| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > TLC's ambitions are probably an exercise in overreaching. Belville will
> > never be Barbie. These terrible video games will never compete with Doom
> > or Myst. These timepieces will never put Swatch or Timex out of business.
> > Playmobile is already too well realized to be competed with directly. So
> > IMHO, in the end it will be about modular bricks or nothing.
Maybe Belville never was intended to compete with Barbie. Maybe the video
games never were intended to compete with Doom or Myst. Maybe the LEGO
Watches line never was intended to compete with Swatch or Times. etc., etc.
> I can't agree more. TLC's apparant ambitions are, to put it mildly,
> ludicrous. According to their press release: "...our goal is for the LEGO
> brand to be known as the strongest brand in the world among families with
> children by 2005." From their recent attempts at creating video and computer
> games, as well as their attempts to get into children's clothing (not to
> mention their attempt to compete with Barbie, etc?) it appears that TLC wants
> (ultimately) to target EVERY children's market.
If you think of this from a trademark point of view, it's not really that
strange.
LEGO very desperately (IMHO) needs to break the association in John Q. Public's
mind that "legos" equal plastic binding bricks. The only way to do this is to
create other products with the LEGO name & logo.
Look at what happened, for example, when Puffs came out -- people slowly began
to realize that Kleenix was a brand of facial tissues rather than a generic
term. (They may still have a long way to go, though.)
> That's not to say that Lego CAN'T achieve its goal, it just means that to
> do so would require far more time and money than TLC is ready to deal with
> (IMHO). Mainly, the issue feasibility. If Lego wanted to tackle ONE of
> these markets, THEN proceed to another, that might be understandable. After
> all, things like Nintendo, Barbie, etc. take years in and of themselves to
> become market leaders.
I don't think TLC has ever said that it wants to become market leaders in
those markets, has it? They want the LEGO brand to be known as the strongest
brand. That doesn't necessarily mean the highest sales or the biggest slice
of the market pie. It just means brand recognition. (That's how I read it,
and this is just my opinion.)
It could ultimately cost TLC billions of dollars if it lost is brand name --
if someone proved it had become generic. Putting notices on boxes and in
catalogs asking people not to say "legos" will never work -- you have to show
the masses out there that there are other things besides plastic binding
bricks which are labeled "LEGO". And maybe that doesn't even work, but it's
the only thing that makes sense to me as to why they're pumping up the brand.
(Unless they're ramping up for an IPO in 2005 or something........)
--Todd
[followups to lugnet.general]
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Stuff I'd like to see...
|
| (...) I can't agree more. TLC's apparant ambitions are, to put it mildly, ludicrous. According to their press release: "...our goal is for the LEGO brand to be known as the strongest brand in the world among families with children by 2005." From (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
35 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
|
|
|
|
