Subject:
|
Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Mar 2001 20:29:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
549 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Assuming TLC wants to cover all targets in the young, what would you like to
> see in between DUPLO and those late 80's sets?
>
> Like if a boy wants his Mom to buy the Silver Champion for him, but he's 3.
> Kind of an exageration there, but while I'm in TRU I constantly see boys drawn
> to the sets that the "big boys," like maybe his brother, get. So those boys
> may want to drop DUPLO at an early age, maye because "It's not cool." For a
> parent in this scene what would they want to do? For the child, what should
> come next?
>
> -Suz
Didn't LEGO address this in the 1980s? That is, I recall that at least one or
two of the US medium catalogs from c.1985 [1] pitched "Basic" sets as a series
of graduated steps: there were sets with the "finger puppets" and mostly
blocks that were safe for kids who shouldn't/couldn't be handling small parts
(I believe the recommended start age was 3, right after Duplo). The next step
would be Basic sets that included generic minifigs and more specialized (mostly
Town) pieces, and finally more advanced Basic sets that featured Technic-type
pieces. Thus, the kid who wants something more advanced can get
it--incrementally. Maybe not an Airport Shuttle, but a set with windows and
doors to make a "old-kid" Town-type building, without parts that are _too_
advanced.
That strategy makes a _lot_ of sense to me. It offers an obviously
age-delimited range of products that all work together[2], encouraging future
sales as the parents determine what sorts of pieces are appropriate for their
child. Obviously TLG didn't think so, however, since they soon dropped
Basic/Freestyle/Classic from the catalogs and left the consumer to conclude
that there was no "real Lego" outside LEGOLAND-->System, aside from the
occasional mention of Technic or Belleville. So out with the continuum of
interoperable but age-graded products, and in with one-size-fits-all System
(and completely separate Primo, Duplo, Technic, and Mindstorms product ranges
that, to the consumer, have little obvious connection to the System they see in
the catalogs).
Of course the other big question about this topic is why Lego killed off "Basic
Duplo" in the late 80s and came up with "Play Duplo" [3] (eventually leading to
a perceived need for Primo). Perhaps Lego Marketing doesn't believe in
unstructured construction toys?
TWS Garrison
[1] Unfortunately, those are at home right now, and Kevin Loch doesn't seem to
have US catalogs from the 80s up. . .I might have to get access to a scanner
sometime. . .
[2] Unlike the "interconnectibility" of Duplo and Lego, which rarely if ever
seems to be used outside Lego catalogs. . .
[3] People keep complaining about "Juniorization of Town", but have there
actually been any regualar bricks in Duplo since the 1980s?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
| (...) I see your point but I have read that line over a few times, and it makes me laugh...."little Billie" wants something his older brother "Jeffy" has.... I guess that's the jealousy factor.... (...) Mmmmm...I think you are right about this...I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
| (...) Assuming TLC wants to cover all targets in the young, what would you like to see in between DUPLO and those late 80's sets? Like if a boy wants his Mom to buy the Silver Champion for him, but he's 3. Kind of an exageration there, but while I'm (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
