Subject:
|
Re: zactly
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:25:28 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mtimm@&AvoidSpam&usinternet.com
|
Viewed:
|
1769 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:27:46 GMT, "Timothy D. Freshly"
<timfreshly@i2020.net> wrote:
>
> In sum, I don't want Lego to change. I love it as it is - the best building
> and creative system ever. By changing, Lego is shifting focus from what
> they are known for (bricks) and are becoming just another toy company.
> However, if they would develop their core product (bricks and sets), Lego
> would be able to strengthen its brand and value, thus keeping its loyal
> customers and also bringing new consumers into the fold (voila - increased
> market share). Let's hope that it happens.
>
> Sorry for the rambling post.
>
> Tim
>
> [1] On a related topic, I really dislike and disagree with the assumption
> that less pieces per set are needed to hold the interest of today's child.
> To me, this is completely backwords. True, some children would be turned
> off by more complex set designs but, in the long run, it would be better to
> lose a few short attention span children, then to lose a lot of others who
> would be challenged and enthralled by the possibilities (as I imagine all of
> us AFOLs are - why else would we be so loyal?) Lego - don't play to the
> lowest common denominator! It's OK to focus on a higher quality consumer (I
> would venture to guess that a higher quality consumer is also a very loyal
> consumer - by "quality" I mean a consumer who realizes the potential of the
> product and is stimulated and encouraged by the possibilities, rather than
> turned away because it is "too hard" or "too challenging").
I feel I need to point this out, LEGO has *ALREADY* changed, I want it
to change MORE, preferably towards the style of sets that they used to
make. If that's not possible, then towards quality designed sets that
are overly juniorized. I can use the parts for my own creations as
long as it doesn't become too Playmobile like, if I wanted that, I'd
go and buy Playmobile....
I have come to the conclusion that junorization is not *ALL* bad, it
provides a starting place for kids that have the short attention
spans. But there needs to be steps up from that because the gap
between juniorized pieces and either Technic or Model Team is a doozy.
I am currently hopeful the LEGO is moving in the right direction but
only time will tell if they make it.
In the mean time, Play Well :^)
Mike
--
All other themes are just spare parts for Castle! :^)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: zactly
|
| Paul Hartzog <panarchy23@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:G72I40.IGJ@lugnet.com... [snip] (...) It seems to me that the loss of market share is caused primarily by three things: (1) the expansion of Lego into "non-brick" products; (2) divergence (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
