Subject:
|
Re: A fan no more
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:46:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4414 times
|
| |
|
|
"Scott Lyttle" <datafx7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I0K0uG.8Cr@lugnet.com...
> Can I have a HUGE round of applause for Dave here?
>
> This sounds like someone who loves LEGO, but at the same time, also • understands
> that LEGO is trying to do what it can to get sales from a larger • market--in
> light of many companies who have grown over the years. It appears that • there is
> a "fad" and "non-fad" market approach, just as Dave has said...not into • the
> "fads"?, then go for the "non-fad" stuff (PLEASE, don't bring the color
> discussion up...if you do, I'll direct you to the nearest dead horse...).
Scott, you're missing my point. I can understand that you feel it's a dead
issue from the perspective that's there's nothing we can do about it. But
it's far from beind dead in terms of the fact that it's the most monumental
change to the product short of changing it's physical dimensions. Telling
me to go for the "non-fad" stuff and NOT bring up the color issue is
insulting. That's like telling me to eat at fast food and shut up if I
don't like it.
> Kids today are different from us kids from 10,20, or even 30+ years ago. • LEGO
> has to change with the kids, as much as we may stay in our own "static"
> childhood of many years ago. Sure, I had fisher-price Adventure People, a
> Transformer or two, a bunch of G.I. Joe toys, (no power rangers--weren't • around
> as a kid), I even wanted a few of the Bandai Robotech toys, even had a HO • train
> set as a kid (even put my Lego town inside the HO layout), but the only • toy
> that's endured for 30 years...is LEGO.
Granted Lego may have endured and other toys have come and gone, but at what
cost? What I was trying to say (perhaps a bit too melodramtically in my
original post) is that I feel that the price Lego seems to believe they have
to pay in order to endure is too much for me. I don't believe that children
are any different today than they were 30 years. The only difference is in
their environment and the choices that are offered to them (too many choices
and many of them unappealing when seen from an adult perspective, IMHO). If
they wanna bash their little brothers or sisters over the head with Power
Rangers and GI Joe then that's fine. But these toys offer a completely
different pattern of play than Lego does. I believe that TLG's mistake is
in trying to appeal to a market that's simply not going to appreciate the
product for what makes it great. From my perspective, Lego is about
imagination, creativitiy, and contemplation, not CRASH, BANG, WHOOSH,
SMASH!! Kids can bring those aspects into the toy if they want (and of
course, they will) but I believe it's a mistake to make these aspects an
integral part of a toy that is far better of without them. Lego should not
have to be an ADD-approved product.
Dave
> as an aside...working at my LEGO store one day, I was stacking boxes of
> product...when all of a sudden, I realized that I was stacking them in an
> interlocking pattern...a pattern I learned about from playing with LEGO as • a
> child...talk about your "full circle"....
>
> Scott Lyttle
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A fan no more
|
| Can I have a HUGE round of applause for Dave here? This sounds like someone who loves LEGO, but at the same time, also understands that LEGO is trying to do what it can to get sales from a larger market--in light of many companies who have grown (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.general)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
