Subject:
|
Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:12:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
502 times
|
| |
|
|
let me rant in reaction to yours...
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....
>
> ...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.
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 additions,
I loved the original soccer line, the stands, the soccer field, the busses.
The continuation of the Knights Kingdom, and its license to Starwars, oh and
don't forget the Alpha Team introduction.
With all this, Lego had a "disappointing year" (actually its worst yet).
This year we saw the introduction of the legends line-up (guarded inn,
metroliner & club car), the introduction of Jack Stone and Creator Lines,
Bionicle, the introduction of Harry Potter, the expansion of its train
line....don't forget new sets for Starwars...Plus it has reintroduced a few
"classic" sets from its "core line".
If Lego had a problem with sales, and over extension of its operations,
then 2001 was much worse. However, I do think Bionicle and Harry Potter were
a step in the right direction.....look at how many people are buying them.
> 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?
The legends line again was a nice concept, and the "classic" line was also
helpful in this path to returning to its core line. However, I have read
a LOT of opinions on Lugnet that say, that most enthusiasts (mainly adult ones)
have said they would like Brand New Designed sets based on Classic "Core"
designs / no juniorization.
>
> 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.
I also agree with this point, however, with the spreading of its resources
over a wide spectrum of products, I think it will start to handicap itself
in this area. Lego should take a look at itself, and find out whether all
the new products will sell, or just stay on the shelves (or sold for
sharp discounts).
> 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.
I think I have already commented on that, but I would also have to agree with
that sentiment. As was already pointed out, Lego is putting out products that
tie with licenses. I guess this means they don't have to be as innovative
(as in starting new themes), but it means that they have to come up with new
piece designs.....especially if they want to keep up a nasty trend of
Juniorization.
Though Starwars and Harry Potter do have a lot less one-piece parts than
products in the past (Harry Potter also has those really aweful roof
designs).
My own rant, (and hoped you got this far)
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| "Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message news:GnKL1K.4ww@lugnet.com... (...) few (...) Its interesting you call this the worst year yet, and at the same time we got Legends and Classic stuff. Sad thing is, its true. (...) ones) (...) (23 years ago, 29-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
|
|
|
|
