Subject:
|
Re: Is LEGO killing off the very concept of a Theme?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:51:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1051 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
> I'd agree with this interpretation. I'd suggest that fans try to respect TLC's
> will to survive, even while feeling nostalgic.
Here's a challenge: what positive suggestions can fans make to TLC? What
directions could TLC explore, which would generate income for them, and
make us happy?
Bulk purchasing is a good direction. If it grows into a full-blown
channel, allowing modelers to purchase many of the parts they want, it will
make many people happy.
Nostalgic collectors might be a harder 'market' to satisfy.
> From a marketing point of view, I'd also say that "modeling" in general is kinda
> dead. By modeling I mean like the concept of a jigsaw puzzle- challenging, takes
> a while, requires concentration while working toward a final product which you
> can be proud of, but then sits on a shelf (certainly not thrown around the
> room).
Unfortunately, I agree. It's obviously affected other types of toys, such
as model rockets.
The funny thing is that the 'construction toy' area in toy stores seems to
be as large as ever.
> Without strict categorization, the LEGO aisle looks more like "any set will do."
Hmm. Maybe. If the playtheme is strongly marketed, the LEGO aisle should
still be grouped fairly well. The grouping will change frequently, as
different groups of product go in and out of circulation.
> So, "I'll just buy him something that's expensive and looks cool." Less
> thinking, more impulse.
Yeah, there's plenty of this. It's an extension of the 'throw money at it'
approach to life.
> collectability now seems only to go as far as Throbots and TurboRiders (or
> whatever they're called).
Hmm. I see it more as a different type of collectability. It's more like
baseball cards or comic books, because the products are very similar, all
have the same (low) price, and the sets are specifically marketed to appeal
to the desire to get (at least) one of each.
> TLC, as we know, is banking on their BRAND, BRAND, BRAND now and creating a
> whole
> LEGO Lifestyle.
Then they're going to have to figure out some real *product*, other than
the LEGO building system. Bricks and derivitaves will only take them part
of the way toward their goal of having 'the strongest brand among
families'.[1]
> so breaking away from "the old LEGO" is probably a good thing in
> their view. Blurring boundries.
Right.
> I just worry about the system of elements being
> sacrificed.
Do you mean that old elements will go away, and newer sets will contain
less-useful elements?
> Oh, and don't forget the dropping of 'SYSTEM'. It's made my life miserable in
> adjusting the set database...
Yeah. Trying to maintain a system of classification tied to the current
state of a changing product line is doomed to pain and suffering.
--
Steve
1) That's probably a serious misquote. I think I got the idea right.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Is LEGO killing off the very concept of a Theme?
|
| (...) I'd agree with this interpretation. I'd suggest that fans try to respect TLC's will to survive, even while feeling nostalgic. From a marketing point of view, I'd also say that "modeling" in general is kinda dead. By modeling I mean like the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Oct-00, to lugnet.general)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
