross Crawford wrote: download the building instructions>, including a PDF or the .lxf file. (...) Um, there is. eg (URL) I want to know is why don't any of the sets have those new cool 8x8 road plates that were in the (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not smaller & more affordable for all? was Re: LEGO Factory sets
|
|
(...) I agree with you Jeff, These parts are VERY small, paying 5 cents per part for parts that are only a fraction of the size of 2x4 bricks seems rather pricey. And then grouping the designs together.... As a town person, I am disappointed that (...) (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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?
|
|
(...) It's not a matter of simply adding more numbers to the system. As was pointed out elsewhere, each new product brings added complexity to the system, as well as additional development costs. Designing and printing one box, for example, is (...) (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.build.microscale, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
