Subject:
|
Re: The Refocusing of LEGO
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:20:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2002 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lou Zucaro writes:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Over the last few months, I have begun to come out of my second LEGO Dark
> Ages. Whereas my first Dark Ages was brought on by “growing up” and having
> “better things to do” than play with LEGO, the second one was brought on
> because of a knowing lack of interest in a product that I felt, as many do
> and have, that had changed to the point of not being what I loved so much
> anymore.
>
> Any discussion of this type must begin with the recognition that what LEGO
> created for kids and, as it turns out, adults, has been phenomenal. A simple
> concept – the building block – taken to a new level in a direction that it
> had never seen before. Open ended possibilities, thanks to the unique system
> of play and the incredible amount of forward-thinking that so rarely is
> witnessed in commercial organizations. As stated so simply in the 1979 LEGO
> US catalog, “The magic of the LEGO concept is best summed up in one word:
> flexibility.”
>
> Over the last few years, LEGO has been bitten by the technology bug. On the
> one hand, this has allowed LEGO to venture into a new and welcome direction
> with Mindstorms. On the other hand, the many licenses, software products and
> items such as the Moviemaker sets have probably contributed greatly to the
> financial troubles LEGO has reported for FY 2000.
>
> Most of all, though, the juniorization of the LEGOLand sets and the addition
> of many pieces that replace flexibility with single-purpose elements has
> hurt the LEGO brand.
>
> The fact that LEGO recognizes a need to “refocus” on their “core business”
> is encouraging. But this refocusing must be part of a fundamental change
> back to what made us love the toy and the concept so much. It must reach
> across every aspect of LEGO’s products, how they are designed, how they are
> packaged and how they are marketed and promoted.
>
> Some may argue that the need existed, and still exists, to do things a
> certain way in order to provide sets at a reasonable price. But price was
> never an issue when people felt the sets were worth it.
>
> The refocus must start with the product ranges themselves, and their
> integration and lead-in to one another.
>
> Basic or Universal building sets should include a wide enough variety of
> pieces for beginning builders to understand the concepts involved with the
> LEGO system of play. They should include instructions for various models,
> and the models should inspire creative thinking. As many long-time LEGO
> enthusiasts can attest, there were many moments during the building of a set
> when our young minds realized “Aha! That’s how that works!” or “That is such
> a neat way to use that piece!”
>
> The Universal sets were at their finest with sets like 402 and 404 all the
> way up through sets like 715. These sets offered a lot of building
> possibilities and a strong entrée into the LEGOLand / LEGO System themes.
>
> In addition, the original LEGO figures, constructed with the flexible arm
> elements, should be re-introduced. The desire to add human and other
> characters into the LEGO play environment is incredibly strong. The
> “maxi-figs” as they are affectionately called, provide a good way to add
> figures on a scale that younger builders are capable of matching with their
> building skills.
>
> Adding mini figures into a set with maxi-figs sets an appropriate scale of a
> family with a baby. This is something that should be important for young
> girls – a market segment that LEGO seems to never quite get ahold of. It
> also goes back to the idea of better integration between the products for
> younger and inexperienced builders and those who want to create expansive
> scenes and large models on the mini-fig scale.
>
> The LEGO System…the mini-figure scale sets…must return to the level of
> detail that LEGO had achieved during the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. I don’t
> think anybody who loves LEGO products would argue that new elements should
> not be introduced, but they should offer more flexibility and possibilities,
> not fewer.
>
> The themes and sub-themes, as we all call them, that LEGO has introduced us
> to have all but disappeared. LEGO Town doesn’t even exist in the 2001
> lineup. Buildings hardly exist anymore. The basic ingredients to build a
> town are scarcely available. And the core elements needed to build your own
> vehicles don’t even seem to exist. Of the nearly 70 sets shown in the 2001
> in-box catalog, only one has the 1x3 car doors in it, and it’s a three year
> old set that will soon be discontinued.
>
> By contrast, the catalogs of the ‘80s and early ‘90s were so rich with the
> themes that we all grew to love…Town, Space, Castle, and Pirates. Sets like
> 6390 Main Street, 6383 Public Works Center and 6372 Town House allowed us to
> create the wonderful environments pictured on the pages of your catalogs.
> Each set, no matter how small or large, contributed to expanding the
> possibilities of the theme and of the LEGO system of play as a whole.
>
> Today we have only scattered sets that fit into formulaic price / piece
> count categories within each theme. No effort has been made to keep
> continuity between the old and the new. The history of LEGOLand, as a play
> environment, has been lost.
>
> It is very important that LEGO return to the theme-based set design
> philosophy. And it’s important that these sets be marketed in such a way
> that makes sense for what they are. I’ve heard people who work for LEGO
> claim that part of the reason the design of the sets has changed so much is
> that kids want more action in their toys.
>
> First of all, I never felt like I was missing out on any action with the
> “old” LEGO sets. The sets allowed me to create the environment in which I
> dictated the action (or lack thereof, depending on what I built and how I
> played with it).
>
> Second, LEGO was successful in introducing more action-oriented elements
> into themes such as Wild West, which didn’t suffer from a lack of detail or
> creative set design.
>
> Third, the catalogs must also return to a more simplified state. The older
> style catalogs, where each set is presented in its own little frame,
> intermixed with the panoramic views of the vast layouts possible with all of
> the LEGO sets in the theme, were perfect. It was easy to see what each set
> offered. And it was fascinating to dream of how, once “I had all the sets in
> the catalog”, I too could have my own LEGO town or lunar environment or
> medieval kingdom.
>
> And LEGO should not consider civilian-type sets to be “boring”. Even as a
> kid, I wanted the Town Houses, Holiday Villas, Vacation Campers and other
> such sets. Main Street is one of the most prized sets in my collection.
> Recently, I’ve been trying to find more of the housees…the glue that binds
> the town of race car drivers, astronauts and firemen together. :)
>
> In the ‘80s and early ‘90s, LEGO was very successful at building excitement
> for new sub-themes by integration of the new sets with the old, mostly due
> to the scenes presented in the catalogs. Houses, hotels, fire departments
> and auto repair shops stood along side each other.
>
> Space Police chased the Blacktron rebels. The Black Monarch and the Black
> Falcon battled it out while the Forestmen waited in the wings. The various
> Pirate bands fought each other on the high seas. This integration was only
> natural, given the average three-year product cycle of LEGO sets, and it
> worked. Each year, I anxiously opened the newest set to see what magic
> awaited inside. The last few years, when I got around to it, I’d pick up a
> small, new set to see if there was anything good in the new catalog.
>
> If LEGO feels the need to make sets less boring, it should do so by adding
> the type of action elements seen in the Wild West sets, or by using the LEGO
> System (mini-fig scale) sets to introduce basic Technic elements to perform
> action-related tasks. Again, this has the benefit of introducing one buying
> group to another through integration and crossover.
>
> Even many of the Technic sets have become more play-oriented than
> “engineering” oriented. The Super Car, Mobile Crane, Farm Tractor, Space
> Shuttle sets…they inspired builders of all ages to think outside the box,
> turn things on their side and think fresh. They are inspired models and
> designs that all hold up well.
>
> And LEGO should not discount the importance of its packaging. It is
> impossible to store small sets in their boxes (without using an inner back,
> etc.) because the flaps don’t stay closed and the pieces fall out. In the
> ‘70s, small sets came in a much more usable box with a traditional tab and
> slot design that actually worked and stayed closed.
>
> Medium and large sets should return to the box flap / cardboard tray scheme.
> Large sets today must be stored horizontally due to the box cover that
> doesn’t fasten to the box.
>
> Box graphics and set photography have even suffered. I could barely read the
> set name on the Alpha Team Helicopter box because the box graphics are so busy.
>
> I think it’s wonderful that LEGO Direct is listening, and I’m glad to see
> that there are more core building elements available through Shop at Home /
> Bulk Sales. But it’s time that LEGO return to a more simple (not to be read
> as 'more boring') premise: That of building and expanding and allowing our
> imaginations to create all the crazy or not-so-crazy types of things we used
> to be able to.
>
> Refocus on building. Refocus on themes. Refocus on detail. Refocus on the
> integrity of the product and what it stands for, and don’t give in to the
> fear that if it’s not electronic, people won’t buy it. They are different
> mindsets, and they can co-exist. Look back at your past successes and bring
> your product lines, themes and sets back in line with where they were. Give
> LEGO enthusiasts of all ages the opportunity to find that magic again.
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
