Subject:
|
Re: Not just another Mega Bloks vs. Lego article
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:16:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
408 times
|
| |
|
|
Thomas & All,
Thanks for the link, interesting read. put my response to just general.
Here is what caught my eye in this article, Thomas pointed out some good ones
already.
> Results were also hurt by soft sales of construction toys that let kids
> build scenes and playsets based on movies such as the Harry Potter series.
> Lego admits that it “mismanaged” the toy line and that interest in such toys
> waned, contributing to millions of dollars of unsold licensed goods.
This is a fascinating bit of text. I was under the impression that most of the
licensed goods was a good seller, such as SW and HP. I wonder if it is in
reference to Galidor. I am not sure what else could be a bad seller, Bob the
Builder?
Another interesting tidbit:
> Unlike Lego, which uses its own mix of resins, Mega Bloks uses commodity-
> grade resins to make its colorful bricks. Lego believes its proprietary mix > produces a higher-quality plastic.
Heh, I did not know that LEGO has their own mix of plastic. And it is
interesting that MB uses commodity grade plastics.
Some info on grades:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/mktguides/Plastics/Definition.htm
Veyr interesting article.
Scott S.
--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Not just another Mega Bloks vs. Lego article
|
| (...) I inferred that excerpt to suggest that licensed (and juniorized, incidentally) playset/diorama-style sets were less successful than the more interactive vehicles. I suppose we could both be correct. (...) That's news to me, too. I figured (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-04, to lugnet.general)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
