Subject:
|
Re: new lego sets? are they crazy?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:45:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
849 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Jim Green writes:
> <original snipped>
> Times change and Lego must flex and experiment to garner the interests of a new
> generation of children. That is what will keep them in business. And however
> much we don't like the juniorized sets, I don't think they pose a threat to the
> tried and true... Jack Stone (even if he were better sculpted) will not replace
> minifigs anytime soon. But, I should also mention, if Lego in producing the
> juniorized lines can subsidize the loss-leading sets you and I desire (like the
> Classics series), how can I criticize?
At the prices LEGO charges for any sets, it is hard to imagine classifying
any of them as loss-leaders. Generally this is a sales tool used by retail
stores as 'bait' essentially to lure you in with an item being sold at or
below cost. Usually a small item on which the loss is not great. But once
you're in the store it is hoped that you will buy an item with a much higher
price tag. Example? An appliance store (a la Future Shop) selling a hit CD
for $5 but then hoping you'll buy a stereo or computer while you're in the
store.
LEGO is not using any of its lines to subsidize anything else. There must
be a reason behind such poorly designed sets as the Jack Stone series but
for the life of me I can't find one. But I know that it's certainly not to
support better designed lines or sets.
> The people at Lego are pretty smart folk from what I can tell. They are charged
> with creating products that appeal across cultures, ages and genders.
The Yo-Yo does this. Perhaps LEGO should make Yo-Yo's.
> And they
> are succeeding,
Are they anymore? Or is much of the fondness for LEGO based on past
successes. For me, this is the case. I wonder how others feel. Do we love
LEGO for what they are producing now? Or what we *remember* them producing
in the past and hope they will again in the future?
> too. They haven't forgotten the enthusiasts, they just can't afford to have us
> as their sole focus.
Full agreement here. But they must work to build future enthusiasts soon,
or the company is doomed. The reason I'm a LEGO fan today is because when I
was young the sets were as strong as could be. Will young kids catch on
today, when the company can't seem to figure out what sort of lines/sets it
wants to focus on? Or does it want to focus on bricks at all? Perhaps it's
trying to become a software and wristwatch company. Based on the catalog,
it's hard to tell.
For years I have hoped that if I were to have children that they would one
day enjoy LEGO as much as I did when I was a kid. I have lost that feeling.
Looking at the most recent catalog makes me think that my kid would wonder
what the big deal is when I wax poetic about the Golden Age of LEGO. We
can't go back, admittedly.... but can't someone at the company open up an
old catalog from the mid-seventies and catch a glimpse of what solid set
design used to look like? Doesn't LEGO have an archives? If not, drop me a
note, I'll send you one.
> But back to the original post, I will agree that the latest catalog is
> disconcerting, the juniorized sets crowd out a lot that you and I maybe
> interested in. But I think the catalog shouldn't be seen as the only
> representation of the company's product line.
It may not be the only representation.... but shouldn't it be one of the best?
> For example, also not in the
> catalog are the Scala and many of the Duplo sets, among other things that *can*
> be found at the S@H website.
What about kids who do get the catalog but don't have the internet?
> All in all, I think Lego is doing a great job. I'm still addicted, aren't you?
On the contrary.... I think they're doing a poor job. See my rant:
http://news.lugnet.com/town/?n=3442
To the LEGO company I once again offer my simple mathematical formula for
your continued success:
LEGO = bricks
It's simple. Please read it. Please drop me a note if there's anything you
don't understand.
Some folks might surmise that I am not a LEGO fan at all, based on my highly
critical comments. Quite the opposite. I have cherished memories of LEGO
that go back further than almost anything else in my life. I am simply
frustrated that a company I once held in almost mythical regard has stooped
so low as to sell something called a Tarakava (set 8549) and still allow the
LEGO logo to be stamped upon it.
I know you folks can do better.
Please.... dazzle me. I dare you.
Regards,
Allan B.
(A LEGO fan for more than 25 years, but getting ready to stop counting)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: new lego sets? are they crazy?
|
| <original snipped> I have (or had) been harping on the juniorized sets as well, mostly due to the quality of design, but after reading people's opinions I'm beginning to think there is room for the lines. Please excuse the analogy, but I think Lego (...) (23 years ago, 3-Aug-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
