Subject:
|
Lego, Research, and "Juniorization"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:22:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1483 times
|
| |
|
|
From the brief (but appreciated) remarks that appear here from Lego
employees and managers, "juniorization" is a result of toy trends and Lego's
own research. It's hard to argue with research (though as someone pointed
out, you often discover what you were looking for), but I think Lego is
taking the wrong approach with their results.
This is my own reasoning of what Lego should and shouldn't do. Maybe some
clever in-touch-with-the-kiddies marketing executives will disagree.
RESEARCH: Kids have shorter attention spans, and want more immediate
gratification.
Illogical approach: Let's create sets that are simpler and faster to build.
That way, the toy can be used and then forgotten about more quickly. (this
is the thinking Lego seems to be using)
Undesirable side effects: sets are less versatile, have shorter livespan,
are poorer value for their cost, and generally look ugly. Juniorized parts
used in these models tend to have little use with other sets or models. The
pattern tends to be self-perpetuating, as Lego slowly evolves its way into
oblivion.
Logical approach: Build sets that are of higher quality and versatility, and
are therefore more capable of fighting for a child's contested attention.
(this is what Lego should do, according to us) Build sets that work even
better together, so that a child feels compelled to buy more.
RESEARCH: The toy-playing age span of children is slowly diminishing.
Illogical approach: Let's create simpler sets that appeal to a smaller range
of children. If this age range becomes too small to be profitable, we will
go bankrupt.
Side effects: see above.
Logical approach: Let's create sets that are more versatile and can survive
beyond the basic toy-playing demographic. Child fans become adult fans, who
then become parents and get their children started on Lego all over again.
RESEARCH: Kids of all ages really dig instant gratification toys like video
games.
Illogical approach: Let's spend our software r&d on a large variety of Lego
computer games, making sure that even 4-year-olds have no trouble playing
them. Emphasize "coolness" rather than quality.
Logical approach: Let's develop a few quality software games that can hold
their own against other leading games in their genres. Let's make the games
advanced and deep enough to be of interest to a larger variety of game
players, and take note of what makes industry-leading products successful.
Two or three high-quality products will make more money than ten products
that collect dust in $10 bargain bins. Any well-designed game can sell half
a million copies -- I doubt any Lego software products have done so (I could
be wrong).
Instances in which Lego has acted appropriately include Mindstorms,
Collectors Models (e.g. the Tie and X-Wing) and the new Movie Studio sets.
However, I suspect that sales would be much better if these products could
actually be found in stores (which they can't, at least where I live).
--
Paul Davidson
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
