Subject:
|
Re: eBuisness Model
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:27:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2230 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, David Schilling writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > ... [ a lot!] ...
Natch :]
> I won't quote your novel here, (instead I'll write my own! :-) but I think
I think my novel won for pure density of mental spewage ;]
> that you are wrong. TLC *could* put together thousands of different sets.
> Your error comes in thinking that the customer designed sets will be put
> together with the same amount of manual labour, artwork, colourful boxes,
> etc., and look exactly like the other 'normal' sets that LEGO puts out.
Well, I didn't mean to say that. For this to work TLC would
*have* to skim down on their printed matter.
> To see why this doesn't need to be so, consider how different the UCS sets
> look, and especially the Statue of Liberty - this one comes in only a grey
> scale box with four plain white boxes inside that! I think LEGO will WANT
> to differentiate their official sets from those of their customers, just
> like these (UCS, Liberty, etc.) AFOL oriented sets are packaged differently
> from those intended for the masses.
I'm missing the reference to UCS and Liberty not being from TLC(?).
> (By the way, if one extrapolated your thinking about having too many
> options, it would not be possible to ship anyone their current S@H orders
> either. The best they could do is ship you one of five preset orders.
> Obviously this is not the case.)
No, because they only have a couple hundred boxes to pick from, and
they are all in one area with personnel assigned to picking them.
On the manufacturing side I'm talking having thousands of elements
going together into tens of thousands of different set designs.
Yes it could be done manually the same as shipping, but not
cost effectively. And then when that's done it gets to the shipping
part...
> Instead of thinking how impossible it would be to provide what everyone
> dreams of them providing, take a minute and think about ways that it COULD
> happen. Put on your optimists cap for a minute.
Sorry if I sound too pessimistic. I'm just trying to be realistic.
Hopefully TLC can prove me wrong. :]
> The key is to have *everything* automated. No human intervention is
> required anywhere along the line. Perhaps when the model is first proposed
> to LEGO, someone looks at it, but the next time a human sees or touches it
> is to put the final product in a shipping box.
>
> Start with an order for, I don't know, Timmy's Monster Truck. It requires a
> size 4 box. Take the next size 4 box on the line, scan the bar code, and
> set the machinery in motion.
>
> Given the fact that polybags are already assembled with a great assortment
> of pieces in them, and that these are put together in an automated way, if
> you could scale up that kind of automation, you could theoretically assemble
> any number of any type of available piece. The automation would have to be
> slightly different because instead of creating thousands of bags of
> identical content, you are putting together single bags, each one with
> different content, but I think that it could be done.
Automation is the only way this could be practical. I never
meant to imply it was impossible even with automation. What
I'm trying to stress is the costs involved. I would really like
to know more about TLC manufacturing lines to see how they
operate. But since I haven't, I first of all will assume that
they are already pretty highly automated. I'm guessing that
these machines currently allocated to sorting and bagging
for sets have a limited capacity. I mean a limited selection
of pieces without changing over the feeds from the bulk feeders.
So they can only deal with combinations within the scope
of the pieces they are fed. To go to other combinations,
you need to change the bulk feeders. If you are producing
a low number of unique designs in mass quantity, this is
a non issue. If you are going to produce an extremely large
number of unique designs each in very low quantity, then
it will cost you. You either accept the increased overhead
to continually change machine duties to match a highly
unpredictable demand, or you buy more machines to allow
more possible combinations without requiring resets.
I don't think investing in gobs of expensive machinery at
this point is what TLC will be ready to do. They'll
have to bite the extra manual effort of frequent changeovers.
Beyond a certain level they will no longer break even,
and so the sets aren't worth producing.
> I personally think that the greatest difficulty isn't in LEGO providing any
> one of thousands of sets on demand, (which I think is the future of all
> manufacturing: not the narrowing down of options, but the exponential
> increase of them) but rather providing a nice way for the customer to sort
> through these myriad sets that are available, and pick which one(s) he wants.
In my experience mfg is going the opposite of increasing options.
To cut costs everything is streamlined. You do that by eliminating
options and consolidation.
> Current online stores all do this very poorly. Other than for books or CDs,
> where you generally already know the title and/or author, it is a tremendous
> hassle to just browse for merchandise online. Clicking your way through
> page after page of whatever type of gadget, looking for something to fill
> your need is downright painful. Visiting a physical store is MUCH easier.
> Figure out how to solve *that* problem, and you can make yourself lots of money.
I definitely agree on this one. And TLC's current cumbersome
on-line catalogue is a good example. For example, there is
no obvious category pick to get to Bulk Sales. It's a text
option in a drop down list somewhere. Great promotion. But
while the cataloguing of these custom sets is daunting, I
don't think it's impossible. It's just a matter of putting
the effort into sorting things.
I think though that the reality is that customers could be
turned off by 50,000 sets to choose from, no matter how well
organized.
I think I should summarize my opinions if anyone's still
interested:
1) Allowing people to make their own set design and order
it only for themselves (a la Mosaic) is a good idea. And
with a very limited selection of pieces, and limits on
set sizes, can be cost effective.
2) Trying to maintain these sets for sales to others
is maybe not so cost effective. If they adopt a very
tiny number into mass production like their regular sets,
there's no problem. But on-and-off tiny volume
production with many thousands of sets could kill them.
I don't think they will do it in unlimited scale.
3) I think TLC would best be served coordinating all of
this in-house (under the LEGO Direct umbrella). Maybe
they license a few select sites to market their own
designs (a low number of unique designs), but only under
the watchful eye of TLC so they can exercise control over
their brand identity.
4) TLC would be better off expanding bulk sales, and
the promotion of it(!!!), and improving their mainstream
designs, than offering thousands and thousands of
customer-designed kits.
5) I really really REALLY REALLY REALLY want a tour
of TLC's manufacturing facilities..., and a yard-sized
doggy bag for souvenirs! :]
6) Should TLC prove me flat out wrong and offer largely
unlimited scope in custom set-making, I may buy one
or two kits, as a novelty. But I'd rather buy bulk
instead.
This is fun!
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: eBuisness Model
|
| (...) I won't quote your novel here, (instead I'll write my own! :-) but I think that you are wrong. TLC *could* put together thousands of different sets. Your error comes in thinking that the customer designed sets will be put together with the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
