Subject:
|
Re: The LEGO Revival Survey
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:23:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4980 times
|
| |
|
|
> Why do LEGO toys have value to you?
Open-ended play; that is, the ability to create what I want, limited only by
imagination and the physical limitations of the bricks. Durability; I have Lego
elements in my collection that are at least 30 years old, and they still work as
they should. The ones without teeth-marks, that is... Interchangeability; for
the most part, an element works as it should, regardless of manufacturing era or
color.
> What makes LEGO brand construction toys worth your money?
Value reasons given above. They also let me connect with my children (well, one
of them, at least) in somewhat the same way "having a catch" does. And I know I
can hand my collection down to my kids, or grandkids, and they'll still be
usable.
> In what way has the LEGO brand let you down?
1) The elimination of the "classic" grey and brown colors. It REALLY bugs me to
know that new sets won't match. I'll NEVER be able to build a giant
monochromatic grey or brown MOC by combining what I have accumulated over 30+
years with what I can go and buy today at a retail store.
2) The introduction of more special-purpose and "juniorized" elements. I'm not
about to say the world would be better if all we had to build with were
single-height rectangular bricks and rectangular plates. But some of the newer
elements, especially from the Bionicle and Galidor lines, are mostly useless as
"construction" toys, unless you want to construct action figures. The
open-endedness has been lessened.
> Recently, how has the LEGO brand improved?
I think the Creator series is a GREAT sign that LEGO is interested in its roots.
Even my "non-Lego" teenage child will occasionally break out a Creator set that
I gave her as a creativity exercise. That is probably the greatest endorsement
of the Creator series that I have seen.
> What would you like to see LEGO (re)introduce in the next three years?
1) A return of the "classic" greys and brown.
2) See #1. Repeat about 1000 times. I'm serious.
3) Reissue of some of the "Classic Space" series, including the old-style space
helmets.
4) Reissue of old "Legoland"-type town sets.
> What does LEGO need to do to sell more products for less cost to them?
I'm not sure - are you asking me how Lego can keep its costs down? Stop
introducing juniorized elements. You already have invested in tooling for the
ones you have, but stop spending money on elements that can be made by stacking
a handful of bricks and plates together. Choose your advertising wisely.
> What reason(s) do you have for not buying new LEGO sets?
If the subject of the original creation shown on the box is uninteresting, or if
the pieces don't look useful. For example, the new Dino-battle sets (whatever
it's called); I really like the shape of the helicopter, but I really dislike
the color scheme. If that helicopter were available in grey or black, or were
more monochromatic, I'd probably buy the set. As it is, I'm not sure. I'll
surely look over the parts list, and the instructions once they're posted
online, and see if I can make it in colors that I like.
> What would it take for you to spend more money on new LEGO products versus
> buying sets/parts on the second hand markets?
A new set has to fit one of two criteria: do I want it for the subject modeled
on the box (i.e., an X-Wing) or do I want it for the parts? Once I decide I
want it, then it comes down to price-per-part, and the perceived value there.
Sets that include only basic parts should have a lower price-per-part than sets
with lots of specialized parts. For example, the Lego Factory sets that have
been "leaked" seem to have a VERY high price-per-part, especially for the parts
included. If I buy a set new (for myself or my kids), it's often bought on
sale, or clearanced, or I'll wait for a coupon.
> What will it take for LEGO to remain the best construction toy for all ages
> and be a profitable company?
I can't answer the profit part - that's up to your economists. As for "best"
construction toy, I think Lego is there. The quality of the elements, the
durability, the elegance all make for an excellent product.
> What are your home country, first name and age?
USA, James, 41
> Is there anything you would like to say with this last question that you feel
> someone at LEGO should not go without reading?
Yes. I think the decision to change the grey colors was the worst decision Lego
has ever made, from an AFOL standpoint. It is a no-win situation for the
company. If you change back, and you're seen as dishonest by some AFOLs; if you
don't change or reintroduce the old colors, the resentment crops up every time
someone realizes they don't have quite enough "old grey" elements to finish a
MOC. This, combined with the way Lego "magically" came up with some more Maersk
Blue after announcing that there would never be any more, lead to distrust.
Regardless of the resolution, I think the "grey issue" will take years to heal,
and that's really unfortunate.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
