Subject:
|
Re: "If it were my toy company..."
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:01:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1299 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet <3853a96b.135213995@lugnet.com>...
> [crossposted to .dear-lego & .general; followups to .dear-lego]
>
>
> Brad Justus, Senior Vice President of LEGO Direct, wrote in
> <http://www.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=560>:
>
> "We want to be a company with whom you want to be involved. We want to
> be the company you'd like us to be. And to do that, we need your input.
> What do you love? What do you hate? How can we help you? Tell us –
> we want your input."
>
> I can't express in words how great I feel that we've finally been asked • this!!
> =:*s But I guess everyone knows the feeling! :)
>
> For me, the best way to answer these questions is to put myself into TLC's
> shoes. That is, rather than looking in from the outside and saying, "I'd
> like to see you do this and this and stop doing this," I find it easier to
> get right to the heart of things by imagining being on the inside and • saying,
> "If it were my toy company, here's the way it would be..."
>
> So I'd like to start a little thread on that note. Maybe it will help • flush
> out more radical ideas coming from that angle.
>
>
> If LEGO were your toy company,
> What would it be like?
>
>
> Below are a few posts I made to a couple years ago addressing this • question.
> I'm just repeating the posts here verbatim because they still say pretty • much
> what I'd say today.
>
> These came out of a spirited debate about Time Cruisers in January of 1998 • in
> rec.toys.lego. The name of the thread was "In defense of TLG and their
> themes," started by Daniel Miller.
>
> (I wish I could, but I can't repost other people's messages from the thread
> here without their permission. But you can still read all the messages in
> the thread at Deja.com: <http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=317416877>.)
>
> --Todd
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________ • _
> Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego
> Subject: Re: In defense of TLG and their themes
> From: lehman@visi.com (Todd Lehman)
> Organization: Fibblesnork Software
> Date: 20 Jan 1998 19:25:12 GMT
>
>
> Joakim Karlsson <aviator@mv.mv.com> writes:
> > Todd Lehman wrote:
> > >
> > > Still, I hate Timmy and I still think of the theme as "Time Pukers" or
> > > "Time Crusters." I would rather have seen some cool classic Town • models.
> > > But it's not my toy company.
> >
> > i really like the thought of lego being todd's toy company. the sets we
> > would have. the web pages. the mind reels. ...joakim
>
> If it were my toy company, you would be able to buy any quantity of any
> part you wanted -- from a web site. No limitation on the number of parts
> purchased (big or small) and no restriction to predefined parts packs or
> building sets.
This is good -but perhaps not from a website (also from catalogs, by phone
etc.)
>
> If it were my toy company, you would be able to design your own models in
> a first-rate CAD package and upload the models to the LEGO web site where
> other people could buy the exact parts needed to make your model. And
> you would get a royalty each time someone bought the parts to build your
> model. Your model might even make it into the official product line sold
> to be sold in stores.
Hmm... I have always trusted LEGO (TLC or whatever) to make their own
models. I think that a fan-model sold in stores would ruin that feeling. I
think that LEGO are the only ones that should design sets for selling in
stores. Otherwise, we would have 30 different space themes.
> If it were my toy company, there would be a separate monthly or bimonthly
> 32- to 64-page full-color publication for each major product programme.
> In this publication would be reviews, photos of creations, building
> instructions, building tips, interviews with net-celebs like Ed Boxer,
> and (of course) coupons for sets in the store, but you wouldn't have to
> ruin the back page of the publication to cut them out.
>
> If it were my toy company, a list of all retailers selling LEGO products
> would appear on the official LEGO site. This list would of course be
> searchable by location (with maps and driving instructions) and would
> contain information about retail sales and clearances (subject to such
> information being provided by retailers).
This is good.
> If it were my toy company, you would be able to buy theme buckets of
> space parts, castle parts, Adventurers parts, etc. Unfortunately these
> wouldn't probably be as cheap as FreeStyle (i.e. $20 for a big bucket),
> but you'd at least be able to get them (maybe $60 for a 65-pc bucket).
>
> If it were my toy company, Idea Books would be released every 3 months,
> not every 2-3 years. And they would feature many fan-created models. And
> they would cover themes in a more focused way, but they would also have
> many mixed-theme ideas.
As I said before, LEGO is (in my opinion) the ones that design new sets.
--Tobias
> If it were my toy company, building instructions for out-of-production
> building sets would be available free-of-charge on the official web
> site, or for a fee if you wanted a printed version. You could then
> order specific pieces you are missing to build the set. If it were my
> toy company, the design process of parts would be much more important
> than the design process of pre-defined building sets. Emphasis of
> design of building sets (i.e. models) would be shifted from internal
> designers to hobbyists, because hobbyists know what other hobbyists want
> better than designers do. Of course it's still the desinger's job to
> come up with things that hobbyists want, that they didn't know they wanted.
> The bottom line in any case is to leverage the incredible enthusiasm and
> talent of the fan/enthusiast/hobbyist community and become more of a
> parts manufacturer than a "complete solution" manufacturer. Complete
> solutions would always be a high priority, but no longer the only
> priority, and no longer solely in the hands of the manufacturer.
>
> If it were my toy company, you could go to the official web site and
> look up information on specific pieces, such as the history of the
> piece, and how it can be used (examples), and above all, you could share
> your specific experiences and ideas with other people in a structured
> way.
>
> --Todd
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________ • _
> Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego
> Subject: Re: In defense of TLG and their themes
> From: lehman@visi.com (Todd Lehman)
> Organization: Fibblesnork Software
> Date: 22 Jan 1998 01:13:51 GMT
>
> Kekoa Proudfoot <kekoa@pixel.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> > Todd Lehman <lehman@visi.com> wrote:
> > > If it were my toy company, ...
> > > If it were my toy company, ...
> > > If it were my toy company, ...
> > > If it were my toy company, ...
> > > If it were my toy company, ...
> > > If it were my toy company, ...
> > > If it were my toy company, ...
> > > If it were my toy company, ...
> >
> > I could have sworn you were going to end with:
> >
> > "But it's not my toy company,"
> >
> > which you wrote in a previous post. Alas, you didn't.
>
> I almost did...but I figured it would have sounded bitter, and I'm not • bitter
> about TLG at all. (Disappointed sometimes, with things like the LEGO Star,
> but not bitter.)
>
>
> > Lots of great ideas, though. If you make enough money off of Auczilla,
> > perhaps you will buy Lego out and change the way things are done? :)
>
> One of the objectives of LUGNET is to work around these roadblocks. I
> guess AucZILLA comes part of the way to working around one of them, but
> only so very slightly.
>
> --Todd
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________ • _
> Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego
> Subject: Re: In defense of TLG and their themes
> From: lehman@visi.com (Todd Lehman)
> Organization: Fibblesnork Software
> Date: 21 Jan 1998 03:17:32 GMT
>
> Adam Howard <abhoward@mediaone.net> writes:
> > Right on Todd! Give 'em Hell!
> > Adam
>
> Oh my gosh -- no -- that wasn't intended as harsh criticism of TLG at
> all and what they should be doing -- it was a braindump/brainstorm.
> It's their company and they can run it how they want it.
>
> --Todd
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________ • _
> Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego
> Subject: Re: Idea books (was Re: In defense of TLG and their themes)
> From: lehman@visi.com (Todd Lehman)
> Organization: Fibblesnork Software
> Date: 25 Jan 1998 19:11:49 GMT
>
> Larry Pieniazek <lpien@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com> writes:
> > Todd Lehman wrote:
> > > <idea books don't have good ideas>
>
> Hmm. Hm. Maybe that's what I wrote, but it's not what I meant. I
> meant that the quality and execution of ideas in LEGO-released idea
> books has gone downhill in the past 19 years, not that idea books are
> devoid of good ideas in general. I think the first 1 or 2 minifig-style
> idea books were good, with #6000 being exceptionally great. I once had a
> copy of the first Technic idea book and I remember it as being • exceptionally
> great too compared to more recent ones.
>
>
> > I would tend to agree. Set design just isn't as *imaginative* either.
> > Even in 4 years there has been a decline, based on what I have seen in
> > the few months I've been reactivated. I just put together a copy of 6670
> > Rescue Rig that I got on sale at S@H (unfortunately the free set offer
> > packed in it is probably not going to happen <g>) and I was marveling at
> > some of the ideas that I have not seen in more recent sets, like the 5
> > wide back part, the big hook tow rig, and the horns.
>
> I think that's tough to disagree with in Town, Pirates, and Technic.
> But I think opinions scatter more when considering most other play themes/
> play systems. Heck, I sure know that I think space is much more • imaginitive
> than it was 20 years ago...and Adventurers coming out of nowhere is pretty
> great and imaginitive, IMHO.
>
>
> > > In an efficient distribution model, would the books have to be printed
> > > prior to their purchase?
> >
> > If you want perfect binding, I would say yes, unless a 2-3 day lag
> > between order and shipment is acceptable. I think it takes a while for
> > that binding process to be worked, what with all the slicing and
> > glueing. However, in the biz I am in, it is not unheard of to finish
> > writing material at 2 AM, 6 hours before it's due, get it to Kinko's(r)
> > and deliver 50 bound copies (spiral, pin, 3 ring binder, or plastic
> > finger bound or one of the other fast binding technologies) to the
> > client at 8 AM, so the technology exists. (you've probably done it too,
> > hehe...)
>
> I think sales should be subscription-based. You pay for a 1- or 2-year
> subscription and they arrive through the mail quarterly.
>
> If there were a good, fertile landscape of fan-designed models from
> which to farm ideas as well (in a structured way), there would be no
> shortage of things to print, and you could pick the best of the best.
> You'd probably need about 10,000 or 100,000 models out there first
> before people would care to see them in print, because everything would
> also be available on the web.
>
> Just a thought.
>
>
> > BTW, I have been watching for a copy of Bill and Mary's to come up for
> > sale. Is there a Lego Lending Library ??
>
> I think there once was a LEGO lending library of some sort, but given
> shipping and labor costs, I believe that any lending library created
> either has to be subsidized by rentals or some other means, or is doomed
> to failure past a certain bandwidth of in/out traffic.
>
> One alternative approach is to scan everything and destroy the original.
> Then you -might- be able to restrict viewing to one person at a time.
> But I don't know if that falls under fair use or not. It might be
> illegal.
>
> --Todd
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________ • _
> Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego
> Subject: Re: In defense of TLG and their themes
> From: lehman@visi.com (Todd Lehman)
> Organization: Fibblesnork Software
> Date: 25 Jan 1998 07:17:52 GMT
>
> Mike Stanley <cjc@cdc.net> writes:
> > Kevan Houser <103753.3631@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > > > If it were my toy company, Idea Books would be released every 3 • months,
> > > > not every 2-3 years. And they would feature many fan-created models.
> > > > And they would cover themes in a more focused way, but they would • also
> > > > have many mixed-theme ideas.
> > >
> > > Again, a good idea, if not terribly difficult to dream up. I mean,
> > > really. Is TLG asleep at the wheel? How much does paper cost? They
> > > can rake in bucks selling quality Idea Books! Not to mention the added
> > > sales of bricks, etc. that would result from people
> >
> > Not sure about your area, but in my area at TRU Idea Books don't seem to
> > sell at all. I've seen the last one on the shelf (in a rack) for so long
> > it isn't funny. And every time I look there are the same number (and I
> > even checked to make sure they were the same ones).
>
> But I wonder if TRU is the best distribution model for idea books. And I
> think it sure was unfortunate that Lego decided to rotate the aspect ratio
> from Portrait to Landscape in the most recent book, because the wire-frame
> dispensers were designed for Portrait-oriented books with the spine sitting
> vertically. Putting the new Landscape-oriented books in the old dispensers
> causes them to flop over, become frayed and wrinkled, and look generally
> uninviting.
>
> I also wonder if the more recent idea books aren't selling well because • they
> basically stink compared to the older ones (at least, that's the consensus
> here).
>
> It's interesting how many different opinions there are about the models
> and pieces now compared to the models and pieces 20 years ago. People
> seem to fall into 3 main camps: (a) hate the new stuff, (b) respect the • old
> stuff but prefer the new stuff, and (c) don't really care too much. Yet,
> it's widely agreed that the #6000 Bill & Mary idea book is hands-down
> the best one ever, both in coverage and depth of planning...and it's the
> oldest.
>
> I just don't think that TLG puts much effort into the idea books anymore.
> They seem like more of a checklist-item now, which I think is unfortunate
> for kids.
>
>
> > Idea books sell great to us. They probably sell moderately well to • poorly
> > to everyone else. If you released a new book every 3 months you would
> > either have to do a tiny run or accept sending tons to the recycling bin.
>
> In an efficient distribution model, would the books have to be printed
> prior to their purchase?
>
> --Todd
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________ • _
> Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego
> Subject: Re: In defense of TLG and their themes
> From: lehman@visi.com (Todd Lehman)
> Organization: Fibblesnork Software
> Date: 25 Jan 1998 19:20:32 GMT
>
> Mike Stanley <cjc@cdc.net> writes:
> > Idea books sell great to us. They probably sell moderately well to • poorly
> > to everyone else. If you released a new book every 3 months you would
> > either have to do a tiny run or accept sending tons to the recycling bin.
>
> Well, see...hopefully they would be high enough quality (content-wise)
> that they would be appealing as back-issues. And then people might even
> be able to get them cheaper direct from LEGO than in auctions here.
>
> --Todd
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________ • _
> Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego
> Subject: Re: In defense of TLG and their themes
> From: lehman@visi.com (Todd Lehman)
> Organization: Fibblesnork Software
> Date: 20 Jan 1998 18:38:49 GMT
>
> "Elf" <elf@intervett.no> writes:
> > visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
> > > Thats not the case. LEGO is going through themes much faster
> > > than they used to. These themes "died" because they had reached the
> > > end of their life, not because of unpopularity.
> >
> > And why had they reached the end of their lifespan? Because they
> > didn't sell.
>
> No.
>
> Other products in the pipeline pushed them out.
>
> LEGO uses a product development pipeline because they cannot afford to
> start developing a new theme when an old theme starts tiring out. By
> the time the old theme tires out, they have to have new themes ready to
> go. This is sometimes good and sometimes bad. It's good when the
> newer product in the pipeline is better than the old one, and it's bad
> when the older product is better than the new one.
>
> Take the Aquanauts' Neptune Discovery Lab, for example. It was replaced
> in the product matrix by the new Hyrdonauts base. Regardless of how
> well the NDL was selling, TLG could not have released the new base last
> year because it would be premature entry of the Hydronauts theme, which
> is full of new 1998 pieces and would spoil their marketing blitz as
> well. If the NDL was still stilling extremely well in mid-1997, they
> might have been able to delay the introduction of the new Hydronauts base
> until the 1999 season, but then they would be removing steam from
> Hydronauts as well as unnecessarily complicating the theme coverage.
> It would also delay the recovery of development costs, which is bad for
> business.
>
> Keeping older sets around and under production is also costly if they
> contain a largely different collection of parts. If TLG is smart about
> manufacturing, they keep a very low inventory, and they want to keep the
> number of unique parts being manufactured at any given point to a
> reasonable level.
>
> In the 80's, when play themes weren't a critical focus for TLG, sets
> followed a much more loose cycle, with some lasting 1 year, most lasting
> 2-3 years, and some lasting 5 years. These may have been sales-based
> decisions, and it was also easier then to keep something in production
> longer because there were fewer molds.
>
> But TLG is clearly following a more pipelined approach in the past 10
> years and considers play themes to be a very important aspect of their
> business. With that extra focus in marketing, turnover is all the more
> important.
>
>
> > Some people has pointed out that sets only have a 2 year
> > life-span, while they before lasted at least 3 years. The reason for
> > this is simple: Lego's sales have declined enormously the past few
> > years.
>
> That's news to me.
>
>
> > So they desperately try to come up with something new. When the
> > Time Cruiser strategy failed they stopped that and now they have
> > started a Town Jr (wich now is only called Town wich mean that this IS
> > the Town-theme now) theme to try a new strategy. When this strategy
> > fails (and believe me, it will) they will try something new again.
>
> On what basis is the judgment of failure or success, in this case?
>
> I don't think those can be measured directly as sales. If Town Jr has
> dismal sales but ends up converting a huge number of kids from imitation
> brands to the real thing, then I would consider Town Jr to be successful
> in that aspect.
>
> I don't know if TLG considers failure or success holistically, but I
> think it's naive to assume that Time Cruisers and Town Jr are desperate
> attempts at anything.
>
>
> > If a theme sells they will continue it. Simple as that!
>
> Ideally, that would be true. But a disadvantage of pipelines is that
> once something's entered them, it's very difficult to remove them. If
> you have a system with a product line that can grow without bound, then
> there's probably no need to remove a product from pipeline prematurely
> prior to its productization or release. And if you have a system with a
> product line that can shrink on a whim, then there's probably no worry
> in removing a product from the pipeline after its productization or
> release. But TLG has put itself into a position where it has neither of
> those luxuries. Not that that's necessarily bad -- because pipelining
> is good -- but it's just a side-effect of pipelining combined with not
> wanting to grow or shrink the product line drastically in any given
> year. Drastic changes in product coverage can be difficult to manage
> (dangerous even), especially in a large and disjointed company. (Keep
> in mind that TLG is a group of approximately 50 companies, all of which
> need to synchronize to the motherland...and things need to be planned
> very carefully.)
>
> --Todd
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________ • _
> Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego
> Subject: Re: In defense of TLG and their themes
> From: lehman@visi.com (Todd Lehman)
> Organization: Fibblesnork Software
> Date: 21 Jan 1998 04:23:32 GMT
>
> Rob Farver <rfarver@enter.net> writes:
> > On 20 Jan 1998 19:25:12 GMT, lehman@visi.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > If it were my toy company, you would be able to buy theme buckets of
> > > space parts, castle parts, Adventurers parts, etc. Unfortunately these
> > > wouldn't probably be as cheap as FreeStyle (i.e. $20 for a big bucket),
> > > but you'd at least be able to get them (maybe $60 for a 65-pc bucket).
> >
> > I wondered how Todd would pay for all that, and now it's clear. At just
> > under a dollar a piece he can do just about anything he wants. ;)
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > (For the humour impaired, I'm assuming Todd meant $60 for a 650-pc • bucket)
>
> LOL -- thanks for catching that. Yes, I meant 650-pc. Like the #4128
> red FreeStyle bucket.
>
> --Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | "If it were my toy company..."
|
| [crossposted to .dear-lego & .general; followups to .dear-lego] Brad Justus, Senior Vice President of LEGO Direct, wrote in (URL): "We want to be a company with whom you want to be involved. We want to be the company you'd like us to be. And to do (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
