Subject:
|
End of Year Thoughts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:47:40 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
553 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi all,
Okay I am about to ramble endlessly again. Everything I am about to spout
forth is indeed my own uneducated opinion. Feel free to educate me on any
points that are off-base (just do it nicely, pretty please)... Also, forgive
me if .general is not quite the right place for this....
...So, I was just browsing around and happened across this:
http://www.lego.com/eng/info/press/morepress.asp?CategoryId=4&id=171
It was from this past spring, regarding the performance of TLC in 2000. In
it, Poul Plougmann, Executive Vice President of TLC is quoted to acknowledge
the previous year had losses due to lack of focus. He states that the new
year would bring about a "refocus on our core business."
Now that 2001 is drawing to a close, and LUGNETers everywhere scramble to
clean up at the holiday sales and begin to look towards the new year's
catalogues, I stop and ponder whether TLC has yet to live up to those
earlier implications.
Now, granted, a shift back into focus might well require some time -perhaps
a year or more of development. That topic has been debated in the past.
I've always been on the side of "give them the time they need to design and
plan a good theme or subtheme." But one must ask how much time does such
planning take?
Afterall, we now have Harry Potter sets, which to my knowledge were planned
around the release of the new HP movie. When did work on that movie begin
anyway? Six months ago? A year ago? Five years ago? My bet is more
recent than the latter. If they only began production of the film within,
say, the last year, then contracts with TLC were also likely finalized in
that time. Following that logic, if indeed it has been only a year, than
the design and production of all these new sets (with new elements and new
colors) must have been accomplished in that time. Just shows you how
quickly TLC can act if they focus -focus their resources that is.
So, back to the earlier thought, has TLC focused back towards their core
business of playing well and learning through imagination?
If we only use 2001 as an example, I would say, "Not quite."
Plougmann states TLC's core product is "materials for open-ended play for
children." The key part that strikes me is the *open-ended* part. I just
fail to see how Star Wars sets and Harry Potter themes provide open-ended
play -certainly not at the level that old Town sets did (I'm just using
those as examples, I'm certain other past product lines would fit well
also). The Jurassic Park, Spielburg, and Department 56 contracts seem to
also lead further from that core spirit.
True, some of those sets are darn cool. Some of them offer some
interesting elements. And licensing is not new -think of the old Shell and
Exxon gas stations for example. I'm not against having an occassional
trademark thrown in here and there. But the question here is about focus on
a core business idea...
Meanwhile, TLC has continued expansion of non-toys (watches, pens,
clothing), added to its Media line of software, and gone wild promoting
Bionicle (in several media). They have expanded the Creator and Model
series and added to the Train line. Some of this I like, some I can live
without, but my point is that TLC is developing and marketing a growing
variety of product lines, only a few of which (IMHO) meet the critia of
"open-ended play."
And the more TLC tries to do at once, the more spread out the resources,
and in effect, the *less* focused they can be. Looking at the current
product lines, and looking back over the past year or two, I do believe that
there is less focus now than at the start of 2001.
Glancing around other news releases, both at lego.com and here at LUGNET,
it seems to me that many of them focus on how wonderful it is that the world
famous TLC is joining forces with yet another non-toy company -Microsoft,
Universal Music, Disney, Warner Brothers, etc., etc. I know how exciting it
can be to have your hands on so many things. I know how expanding into so
many genres can seem like an extension of the LEGO philosphy. But one must
ask, are they trying to do too much at once?
Now, let me finish by saying I in no way am trying to say TLC is corrupt or
misled. Rather, I am just pointing out some things to ponder. After all,
as an AFOL, all I really want is for LEGO products to always be the quality
toys I have known them to be. I still have hope that they will return to
focus on that core business we have all gathered here to enjoy.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program....
Cheers,
-Hendo
|
|
Message has 9 Replies:
 | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| Is Lego going in the right direction? I don't know. I like the Star Wars and Harry Potter themes. Seems like there will be no new Arctic stuff. Is Adventurers dead? Will we see more of LoM?; doubt it. I don't get Bionicle but I guess many people (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| (...) I think .general is an acceptable place for this... though Dear LEGO would probably also have worked. :) (...) There are two similar pronouncements that come to mind: 1) Taken from Charles Fishman's article on the Fast Company website: "But (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| (...) In the Danish TV News this week they said, that TLC's financial performance for 2001 was saved by the tremendous succes of the Harry Potter sets. I think the issue for TLC is timing - if Adventurers had been out ten years earlier (at the time (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| let me rant in reaction to yours... (...) I agree with this assessment. I thought there were some good things with with the 2000 line-up. The adventures line, while still degenerating from its heydey in 1998 (Egyptian line), still had some nice (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| A general response to all that has been said in this thread. Didn't Lego Group have a terrible year in 1999 as well? It seems to me the business decisions made in 1998 lead to the terrible year in 1999. Now 2000 is bad! That would mean 1999 (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| I'm just curious to know something... This original posting has drawn over 50 responses (both pro and con) and yet this message itself has only 1 spotlight vote for it. Doesn't any one use the Highlight/Spotlight system? Doesn't a posting like this, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| in article Gnw1yv.Kwx@lugnet.com, Hendo (John P. Henderson) at hendo@valyance.com wrote on 12/5/01 2:52 PM: (...) No. It's off topic for LUGNET, and so does not belong on the front page. I refer people with kids to LUGNET all the time, and tell them (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| in article 3C0EBDDF.E99FCC98@mi...pring.com, Frank Filz at ffilz@mindspring.com wrote on 12/5/01 6:37 PM: (...) Ahhh. Sorry, I thought that the poster had changed the subjest line. My mistake. Rob (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
60 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
