Subject:
|
Re: Nicely now. What do you think of the new colors?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:17:01 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
79 times
|
| |
|
|
I doubt that I’ll have much to add to this debate that hasn’t already been said
-
Not too many years ago, one of the pillars of Lego’s marketing strategy was that
every new Lego product you bought multiplied the value of the Lego products you
already had.
Now this was a brilliant move for the company, since it meant that the product
marketed itself. After a certain critical mass is reached, the customer no
longer goes to a toy store to buy ‘toys’ - he goes there to buy Lego, because
for the cost of a single set he effectively transforms his entire collection.
Most kids that got caught up in this cycle could be relied on for three or four
years of repeat business, if not more, off of a couple of initial sales.
This system of affairs is hugely advantageous to both the company and to the
consumer. In fact it served the interests of nearly everyone involved, with the
conspicuous exception of the marketing execs, whose power within the company is
largely proportionate to the company’s dependence on attracting new business.
So it’s not particularly surprising that once Marketing started to gain
executive control of every decision at Lego, the “multiplying value” pillar was
deprioritized in favor of short-term sales. Obvious declines in product
consistency concerning color, shape, and material were combined with a
pronounced design-philosophy shift from products that emphasized “System” and
delivered a “Lego experience” to products that emphasize “regular toy” and
deliver a “Toy experience.” Newly-purchased products are becoming no more
consistent with already-owned products than if the customer bought Mega Bloks
instead. The emphasis on producing specific “toys” with the least possible
amount of construction activity robs children of any experience that would cause
them to prefer Lego to regular toys later. The task of convincing kids to buy
Lego requires more money and power on behalf of the marketing department with
every passing year. Machiavelli applauds.
Some of these trends have reversed since hitting their nadir towards the end of
the Nineties; I personally believe that 2003’s poor performance had less to do
with any defect in the 2003 product lines, and more to do with the cumulative
effect of the free sales we failed to secure because of the wealth of customer
loyalty squandered over the course of the previous decade.
Lego’s decision to render some of its most basic colors obsolete is just one
more example of sacrificing the satisfaction and continued business of existing
customers in order to attract one-time sales from new ones. We’ve all been
stabbed in the back so that the photo on the front of the packaging can be one
percent shinier.
LEGO is already LEGO. Trying to out-Mega-Bloks Mega Bloks is not going to
improve our position.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Nicely now. What do you think of the new colors?
|
| It's only a couple of weeks in the new year, and it looks like it's going to be an interesting 2004! I have a request, but before I go any further, let me say that personally, I understand the concerns surrounding the color changes. I know many of (...) (21 years ago, 15-Jan-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.general, FTX) !!
|
157 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
