 | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
To All, Well, this is very disappointing to see. Especially since SW was pretty strong in 2000. I do't know what to think. Sometimes I wish I could see what they really sell and what they really think. I always hate seeing my favorite companies (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) HALLELUJAH! LEGO has finally admitted that getting away from made them great has failed - and miserably. Now that the non-brick and garbage-brick ventures have been exposed as unprofitable as well as unpopular, they can get back to the good (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Don't be so sure. They haven't (publicly) identified any specific errors in judgment, so they might conceivably (though not likely) launch a full-spectrum, heavily-juniorized modular playset system. We're only hoping that they have correctly (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) I smiled when I read the release. Then I thought, "why am I smiling if I like LEGO?" Now, reading your reaction, I half wonder if the release isn't designed to renew faith in TLC. Personally, it makes me smile to think of something like, the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Well I (like others) wish I could share your optimism. I personally will wait for my pudding(1) before getting very excited. The news release sounded kind of "party line" to me. Who knows what TLC thinks is their problem. Maybe they think (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
To All, (...) Perhaps somewhat to video games, I know I played a lot of Atari 2600 and used LEGO as well, so it might be an overall impact, but not a specific one. Most LEGO software to me seems... rather useless I guess. Those other things you (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) market loss to Pokemon, Game Boy etc., stupid new lines: ZNAP, Lego clothes, clocks and watches.... (...) Bionicle, bionicle, bionicle....... (...) I'm not sure..... scratchin' brickhead (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Not knowing what is going on at LEGO, I have to take them at their word. If they say, "We screwed up, we're going back to what worked", why not believe them? When they said, "Kids are dumb, so we have to make video games and crappy sets, (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
From:(URL) The year 2000 was a very difficult year for the entire (...) Try reading that again. Does it mention anything about non-brick and garbage-brick ventures? Has it occurred to you that Lego started talking to the AFOLs in 2000? What about (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Just to play the Devil's Advocate here for a moment... The article stated: <<"We will refocus on our core business, which is materials for open-ended play for children," he said. "That is what the brand is about -- stimulating imagination, (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
Ray & All, (...) If I remember right, they are on two year cycles, and I think all the ones you mentioned are on it. Scott S. (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) My guess would be Star Warsz. Every store that had overstock, always had large amounts of SW. I wonder if TLC still has warehouses full of it. SW was a licensed product line. Not only did TLC have the overhead of designing the sets, but (I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Because they've said it directly to my face. I didn't believe it, not in the way most folks here see it meaning. I saw a face that wanted (in a fantasy) to have things back-to-basics, but was having say something else. The words spoken to me (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Yes, RR are gone, the others no. Those are 2000. So I missed a year. : ) Scott S. -- (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Right. This is why I always figured we AFOL on Lugnet and on RTL should get favored treatment (advance notice, specialized treatment, etc.). We are free advertising (mouth to mouth writ VERY large internet-wise!) if there ever was such a (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Rock Raiders, yes, I think so... 1999 sets. Arctic and Knights Kingdom?? I'm not sure about that, aren't they 2000 sets? So they're not quite at end of life yet. Note that, IIRC, the Spring catalog traditionally has been the "lightest" and (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) I'm theorizing here but I think they are possibly trying to scale down the catalogs because of the emergence of shop.lego.com. Even the themes that do appear in the catalog many of them are incomplete and have a "Look for more XXX-theme (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) -Suz (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
"Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message news:G9JEzM.AHB@lugnet.com... (...) ^^^ I would sure hope not... ;-) -Tim (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
Suz, you've become wise beyond my expectations. I now go out of my way to read your posts, whereas before I tended to skip the defender-of-the-lego-copyright posts. :) What I _hope_ the press release says is: "All that money we were going to spend (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Ugh- at least you can turn a physical page in less than 2 minutes. -- Tony Hafner www.hafhead.com (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Suzanne, that's the most concise statement of this fact that I've ever read. I've always felt there's some delusions here about us being some significant portion of the total sales market. Even as far as us being a tool..., well, there's a lot (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) The good news is that LEGO still has people that know how to design the good stuff. Just look in a recent S@H catalog on the page with "building ideas". When I saw that page I thought "Here are some building ideas, since we don't actually sell (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Were these lines involved with Anime in any way??? Matt (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Ouch... (...) Well said. (...) I'd really like to see that! At the PNLTC's G2K event, we had tables set up to let kids build whatever they wanted. The best part was asking them what they had built. Their answers were incredible, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
"Matt Brooks" <mbrooks@sonic.net> wrote in message news:3A9FCDE1.BB2B52...nic.net... (...) ROFL!! Jeff, any comment? -Tim (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) How about "... did almost anything ... " ? KL (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Now, to be fair, I do think that TLC *are* doing some things that are of great advantage to AFOLs. First, there's the Bulk Brick offerings. Yes, I know, many of these same bricks were available in slightly different assortments ("Blue Bricks", (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) advocate, (...) on (...) um, big boobs sell dolls. Juniorized sets don't sell. (...) its (...) World Domination, WTF? Do you mean trying to become the #1 recognized brand around the world or something else? (...) 10% *is* a market. KL (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) sets. (...) You are absolutely correct. I would be interested in knowing how successful those offerings are. As good as those things are, and they do make it much easier for use to build impressive train show displays, they don't affect their (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> skrev i meddelandet news:G9JE9r.8LM@lugnet.com... (...) Speaking of 'light' catalogs, my reaction to the Swedish 2001 catalog was: "The heaviest I ever seen (when put on a scale), but not so much Lego (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
"Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatic...mblock.ca> wrote in message news:G9KIrI.Mtw@lugnet.com... (...) make (...) especially (...) I agree that LEGO could survive without AFOLs but I also think that we are an evergrowing slice of their market. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
Scott Sanburn wrote in message ... (...) One thing that does impact their losses are the dot com failures, how much are they losing to Etoys? Rose (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) And I just want to add I like none of the new stuff at all... I don't like any of the studio line - way, WAY overpriced racers or race, bionicle, 95% of the life on mars - most of the sets were probably designed by people in a loony bin (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) I like what you have said here a lot, Kevin. The themes themselves are perfect, what sucks is the implementation. But as to staying "cutting edge," I think that goal may need some rethinking. With the exception of the linked Mindstorms, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Here it is: (URL) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
Wow. Thank you for the fantasy. I felt whisked along, as in some psychedelic trippy state. I want to go on that ride again! (I say with wobbly knees, stepping out of the Fun House car) Maybe next time the ride will include: Visions of LEGO DACTA (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) Richard, these are beautifully worded statements and ring with truth. And it is because of the kind of toy that Lego is that we can be optimistic that Lego will be around for a long time to come. (23 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
(...) the (...) it." (...) despite (...) lost (...) play (...) parents (...) growth (...) Find this promising? Read closely and weep. This quote actually demonstrates what is still very wrong in how LEGO officials struggle with their lack of (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
You're not going to go into that story about meeting Timothy Leary at Legoland, CA, again are you? : ) (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
|
Yeah, I appreciate your posts, too. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
