Subject:
|
Re: New Knight's Kingdom Prices
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:08:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1283 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Brian Kasprzyk wrote:
> Before you go running off on tangents, let's get one thing straight, Lego
> was in the red in those years, not because of poor sales for Lego sets, but
> for poor sales in their other ventures, clothing, pens, etc.
Poor sales of certain themes also contributed. I'm not sure where the loss in
1998 came from, but Galidor, the first wave of NHL sets (we'll have to see how
the new minifig-scale sets do), and the NBA theme all pretty much tanked in
their intended geographical market, and did even worse worldwide. All three
were licensed themes, so not only did they have the regular costs of set design,
new element design, and production to deal with, but they were also shelling out
money off the top to the licensors.
> Now a different spin I would like to put on this conversation is why is Lego
> copying Mega Blok?!?
>
> Mega Blok beat them to the punch for extreme sets, mecha and now, cool castle
> sets.
I'll give you Extreme sets and the resurgence of Castle sets in general (I'm a
bit turned off by the sheer Castle-exclusivity of the elements used in the
Dragons line...aside from the fact that they're inferior MB parts), but
TECHNICally, TLC has been producing mecha since 1999 by way of the
Throwbots/Roboriders/BIONICLE themes (longer if you count the Roboforce theme
from 1997). I believe the Throwbots came out about the same time as the first
MB Transformer knockoffs, so it's pretty much a tie for "first". Since then,
TLC has not stopped producing robotica, while MB has tossed out at least 2-3
attempts to mooch off the phenomenal success of BIONICLE before they finally
opted to take random-packed collectibles into the medieval ages.
> I must say, Lego needs more than this to get back my dollars for castle
> line. I agree, $9 for 2 minifigs and a horse is pure insanity.
My point in that regard was not that the set isn't expensive, but that anyone
who complains about the 2004 price structure based specifically on what they
paid for a similar set 20-30 years ago needs to take an economics class. Star
Wars fans complain about how they were paying $8 per action figure, not based on
the fact that they cost $3-4 20 years ago, but based on the fact that they'd
cost about $5-6 one year earlier. Instantaneous price jumps are a legitimate
complaint, but long-term inflation is a fact of life, and when the company is
losing money, short-term inflation is often a solution for recovery.
> I can buy a tin box of Mega Blok and get 6 guys and misc pieces for $4. I
> can build a huge army for a fraction of what it costs in Lego. Worst yet,
> before the complaints come, their quality has improved a lot and their play
> value is tremendously better.
Better, maybe, but the quality of MB will never be equal to that of TLC until
they start producing parts in ABS instead of plain styrene. Styrene is a cheap
plastic, both in terms of cost and quality.
> Who is going to argue that a child doesn't like a cool, giant dragon versus a
> fake horse on wheels that you shoot at each other?
Set design isn't always the biggest factor. One of my coworkers buys lots of MB
and not much LEGO for her son, but the deciding factor is that when he can't
keep his room clean enough, she'll go in with a shovel and scoop stuff up to
throw away. Knowing that she's going to be tossing much of it in the trash
anyways, she doesn't feel like paying the higher LEGO prices for something that
probably won't be around long enough for element quality to really start to
show. On the other end of the spectrum, I've got parts that are nearly 30 years
old, saw 10-15 years of intense play, and are still in fairly good shape. You
can't honestly say that MB quality is the equal of LEGO quality until the parts
have been put through at least a decade of regular use. Out-of-the-box quality
doesn't matter much if they break or lose their ability to grip after 2-3 years.
> To go another step, Lego is even copying their box art! Mega Blok outlines
> all of the mini's on the cover and color code them to being good or bad. If
> my eyes don't deceive me, the new castle sets are doing the same thing.
TLC has been doing something similar for years now with at least the Alpha Team
line. I know that pretty much every theme has had some way of featuring the
included minifigs on the packaging, but it varies from one theme to the next
(and sometimes by year). 2002 SW packaging shows them in a cluster with the
names printed next to each minifig, 2002 Spiderman shows them lined up on the
same background, the 2002 Werewolf Ambush set shows the werewolf with a plain
background and the two civvies with arched windows over their shoulders. I
can't find my one box from the original AT release, but the Ogel Mutant Squid
shows every AT member and Ogel lined up on the box top. Ogel's picture outline
and name are shown in red, and the rest of the characters (none of which are
included in that set) are greyed out with grey outlines and white names.
> So, who is really the 'clone brick' now?
Until they develop an original core element structure instead of continuing to
use TLC's brick design, MB is. Tinkertoys, Lincoln Logs, Rokkenbox(sp?), K'nex,
Playmobil, and any other company that doesn't borrow element designs from
someone else is not a clone company. MB, Tyco, Best-Lock, Shifty, Built-To-Rule
and any other brand that uses unaltered or slightly modified versions of
TLC-developed elements is and always will be, by definition, a clone brand.
> They certainly have much better price points, so, if they can do it, why
> can't Lego?
Labor and material quality. When MB started producing parts, they weren't
making a Lamborghini to compete with a Ferrari. They were making a Fiero to
compete with a Ferrari. It works when you turn it on, and the look is similar
at a glance, but when you give them an in-depth comparison, they are not equal.
You can't make a Ferrari at Fiero pricing, so you can't buy one that cheap
either.
> My local Target has a larger Mega Blok section then Lego now. That is
> really sad, but, they are selling more because Lego is getting to expensive.
MB went public a couple years ago (something which typically doesn't happen
unless the company is either on the verge of tremendous growth or losing money),
so they've got to answer to their stockholders now. Improvements in their
production quality were probably influenced by stockholders. Parents rarely
expect toys to last for years, so as long as they seem fine out of the box, the
cheaper pricepoint carries more weight than the fact that LEGO collections have
been passed down from one generation to the next. Rising MB sales probably
means falling LEGO sales, which probably means that prices have to be tweaked a
bit to maintain/achieve a profit.
And as much as people have knocked all three themes and the decisions that led
to them, BIONICLE, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are all strong cards in the LEGO
hand right now. MB can't legally compete with SW or HP by producing unlicensed
knock-offs (and I know that a lot of the SW fans, at least, care more about the
logo on the box than what's inside), and they've thus far proven unable to
develop a theme that can stand toe-to-toe with the BIONICLE powerhouse (for that
matter, TLC has never had any single theme that could have either).
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Knight's Kingdom Prices
|
| Before you go running off on tangents, let's get one thing straight, Lego was in the red in those years, not because of poor sales for Lego sets, but for poor sales in their other ventures, clothing, pens, etc. Now a different spin I would like to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.general)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
