| |
Paul Hartzog <panarchy23@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:G72I40.IGJ@lugnet.com...
[snip]
> as far as the reasons for their strategic klutzing about:
> they are privately owned by a guy who is totally out of
> touch w/ reality (look @ the recent cowboys and indians
> flop, jeez). the catch 22 is that if lego stays the same
> they lose market share, if they change, they lose the market
> share from us traditionalists.
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
into numerous "themes"; and (3) the drastic reduction in quality of sets
being produced. Lego's marketing theory, however, is that, in order to
remain a productive and viable company, it has to do the above in order to
get the attention of modern children. However, IMO this theory is flawed.
1. Expansion into non-brick products has two negative results: (1) it takes
resources away from developing quality sets and (2) it dilutes the Lego
brand by focusing attention away from the brick.
2. Similarly, by diverging into so many themes, consumers are driven away
by unfamiliar product (someone else mentioned the 4-5 year shelf life of
older sets helped to instill a sense on continuance). I may be a bit old
fashioned, but I still think of Lego in terms of the three original
Systems - Town, Space, and Castle. Within those three systems, the creative
possibilities, both for MOCs and new sets, are limitless. I would love to
see Lego return and develop these themes instead of continuing with all of
these stand-alone "two year wonders".
3. Finally, juniorization has reduced the perceived "value" of Lego (with
"value" being defined as the point at which a consumer will part with
his/her cash in exchange for the product). Parents today see high cost, low
return (i.e. piece count), "weird" looking sets which neither interest the
child long term, nor match with what they fondly remember Lego to be from
their childhood. Even if they purchase once or twice, the child quickly
loses interest with Lego and moves on to other toys.[1]
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").
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: zactly
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jan-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: zactly
|
| (...) <snip> (...) The world continues to change. I work at a university where some of the buildings were built brick by brick by masons who were most likely proud of their work and effort. There are cornerstones on some of them with the date of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | zactly
|
| hooray Amy, well said. I too have been comptering since the mid70s and abhor mediocrity in all of its nasty nasty forms. specialized toys are faddish and never last, while traditional Lego, by being merely a component, can be reused for ever to (...) (23 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
