Subject:
|
Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2001 04:42:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
434 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> 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....
I think .general is an acceptable place for this... though Dear LEGO would
probably also have worked. :)
> ...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."
There are two similar pronouncements that come to mind:
1) Taken from Charles Fishman's article on the Fast Company website:
"But history and values haven't helped Lego avoid turbulence. The company
has been trying to find its footing for a decade. Kjeld described last
year's billion-kroner loss as "disastrous." His handpicked deputy, Poul
Plougmann, described the performance as "miserable." And in the wake of
2000, one of the first things that Kjeld and Plougmann did was write a
"go-get-'em" booklet for employees. The cover is Lego-brick red; the title
is 'Remembering Why We Are Here.' "
Original article (http://www.fastcompany.com/online/50/lego.html)
2) Taken from the 'Ultimate LEGO Book'
"Our aim is to stimulate children to become masters of their own lives - not
by giving them finished solutions, but by giving them tools to manipulate
and challenges to solve, and by enticing their natural curiosity..." -
Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078944691X/qid=1007007544/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_7_1/107-6176395-8109326
What's wrong with both of these quotes? Neither one has come true.
The company has not refocused on core values. The company offers complete
solutions (a la Jack Stone) rather than traditional brick building sets.
The company doesn't seem to remember why it's here. It makes me very sad.
> 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.
Apart from a few thousand LUGNETers, what about the thousands upon thousands
of kids who now roam the aisles of local toy stores and see the disaster
that has become the product lines of the LEGO company.
> 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?
They've had time. I honestly believe this isn't about time. It's about a
willingness to embrace and cherish their own history and commitment to
children. Bionicle proves that their only commitment is to the almighty buck.
The Disney company is currently running TV ads to celebrate the 100th
birthday of Walt Disney. One of the ads has a group of adults spontaneously
breaking into the theme from the Mickey Mouse club. The tag line read by
the narrator speaks to them and tells them, "You were the first Disney
generation." This is a company that remembers that it's audience grows up a
little each year. Yes, replaced by new members, but many of the former kids
end up as adults who long to return to fond memories. LEGO could make money
money and more money if they could only understand this principle. And if
they're not in it for the money... than just do it because it's the right
thing to do. Either way... everyone wins.
> 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.
You need only to read the Harry Potter books to have a sense that the Harry
Potter LEGO sets are pale imitations at best. This astounds me quite
honestly, since they did such an incredible job with the Star Wars sets.
> So, back to the earlier thought, has TLC focused back towards their core
> business of playing well and learning through imagination?
No.
> If we only use 2001 as an example, I would say, "Not quite."
Not by a country mile.
> 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.
This furthers my previous argument that if they're not careful, the company
may one day simply be a distribution network for other company's products.
They seem to be slipping further away from the ability to best do what they
themselves invented.
> 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...
Or, as I have often stated on this forum:
LEGO = bricks
Any bricks. Big ones, small ones, tiles, beams, Technic, standard 2x4 red
bricks.... but bricks... sets made from bricks.
> 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."
They are trying to grow their 'brand'. Unfortunately they are doing it at
the expense of their core product. 20 years from now, no one will buy LEGO
watches, pens, or napsacks if the kids of today aren't offered well-designed
LEGO sets TODAY. Because remember, the parents of tomorrow, are the kids of
today. Part of the reason LEGO still sells today is that there are so many
sentimental parents around who get their kids started on LEGO at an early
age... due to memories and a past reputation of the product. But when
today's kids look back, will they have fond and warm memories of Bionicle?
Not likely. And then what will inspire them to buy LEGO for their kids?
Nothing. The problem isn't entirely what's happening today... it's what
will happen down the road.
> Now, let me finish by saying I in no way am trying to say TLC is corrupt or
> misled.
Not corrupt... lost. They are a ship adrift without a rudder or map.
> 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 couldn't have said it better.
> I still have hope that they will return to
> focus on that core business we have all gathered here to enjoy.
I have tremendous faith that they will. Otherwise... what would I be doing
here? ;)
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| John & Allan, You both have thoughtful things to say. Coincidentally last night I was reading the front page of the Ultimate Book, the one where Kjeld makes the hollow promises about what Lego will stand for in 2005. (By the way, since DK Books have (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| (...) Exactly! And that reminds me of another anecdote I forgot to mention in my earlier post: With pics of my Town and a few small models around my cubicle, people throught the company I work for have learned of my hobby. During the past few weeks, (...) (23 years ago, 29-Nov-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| (...) Let's not use Disney as an example. My wife is to Disney as many of us here are to LEGO, and it appears that Disney may have even bigger problems that LEGO does in retaining it's adult market. The commercials you refer to are for events at (...) (23 years ago, 30-Nov-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | End of Year Thoughts
|
| 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Nov-01, to lugnet.general) !
|
60 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
|
|
|
|
