Subject:
|
Re: Now that I've had a chance to see the new colors
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:42:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
838 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> Douglas R. Clark wrote:
>
> ...
> > So, personally, I do not believe the focus-group-color-palette explanation.
> ...
> Why not?
>
> What *POSSIBLE* motive would LEGO have to lie to anyone?
>
> If the reason is one of the more plausable ones you suggested elsewhere,
> it would have been perfectly reasonable for them to have said as much --
> it may have still sucked, but I think any mature person could have
> still accepted the decision and reasoning.
>
> Something else to remember is that it is not the kids that buy these
> sets, in general... it is adults buying these sets for their kids -- in
> particular, adults that don't appear to care one way or the other about
> color.... so why would LEGO do this? Simple... it has been proven
> before beyond any reasonable doubt that the color of a product *WILL*
> impact its sales, often even as a result of a subconscious impression,
> and I'll bet that the focus group most likely consisted of adults with
> children, and involved simply finding out which colors caught their eye
> the best. After all, if the product can catch their eye in the first
> place, the chance of them buying it is increased. This obviously isn't
> a change designed to appeal to the longtime LEGO fan, it's evidently a
> change made in to affect impulse purchases.
This is a funny quagmire of reasoning. I tend to believe the explanation of the
focus group(s). Having worked in statistical sampling (once upon a time), I
certainly hope that their sample size (number of children, parents, etc) and
controls were sufficient to properly determine the effect. Since LEGO is such a
widely distributed product (households, probably approaching the number who also
have televisions), there is a huge population that should have been sampled. And
one would hope the sample was demographically balanced (at least so far as those
who have purchased LEGO in the past and those who have not but they they want to
attract).
As I said in my earlier post... I am most curious about the relationship
between the subtle (?) color changes and the positive L&F of the product. I find
it hard to believe that the original shades of gray (& brown) were chosen
haphazardly. If TLC moves in a careful determined way, then the only viable
explanation is that the target audience has changed their perceptions of what is
"good". Sometime during the 2003 set year (possible starting in the summer), I
noticed that TLC was making the product packages a bit brighter. The current
creator tub (<set:4107> IIRC) is a good example. Look around at your local WM
and you might see the original and new packaging side by side (as I did
yesterday). The new packaging has a little more of the "eye candy" appeal.
Perhaps the same studies that flushed this out also discovered the issue with
the grays. TLC is changing (whether it be proactive or reactive). They have a
competitor (maybe several) not to be taken for granted.
Ray
> Most of us might think that LEGO already could have stood on its own
> merits as a quality product and didn't need superficial changes like
> this to improve their sales, but it seems evident to me that the guys
> who made this decision don't have the same opinion.
>
> > > Mark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Now that I've had a chance to see the new colors
|
| Douglas R. Clark wrote: ... (...) ... Why not? What *POSSIBLE* motive would LEGO have to lie to anyone? If the reason is one of the more plausable ones you suggested elsewhere, it would have been perfectly reasonable for them to have said as much -- (...) (21 years ago, 17-Dec-03, to lugnet.general)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
