| |
Deidre,
I agree with some of your points, but must disagree on others. To wit:
> - No, if you want to invest in a product that will interest your kids for
> several years to come (and at that price, you want that.)
Please note I do not have kids of my own, but I have friends with kids, and
nephews, etc.
How much were furbies/pokemon/power rangers? How long was their life span?
not more than a few years, then the fad was over. But Hasbro made a TON of
money druing those few years. The same may not be true of LEGO, becasue they do
not have that huge marketing tie-in. I will bet you, though, that the upcoming
Harry Potter stuff will be a mint. Longevity is not necessarily the concern
for a toy company. Should it be for you? Maybe, but just realize for them it
is not. they want you to buy MORE, not just use what you have indefinately.
> Are Lego already a household name? Probably. Is it a good name? Not
> really, unless "that hideously expensive plastic stuff" can be taken as good.
Agreed. they are MUCH mor eexpensive than their clone brands. Yes, they are
of better quality. But THAT much better given the price? Not even close. A
700 piece set of MegaBlocks is $20. A 700 piece set of LEGOs? probably near
$90. I know this will start a big flame war, but LEGO needs to realize this.
Maybe they are not concerned, they have a big enough market share. But all it
takes is some brand awareness with nice franchise (movies, T.V., literature)
tie-ins to get some of their market.
> Are Lego going to be the strongest brand by 2005? I don't think so, not
> unless things change and fast. As things are its lifespan is too limited,
> it is too expensive, and you have to be able to buy an awful lot to get a
> decent selection of parts in any theme. ( I take "the strongest brand" to
> mean "a well known brand that nearly everyone has some of at home" and at
I bet most (over 50%) households in America have at least one LEGO set. I
would bet that if the kids get into it, the parents buy more. If they never
play with it or ask for it again, the parents don't. It is brand loyalty for
the kids, not the parents. when I was a kid my parents tried to get me into
Contrux (or something like that). I had none of it, and asked specifically for
LEGOs the next year.
> I won't get started on Lego computer games, children's books etc. I buy a lot
> of bricks but I can't ever see myself buying that stuff, Lego don't waste
> your time, get back to basics and the consumers might just come back to you.
I disagree. I think that is an awesome direction for them to take.
Mindstorms, the racing games, the upcoming Speilberg movie deal. Great
diversification of product lines.
I agree though, with your points about Primo and Jr.. The only differentiation
LEGO needs in their bricks is the "put everything in your mouth" vs. "ok, I've
stopped eating toys" phase of life. One size and complexity for the former,
one for the latter.
Of course, that's just my opnion, I may be wrong.
Jason
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
45 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
|
|
|
|
