Subject:
|
Re: Are *we* part of TLG's problem?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:11:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1425 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Chris Gray wrote:
>
> I've been reading the recent articles about The Lego Group's financial
> problems. Its sad to see a company with a long history of good practices
> in trouble.
>
> But, it has occurred to me that we AFOL's might be part of the problem.
> What do we do? Well, we buy lots of Lego - often far more than parents
> would ever buy for their children, and certainly far more than kids could
> ever buy for themselves. But, and here is the big thing, we do our best to
> buy most of our Lego on sale. We do that because we want lots of it, and
> because it is expensive.
>
> I know that there is a large markup on Toys, so stores have quite a bit
> of ability to sell at reduced prices without losing money. But, I'm thinking
> that the stores don't absorb all of that reduced price. I'm thinking that
> Lego takes some of the hit too. Consider also the recent sale items
> available at Shop@Home. Sure, this is old stock that Lego needs to sell
> off, but they are most certainly making less money from the reduced prices
> (some as much as 50% off).
>
> I only need to look at what happens here in Edmonton to know that this
> can't be good for someone, and I'm guessing that Lego itself is part of
> that unknown "someone". Whenever sales of interesting sets are spotted
> by any of our members (some of who check the stores almost every day),
> an email about it is posted to our mailing list. The result is often a
> horde of locusts descending on the stores, buying up all of the on-sale
> items. Some goes into personal collections for use, and some ends up in
> online stores. Judging by the size of some online stores, we certainly
> aren't the only group that does this, and there are likely other groups
> that are worse than we are.
>
> When we buy up all of the stuff on sale, that means that parents and kids
> can't buy it. That means there are fewer people exposed to more Lego, and
> quite possibly there is then less demand for new sets at regular prices.
I don't believe that's true. LEGO targets the yound children with "cool"
products that are all fresh and new. Most kids would rather have the newest
theme than an old set they saw in a catalog a year ago. And if these kids
wanted these sets in the first place, they'd have asked for them when they were
new. There's also the fact that even all the LUGs or clubs can't make that much
of a difference in a world-wide scale.
> In the past, perhaps the effect we had wasn't that big. But, it seems to
> me, looking at projects people are doing, that the size of the projects
> is steadily increasing. That means the amount of Lego being bought (and
> how often is that at full retail price?) by AFOLs is increasing. Are we
> in fact contributing to the trend of fewer new young Lego fans because
> we are buying up all the cheap Lego?
We are NOT buying all the cheap LEGO. Maybe we buy a lot of it, but not all.
You are exagerating our impact on the market.
> Do we compensate for all of this by getting more people interested in Lego?
> Probably not, because what we do is just increase the number of people who
> are not paying full retail price!
Again, you exagerate our impact, both economically and in the availability of
old sets in stores. Yes, I personnally buy a lot of LEGO sets on sale, but not
nearly as much as 100 kids. Do you know how many children love LEGO? Do you
know how few we are compared to them? I'd like to think that the AFOLs are a
big part of TLG's market, but we are not and TLG has made this very very clear.
If we were, for example, don't you think they'd have consulted us on such issues
as color change? They didn't because their only focus are children. They
represent the vast majority of the consumers who buy LEGO, even if many AFOLs
buy more LEGO in a week than most kids in a year. We're simply not enough to
weight.
I do not shy away from my responsability in a problem when I'm concerned. This,
however, is not our fault. It's more the fault of parents who'd rather buy war
toys or cheap clone brands to their children rather than educational toys, like
LEGO bricks. And by saying that, I'm sure it's not even the most important part
of the problem. So I do not feel guilty at all.
Terry
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Are *we* part of TLG's problem?
|
| I've been reading the recent articles about The Lego Group's financial problems. Its sad to see a company with a long history of good practices in trouble. But, it has occurred to me that we AFOL's might be part of the problem. What do we do? Well, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
