Subject:
|
Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Mar 2001 20:58:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
659 times
|
| |
|
|
> >
> > 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
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....
> 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.
Mmmmm...I think you are right about this...I think a good example is the
basic sets that came out in circa 1990 to 1992...the 715,725,735 basic
sets.
715 was a small set with easier things to make and larger pieces
725 was the house building set that went well with town with smaller more
specialized pieces
735 was the last of the great basic building sets for older children with
some more advance models you could build....
I guess this is my example for that....
and I just want to add that I love 725 because it makes a nice house for
any town, not to mention the flowers, the horse, the lamps, and the
paradisa-type windows!!
>
> 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
|
| In lugnet.general, Benjamin Medinets writes: ... (...) ... Wow, that's cool to hear someone mention those LEGO Basic sets. I miss those. The 3 you mention were the age 7+ sets in green boxes. see (URL) were also 5+ (blue) see (URL) 3+ (orange). see (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
