Subject:
|
Re: The LEGO Revival Survey
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:37:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4579 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Dan Thompson wrote:
> The whole reason for this survey is to get you to provide
> answers to some simple questions. When the answers are complied we will
> submit them to LEGO for consideration.
I have to agree with Dave S on this one insofar as it's sort of mundane for many
of us to answer these sorts of surveys. I would seriously be amazed if anything
appears in this thread that hasn't been voiced before, or has ever gone to Lego
before. The people at Lego that will read through these replies probably are
already aware of everything that's said. Every once in a while "surveys" of this
nature come along, and invariably get very similar responses. Many of us are
probably just too used to seeing them.
But, that said, for whatever reason, I'm feeling up to writing a bit right now,
so I'll add my $.02.
> Why do LEGO toys have value to you?
Lego has value insofar as:
1) Collector's item - It's very collectable with a wide range of history, and
varied amounts of "sub-genres" that are collectable within themselves. Many
items have a unique quality about them that collectables have. Less so now,
since they're following the trend of common toys. A "Power Rangers Action Power
Zord" is very "fad"-ish, and less collectable than something that's a little
more timeless. Older Lego more generally is appealing as a collector's item,
newer Lego less so, but there are certainly lots of still-collectable products.
2) Modelling tool - Lego is a medium like clay, paint, wood, etc. You can use it
to be creative and make models and art for display or light play value. And
while not as versatile as some other mediums, it's versatile enough to do most
anything you want, plus provides an interesting challenge to limit yourself to
the available pieces.
3) Functional play value - Technic, Mindstorms, and even just general pieces
provide ways of "playing" or even creating practical things within the medium.
One is able to test out a theory, teach an idea, or solve a practical goal by
using Lego bricks. Lego in particular is easy to use for these purposes, and
highly re-configurable to suit changing needs or enhanced functionality.
4) Entertainment play value - Primarily for children, but also for adults in a
more limited sense, Lego provides a "fantasy environment" for free-range play.
The environment is for all intents and purposes unlimited, and can accomidate
itself to any scheme you can imagine. Again, re-usability is key, where other
products are generally more single-use.
5) Nostalgia - Many adults grew up with Lego. Lego also has a rich history
compared to many other existing toys. As such it is enjoyable as a historical
item, either generically or personally.
> What makes LEGO brand construction toys worth your money?
1) Versatility - A Lego set is an investment in much more than its "intended"
use. Other products are often not worthwhile because they're only useful for a
single purpose, or close to it.
2) Durability - Although recently the quality of pieces has seemingly gone down,
Lego is known to last for a long time without much degredation in quality.
> In what way has the LEGO brand let you down?
1) Color change. I have to say (not that I haven't said it before, just
re-venting) this is the one thing that I totally disagreed with. Every other bad
decision at Lego at least had the *potential* for benefit, even if it didn't pan
out. Galidor? ZNAP? Bulk ordering? Theme parks? Juniorization? Increased use of
cheaper plastic? New chrome? Maersk ship re-release? I can stand behind Lego on
all of those because there was a *possible* benefit. Color change? Absolutely NO
benefit whatsoever. Only cost. I seriously think this was the worst decision
Lego's ever made.
2) Plastic quality (newer elements I've seen very often start cracking
immediately, I noticed this as of 2003, but possibly existed earlier)
> Recently, how has the LEGO brand improved?
1) Attention to the adult market. Release of exclusive large-ticket items,
communication with the fan community, "legend" re-releases.
2) Re-focus on core products such as designer sets.
3) New prospects such as LegoFactory, Galidor, Bionicle, Mosaic, etc.
Effectively, a willingness to try new directions, even if some of them fail.
> What would you like to see LEGO (re)introduce in the next three years?
1) Better bulk packs. Varied parts packs like 5145 instead of bulk like 3459.
Bulk in the way it's being done currently is nearly completely useless to me.
Bulk items should be slightly specialized elements that are needed in vast
quantity, such as: greenery, windows (NOT doors), generic minifigs (IE "minions"
or crowds), etc.
2) Varied bulk pack of tiles (1x1, 1x2, 1x4, 1x6, 1x8, 2x2). (I know, I know. It
fits with the above, I just wanted it as its own item)
3) Space Legend sets
> What does LEGO need to do to sell more products for less cost to them?
To sell more:
- Make better products. See above. And probably below.
To save money:
- Shorten the development chain.
- Stop producing as many single-use molds.
> What reason(s) do you have for not buying new LEGO sets?
1) New colors. I haven't stopped buying new Lego thanks to new colors, but I
have admittedly bought far less. The new Sandcrawler? Would've been all over
that for parts. Now it's largely useless, since the brown gets tossed into a
bin, awaiting the day that I've accumulated enough of the new brown to be
useful.
2) Versatility. Themes such as Bionicle, Alpha Team and Belville are less useful
to me thanks to a high amount of pieces that don't "fit" with the "system".
Although useful for specific elements, they don't provide a large degree of
value to me. Note that I don't necessarily advocate changing that, because I
think there is still merit in the way it's done now.
> What would it take for you to spend more money on new LEGO products versus
> buying sets/parts on the second hand markets?
Too much to be worth Lego's while. Pick-A-Brick is a great sentiment in that
direction, but it will most likely never be able to compete with the
after-market. Availability from Lego just isn't there on such a pitiful amount
as is being asked for from individuals.
> What will it take for LEGO to remain the best construction toy for all ages
> and be a profitable company?
To be the best? I think that's already happened. To be profitable? That's
another question. While the "Wal-Mart" philosophy becomes more dominant,
attention to product quality will likely dwindle. Quick-to-produce, cheap sets
are much more profitable, I expect. A trade-off that Lego will have to walk, I'm
not sure it can remain dominant profit-wise AND quality-wise.
> What are your home country, first name and age?
David, USA, age 28.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | The LEGO Revival Survey
|
| LEGO is a changing company that many think is not what it should be or what it used to be. The best quality construction toys are made by LEGO. The current customer relationship between LEGO and the people who enjoy the toys they make is the best it (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jun-05, to lugnet.general) !!
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
