Subject:
|
Re: Question: Does the market realy want junorization?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2001 05:39:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
849 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question: Does the market realy want junorization?
|
| (...) I guess I must have been a weird kid. All of these problems are exactly why I enjoyed LEGO so much. (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 7-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question: Does the market realy want junorization?
|
| (...) Exactly. The worst part is that LEGO used to be the industry leader. Their name was virtually synonymous with *building* toys. (...) Which they wouldn't do if the sets actually contained some basic bricks that they could use to model something (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
|
60 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
