Subject:
|
Re: LEGO name branding (was: Re: Stuff I'd like to see...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:10:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1127 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Todd Lehman writes:
> LEGO very desperately (IMHO) needs to break the association in John Q. • Public's
> mind that "legos" equal plastic binding bricks. The only way to do this is to
> create other products with the LEGO name & logo.
>
> Look at what happened, for example, when Puffs came out -- people slowly began
> to realize that Kleenix was a brand of facial tissues rather than a generic
> term. (They may still have a long way to go, though.)
The business world seems to swing back and forth between diversification and
focus on core competencies.
For every company trying to extend its brand, there's another cutting back to
its roots.
When it seems difficult to extract any more mileage out of your core products
then executives seem to think the way out of it is to use the power of your
brand on other areas. Then when you find you are spread to thin and noone
really know what you do anymore, and loses on unsuccessful ventures pile up,
those same executives decide they must focus on their original market (which,
having taken their eye off the ball, is now being taken by competitors)
If lego do try to diversify, I would be surprised if in a few years time they
are not cutting it all back. Danger is that by then no one buys bricks anymore
because lego did not invest in making the bricks more attractive and instead
invests money on watches, clothes, software.
In other words, there is no guarantee that by diversifying and trying to
increase the reach of their brand they will be successful, just cause they
dominate brick market
regards
lawrence
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
