 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
but is it really true?
What we need is an experiment, to prove once and for all if junorization
is what the market wants.
Take 2 sets, one jr and one representing the best lego can do but both
being roughly equivilent in terms of subject etc.
Lets use 4611 jack stone police HQ as the jr set, its a set thats pretty
much everywhere you look.
And lets use the 6398 central precinct HQ as the good quality set.
Both sets are pretty equivilent in that they both have a list price of
~$70 and both have 5 figures.
It may be that if the 6398 was released today it would have a higher
list price but lets ignore this for now since it would complicate matters :)
There are possibly other parings of jack-stone and classic town that you
could do as well but this will do for an example.
Get a jr set like the 4611 and a non jr set like the 6398. Make sure
both have boxes, instructions etc and are good enough quality (so as not
to bias the experiment). Then get a sampling of the different parts of
LEGO's consumer demographic, for example:
AFOLs buying for themselves
AFOLs buying for their kids
kids of AFOLs
parents who arent AFOLs
kids of non AFOL parents
etc
Then show each person/group both sets. Mention relavent information like
price and so on.
Then get them to evaluate both sets and pick which one they would
choose, based on price, interest, piece count, buildability,
playability, packaging and so on. Basicly, if they were in a store and
saw both sets and were going to choose one (to buy as a xmas/bday gift,
to save up for, to buy for themselves or whatever) which one would they
be more likely to pick.
If you have a large enough and broad enough sampling of LEGO's customer
base then an experiment like this would answer the simple question: Does
the market realy want junorization?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> Does the market realy want junorization?
Even if I do not like the answer, I think it is:
"Yes, market demands junorized sets"
Leg Godt!
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Reinhard \"Ben\" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
>
> > Does the market realy want junorization?
>
>
> Even if I do not like the answer, I think it is:
> "Yes, market demands junorized sets"
>
> Leg Godt!
>
> Ben
look at it this way: Given the choice between a juniorized set and a non
juniorized set that are otherwise both very similar (like the 2 police
stations in my example) which set would most lego consumers choose?
The most important question is: if there were only non jr sets on the
shelves, would lego consumers buy:
A.more lego than they are at the moment (especially more at full price)
B.less lego than they are at the moment
or C.about the same.
Unless the answer to this is B then lego is making a mistake by making
the jr stuff.
Does anyone accually have any hard data that shows that jack stone is
accually selling (vis a vis, say, creator which is not as juniorized)
I have heard various stories from people that:
Think megablocks is lego but better because megablocks have lots of
bricks & lego doesnt
Wish they could buy a box of just bricks (there are a few but they are
very hard to find here in perth, I havent seen one around for a while)
and others along the same lines.
I think lego should be making good, non jr products that have NO story
attatched whatsoever (unlike creator, jack stone, starwars, harry
potter, bionicle etc etc etc) and then marketing the hell out of them.
Ever since that fire and the decision by the founder of LEGO to
concentrate on the plastic bricks, lego has been about open ended play
that encourages imagination. That (IMHO) is why lego is loosing profit,
because they have strayed from their roots.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Does the market realy want junorization?
>
> Even if I do not like the answer, I think it is:
> "Yes, market demands junorized sets"
>
> Leg Godt!
>
> Ben
Today is 'Sint Nicolaas'-day in Holland (and in some parts of Germany?).
Traditionally Sint Nic gives the Dutch kids a lot of toys on this day, which
are deposited through the chimney in a big brown bag by 'Zwarte Piet'
(comparable to the elfs that assist Santaclaus).
On the news I heard that the number 1 toy for this year's Sint Nicolaas was
Lego. This does not proof that the market demands juniorization, but
apparently the market doesn't mind either...
-Wessel
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Wessel Burgers writes:
> In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > Does the market realy want junorization?
> >
> > Even if I do not like the answer, I think it is:
> > "Yes, market demands junorized sets"
> >
> > Leg Godt!
> >
> > Ben
>
> Today is 'Sint Nicolaas'-day in Holland (and in some parts of Germany?).
The 6th of December is "Nikolaus-Tag", but that means just a few sweets for
the kids (put in a boot which has to be places at a window or door), but not
tons of toys. The main day for gifts is the evening of 24th.
> Traditionally Sint Nic gives the Dutch kids a lot of toys on this day, which
> are deposited through the chimney in a big brown bag by 'Zwarte Piet'
> (comparable to the elfs that assist Santaclaus).
>
> On the news I heard that the number 1 toy for this year's Sint Nicolaas was
> Lego. This does not proof that the market demands juniorization, but
> apparently the market doesn't mind either...
No idea, how the Potter-Mania is in our neigbour country: but here in German
news I have heared Harry Potter Lego sells like no other toy. But Potter is
notnot a classic set and not a juniorized set.... So this proves in fact
nothing.
Concerning juniorization: we do not know enough about the production costs of
juniorized sets (less bricks, but lots of special monofunctional (= expensive)
ones) to judge about success or not. Lego does not allow us to have a look in
their cards. Since we know nothing, I hate this kind of speculation, which
tries to tell Lego, what their problem is. Lego has heared the voice of the
AFOLs and now we have sculptures, bulk and My Own Train. That counts. Who does
care about "Jack Stoned"? This is a discussion that has been done two years
ago. All arguments have been exchanged. That's it...
Regards,
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Does the market realy want junorization?
>
> Even if I do not like the answer, I think it is:
> "Yes, market demands junorized sets"
Which market exactly would that be?
Let's take a look at things *for kids* the way they are now, compared to the
way they were when I was growing up as a pre-teen in the late 70's.
Movies today are MORE sophisticated.
Books today are MORE sophisticated.
Video games today are MORE sophisticated.
Computers today are MORE sophisticated.
LEGO today is LESS sophisticated.
Why?
Is LEGO *that* much harder for kids to grasp than the operation of a
computer? When I was 10 years old, home computers had 5k of usable memory
and programs were loaded off a cassette tape. My LEGO sets had multi-page
instructions and almost NO juniorized pieces.
Today home computers routinely ship with 256 MEG of memory and programs are
downloaded off the Internet. And yet LEGO sets today are rarely more than
just a handful of specialized pieces and kids sometimes don't even need to
use the instructions to assemble them.
Far from the market demanding juniorized sets, the children's entertainment
market is often the leader in high tech and forward thinking. Too bad the
LEGO company is missing the boat.
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> LEGO today is LESS sophisticated.
>
> Why?
No way! Even if you ignore Mindstorms and Technic, there is a wider range of
parts available in a wider range of colours across a wider range of sets in
a wider range of themes.
> Today home computers routinely ship with 256 MEG of memory and programs are
> downloaded off the Internet. And yet LEGO sets today are rarely more than
> just a handful of specialized pieces and kids sometimes don't even need to
> use the instructions to assemble them.
Maybe kids today are smarter? Maybe you're not making a fair comparison - at
the same piece count are 70's sets more difficult to assemble than 00's sets?
> Far from the market demanding juniorized sets, the children's entertainment
> market is often the leader in high tech and forward thinking.
...and making things easier to use.
Cheers
Richie
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > LEGO today is LESS sophisticated.
> >
> > Why?
>
> No way! Even if you ignore Mindstorms and Technic, there is a wider range of
> parts available in a wider range of colours across a wider range of sets in
> a wider range of themes.
But ignoring Mindstorms and Technic (what little exists) the sets are less
*sophisticated* from a design point of view. You may be right, the colors,
pieces and themes may be wide ranging, but the technical make-up of the sets
has dropped dramatically.
This theory is utterly simple to prove.
The police headquarters I had when I was a kid:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
The police headquarters kids must suffer with today:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4611
One looks (at least reasonably) like a building. It has doors, a roof and
walls.
The other looks (at least to my stupid old eyes) like an elevator shaft
that's missing some of it's walls. And for some reason the jail isn't even
attached. Poor, shoddy, crumby, juvenile design. That is my point.
> > Today home computers routinely ship with 256 MEG of memory and programs are
> > downloaded off the Internet. And yet LEGO sets today are rarely more than
> > just a handful of specialized pieces and kids sometimes don't even need to
> > use the instructions to assemble them.
>
> Maybe kids today are smarter? Maybe you're not making a fair comparison - at
> the same piece count are 70's sets more difficult to assemble than 00's sets?
Yes, they were more difficult to assemble. That's what made them better.
My point was that kids today can handle (with ease) a vast array of
complicated electronics and information. They *can* handle putting together
simple building with walls and a roof. Take a look at those two police
headquarters noted above. Does that one from 1975 really look that hard to
build?
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> But ignoring Mindstorms and Technic (what little exists) the sets are less
> *sophisticated* from a design point of view. You may be right, the colors,
> pieces and themes may be wide ranging, but the technical make-up of the sets
> has dropped dramatically.
>
> This theory is utterly simple to prove.
> The police headquarters I had when I was a kid:
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
> The police headquarters kids must suffer with today:
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4611
> One looks (at least reasonably) like a building. It has doors, a roof and
> walls.
One has 280 pieces, one has 137 pieces. Hardly a fair comparison.
And "suffer with"? I have a mental image of a child screaming "No, no,
please don't make me play with it!"
> The other looks (at least to my stupid old eyes) like an elevator shaft
> that's missing some of it's walls. And for some reason the jail isn't even
> attached. Poor, shoddy, crumby, juvenile design. That is my point.
Producing a larger building, with more play possibilities (you can put the
figs in the cars and in the buildings!), with fewer pieces.
> My point was that kids today can handle (with ease) a vast array of
> complicated electronics and information. They *can* handle putting together
> simple building with walls and a roof. Take a look at those two police
> headquarters noted above. Does that one from 1975 really look that hard to
> build?
No, it could probably be built without the instructions.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > But ignoring Mindstorms and Technic (what little exists) the sets are less
> > *sophisticated* from a design point of view. You may be right, the colors,
> > pieces and themes may be wide ranging, but the technical make-up of the sets
> > has dropped dramatically.
> >
> > This theory is utterly simple to prove.
> > The police headquarters I had when I was a kid:
> > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
> > The police headquarters kids must suffer with today:
> > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4611
> > One looks (at least reasonably) like a building. It has doors, a roof and
> > walls.
>
> One has 280 pieces, one has 137 pieces. Hardly a fair comparison.
You reinforced my point. One has lots of basic bricks with which to build
*other* things after you've built the main model.
With the Jack Stone pieces you can build.... um... I'm not sure what else
you can build.
The fact that today's sets contain so many fewer actual bricks is key to the
design problems of which I spoke.
> And "suffer with"? I have a mental image of a child screaming "No, no,
> please don't make me play with it!"
Sorry, I didn't mean 'suffer' literally. But in some ways kids are being
deprived of the joy of LEGO that I had as a kid.
> > The other looks (at least to my stupid old eyes) like an elevator shaft
> > that's missing some of it's walls. And for some reason the jail isn't even
> > attached. Poor, shoddy, crumby, juvenile design. That is my point.
> Producing a larger building, with more play possibilities (you can put the
> figs in the cars and in the buildings!), with fewer pieces.
But *why* use fewer pieces? Why aren't those white one-piece columns at
least made out of stacks of 2x2's?
I used to take the roof plates off my buildings and use them for mini-fig
occupancy all the time.
As for cars. Simple. If the mini touched the car... he was in it. I set
him aside and pretended that he was in the car, until he got out of it. Now
*that's* imagination.
> > My point was that kids today can handle (with ease) a vast array of
> > complicated electronics and information. They *can* handle putting together
> > simple building with walls and a roof. Take a look at those two police
> > headquarters noted above. Does that one from 1975 really look that hard to
> > build?
> No, it could probably be built without the instructions.
But then doesn't that help to tell us that juniorization isn't necessary?
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Allan Bedford" <apotomeREMOVE-THIS@altavista.net> wrote in message news:GnwH2y.HHF@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > Does the market realy want junorization?
> >
> > Even if I do not like the answer, I think it is:
> > "Yes, market demands junorized sets"
>
> Which market exactly would that be?
>
> Let's take a look at things *for kids* the way they are now, compared to the
> way they were when I was growing up as a pre-teen in the late 70's.
>
> Movies today are MORE sophisticated.
Which movies? It seems to me that today movies have more special effects but
that is not sophistication.
> Books today are MORE sophisticated.
> Video games today are MORE sophisticated.
Let's take a look at the adventure games:
In the ones from the 80's you had to type commands,
and guess words.
In most of the present quest games, you have to only click with the mouse,
and you cannot die, or go wrong and have to restart the game.
And I wouldn't call Quake or Doom a sophisticated video game...
> Computers today are MORE sophisticated.
Hmm, in the 80's, PC's had only DOS.
Using it wasn't easy.
Now they have MS Windows, and while programming for it may be more
sophisticated, the user interface is not.
And with each new version, the interface is supposed to be even more easy to use - take a look at WinXP.
In the past, in order to play a computer game, I had to know exactly
the settings of my hardware, like the model of the soundcard, the IRQs, etc.
Some games required fine-tunning of the available memory, so I learned much about UMB, EMS and XMS.
Today you just put the game CD in the CD-ROM device, and it is auto-installed, and auto-detects what it needs.
>
> LEGO today is LESS sophisticated.
>
> Why?
>
> Is LEGO *that* much harder for kids to grasp than the operation of a
> computer? When I was 10 years old, home computers had 5k of usable memory
> and programs were loaded off a cassette tape. My LEGO sets had multi-page
> instructions and almost NO juniorized pieces.
>
> Today home computers routinely ship with 256 MEG of memory and programs are
> downloaded off the Internet. And yet LEGO sets today are rarely more than
> just a handful of specialized pieces and kids sometimes don't even need to
> use the instructions to assemble them.
And which is easier? Loading a program from a cassette tape, or from Internet?
I owned a Sinclair ZX Spectrum, and working with it wasn't easier than my today's PC.
> Far from the market demanding juniorized sets, the children's entertainment
> market is often the leader in high tech and forward thinking. Too bad the
> LEGO company is missing the boat.
I agree, the children's toys should promote creativity, and not be 'dumbed down'.
IMO it is better for the child to spend some time trying to build the toy,
not to make it quickly from the instructions, and then forget about it.
-----------------------
Castaway Pirate
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Movies today are MORE sophisticated.
how so? should i remind you of the "Mummy Returns?" yeah you see stuff Fight
Club and the Truman Show everynow and then, but mindless bs still dominates the
screens.
>
> Books today are MORE sophisticated.
umm.. which books? as far as ive noticed, and i think scholarship will back me
up (_cultural amnesia_ by s.bertman), the reading level of most americans (at
least, i dunno about other countries) has DECREASED within the last few
decades.. perhaps the plots are more detailed, but vocabulary and sentence
complexity is steadily decreasing.
>
> Video games today are MORE sophisticated.
>
> Computers today are MORE sophisticated.
technologically speaking, but i think most games that requires actual thinking
and puzzle solving to be kinda rare.. but this is mostly irrelevant.
>
> LEGO today is LESS sophisticated.
>
> Why?
>
> Is LEGO *that* much harder for kids to grasp than the operation of a
> computer? When I was 10 years old, home computers had 5k of usable memory
> and programs were loaded off a cassette tape. My LEGO sets had multi-page
> instructions and almost NO juniorized pieces.
apples and oranges. put in a N64 and you play IMMEADIATELY. open a lego
package and you build for however long and then you play. (or at least thats
how it is seen now) juniorization is lego's attempt to get kids playing
faster. that and video games, tv, and other such ELECTRONIC stuff lights up,
glows, makes noise.. legos are silent and comparatively dull.
i wonder how jigsaw puzzles are doing as compared to the eighties? or other
building block toys, like wooden ones and stuff (ie. lincoln logs). walk
through TRU and see how many toys are needlessly electronic, i suspect in an
effort to keep up with kids who need more and more to keep them interested.
in the N64 game perfect dark you can actually shoot someone, see them fall
realistically to the floor with the bloodstain on the wall behind them. there
is nothing lego can do to compete with that type of excitement and reality.
i think kids, and society in general, is losing touch with its imagination and
creativity.
-lenny
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> but is it really true?
>
> What we need is an experiment, to prove once and for all if junorization
> is what the market wants.
But you just said yourself why juniorization is here-- because of video game
kids with short attention spans. So your little experiment should be *against*
a video game (use any LEGO set you want. The idea is to get the kid *playing*
with the toy ASAP, before he gets bored in the assembley stage). Or take a 5
year old kid and place your 2 sets in front of him. Which will *he* choose?
Because *he* is the market juniorization addresses. Better yet, take your best
LEGO set and put it up against cable TV with a remote....
I've got to give TLC credit where it is due, because juniorization is working
very well. Look at the success of Bionicle-- that is a *totally* juniorized
line IMO. For a builder such as I, Bionicle is a nightmare because virtually
every piece in the line is unusable. But it's successful, and, generally
speaking, what's good for TLC is good for us.
> Take 2 sets, one jr and one representing the best lego can do but both
> being roughly equivilent in terms of subject etc.
> Lets use 4611 jack stone police HQ as the jr set, its a set thats pretty
> much everywhere you look.
> And lets use the 6398 central precinct HQ as the good quality set.
<snip>
> If you have a large enough and broad enough sampling of LEGO's customer
> base then an experiment like this would answer the simple question: Does
> the market realy want junorization?
It's not a question of what a broad sampling wants. Do you *want* Primo or
Duplo? *Personally* I don't, but should I be calling for its demise? Of course
not, because it has a niche (of which I happen to not be a part).
Further, we AFOLs may not want juniorization, but we are *already* LEGO
customers. I think our needs are being addressed very well by LD. Our best
hope as AFOLs is to make sure LD does well, because, specifically speaking, if
LD does well, it is great for AFOLs.
As for Billund, they are worried about the toy market in general-- market share,
competitors, etc. They are eyeing the *non-LEGO GP* and trying to determine how
best to grab *them*.
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> > but is it really true?
<snip>
> I've got to give TLC credit where it is due, because juniorization is working
> very well. Look at the success of Bionicle-- that is a *totally* juniorized
> line IMO. For a builder such as I, Bionicle is a nightmare because virtually
> every piece in the line is unusable.
I agree with this entirely, and my own son, who shares with me tens of
thousands of regular (ie stackable, if not rectilinear) bricks, _loves_
Bionicles, and has asked for nothing else (lego-wise) for Christmas.
He has a separate container for minifigs and their acessories, and prefers
to play with them alone on the barest of play surfaces, or once-made and
never-broken-down sets. He likes to _collect_ special pieces, such as
crystals, animals, weapons, cameras and so on. The HP sets are _wonderful_
for this purpose, and I prefer to get him these over Bionicles.
But it's successful, and, generally
> speaking, what's good for TLC is good for us.
Well, as long as TLC continue to offer traditional bricks in a variety of
colours, or sets which use these.
I think there is a market, say age 14 and up, who would want highly detailed
sets like the SW x-wing, tie interceptor, and blockade runner, or the
technic supercars for instance. When I hit that age, the first of the
technic cars were coming out, and, even though I didn't get any (darn you,
my parents), it lkept my interest in the toy high.
> It's not a question of what a broad sampling wants. Do you *want* Primo or
> Duplo? *Personally* I don't, but should I be calling for its demise? Of course
> not, because it has a niche (of which I happen to not be a part).
I agree here, too. I believe getting kids interested in the building process
early makes them life-long builders. My son builds MOCs tentatively, but I
don't think he'll ever _stop_ at this point.
<snip>
stuart
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, Stuart Immonen writes:
> > In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> > > but is it really true?
>
> <snip>
>
> > I've got to give TLC credit where it is due, because juniorization is working
> > very well. Look at the success of Bionicle-- that is a *totally* juniorized
> > line IMO. For a builder such as I, Bionicle is a nightmare because virtually
> > every piece in the line is unusable.
The success of Bionicle is not the success of LEGO. It is the success of a
line that is closer to action figures than building bricks. It's a sad day,
not one to celebrate.
> I agree with this entirely, and my own son, who shares with me tens of
> thousands of regular (ie stackable, if not rectilinear) bricks, _loves_
> Bionicles, and has asked for nothing else (lego-wise) for Christmas.
Do I read you correctly? You're saying he's asked for nothing but Bionicles
for Christmas? Or nothing but LEGO products? If it's the former, then my
point above is reinforced.
> He has a separate container for minifigs and their acessories, and prefers
> to play with them alone on the barest of play surfaces, or once-made and
> never-broken-down sets. He likes to _collect_ special pieces, such as
> crystals, animals, weapons, cameras and so on. The HP sets are _wonderful_
> for this purpose, and I prefer to get him these over Bionicles.
As any good parent would. ;)
> But it's successful, and, generally
> > speaking, what's good for TLC is good for us.
>
>
> Well, as long as TLC continue to offer traditional bricks in a variety of
> colours, or sets which use these.
But they aren't. And that's what folks like me are railing against. They
have produced Bionicles and Harry Potter and Jack Stone etc. etc. at the
exclusion (or so it would seem) of traditional brick-based sets. As well,
try to find a simple bucket of bricks on the toy shelves of my local Zellers
store... it can't be done, and it's less than 4 weeks to Christmas.
> I think there is a market, say age 14 and up, who would want highly detailed
> sets like the SW x-wing, tie interceptor, and blockade runner, or the
> technic supercars for instance. When I hit that age, the first of the
> technic cars were coming out, and, even though I didn't get any (darn you,
> my parents), it lkept my interest in the toy high.
It kept your interest high and sustained apparently, as you're now posting
to a LEGO-related website? What about your son when he grows up? Will he
be posting to LUGNET or BIONICLENET?
> > It's not a question of what a broad sampling wants. Do you *want* Primo or
> > Duplo? *Personally* I don't, but should I be calling for its demise? Of course
> > not, because it has a niche (of which I happen to not be a part).
>
> I agree here, too. I believe getting kids interested in the building process
> early makes them life-long builders. My son builds MOCs tentatively, but I
> don't think he'll ever _stop_ at this point.
Primo and Duplo are entirely separate lines from LEGO that kids 5 - 7 and up
can realistically use. They are necessary and I can't imagine someone
arguing their demise. But lines like Jack Stone that speak down to kids
with the shallowness of their design... these lines must be replaced with
more realistic and more brick-based sets. The sooner, the better.
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> But they aren't. And that's what folks like me are railing against. They
> have produced Bionicles and Harry Potter and Jack Stone etc. etc. at the
> exclusion (or so it would seem) of traditional brick-based sets. As well,
> try to find a simple bucket of bricks on the toy shelves of my local Zellers
> store... it can't be done, and it's less than 4 weeks to Christmas.
Pardon me, but TLC offers something *better* than buckets-- bulk packs! I know
folk like to rail on about the slowness of this service being expanded, but step
back a moment. Three years ago we all would have killed for the possibility of
such a service to become reality! And now we have it. And we have the ear of
LD. And we are getting some of the most popular sets ever released *rereleased*
. And we are in the middle of the release of the most popular theme ever (SW).
And, as I'm told, we haven't seen anything yet!
Forget about juniorization-- think of it as Duplo senior and let it go. What's
coming down the pike is going to be awesome
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
>
> > But they aren't. And that's what folks like me are railing against. They
> > have produced Bionicles and Harry Potter and Jack Stone etc. etc. at the
> > exclusion (or so it would seem) of traditional brick-based sets. As well,
> > try to find a simple bucket of bricks on the toy shelves of my local Zellers
> > store... it can't be done, and it's less than 4 weeks to Christmas.
>
> Pardon me, but TLC offers something *better* than buckets-- bulk packs! I
I was speaking for the kid in me who still likes going into a store and
buying a new bucket of LEGO bricks. He's very sad these days.
The bulk packs (and all the other LEGO Direct stuff) may be great for some,
but for me it's done nothing. Thanks to LEGO shutting down their Canadian
operations entirely, the cost of ordering such parts is astronomical. I'd
rather see stuff in the stores that I could buy right there and then.
> know
> folk like to rail on about the slowness of this service being expanded, but step
> back a moment. Three years ago we all would have killed for the possibility of
> such a service to become reality!
Three years ago Canadian retail stores were full of 30th anniversary LEGO
tubs and buckets. It was heaven. I bought lots. Today... not a bucket to
be found. Today, I don't spend nearly as much. Who loses here? Me... and
the company.
> And now we have it. And we have the ear of
> LD.
Well, we have them making announcements here. I'm not sure how far beyond
that it goes. It seems that if you're not part of an elite inner circle
then really you just get to hear what it is that they have to say.
> And we are getting some of the most popular sets ever released *rereleased*
True.
> . And we are in the middle of the release of the most popular theme ever (SW).
> And, as I'm told, we haven't seen anything yet!
I hope so. There is so much more they could be doing.
> Forget about juniorization-- think of it as Duplo senior and let it go. What's
> coming down the pike is going to be awesome
I can't let it go, sorry. It's my sworn duty as LEGO fan to bring these
issues out into the light. I just think the problem isn't that hard to fix,
and actually could have been done without such a thing as LEGO Direct.
Remember... if the mother company doesn't fix her own problems... you won't
have a LEGO Direct to deal with at all. They are not and could not be a
stand-alone company. If LEGO itself goes broke, so do they.
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Forget about juniorization-- think of it as Duplo senior and let it go.
Absolutely. I was into Lego as a kid in the 1960s. One of my last sets
before the commencement of my Dark Age was:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/345_1
and I thought this was a pretty neat set at the time. I must have built that
set again and again and again, because I liked it so much. And such a *big*
set too, I used to think. Sooooo many parts. That same year (1969), the
LUGnet database reveals a total of 52 sets. Go take a look at them:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?qy=1969
Oh, and don't forget the 18 sets offered in 1968:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?qy=1968
Fast forward to 2001 ....
LUGnet lists 281 sets for 2001, and 342 for 2000. There is everything from
Primo to robotics and movie making.
OK, I'm not into Primo, Duplo, Jack Stone, or Bionicles, but I think they
are aimed more at the under 40s! :-)
But, in the past few years, we've seen the progressive introduction of:
* Shop At Home
* Lego Direct and bulk parts
* re-release of some classic sets: castle, pirates, train
* large sculptures and Ultimate Collector Sets
Who is this aimed at? Do many 5 year olds order packs of 25 small spruce
trees on S@H? Come on ... a lot of this reflects the fact that Lego is
starting to notice and respond to an adult market. And if adults spend big
on S@H, bulk parts, re-releases, sculptures, etc, I'm sure we'll see more
and more of this stuff.
And what about the "basic bricks" that everyone says is dead and gone? My
local KMart has stacks of 3033 Big Blue Tubs (1200 basic bricks), and
whenever they are on sale, they sell like hotcakes to Mums and Dads. I think
there will be a lot of Big Blue Tubs under the tree this Christmas here in
Australia! For that matter, there are a lot in AFOL collections too!
As S@H slowly extends its coverage across the world, I think it will provide
Lego with a way to offer more "boutique" or "niche" products. After all, a
small production run advertised only by a WWW page and shipped out of a
small number of warehouses is a much smaller risk than a big production run
sold through a worldwide retail distribution network with paper catalogues.
Is this what Lego is doing with the 3451 Sopwith Camel? If a S@H-only
product sells well, then maybe it will go into retail distribution at a
later stage, so it's a good way to test the market as well.
Everyone complains about licensing, but I thought Star Wars was mostly great
stuff (well, except for Jar Jar). Harry Potter is not so good as Star Wars;
it *is* a bit juniorised, but still I had a lot of fun building the sets,
and there are some great parts. Besides, my Harry Potter collection makes me
the envy of many small children! I tell the children it's my reward for
growing up and getting a PhD -- very motivational for them :-)
I think it's a good time to be an AFOL and I'm looking forward to the
future.
Play well!
Kerry
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Stuart Immonen writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> > > > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > > Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> > > > but is it really true?
> >
> > <snip>
> The success of Bionicle is not the success of LEGO. It is the success of a
> line that is closer to action figures than building bricks. It's a sad day,
> not one to celebrate.
hmm. I don't think anyone is actually celebrating this, although ther does
seem to be a faction that supports savvy market decisions as long as there
is a percieved benefit to them personally. ie: bulk packs, advanced model
sets alongside more... transitory items.
>
> > I agree with this entirely, and my own son, who shares with me tens of
> > thousands of regular (ie stackable, if not rectilinear) bricks, _loves_
> > Bionicles, and has asked for nothing else (lego-wise) for Christmas.
>
> Do I read you correctly? You're saying he's asked for nothing but Bionicles
> for Christmas? Or nothing but LEGO products? If it's the former, then my
> point above is reinforced.
as far as his lego-oriented wish list goes, he has only asked for Bionicles.
He has indeed asked for other things not associated with lego whatsoever.
Now, keep in mind that he already _has_ lego pieces in the five figure
range, and to him, perhaps, one brick is pretty much like another...
however, I stated also that he, perhaps as a wider indicator, has always
been (he's 8 now) interested in 'collecting' unique lego pieces (crystals,
rocks, movie cameras,tools etc) so this is not far off for him.
> > But it's successful, and, generally
> > > speaking, what's good for TLC is good for us.
> >
> >
> > Well, as long as TLC continue to offer traditional bricks in a variety of
> > colours, or sets which use these.
>
> But they aren't. And that's what folks like me are railing against. They
> have produced Bionicles and Harry Potter and Jack Stone etc. etc. at the
> exclusion (or so it would seem) of traditional brick-based sets. As well,
> try to find a simple bucket of bricks on the toy shelves of my local Zellers
> store... it can't be done, and it's less than 4 weeks to Christmas.
Well, I've got to say that buckets are still on store shelves hereabouts (SW
Ontario), and not uncommon. I have no problem orering from S@H for needed
pieces or sets, whether they have a Canadian arm or not. That being said, I
personally don't have much call for more standard bricks myself. I like
Mindstorms, Technic, and the SW advanced models.
> What about your son when he grows up? Will he
> be posting to LUGNET or BIONICLENET?
I undserstand the point you're driving at, but realistically, I doubt the
web will bear much resemblance to its current incarnation. Anyway, I don't
feel there's any lasting value in Bionicle whatsoever, but TLG has parlayed
it into a catchy, desirable toy-- it doesn't take away the desire to build
with traditional bricks any more than Pokémon, and I would stress in fact,
somewhat less. It's a fad toy, which will pass into lego history like wooden
models, Insectoids, and monolegged minifigs.
I was in France recently, and was impressed by the number of Belville sets
available-- nothing like that here, but I don't think the French kids suffer
from lack of building impetus.
> Primo and Duplo are entirely separate lines from LEGO that kids 5 - 7 and up
> can realistically use. They are necessary and I can't imagine someone
> arguing their demise. But lines like Jack Stone that speak down to kids
> with the shallowness of their design... these lines must be replaced with
> more realistic and more brick-based sets. The sooner, the better.
Sure, OK. Jack Stone is a terrible idea from my point of view, too. But if
kids like my son want to _play_ with the characters and accessories on a
simplified setting, _and_get_to_build_too, then I think that's all right.
Then ,when they're ready, they can move onto other lines. I realize you're
railing against the very possibility that other lines may not even exist
later, but I don't see it in such blakc and white terms. I _do_ see TLG
offering other sets, and I think it's greta that they continue to support
their aging marketplace as well as reach out to new, young builders.
I could be wrong-- I hope not.
stuart
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> Better yet, take your best LEGO set and put it up against cable TV with a
> remote....
This is really apples and oranges, and isn't worth pursuing. This is like
saying that because I want pornography TLC should test market their bricks
next to a tv with a porn DVD playing on it (late 80s Christy Canyon,
please). Same with the video game comparisons. TLC simply has to accept
that they WILL NOT win over this group with their silly cd-rom games. They
don't get this market because these kids are simply NOT interested in the
product. BTW, it's not either/or anyway -- a kid might like both kinds of
toys at different times in the same way I might have uses for bricks and
pornography at different times.
The question really should be: of children interested in construction toys,
which types of construction toys are they most likely to play with and why?
> I've got to give TLC credit where it is due, because juniorization is working
> very well. Look at the success of Bionicle--
Just keep it in mind that this line is actually the third revision of
throwbots (followed by roboriders), which I think must not have done very
well because they were not only discontinued but found on sale quite quickly
after their respective initial releases.
> I think our needs are being addressed very well by LD. Our best
> hope as AFOLs is to make sure LD does well, because, specifically speaking, if
> LD does well, it is great for AFOLs.
This is probably true, but I'd just like to point out that more and faster
should be on the agenda. Not more and lamer, like salmon colored slopes --
Blech! There's a long way to go if they keep screwing up each subsequent
release with printing errors, window color errors, bent tree errors. Who
wants to buy garbage?
On the plus side, I went to TRU during lunch and discovered the two
rereleased pirate sets in nice full color boxes sitting on the shelves.
This suggested to me that not only did LD rethink their black and white
boxes, they are no longer exclusively selling directly to the customer --
but also through other distribution channels within TLC. Smart.
> They are eyeing the *non-LEGO GP* and trying to determine how best to grab
> *them*.
They should be concentrating on what they do best -- produce interlocking
brick construction toys -- and leave the rest to those who can best service
other niches in the marketplace. I don't see any reason for TLC to try and
compete with Disney, Mattel, McFarland Toys, etc. Frankly, I don't see a
need for Legolands, watches, sportswear, cd-roms, or pens either. But
whatever...I remain unconvinced that these product lines do anything for
them long-term.
Quality matters to me, not the ubiquity of branded product lines. For the
record -- I have never been to legoland, I don't have any lego watches, nor
sportwear, nor pens. I admit to having a few cd-roms, but I also admit to
thinking they are garbage.
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Richard Marchetti writes:
(snipped)
> Frankly, I don't see a
> need for Legolands, watches, sportswear, cd-roms, or pens either. But
> whatever...I remain unconvinced that these product lines do anything for
> them long-term.
Richard, I disagree with you on this. The Legoland parks are something
worthwhile, which I knew virtually nothing only five years ago. I happened
to visit Windsor's in '97, and let me tell you: it was worth every penny!
As for watches, clothes and such, they are a stable ground for business: TLC
is focused on children, so it is not too odd seeing them offering other
sorts of products to this public. IANAE, but I believe it is called
"Horizontal development" - different stuff, same public. It may have not too
much to do with the "brand" concept.
> Quality matters to me, not the ubiquity of branded product lines. For the
> record -- I have never been to legoland, I don't have any lego watches, nor
> sportwear, nor pens. I admit to having a few cd-roms, but I also admit to
> thinking they are garbage.
As for the parks, I believe you may change your oppinion after seeing one.
The miniland dioramas are purely fantastic!
Pedro
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Pedro Silva writes:
> As for the parks, I believe you may change your oppinion after seeing one.
> The miniland dioramas are purely fantastic!
Not likely. I have the Ult Lego Book and all the fantastic models it
contains infuriate me because I can't even begin to amass or in ANY way
acquire some of the elements available to the Legoland Master Builders in
the making of those models. That's everyone's complaint in a nutshell.
See? Lego as a creative toy makes me want to build. When I want to build
stuff that is impossible to build because of a lack of the elements needed
to do it, it frustrates me. Who has the tenacity to spend years amassing
the needed elements?
Well, I do (which is surely sign of some mental defect). I now have most of
the stuff I need to implement some of my longer term plans relating to Lego
MOCs. But, it has taken so long to acquire the stuff I am thinking of
taking a break from the hobby just for the immediate future. I feel somewhat
exhausted by the effort. Anyway, I have other more immediate goals to which
I must attend.
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Gnw4u0.6Hv@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> On the plus side, I went to TRU during lunch and discovered the two
> rereleased pirate sets in nice full color boxes sitting on the shelves.
> This suggested to me that not only did LD rethink their black and white
> boxes, they are no longer exclusively selling directly to the customer --
> but also through other distribution channels within TLC. Smart.
[ ... snipped ... ]
If you look closely at your latest S@H catalog you will notice that the
Pirate sets are labeled "Hard To Find" where as the Gas and Wash Express is
labeled "Not Available In Any Store". Also, the TRU circular in last
Sunday's paper noted that the Pirates were a "TRU Exclusive".
I view it as progress that the Pirates made it back onto the shelves of at
least one store. I hope to see more of the LD offerings be available in
stores as opposed to only via S@H. I am more likely to make an impulse buy
than I am to make a catalog purchase. If the new train cars were available
at TRU or Wal-Mart I'd probabably have three or four times as many as I have
now. Everytime I went in someone one would end up in the cart!
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring dot com
http://www.nclug.net - North Carolina LEGO Users Group
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?u=mpw - Brick Depot
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> > I've got to give TLC credit where it is due, because juniorization is working
> > very well. Look at the success of Bionicle--
>
> Just keep it in mind that this line is actually the third revision of
> throwbots (followed by roboriders), which I think must not have done very
> well because they were not only discontinued but found on sale quite quickly
> after their respective initial releases.
How sad that it takes them 3 tries to get juniorization right.
Maybe if they went back to making the sets they make best... the ones with
square and rectangular bricks in them... they'd have more success out of the
gate.
> On the plus side, I went to TRU during lunch and discovered the two
> rereleased pirate sets in nice full color boxes sitting on the shelves.
> This suggested to me that not only did LD rethink their black and white
> boxes, they are no longer exclusively selling directly to the customer --
> but also through other distribution channels within TLC. Smart.
Please give them the address of the Zeller's store nearest me. It seems
that the LEGO asile there is shrinking. Megablocks now has nearly the same
footage of shelving. This is very very sad.
> > They are eyeing the *non-LEGO GP* and trying to determine how best to grab
> > *them*.
>
> They should be concentrating on what they do best -- produce interlocking
> brick construction toys -- and leave the rest to those who can best service
> other niches in the marketplace. I don't see any reason for TLC to try and
> compete with Disney, Mattel, McFarland Toys, etc. Frankly, I don't see a
> need for Legolands, watches, sportswear, cd-roms, or pens either. But
> whatever...I remain unconvinced that these product lines do anything for
> them long-term.
Give this man a prize. Well said.
> Quality matters to me, not the ubiquity of branded product lines. For the
> record -- I have never been to legoland, I don't have any lego watches, nor
> sportwear, nor pens. I admit to having a few cd-roms, but I also admit to
> thinking they are garbage.
I have never bought nor will I ever buy ANYTHING that LEGO makes that isn't
a brick-based building set. It must be either a bucket of bricks. A box of
bricks. A sandwich bag full of bricks. Or just a simple little police car
with only 13 bricks (http://guide.lugnet.com/set/611). But it MUST have
bricks in it. Otherwise... what's the point?
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Quality matters to me, not the ubiquity of branded product lines. For the
> record -- I have never been to legoland, I don't have any lego watches, • nor
> sportwear, nor pens. I admit to having a few cd-roms, but I also admit to
> thinking they are garbage.
Well, I admit to having 4 Lego watches and I think they are great and am
almost always wearing one. I love mixing and matching the coloured links,
faces, and so on. I have a couple of minifig keyrings too.
Now, I freely admit that I cannot connect the watch pieces with regular
Lego, and so some among you would say "it's not really Lego". But unlike my
Lego sets/MOCs, I can take a Lego watch and keyring with me wherever I go,
especially to work. I spend far more hours in a week with my Lego watch and
my Lego keyring than I do playing with the bricks. And those Lego watches
and keyrings are great conversation starters. Many people, both adults and
children, notice them and ask about them, which initiates many a
conversation about Lego and being an AFOL and LUGnet and S@H so forth.
So, no, I can't build MOCs with my Lego watch parts, but I do find them a
fun way to incorporate Lego into my general day-to-day life. Come on out of
the Lego closet! Get those Lego watches, keyrings, pen, coffee mugs, etc,
and show the world you are proud to be an AFOL!
Kerry
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond writes:
> So, no, I can't build MOCs with my Lego watch parts, but I do find them a
> fun way to incorporate Lego into my general day-to-day life. Come on out of
> the Lego closet! Get those Lego watches, keyrings, pen, coffee mugs, etc,
> and show the world you are proud to be an AFOL!
Coffee mugs ?
-H.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Kerry Raymond writes:
> > So, no, I can't build MOCs with my Lego watch parts, but I do find them a
> > fun way to incorporate Lego into my general day-to-day life. Come on out of
> > the Lego closet! Get those Lego watches, keyrings, pen, coffee mugs, etc,
> > and show the world you are proud to be an AFOL!
>
> Coffee mugs ?
Not only that, but personalized with your name on it!
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> > Coffee mugs ?
>
> Not only that, but personalized with your name on it!
>
> -John
Yah, if your name is John...(or any other "normal" American name) Kind
of hard to find one that says "Bram" on it...
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht
bram@cwru.edu
www.bldesign.org
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> > > Coffee mugs ?
> >
> > Not only that, but personalized with your name on it!
> >
> > -John
>
> Yah, if your name is John...(or any other "normal" American name) Kind
> of hard to find one that says "Bram" on it...
> --Bram
Well, my real name is John, even if I rarely go by it. But what the heck
are we talking about? I haven't seen any mugs. Not that I buy a lot of the
non-Lego items, but as was said an occasional one makes a nice conversation
piece.
-Hendo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> > John Neal writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> > > > Coffee mugs ?
> > >
> > > Not only that, but personalized with your name on it!
> > >
> > > -John
> >
> > Yah, if your name is John...(or any other "normal" American name) Kind
> > of hard to find one that says "Bram" on it...
> > --Bram
>
> Well, my real name is John, even if I rarely go by it. But what the heck
> are we talking about? I haven't seen any mugs. Not that I buy a lot of the
> non-Lego items, but as was said an occasional one makes a nice conversation
> piece.
They have these personalized mugs you can buy at Legoland and also at LIC from
the sound of it. My mug, from LL Carlsbad, depicts minfigs in construction gear
moving bricks around. It says Legoland California and has my name in block (no
pun!) letters at the top. I'm really surprised to hear they didn't have the
name Travis. LLC had two aisles full-- I had a choice of Maggie or Margaret.
Maggie C.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron writes:
> In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> > > John Neal writes:
> > > > In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> > > > > Coffee mugs ?
> > > >
> > > > Not only that, but personalized with your name on it!
> > > >
> > > > -John
> > >
> > > Yah, if your name is John...(or any other "normal" American name) Kind
> > > of hard to find one that says "Bram" on it...
> > > --Bram
> >
> > Well, my real name is John, even if I rarely go by it. But what the heck
> > are we talking about? I haven't seen any mugs. Not that I buy a lot of the
> > non-Lego items, but as was said an occasional one makes a nice conversation
> > piece.
>
> They have these personalized mugs you can buy at Legoland and also at LIC from
> the sound of it. My mug, from LL Carlsbad, depicts minfigs in construction gear
> moving bricks around. It says Legoland California and has my name in block (no
> pun!) letters at the top. I'm really surprised to hear they didn't have the
> name Travis. LLC had two aisles full-- I had a choice of Maggie or Margaret.
My "James" mug is my mug at work, used for coffee and conversation-starting.
LLC didn't have a "Lara" or a "Raven" that I could get my wife, though. :/
thanks,
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Maggie Cambron" <mcambron@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Gny72w.4I6@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> They have these personalized mugs you can buy at Legoland and also at LIC • from
> the sound of it. My mug, from LL Carlsbad, depicts minfigs in construction • gear
> moving bricks around. It says Legoland California and has my name in block • (no
> pun!) letters at the top. I'm really surprised to hear they didn't have • the
> name Travis. LLC had two aisles full-- I had a choice of Maggie or • Margaret.
>
> Maggie C.
I too was surprised that "Travis" was unavailable but it wasn't a one time
thing.
I have been to the Orlando LIC a couple dozen times (I used to go to Orlando
for business all the time), the LEGO Outlet at Potomac Mills a couple of
times, the LEGO Outlet in Dawsonville a couple of times, LEGOLand
Californina, and the Big Shop at LEGOLand Windsor. I always check and have
never found one.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring dot com
http://www.nclug.net - North Carolina LEGO Users Group
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?u=mpw - Brick Depot
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Bram Lambrecht" <bram@cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:000501c17e7d$e4617ad0$b7fb1681@bl...
> John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> > > Coffee mugs ?
> >
> > Not only that, but personalized with your name on it!
> >
> > -John
>
> Yah, if your name is John...(or any other "normal" American name) Kind
> of hard to find one that says "Bram" on it...
> --Bram
>
>
The Orlando-LIC used to personalize mugs with whatever name you want on it.
It took 24 hours (order it and pay for it and pick it up 24 hours later or
have it shipped) to get it. I don't know when they stopped doing this but I
tried to get one about a year ago and was told they no longer do it.
Unfortunately they don't make a "Travis" (my son's name which is reasonably
common) but they do make a "Sophia" mug (my daughter's name which is not
very common at all. I have a "Mike" mug that my Dad gave me although I
don't drink coffee so there are bunch of minifigs in mine.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring dot com
http://www.nclug.net - North Carolina LEGO Users Group
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?u=mpw - Brick Depot
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Kerry Raymond" <kerry@dstc.edu.au> wrote in message
news:GnxBDw.7yt@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> Well, I admit to having 4 Lego watches and I think they are great and am
> almost always wearing one. I love mixing and matching the coloured links,
> faces, and so on. I have a couple of minifig keyrings too.
>
> Now, I freely admit that I cannot connect the watch pieces with regular
> Lego, and so some among you would say "it's not really Lego". But unlike • my
> Lego sets/MOCs, I can take a Lego watch and keyring with me wherever I go,
> especially to work. I spend far more hours in a week with my Lego watch • and
> my Lego keyring than I do playing with the bricks. And those Lego watches
> and keyrings are great conversation starters. Many people, both adults and
> children, notice them and ask about them, which initiates many a
> conversation about Lego and being an AFOL and LUGnet and S@H so forth.
[ .. snipped ... ]
This isn't completely true - the GMLTC has a clock tower that uses LEGO
watches.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=65080
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring dot com
http://www.nclug.net - North Carolina LEGO Users Group
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?u=mpw - Brick Depot
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> Further, we AFOLs may not want juniorization, but we are *already* LEGO
> customers.
Are today's Adult fans to be the last generation of LEGO fans? At the rate
the company is going, they are doing a fine job of creating new Star Wars
fans, Harry Potter fans and Bionicle fans. But currently, they are not
producing any new *LEGO* fans.
Adults are fans today because of sets and products that existed 20 - 30
years ago. This is why I keep screaming at the top of my internet enabled
lungs for the company to dig into its own archives. If not to re-release
sets, then at least to see what made them so very special back then.
Special enough to keep our interest for more than a quarter century in some
cases.
> I think our needs are being addressed very well by LD.
Not in my case, sorry. I haven't ordered a thing yet from them. What's to
order? Until bulk bricks become reasonably priced and available in
significantly more varieties then LEGO Direct is just a sideline for the
company. They could be much more, but it's just not the case right now.
> Our best
> hope as AFOLs is to make sure LD does well, because, specifically speaking, if
> LD does well, it is great for AFOLs.
If LEGO Direct is only marketing at adults... they are doomed. If they
begin to market toward *all* LEGO fans... they are almost guaranteed success.
> As for Billund, they are worried about the toy market in general-- market share,
> competitors, etc. They are eyeing the *non-LEGO GP* and trying to determine how
> best to grab *them*.
If they are, then they should stop. They are construction toy makers and
should do only this. They should do it better than anyone, because they are
the Ford or Apple the plastic brick industry. They made the molds that made
the first bricks. They made the sets that got so many young kids hooked.
They are about to flush it all if they don't get back to making sets with
bricks in them.
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> Are today's Adult fans to be the last generation of LEGO fans?
Are today's adult fans the *first* generation of LEGO fans?
...and shouldn't we expect some evolution between the first and subsequent
generations?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Richie Dulin writes:
> In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > Are today's Adult fans to be the last generation of LEGO fans?
>
> Are today's adult fans the *first* generation of LEGO fans?
>
> ...and shouldn't we expect some evolution between the first and subsequent
> generations?
Yes, evolution is good.
What we are faced with is extinction. How many Meccano fans do you know who
are in their early 20's? The reason for this is that the company failed to
market effectively to both their adult fans while at the same time trying to
build a new fan base. The result. They lost both markets. Today, the only
folks who build with Meccano are the ones who were exposed to it back when
black and white TV was a rarity in many homes.
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> but is it really true?
>
> What we need is an experiment, to prove once and for all if junorization
> is what the market wants.
<snip>
After reading many of the replies to the thread I influenced...
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=34184
...I have been reaching the conclusion that perhaps junior-themes do indeed
have a place in TLC's plans. As I have voiced, my concern is that they
promote such themes to the exclusion of *general* product lines geared
towards a slightly older age bracket. It has always seemed to me that the
6-12 age group was the primary target of Lego, since earlier ages seem less
able to grasp the advanced building techniques needed to truly appreciate
the toy, and children older than 12 start to move away from toys for social
reasons (that's why so many AFOLs suffer a Dark Age).
I don't think they should do away with junior-themes, only that they should
also offer decent mid-range themes thereafter. And they should be somewhat
general in scope -where, as has been implied, the SW, HP, etc. are very
specific about topics and stories.
Back to your experiment, I like the idea. To be truly scientific, you would
have to have a control group or two where you just give them the sets and
tell them nothing at all (as opposed to your suggestion that you give
information about prices and such) and simply observe which groups do what
with what. The suggestion of possibly also experimenting with other
non-Lego products versus the given Lego one is also valid.
I suspect TLC conducts experiments of some kind to this end. Whether they
actually use older sets of their own though, I couldn't say. And I doubt
they are about to publish their results whether they are good or bad.
If I was a testing subject of the experiment, I would likely vote for the
older set you mentioned...
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6398
...At my first impression I simply think it is a cool looking building with
a sleek architecture. It looks bigger. This is a quick impression I get
simply by looking at the pictures of the two sets briefly. I didn't even
notice yet which set have how many or what type of mini-figures or vehicles.
I also do not have either of these two sets in my collection from which to
draw biased opinions. However, I am also 29 and not the 5 years of age that
the set might be targeting.
...Then again, if it's a 70 dollar set, who needs to be impressed most? The
5 year old with enough change in his pocket for a candy bar? Or the working
parent with a credit card and a desire to get the child something decent for
the holidays? ...Or the AFOL who'd love to have a Town set?
My 2 cents.
-H.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> but is it really true?
I think there's a couple problems. Lego is marketing itself as a specific
kit. What can you build with the Hogwart's Castle set? Hogwart's Castle of
course! It uses *all* the pieces nicely with none leftover, and doesn't
provide (any?) alternative model instructions and very few ideas. Now look
at K'nex. Slews of ideas. It's marketed more as a BUILDING toy, and less of
a 'set'.
Result? Kids buy Lego for the model, not for the building toy. LOTS of kids
buy Lego for the set, build it, then promptly leave it built forever.
Lots of kids complain I bet. They hate that it takes so long to build, that
it's difficult to do (you've got to pay attention to the pictures and find
the right bricks!), etc.
Result? They complain. And they don't play with the sets. Parents complain.
Lego hears the complaints. They dumb down the sets. The kids complain less.
And we complain more. Who's the larger market base? Kids by far. They win.
BUT. The interesting thing is that there ARE kids who want it as a building
toy. And the ones that have the resolve and patience to build a
non-juniorized set get less attached to Lego since it's not as much fun. It
means less long term "hard-core" fans.
Also. Will Lego's sales REALLY be hurt if they take juniorization away? I
dunno. How much will sales drop? I dunno. How much would they pick up? No
clue. It's really too bad that there isn't good market data available. Plus
there's so many other factors that it's tough to judge... What's best for
Lego? Nobody knows. We just know what we want.
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> writes:
> I think there's a couple problems. Lego is marketing itself as a specific
> kit. What can you build with the Hogwart's Castle set? Hogwart's Castle of
> course! It uses *all* the pieces nicely with none leftover, and doesn't
> provide (any?) alternative model instructions and very few ideas. Now look
> at K'nex. Slews of ideas. It's marketed more as a BUILDING toy, and less of
> a 'set'.
>
> Result? Kids buy Lego for the model, not for the building toy. LOTS of kids
> buy Lego for the set, build it, then promptly leave it built forever.
That's nothing new. When I was a kid (around 5, I think), my parents
invited another kid around my age to come play with me. My mom tells
me that I invited the kid to play Legos. His response: "*PLAY* Legos??"
It had never occurred to him to build anything but what the instructions
said.
And this was in the mid-1970's.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
William R Ward wrote in message ...
> That's nothing new. When I was a kid (around 5, I think), my parents
> invited another kid around my age to come play with me. My mom tells
> me that I invited the kid to play Legos. His response: "*PLAY* Legos??"
> It had never occurred to him to build anything but what the instructions
> said.
>
> And this was in the mid-1970's.
Yes indeed... the rot had started to set in even then.
<curmudgeon voice> When I was a lad, we didn't have any instructions. All
we had was bricks - and lucky to get 'em! </cv>
Seriously though, *any* instructions curtail the creative use of the bricks
and produce reactions like that of a (ex) friend, who glued her son's X-wing
together because she got tired of pieces falling off it.
Kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW Tank Engine custom train set: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Annual SYSTEM Creativity Contest: http://www.creativity-contest.net/
Craftsman Lego Kits & Custom models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
Brickbay Lego parts store: http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
The Guild of Bricksmiths: http://www.bricksmiths.com
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> Also. Will Lego's sales REALLY be hurt if they take juniorization away? I
> dunno. How much will sales drop? I dunno. How much would they pick up? No
> clue. It's really too bad that there isn't good market data available. Plus
> there's so many other factors that it's tough to judge... What's best for
> Lego? Nobody knows. We just know what we want.
This is what I keep telling myself-- they *must* know what they are doing. They
*must* be reacting to some sort of data, because it would seem to me that, on
the surface, juniorization would seem to be an expensive move unilaterally (why
create 1000s of new elements and incur their costs if TLC didn't believe that
they were warranted?)
My worst fear is that TLC has lost perspective as to what is really important--
creating the best toy ever, or creating the best brand recognition ever.
When all is said and done, I'm betting that some marketing consultant geniuses
(all of whom probably never actually played with LEGO) are behind all of this...
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> > but is it really true?
>
> I think there's a couple problems. Lego is marketing itself as a specific
> kit. What can you build with the Hogwart's Castle set? Hogwart's Castle of
> course! It uses *all* the pieces nicely with none leftover, and doesn't
> provide (any?) alternative model instructions and very few ideas. Now look
> at K'nex. Slews of ideas. It's marketed more as a BUILDING toy, and less of
> a 'set'.
Exactly. The worst part is that LEGO used to be the industry leader. Their
name was virtually synonymous with *building* toys.
> Result? Kids buy Lego for the model, not for the building toy. LOTS of kids
> buy Lego for the set, build it, then promptly leave it built forever.
Which they wouldn't do if the sets actually contained some basic bricks that
they could use to model something else.
> Lots of kids complain I bet. They hate that it takes so long to build, that
> it's difficult to do (you've got to pay attention to the pictures and find
> the right bricks!), etc.
Whoa whoa.... back the truck up.
Who are these attention deficit disorder delinquents? Take an average group
of 100 adult males. How many of them have the patience and smarts to make
it all the way to the end of a Super Mario Bros game? Now take an average
group of 100 10-year-old boys and give them the same challenge. I'll put my
money on the group who hasn't started shaving yet.
This idea that video games and television and computers has ruined kids
attention span is such utter nonsense. I grew up on all those things (mind
you the first home video games, non-cable TV and Commodore PET computers)
and I still found time, attention and desire to build the first Expert
Builder Auto Chassis (http://guide.lugnet.com/set/853 ) when it came out. I
was 9 years old. I'll bet any 9 year-old kid today could build that same
set faster than I did then, and certainly faster than I can today.
> Result? They complain. And they don't play with the sets. Parents complain.
> Lego hears the complaints. They dumb down the sets. The kids complain less.
> And we complain more. Who's the larger market base? Kids by far. They win.
Who's buying them the sets? The parents. Please the parents.... please the
company's bank account. Result? The kids get more sophisticated sets,
adult fans get something they actually *want* to buy, and the company
doesn't go broke. Everybody wins.
> BUT. The interesting thing is that there ARE kids who want it as a building
> toy. And the ones that have the resolve and patience to build a
> non-juniorized set get less attached to Lego since it's not as much fun. It
> means less long term "hard-core" fans.
Exactly!!!! A point I've been trying to make for weeks now. This is the
real problem. And it's not one that we'll see today, it's a long way down
the road... if the company's even still in business then.
> Also. Will Lego's sales REALLY be hurt if they take juniorization away? I
> dunno. How much will sales drop? I dunno. How much would they pick up? No
> clue. It's really too bad that there isn't good market data available. Plus
> there's so many other factors that it's tough to judge... What's best for
> Lego? Nobody knows. We just know what we want.
To bad the company isn't even willing to *try*.
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > Lots of kids complain I bet. They hate that it takes so long to build, that
> > it's difficult to do (you've got to pay attention to the pictures and find
> > the right bricks!), etc.
>
> Whoa whoa.... back the truck up.
>
> Who are these attention deficit disorder delinquents?
My younger brother, for one. He complained that they took too long to build.
And upon several occasions where I've seen kids playing with Lego (my
cousins of varied ages, other family's kids, etc) I've seen kids get
frustrated and find the need to ask for help. Becuase they can't find the
piece they need. Because it doesn't look like the one on the box. Because
they can't get the pieces to fit right. Etc. Sad but true.
And what's sadder? People don't speak up when everything's AOK. Parents who
bought Lego and had their kids build the models successfully don't call to
complain. Nor do they call to congratulate. The most they do is buy another
set. (Ok, OCCASIONALLY they call to congratulate-- but it's rare). But the
parents whose kids are having problems with it? They call right in and give
the company a piece of their mind. Even if they're in the minority of Lego
buyers, they're the most frequent vocalists.
But honestly? I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that
many of these kids find building boring. Following 38 steps in an
instruction booklet to get a toy isn't as much fun as, say, the resolve
necessary to play a video game. Video games are much more entertaining to
them WHILE working towards the eventual goal. Lego building is seen more as
tedium. I think.
> Take an average group
> of 100 adult males. How many of them have the patience and smarts to make
> it all the way to the end of a Super Mario Bros game? Now take an average
> group of 100 10-year-old boys and give them the same challenge. I'll put my
> money on the group who hasn't started shaving yet.
>
> This idea that video games and television and computers has ruined kids
> attention span is such utter nonsense. I grew up on all those things (mind
> you the first home video games, non-cable TV and Commodore PET computers)
> and I still found time, attention and desire to build the first Expert
> Builder Auto Chassis (http://guide.lugnet.com/set/853 ) when it came out. I
> was 9 years old. I'll bet any 9 year-old kid today could build that same
> set faster than I did then, and certainly faster than I can today.
It's not that they can't. Far from it. It's that it's seen as boring. TV,
video games, movies, commercials, toys, computers, and even news media are
all focusing more on hype these days. Flashing colors and big action and sex
and violence are all really entertaining. And there's more of it.
Commercialism in this country (and spreading) has figured out that grabbing
someone's attention is the most important part. By constant exposure to
instant gratification of being entertained, one quickly looses patience for
things that aren't so instantly gratifying.
> > Result? They complain. And they don't play with the sets. Parents complain.
> > Lego hears the complaints. They dumb down the sets. The kids complain less.
> > And we complain more. Who's the larger market base? Kids by far. They win.
>
> Who's buying them the sets? The parents. Please the parents.... please the
> company's bank account. Result? The kids get more sophisticated sets,
> adult fans get something they actually *want* to buy, and the company
> doesn't go broke. Everybody wins.
Agree-- but the trick is to convince the parents that sophisticated sets
will help their kids get smarter and more patient, rather than advertise as
something to keep your kids from complaining. And it's really too bad
parents don't often work that way. Some do. And I applaud them. Many don't.
> > BUT. The interesting thing is that there ARE kids who want it as a building
> > toy. And the ones that have the resolve and patience to build a
> > non-juniorized set get less attached to Lego since it's not as much fun. It
> > means less long term "hard-core" fans.
>
> Exactly!!!! A point I've been trying to make for weeks now. This is the
> real problem. And it's not one that we'll see today, it's a long way down
> the road... if the company's even still in business then.
And we've been trying to make for 4 years :)
Part of the good thing about tedium is that the goal becomes better. The
more you work at something, the more valuable the result. If the kids have
to work hard to build a Lego set, great! They'll be really proud when they
finish. And they'll be eager to build again to get the same feeling they had
at the end. The problem is that too many give up halfway through while being
distracted by something more interesting.
Which makes you question who the target audience should be. The GENERAL
population of kids? Or the future AFOLs? Personally I think Lego should be a
building toy. Not a fad. Not a mainstream toy. Do fads make more money?
Sure. But they're not as long lived. Will Bionicle make money? Sure. But
it'll die. Will Jack Stone line make money? Sure. But even 3 years down the
road, the kids who played with it won't care anymore. They'll be on to
bigger and better toys. But a building toy? That's good forever. Heck, even
in my dark ages I built school projects & stuff out of Lego. And the pieces
I loved when I was 6 worked to contribute to the things I'd build when I was 12.
> > Also. Will Lego's sales REALLY be hurt if they take juniorization away? I
> > dunno. How much will sales drop? I dunno. How much would they pick up? No
> > clue. It's really too bad that there isn't good market data available. Plus
> > there's so many other factors that it's tough to judge... What's best for
> > Lego? Nobody knows. We just know what we want.
>
> To bad the company isn't even willing to *try*.
They are trying. At least starting to. They realize that *something* was
wrong. In 1998 (1 year after juniorization started) they lost money for the
1st year ever in the company's history. Juniorization's fault? Maybe. But so
many other things were going on it's hard to tell. But they knew SOMETHING
was wrong.
And they're bringing back sets. Pirate sets, the Guarded Inn, the
Metroliner-- All non-juniorized sets making a comeback. And the best part?
As Brad mentioned to the congregation at BrickFest '01, it wasn't even AFOLs
who were the big buyers of the Guarded Inn. It was kids. It was parents. A
light at the end of the tunnel perhaps? Maybe there are still enough parents
and kids who want less juniorized sets? And maybe TLC will change its
thinking? We can only hope.
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > Lots of kids complain I bet. They hate that it takes so long to build, that
> > > it's difficult to do (you've got to pay attention to the pictures and find
> > > the right bricks!), etc.
> >
> > Whoa whoa.... back the truck up.
> >
> > Who are these attention deficit disorder delinquents?
>
> My younger brother, for one. He complained that they took too long to build.
> And upon several occasions where I've seen kids playing with Lego (my
> cousins of varied ages, other family's kids, etc) I've seen kids get
> frustrated and find the need to ask for help. Becuase they can't find the
> piece they need. Because it doesn't look like the one on the box. Because
> they can't get the pieces to fit right. Etc. Sad but true.
I guess I must have been a weird kid. All of these problems are exactly why
I enjoyed LEGO so much.
> And what's sadder? People don't speak up when everything's AOK. Parents who
> bought Lego and had their kids build the models successfully don't call to
> complain. Nor do they call to congratulate. The most they do is buy another
> set. (Ok, OCCASIONALLY they call to congratulate-- but it's rare). But the
> parents whose kids are having problems with it? They call right in and give
> the company a piece of their mind. Even if they're in the minority of Lego
> buyers, they're the most frequent vocalists.
Which is why I have been attempting to make such a ruckus. I'm an adult
who's having problems with this company and I want them to know it. I
present them with opinions and information. If they decide to ignore me, at
least I can say I tried. I would hate to be someone who never spoke up when
things were in flux and then was disappointed in the end because they felt
their voice was never heard.
> But honestly? I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that
> many of these kids find building boring. Following 38 steps in an
> instruction booklet to get a toy isn't as much fun as, say, the resolve
> necessary to play a video game. Video games are much more entertaining to
> them WHILE working towards the eventual goal. Lego building is seen more as
> tedium. I think.
Again, I must have been a weird kid then. I loved following the
instructions. Then tearing the buildings etc. apart and making my own designs.
> > This idea that video games and television and computers has ruined kids
> > attention span is such utter nonsense. I grew up on all those things (mind
> > you the first home video games, non-cable TV and Commodore PET computers)
> > and I still found time, attention and desire to build the first Expert
> > Builder Auto Chassis (http://guide.lugnet.com/set/853 ) when it came out. I
> > was 9 years old. I'll bet any 9 year-old kid today could build that same
> > set faster than I did then, and certainly faster than I can today.
>
> It's not that they can't. Far from it. It's that it's seen as boring. TV,
> video games, movies, commercials, toys, computers, and even news media are
> all focusing more on hype these days. Flashing colors and big action and sex
> and violence are all really entertaining. And there's more of it.
> Commercialism in this country (and spreading) has figured out that grabbing
> someone's attention is the most important part. By constant exposure to
> instant gratification of being entertained, one quickly looses patience for
> things that aren't so instantly gratifying.
I really have no argument to counter these suggestions. You are probably
right. I guess I'm a silly old fool who thinks that the LEGO company cares
about their products, their customers and themselves.
> > > Result? They complain. And they don't play with the sets. Parents complain.
> > > Lego hears the complaints. They dumb down the sets. The kids complain less.
> > > And we complain more. Who's the larger market base? Kids by far. They win.
> >
> > Who's buying them the sets? The parents. Please the parents.... please the
> > company's bank account. Result? The kids get more sophisticated sets,
> > adult fans get something they actually *want* to buy, and the company
> > doesn't go broke. Everybody wins.
>
> Agree-- but the trick is to convince the parents that sophisticated sets
> will help their kids get smarter and more patient, rather than advertise as
> something to keep your kids from complaining. And it's really too bad
> parents don't often work that way. Some do. And I applaud them. Many don't.
If LEGO would take ownership of the Dacta line and actively promote the
educational benefits of their core products this feat would almost
accomplish itself. Instead they relegate sales of some of their most
rewarding sets to a third party company who doesn't do didly squat to
promote the sets beyond the world of teachers.
> > > BUT. The interesting thing is that there ARE kids who want it as a building
> > > toy. And the ones that have the resolve and patience to build a
> > > non-juniorized set get less attached to Lego since it's not as much fun. It
> > > means less long term "hard-core" fans.
> >
> > Exactly!!!! A point I've been trying to make for weeks now. This is the
> > real problem. And it's not one that we'll see today, it's a long way down
> > the road... if the company's even still in business then.
>
> And we've been trying to make for 4 years :)
Then clearly it's a hopeless cause. Things have not changed enough, or fast
enough, in the last 4 years to show that the company is really serious about
these endeavors.
> Part of the good thing about tedium is that the goal becomes better. The
> more you work at something, the more valuable the result. If the kids have
> to work hard to build a Lego set, great! They'll be really proud when they
> finish. And they'll be eager to build again to get the same feeling they had
> at the end. The problem is that too many give up halfway through while being
> distracted by something more interesting.
Help me here. Why do they give up? Is it just that some kids are not
capable of accomplishing the tasks? Or are the tasks really too hard?
> Which makes you question who the target audience should be. The GENERAL
> population of kids? Or the future AFOLs?
You can't target future adult fans exclusively. Target ALL kids properly
and the adult fans will naturally develop. Mind you... you need to hook
them with amazing stuff.
> > > Also. Will Lego's sales REALLY be hurt if they take juniorization away? I
> > > dunno. How much will sales drop? I dunno. How much would they pick up? No
> > > clue. It's really too bad that there isn't good market data available. Plus
> > > there's so many other factors that it's tough to judge... What's best for
> > > Lego? Nobody knows. We just know what we want.
> >
> > To bad the company isn't even willing to *try*.
>
> They are trying. At least starting to. They realize that *something* was
> wrong. In 1998 (1 year after juniorization started) they lost money for the
> 1st year ever in the company's history. Juniorization's fault? Maybe. But so
> many other things were going on it's hard to tell. But they knew SOMETHING
> was wrong.
Then why haven't they seriously addressed this? Why does the catalog look
like a scrapbook that fell into a blender? It represents the mess that's
going on internally right now.
> And they're bringing back sets. Pirate sets, the Guarded Inn, the
> Metroliner-- All non-juniorized sets making a comeback.
Great for train fans. Great for castle fans. Not much yet for the general
fan like myself.
> And the best part?
> As Brad mentioned to the congregation at BrickFest '01, it wasn't even AFOLs
> who were the big buyers of the Guarded Inn. It was kids.
Guess you had to be part of the group who were there to be privy to such
information. For the rest of us, just trying to enjoy this hobby as we did
when we were kids, it would be nice to see more of this sort of information
shared with the general public. Here's an idea... why not on LEGO.com?
They already have their own site, but instead prefer to make important
announcements on LUGNET. I can't figure that one out at all.
What the company needs to realize is that not all adults consider themselves
AFOL's. I myself am NOT an AFOL. I am a kid fan of LEGO
who just happens to be trapped in an adult body. I am not part of the AFOL
community. I do not attend Brickfest-type events. I do not engage in
selling parts or models for profit. I just like LEGO bricks... period. It
would be nice if the company realized that the typical LUGNET participant is
not the sole representation of their adult market.
> It was parents. A
> light at the end of the tunnel perhaps? Maybe there are still enough parents
> and kids who want less juniorized sets? And maybe TLC will change its
> thinking? We can only hope.
I'm hoping. I really am. :)
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> but is it really true?
My big question: Why does LEGO need today's kids? What if LEGO focused on
being such a good toy for ages 12+ that every teen and adult wanted to build
with it? Not just adults that are currently AFOLS, but everyone! I think that
would be really cool. Is it possible?
Does LEGO really want a market that wants juniorization? :)
Brad
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> My big question: Why does LEGO need today's kids? What if LEGO focused on
> being such a good toy for ages 12+ that every teen and adult wanted to build
> with it? Not just adults that are currently AFOLS, but everyone! I think
> that would be really cool. Is it possible?
>
> Does LEGO really want a market that wants juniorization? :)
Well-- it's not just about money for the Lego Company. It's about their
values. I mean, if they found some new super-product that made them more
money, would they drop the Lego product and make the new one? Nah. It's just
not their particular business. Lego's focus has (very nearly) always been
kids. Not teenagers, not adults. Kids. They certainly don't turn away older
people-- but they're not the focus.
Quite frankly, I'm rather happy with most of what they've been doing lately.
The new My Own Train stuff is not very juniorized, they're offering bulk
bricks (in odd colors and pieces!), they're coming out with non-juniorized
sculptures and models (Sopwith Camel, Statue of Liberty, UCS sets), etc.
It's not their primary trade, though. It's only a minority of sets that are
geared towards adults (or teenagers) like these.
Would it be cool if they catered to us? Sure! I think so. Kids might not
though. And being that they're the both the largest source of income and
also the focal group of the company, I don't think it's gonna happen. I'm
quite content to let them cater to us as much as they can and still make a
profit on it. And if the adult market grows? Maybe they'll cater to us more.
But I don't think they'll take the focus off of kids.
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> > My big question: Why does LEGO need today's kids? What if LEGO focused on
> > being such a good toy for ages 12+ that every teen and adult wanted to build
> > with it? Not just adults that are currently AFOLS, but everyone! I think
> > that would be really cool. Is it possible?
> >
> > Does LEGO really want a market that wants juniorization? :)
>
> Well-- it's not just about money for the Lego Company. It's about their
> values. I mean, if they found some new super-product that made them more
> money, would they drop the Lego product and make the new one? Nah.
Um, yes they would. They already have. It's called Bionicle. It is so far
from their core product that it's not even readily compatible. (Unless you
are an adult fan of course who has some obscure Technic pieces that allow
integration.) They are chasing the buck with Bionicle and at some point the
buck is going to chase back. And guess what? The buck bites. When the
market falls out of a fad product it falls hard. LEGO has traditionally
never been about fads, it's been about the stability of good solid building
bricks. They seem to have forgotten that.
> It's just
> not their particular business. Lego's focus has (very nearly) always been
> kids. Not teenagers, not adults. Kids. They certainly don't turn away older
> people-- but they're not the focus.
They are turning away older people right now. Their catalog is an afront to
any one over 12. They can't seem to realize that their fans *do* grow up
and guess what??? Many of us want adult level sets and/or access to bulk bricks.
> Quite frankly, I'm rather happy with most of what they've been doing lately.
> The new My Own Train stuff is not very juniorized,
I hope you aren't looking for any Town-style buildings to flesh out your
train world.
> they're offering bulk
> bricks (in odd colors and pieces!),
And what an odd selection it is indeed. Where are the bricks, tiles and
slopes available to the designers at the LEGO theme parks? They can
obviously be had in quantities... why not make them available to the general
public?
> they're coming out with non-juniorized
> sculptures and models (Sopwith Camel, Statue of Liberty, UCS sets), etc.
If you can afford them. Many adults (not to mention kids) simply find these
sets way way out of reach. Where are the sculpture sets UNDER $30?
> Would it be cool if they catered to us? Sure! I think so. Kids might not
> though.
Here's my suggestion... why not cater to BOTH! It's really not that hard.
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
>
> Here's my suggestion... why not cater to BOTH! It's really not that hard.
Exactly! Think about it. If they did a study on the effects of their toys
on my generation, they would soon discover that almost everyone (well,
perhaps more male than female) who grew up in the late 1970s and 1980s still
think of Lego as "Cool". Those of us who returned from a dark age, or who
never had one in the first place, are now adults who are willing to spend
money yet again -and often have more money to spend. When I was a kid, I
would never have dropped hundreds of dollars in one shot to by multiple
copies of the same set. Now I will.
My point is this: TLC has a unique opportunity here. If they use previous
generations as examples, they could probably find a way to develop and
market a product to today's kids -with the *intent* to harness their
business for a lifetime. If they marketed properly, maybe there wouldn't be
so many Dark Ages. Maybe the next generation *could* *all* be AFOLs.
....Okay, okay. I know I am dreaming big time here. But isn't dreamin
what Lego is all about?
In any case, the current line of toys from TLC does not seem to encourage
even a small percentage of kids to later become AFOLs, IMO (except perhaps
Star Wars, but is that Lego or Hollywood?). I find that sad.
-H.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> > > My big question: Why does LEGO need today's kids? What if LEGO focused on
> > > being such a good toy for ages 12+ that every teen and adult wanted to build
> > > with it? Not just adults that are currently AFOLS, but everyone! I think
> > > that would be really cool. Is it possible?
> > >
> > > Does LEGO really want a market that wants juniorization? :)
> >
> > Well-- it's not just about money for the Lego Company. It's about their
> > values. I mean, if they found some new super-product that made them more
> > money, would they drop the Lego product and make the new one? Nah.
>
> Um, yes they would. They already have. It's called Bionicle. It is so far
> from their core product that it's not even readily compatible.
No no-- I mean totally different. Things without kids as the focus. Think fax
machines. Cars. Real estate. If they found a great new way to make a solar
powered car that would revoloutionize the world, would they drop the
contruction toy line and follow it? Nah. They'd probably just sell the idea and
be done with it. Their focus is children.
Aside: Toys R Us once (a LONG time ago) sued a local car company named "Cars R
Us" and as part of their argument said "What if we decide to sell cars one
day?" (Not that they would have, I don't think).
> > It's just
> > not their particular business. Lego's focus has (very nearly) always been
> > kids. Not teenagers, not adults. Kids. They certainly don't turn away older
> > people-- but they're not the focus.
>
> They are turning away older people right now. Their catalog is an afront to
> any one over 12.
Oh? I'm over 12. I like it. All of it? No. But check out some of the bulk
items. The Guarded Inn. Pirate sets. The Sopwith Camel. The My Own Train stuff
(great stuff!). Statue of Liberty. All appealing to adults. I think. Does the
majority of the catalog intreuge me? Not really. Except maybe to get specific
parts from a set that I need.
> They can't seem to realize that their fans *do* grow up and guess what??? Many
> of us want adult level sets and/or access to bulk bricks.
Still. We're not the majority of the money makers for them. And not their
target market. And yes, they do give adults *some* of what we want. All of it?
Nah. But some. And if it's *successful*, maybe they'll be encouraged to do it
more. But they won't stop things like Bionicle and Jack Stone.
> > Quite frankly, I'm rather happy with most of what they've been doing lately.
> > The new My Own Train stuff is not very juniorized,
>
> I hope you aren't looking for any Town-style buildings to flesh out your
> train world.
>
> > they're offering bulk bricks (in odd colors and pieces!),
>
> And what an odd selection it is indeed. Where are the bricks, tiles and
> slopes available to the designers at the LEGO theme parks? They can
> obviously be had in quantities... why not make them available to the general
> public?
? Keep in mind two things. 1st off, it's a START. They aren't convinced yet
that bulk and My Own Train is gonna fly off the shelves. They're pacing
themselves. Coming out with an ENTIRE selection of city buildings, trains,
vehicles, greenery, landscaping, etc, and coming out with EVERY piece in the
bulk selection is extraordinarily cost prohibitive. Why risk it when you don't
know that it's gonna be a hit or not? And if you're not buying bulk because
you're waiting till EVERYTHING you want is available, you're only convincing
them more that bulk is a bad idea.
2nd thing. Let's say that they'll never put out more than X% of their line
that's geared towards adults. Let's say that they'll only produce 10 sets a
year geared towards adults. Is this not better than nothing? Will you refuse to
buy any of them because it's not available all at once? Can you not wait for
the pieces you want? Personally, I can wait if need be for the pieces I want.
Would I prefer them to be available now? Sure. But it doesn't mean I think they
should change their business strategy around me. I'm not their biggest money
maker. They shouldn't.
> > they're coming out with non-juniorized
> > sculptures and models (Sopwith Camel, Statue of Liberty, UCS sets), etc.
>
> If you can afford them. Many adults (not to mention kids) simply find these
> sets way way out of reach. Where are the sculpture sets UNDER $30?
Sculptures I dunno about. Sculptures really need to be large in order to be
'display worthy' I think... the UCS stuff though (essentially Model Team) is
another story. But *under* $30? That's pretty skimpy. $30-$50 though I can see
doing, and still make sets that are worthy display pieces. And I'll agree with
you. It'd be nice if they offered some. But it doesn't change the fact that the
large sets are still catered to adults and are decent sets.
> > Would it be cool if they catered to us? Sure! I think so. Kids might not
> > though.
>
> Here's my suggestion... why not cater to BOTH! It's really not that hard.
Well, is it? As evidenced by their recent efforts, they're trying. They're
testing the waters. I mean, heck, they're starting a "line" for BUSINESSes.
Once upon a time they were marketing to adults back in the 60's (I think?). It
flopped then, of course. And now they're trying it again. They're testing the
waters. Will they cater to both? They're starting to. Will it continue? I hope
so. Will it make them less money? Maybe. Maybe not. But they're not going to
stop catering to kids. They'll keep making Bionicles. Jack Stones. Racers. Etc.
Juniorization is here to stay. But the question is, is that all there will be?
Let's hope not.
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> > > > In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> > > > My big question: Why does LEGO need today's kids? What if LEGO focused on
> > > > being such a good toy for ages 12+ that every teen and adult wanted to build
> > > > with it? Not just adults that are currently AFOLS, but everyone! I think
> > > > that would be really cool. Is it possible?
> > > >
> > > > Does LEGO really want a market that wants juniorization? :)
> > >
> > > Well-- it's not just about money for the Lego Company. It's about their
> > > values. I mean, if they found some new super-product that made them more
> > > money, would they drop the Lego product and make the new one? Nah.
> >
> > Um, yes they would. They already have. It's called Bionicle. It is so far
> > from their core product that it's not even readily compatible.
>
> No no-- I mean totally different. Things without kids as the focus. Think fax
> machines. Cars. Real estate. If they found a great new way to make a solar
> powered car that would revoloutionize the world, would they drop the
> contruction toy line and follow it? Nah. They'd probably just sell the idea and
> be done with it. Their focus is children.
Not that they would spend much R&D money on such products, but I see your
point now.
> > > It's just
> > > not their particular business. Lego's focus has (very nearly) always been
> > > kids. Not teenagers, not adults. Kids. They certainly don't turn away older
> > > people-- but they're not the focus.
> >
> > They are turning away older people right now. Their catalog is an afront to
> > any one over 12.
>
> Oh? I'm over 12. I like it. All of it? No. But check out some of the bulk
> items. The Guarded Inn. Pirate sets. The Sopwith Camel. The My Own Train stuff
> (great stuff!). Statue of Liberty. All appealing to adults. I think. Does the
> majority of the catalog intreuge me? Not really. Except maybe to get specific
> parts from a set that I need.
I guess I try to look at it with both my kid brain and my adult brain.
Neither one likes it at all. :)
> > They can't seem to realize that their fans *do* grow up and guess what??? Many
> > of us want adult level sets and/or access to bulk bricks.
>
> Still. We're not the majority of the money makers for them. And not their
> target market. And yes, they do give adults *some* of what we want. All of it?
> Nah. But some.
We're not their target market for only one reason... we've never been.
There is nothing stopping them from including us in their target market,
they just seem to prefer things the way they've always been. Ironically
this non-evolutionary attitude doesn't apply to the quality design work they
used to put into their products.
> And if it's *successful*, maybe they'll be encouraged to do it
> more. But they won't stop things like Bionicle and Jack Stone.
Let me set the record straight, because I think I'm being misunderstood. I
don't want them to stop making things *like* Jack Stone or Bionicle. It's
just that I want them to make thing like that BETTER. If Bionicle is
selling at all, it's in spite of crappy design, incompatibility with
traditional bricks, and a nearly incomprehensible theme. Imagine if one or
more of these attributes were improved... the line would sell even more. I
want LEGO to produce anything they think might sell (within reason), but I
beg them to do it with even a hint of the style and grandeur that they used
to have.
I want LEGO to be incredibly successful... I wish them only the best. But I
want them to do it in such a way that they maintain the integrity of the
product that, has until now, stood the test of time. I want them to design
lines like Bioncile in such a way that they create new LEGO fans, and not
just new Bionicle fans. I didn't come to love LEGO because of great Classic
Space or Expert Builder sets. I got to be a young LEGO fan because of great
LEGO sets... period.
Oh, as for Jack Stone... that's a line that should simply never have been
made. It's relatively clear where they thought they were going, but they
ended up so wide of the mark that they have produced a line that Megablocks
would have rejected 10 years ago.
> > > Quite frankly, I'm rather happy with most of what they've been doing lately.
> > > The new My Own Train stuff is not very juniorized,
> >
> > I hope you aren't looking for any Town-style buildings to flesh out your
> > train world.
> >
> > > they're offering bulk bricks (in odd colors and pieces!),
> >
> > And what an odd selection it is indeed. Where are the bricks, tiles and
> > slopes available to the designers at the LEGO theme parks? They can
> > obviously be had in quantities... why not make them available to the general
> > public?
>
> ? Keep in mind two things. 1st off, it's a START. They aren't convinced yet
> that bulk and My Own Train is gonna fly off the shelves. They're pacing
> themselves. Coming out with an ENTIRE selection of city buildings, trains,
> vehicles, greenery, landscaping, etc, and coming out with EVERY piece in the
> bulk selection is extraordinarily cost prohibitive. Why risk it when you don't
> know that it's gonna be a hit or not? And if you're not buying bulk because
> you're waiting till EVERYTHING you want is available, you're only convincing
> them more that bulk is a bad idea.
I'm not waiting until EVERYTHING is available. I'm trying to raise my voice
as a concerned customer and let my favorite corporate entity how they can be
a better seller. I wouldn't do this for any other company in the world.
As for bulk parts. Why not go for an 'Architectural Bucket'? Or a 'Classic
Space Designer's Set'? Or a 'Town Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced Tub'? You
don't have to sell every single part separately in order to make vast
quantities of usable parts available to the general public.
This isn't rocket science folks. I'm just suggesting that they find new and
creative ways to market and package an already established product. I'm not
asking them to create new bricks/molds. I'm not asking them to sell
something outside of their area of expertise. I'm not asking them to
reinvent the wheel. I'm just asking them to sell me something they already
manufacture, but for some reason won't release to the public.
> 2nd thing. Let's say that they'll never put out more than X% of their line
> that's geared towards adults. Let's say that they'll only produce 10 sets a
> year geared towards adults. Is this not better than nothing? Will you refuse to
> buy any of them because it's not available all at once?
If they are 10 (or even 5) quality sets at reasonable prices and they appear
on store shelves... I'll buy them. It's this whole over-priced mail-order
thing that's driving me nuts.
> Can you not wait for
> the pieces you want? Personally, I can wait if need be for the pieces I want.
> Would I prefer them to be available now? Sure. But it doesn't mean I think they
> should change their business strategy around me. I'm not their biggest money
> maker. They shouldn't.
I'm not suggesting that adults will ever dominate their sales ledgers. What
I'm trying to say is that they are selling to adults despite a solid
understanding of what adults want and are willing to pay for. I don't speak
for all adults, only myself. But I do feel that I present an alternative
opinion of adult fans that has never been heard by the company.
> > > they're coming out with non-juniorized
> > > sculptures and models (Sopwith Camel, Statue of Liberty, UCS sets), etc.
> >
> > If you can afford them. Many adults (not to mention kids) simply find these
> > sets way way out of reach. Where are the sculpture sets UNDER $30?
>
> Sculptures I dunno about. Sculptures really need to be large in order to be
> 'display worthy' I think... the UCS stuff though (essentially Model Team) is
> another story. But *under* $30? That's pretty skimpy. $30-$50 though I can see
> doing, and still make sets that are worthy display pieces. And I'll agree with
> you. It'd be nice if they offered some. But it doesn't change the fact that the
> large sets are still catered to adults and are decent sets.
But why not try to apply the same sculpture or at least brick-heavy approach
to lower end price points. Megablocks is doing this extremely well. Am I
to believe that LEGO is so much more expensive to produce? Or are they just
selling the old brand name for all they can squeeze out of the consumer?
> > > Would it be cool if they catered to us? Sure! I think so. Kids might not
> > > though.
> >
> > Here's my suggestion... why not cater to BOTH! It's really not that hard.
>
> Well, is it? As evidenced by their recent efforts, they're trying. They're
> testing the waters. I mean, heck, they're starting a "line" for BUSINESSes.
Do you mean the management courses?
> Once upon a time they were marketing to adults back in the 60's (I think?). It
> flopped then, of course.
Do you mean Modulex?
> And now they're trying it again.
They are?
> They're testing the
> waters. Will they cater to both? They're starting to. Will it continue? I hope
> so. Will it make them less money? Maybe. Maybe not. But they're not going to
> stop catering to kids. They'll keep making Bionicles. Jack Stones. Racers. Etc.
> Juniorization is here to stay. But the question is, is that all there will be?
> Let's hope not.
It doesn't *have* to be this way... that's my point. The thought that
juniorization is somehow necessary or is being demanded by the market is a
false notion. Things can always change... hopefully for the better.
Regards,
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
<snip-a-dee-do-da>
> As for bulk parts. Why not go for an 'Architectural Bucket'? Or a 'Classic
> Space Designer's Set'? Or a 'Town Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced Tub'? You
> don't have to sell every single part separately in order to make vast
> quantities of usable parts available to the general public.
Now *that* would be awesome! That is one of the coolest ideas I have heard
in a while. Maybe throw in a few images of building ideas (for those
inexperienced with the given theme), but otherwise just have a bunch of
bricks and few special elements (doors, wheels, wings, etc.) to build MOCs
in your favorite theme or subtheme. Even if they did it only for current
themes it would be a step above the 7 dollar accessory packs and tiny
mini-fig sets they offer(although for older themes would be better to match
my collection)...
...Sad though, that I am so excited by the concept of a Lego Set that *does
not exist* and was suggested by another consumer. There was a time when I
felt that excitement when I saw what new sets TLC was offering. Honestly, I
cannot recall the last time I opened a catalogue and said, "That's awesome."
I used to do that all the time. Now I only use those words when I see other
people's MOCs on Brickshelf...
-Hendo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> > but is it really true?
>
> My big question: Why does LEGO need today's kids? What if LEGO focused on
> being such a good toy for ages 12+ that every teen and adult wanted to build
> with it? Not just adults that are currently AFOLS, but everyone! I think that
> would be really cool. Is it possible?
Better still, why won't LEGO design toys that will *force* kids to use their
brains? I am getting sick and tired of having kids so "TV-dependant" that
they cannot articulate words properly any longer.
> Does LEGO really want a market that wants juniorization? :)
Do WE?
It is a sociological issue: do we want OUR kids to be dumb, because their
environment "dumbs" them down? Or is it up to us to fight this trend, say
buying difficult toys to give 'em?
We are creating a generation of lazy kids:
"Daddy, it's too hard!"
"What is, son?"
"This game you're trying to teach me!"
"It's called 'Hide and Seek', son! Would you rather build LEGO?"
"Nah, it is too complicated. I wanna play that game on the Computer! At
least I get to see green stuff spilling out of the dead guys! AND all I got
to do is press a bunch of buttons!"
A possible future?
Pedro
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Pedro Silva writes:
> We are creating a generation of lazy kids:
>
> "Daddy, it's too hard!"
> "What is, son?"
> "This game you're trying to teach me!"
> "It's called 'Hide and Seek', son! Would you rather build LEGO?"
> "Nah, it is too complicated. I wanna play that game on the Computer! At
> least I get to see green stuff spilling out of the dead guys! AND all I got
> to do is press a bunch of buttons!"
>
> A possible future?
Reminds me of the Roger Water's song "Amused to Death"...
(FUT: off-topic.fun)
-H.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> > but is it really true?
>
> My big question: Why does LEGO need today's kids? What if LEGO focused on
> being such a good toy for ages 12+ that every teen and adult wanted to build
> with it? Not just adults that are currently AFOLS, but everyone! I think that
> would be really cool. Is it possible?
Not for a nanosecond. Because there are literary 1,000,000s of them (little
people) and only 1,000s of us (AFOLs). You do the math.
>
> Does LEGO really want a market that wants juniorization? :)
TLC is a business. They just want a *market*. They aren't juniorizing just to
be daft-- it is what the *market* has dictated, and they are just trying to
serve that market.
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> > > but is it really true?
> >
> > My big question: Why does LEGO need today's kids? What if LEGO focused on
> > being such a good toy for ages 12+ that every teen and adult wanted to build
> > with it? Not just adults that are currently AFOLS, but everyone! I think • that
> > would be really cool. Is it possible?
>
> Not for a nanosecond. Because there are literary 1,000,000s of them (little
> people) and only 1,000s of us (AFOLs). You do the math.
But what if tens of millions of big people wanted to build with LEGO, because
TLC was focused on selling it to adults instead of kids?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> But what if tens of millions of big people wanted to build with LEGO,
You are kidding, right? Maybe in some AFOL fantasy dreamworld place, but not
here in good ol' reality.
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Bradley Dale wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> > > > Lego keeps saying that junorization is what todays video-game kids want
> > > > but is it really true?
> > >
> > > My big question: Why does LEGO need today's kids? What if LEGO focused on
> > > being such a good toy for ages 12+ that every teen and adult wanted to build
> > > with it? Not just adults that are currently AFOLS, but everyone! I think • that
> > > would be really cool. Is it possible?
> >
> > Not for a nanosecond. Because there are literary 1,000,000s of them (little
> > people) and only 1,000s of us (AFOLs). You do the math.
>
> But what if tens of millions of big people wanted to build with LEGO, because
> TLC was focused on selling it to adults instead of kids?
If you look at all modeling hobbies in total, which is probably a good
approximation of the best total market for any one modeling hobby, I
think you would find that that total is smaller than TLC's market.
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Yeah, but what if a certain Brick company had sets that made adults think
"Wow, if I were a kid, I'd want that." They would be so cool, thousands of
adults would start collecting them.
When Playboy reviews the Sopwith Camel next to the flat-screen iMac, that
will be the day.
This one is not my best idea...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Erik Olson writes:
> Yeah, but what if a certain Brick company had sets that made adults think
> "Wow, if I were a kid, I'd want that." They would be so cool, thousands of
> adults would start collecting them.
Again, this line of thinking is very much a dream (See my post elsewhere in
this thread). However, I might point out that the Lego setups were a HUGE
draw at events like the Greenburg Train show where NELUG setup a table or
two amongst hobbyists who were otherwise not AFOLs...
http://www.nelug.org/greenberg12011/
...The point is, there *could* be a market, if TLC wished to develop one...
-H.
| | | | | | |
