| |
Juniorization Manifesto
I'm going to try and share my thoughts about juniorization. It is my utmost
hope that I can present reasons for and against it, though I fear that my
arguments shall be slightly one sided. I don't expect to get a formal
response from Lego itself. Hence, witout their involvement, I must attempt
to present their argument to the best of my knowledge, which, I grant, may
be largely flawed.
But before that, I'd like to explain why I want to write this manifesto. At
first, this was merely a response to Ashley Glennon's recent assertion that
Lego was in fact listening. It struck me that the debate about
juniorization has been largely one sided on probably both our part and on
Lego's. Hence, both sides are able to easily dismiss the other's
conclusions, since, lacking communication, there is no room for either side
to adequately debate the issue and see the other side's point.
Example. Let's suppose that Lego had some truly good reasons for Juniorizing
sets. As fans and outsiders, we aren't told these reasons, and are forced
to derive our own reasons. Now let's suppose we derive some reasons that
Lego *might* have, but we miss that one GOOD reason. Then, we refute the
reasons we came up with. We're really accomplishing nothing, since even if
Lego looks at our logic, their main GOOD reason has been ignored by us, and
it is easier for them to dismiss our conclusions.
And also, I'm rather tired of the one sided debate. I have seen Lego fans
complain and debate the same issues time and again in many places, and I see
little progress. This also ties in with Lego actually listening. For the
most part, I see AFOLs' reasons being the same, day in day out. 90% of the
reasons actually stated are the same. If Lego is really listening, it may
be hard for them to pick out that other 10% of truly unique reasons among
all the flames and debates. Hence, I'm going to try and say it all here, to
my greatest extent.
As said, however, I fear that this will be largely one sided. I fully
understand Lego's position on debating such issues, especially online where,
as Ashley mentioned, Lego is often unsure of what the company's voice should
sound like, and what words it should choose, let alone what opinions to
express. The question is also brought up of whether or not such a debate is
worth their while. As stated on several occasions, Lego has volumes of
reasons and research backing their decisions. Presenting them here would
not be a simple task-- not merely in effort of expressing them all, but also
in deciding how to express them. Again, we, as fans, are individuals, with
comparitively little at risk. We also do this because we are grossely
passionate about these issues; it's not our job. We can't be fired or
directly punished for our actions and opinions.
That said, let's continue.
I think Lego's juniorization may caused by two things:
- it's cheaper
- it's what the market wants, hence more sales
After all, those are really the only two possible reasons why a company
should want to do anything. Money. And let's face it, that's not bad. And
it should be our goal to help them make as much money as possible so they
can keep producing the toy we all know and love.
So, #1. Is it cheaper? I don't know. That's really something Lego has to
provide input on. I assume they have mounds of information on cost benefit
analysis of Juniorization and where it's cheaper and where it's more costly.
At a guess, I'll say:
Added cost:
- more pieces to design
- more molds to produce
- more molds to maintain (I.E switching between molds during production
is added cost)
- arguably more plastic per piece (depends on the piece)
Reduced cost:
- fewer parts per set (less chance of error)
- arguably less plastic per piece (depends on the piece)
- less basic parts per single juniorized part (less plastic & time spent
producing overall)
Also of note would be inventories per part, which I'm largely
unknowledgeable about. There could be increased volume depending on their
storage systems, or less. I don't know the internals of Lego's production
facilities enough to judge.
Now, the bigger issue. Does the market want this? Will it result in more sales?
I think a large percentage of the reason that Lego believes that the market
wants this is that in fact, people HAVE asked for it, and obviously have
done so a lot in order to get their message across. So let's ask, why would
people ask for such a thing?
I think a large percentage of kids are often frustrated with Lego. They're
eager to play with the model advertised on the box, not to actually build
it. And for a child learning to play with Lego, it may not be easy. Not all
kids have good fine motor skills or have the patience for building the model
that they want. As a result, these kids will ask their parents for help,
give up, or become angry at themselves or the Lego bricks themselves.
As a parent looking at this, you're left with several courses of action. You
can help the child build the model. You can tell them to try again. You can
ignore them or try to get the child to play with something else. Or, you
too can blame the bricks. As a result, many parents may contact the company
saying that their children love the Lego sets themselves, but are tired of
having to put in so much effort into building them. Why can't Lego make
sets that are easier to build and let the child enjoy the model and the
building process more?
To this end, I think Lego may have (and probably did) conducted market
research. My guess is that the market research examined sets that were and
weren't juniorized. They compared the time it took for the children to build
the models, and also probably tried to classify how easy it was for them to
do it, by looking for how frustrated the child got with the building
process. They also probably examined how the overall 'playability' of the
model was affected, as well as examining the child's ability to build new
models out of the same bricks provided.
Results? I'll guess. Again, I could be LARGELY off base-- I haven't done the
research.
- How much time did it take for the child to build the set? Probably less
for juniorized sets.
- Was the child frustrated with building the model? Again, probably less
frustration was exhibited with the juniorized sets.
- Did the child enjoy the completed model? Most likely, the model itself was
largely unaffected play-wise between juniorized and non-juniorized models.
- Was the child able to create other models using the pieces? I'd wager that
this showed pretty even distribution, with a slight tendancy against
juniorization, but not much. After all, a child's imagination is quite capable.
However, I'd like to point out the possible errors in such a study. Again,
if that's not how they conducted the study, these words are useless, but all
the more reason why I want Lego's input. The problem, I think, with such a
method of study is that A. there are some aspects not examined, and B. we
can take Juniorization to the Nth degree.
A. Building is hard work. And a result of more work is more pride. A child
who builds a non-juniorized set has spent more time building and is most
likely more proud of the model. Further, we can use the 'character
building' argument. A child who has shown his/herself that work pays off
ends up all the better. It helps teach children patience, determination,
and effort. And in such instances, juniorization works against building
these qualities.
B. Let's take it to the next level. These children who are frustrated with
building the model are most likely interested not in building, but in
playing. They want to get from point A to point B not for the experience,
but to simply be at point B. That's the goal as they see it. Hence, why
not create a toy that's already put together? Why not play with Transformers
or Matchbox cars or Nerf guns instead? They're already at point B out of the
box. Juniorization is a step in this direction-- where the building ideals
of the Lego bricks themselves are defeated.
However, let's take that back the other way. Suppose that Lego decides to
put out no more bricks ever. Only plates. After all, bricks are just 3 or
more plates stacked, so what's the loss? Isn't that what the AFOL community
has been fighting for? Less pieces that can be made from already existing
ones? However I think any AFOL you ask will probably say that this too is a
step in the wrong direction, and that it's taking things too far.
Hence, the question is what level of juniorization is best? And, best for
who? Quite clearly, the answer to that should be best for the Lego Company.
I think here is where we can actually do some of our own market research,
but again, we as the fan community are unable to truly come up with real
numbers. The only things we know are that:
- Juniorization started in roughly 1997, and is still evident in current sets
- Since that time, AFOLs have been less impressed with sets
- Lego has experienced its first overall loss (in quite some time) in
1998. And I believe further losses have been taken recently as well?
- Many series such as Insectoids, UFO, Native Americans, Hydronauts,
Stingrays, Fright Knights, etc. Have sat on shelves in stores to the point
where they've been discounted at ridiculous rates.
- Lego itself has said that retailers are nervous to purchase from Lego
thanks to the amount of stock they've already got on their shelves.
I'll be honest, though-- the above seems rather pointed at Juniorization,
when so many other changes have been going on in the company. In the last
few years we've seen lots of new innovations and projects:
- Legoland California
- Lego Robotics
- Star Wars Lego
- Many new Lego themes
- Increased market presence of Mega Bloks, and other companies
- Bulk Sales
- And others I'm forgetting
Personally, I don't blame the above listed problems much on juniorization.
As far as sets not selling, I would attribute it to poor set design. I've
seen some of the VERY juniorized town sets that have made their way off the
toy shelves very quickly, and others just sit there. However, I do notice
that some themes look particularly... ugly. Themes like Insectoids (I'm
just picking that one because I can't stand it) are simply too busy and
without good design features to be bought. I'll admit that many recent sets'
fucntionality is quite impressive, but that's not what makes a toy fly off
the shelves. A good part of that is how a set looks, and I know many people
have expressed their distaste for many of these themes (In particular
Insectoids, UFO, and Hydronauts, which I find to be the worst of the worst).
But back to juniorization. I think this is a call that Lego has to make.
What does it want its target audience to be? Juniorization seems to step
further towards things like Playmobil. It seems to cater to the age 3-8
market, whereas non-juniorized themes like Classic space (mid '80s), Castle
(late '80s early '90s), Star Wars, etc, are aimed higher-- rougly age 6-12.
I think this is also something that's apparent in Mega Blok's designs. MB
designs mecha, military vehicles, race cars, etc. All things geared towards
this older age group (and boys, of note, rather than girls). And MB also
lacks juniorization in their designs. Are they doing well? I don't know. I
don't follow MB. But looking at how full the market is with their models on
the shelves, I'd say they're not doing too poorly. Especially when noting
discount prices-- they're mostly on Lego, not MB.
But this also brings to question another issue. What type of child does
Lego wish to market to? The further down the road Lego goes in the path of
juniorization, the closer it gets to a pre-packaged, pre-built toy. And
there are kids that love them. There are also kids that love building
blocks. And sadly, kids that love building blocks aren't going to be
attracted to something juniorized. Hence, they'll be turned to other
building toys.
For a moment, a reflection. There have always been pre-packaged toys.
Barbie's, G.I.Joe's, Transformers, Cabbage Patch Kids, Ninja Turtles, Power
Rangers, Pokemon, etc. And sadly, most of these pre-packaged toys are fads.
They make a quick buck (actually quite a lot of quick bucks), and then fade
out. Building blocks are another matter. They never fade. Kids at Day
Care centers everywhere still play with the same old wooden blocks that we
all played with. And what's more, kids everywhere still play with automatic
binding bricks.
There will always be kids who aren't turned on to Lego because it's too
frustrating for them if they lack fine motor skills, or if they don't have
the patience to learn it, even if sets ARE juniorized. It's only a matter
of time until that new lowest common denominator is found among builders.
But there will also always be kids who are fascinated with building, who
will be inspired to overcome new challenges and build something that's
difficult so they can be proud of it. And even if they fail, they still
walk away learning something, and are prepared for their next challenge,
which they welcome with open arms. And what's more, these are the same kids
that will someday become AFOLs. We know, because we were those kids once.
And that's potentially the biggest benefit-- long time commitment. AFOLs,
no matter how much they rant and howl about how much they hate the new
designs, they stick with it because of the quality product Lego provides.
But the further away Lego strays from that which drew us to it, the more we
too shall stray. And as for all the child builders out there, they don't
have product loyalty. They see non-juniorized (cheaper!) MB sets that look
interesting to them, and they become less and less inclined to become Lego fans.
In short, I do not know what is best for the company. Perhaps juniorization
shall be one of the factors in its downfall, or perhaps it shall further
help find Lego's unique niche. I do know, however, that for every beg and
plead Lego recieves asking for more sets to be juniorized, there is another
devout fan begging and pleading for an end to juniorization.
Play Well,
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Juniorization Manifesto
|
| (...) There's another reason for Juniorization (and other manifestations of special-purpose pieces) that doesn't seem to have got much airtime in this debate. No doubt I'll be corrected, but Lego's basic patents have expired. This is why we are now (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-00, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
