Subject:
|
Re: According to TLC...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:01:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3276 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Jason Spears wrote:
> > Could it possibly be that they are putting their advertising dollars where it
> > might get the most return? That would seem like normal business procedure to me.
> > So if they are spending lots of money on (TV Advertising, Brick Masters, Event
> > Kits), it might be because those things help sales. I don't believe for a minute
> > that sales in europe are subsizing anything. Also I'd be inclided to think that
> > the Brick Masters thing is likely to make lego money rather than cost them. Or
> > at least very close to a break even.
> Well, have a look at TLCs own findings. The latest annual report from
> LEGO - available at http://www.lego.com/info/pdf/uk_report2003_web.pdf -
> avoids to give exact numbers, but have a look at the charts:
> P.3 Total drop in sales: World 29%, US 35%
> P.4 Worldwide distribution of the sales: US ~30%, EU ~60%
Are you claiming that the EU is a single market with a single language, a single
set of laws, a single set of media networks across all EU members, and a single
set of major big box stores with common management?
If you are, I believe you (and LEGO for that matter) are incorrect to lump EU
together as one market.
If you are not, I believe it's clear that the US is the largest single market
for LEGO product, just as it is for many many other goods.
Further, are you claiming that all other goods besides LEGO are at parity in
terms of purchasing power between the US and every individual EU market? I can
think of dozens of goods and services (petrol, restaurant food, candy, clothing,
beer, hotel rooms, car hire, airline fares, computer hardware and software, and
consultant rates just to name a few I have direct experience with) that are
cheaper in the US than they are in EU member states. And a few that are not. The
ratios are not consistent of course but they do vary.
If you want to make a subsidization case, I think the case you *ought* to be
making is that US pharma companies are subsidizing the entire rest of the world
on the backs of US drug purchasers, as drug prices are higher here than anywhere
else. THAT's a much more important inequity in the grand scheme of things... But
that's a topic for a different group.
Soo... are all these price inequities directly due to the companies themselves
deciding to do things that way? Or are they due instead to forces outside the
direct control of the firms?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: According to TLC...
|
| There is a typo in the referenced append, correction below (...) the above should be: If you are, I believe you are incorrect in so claiming. If you are not, I believe you (and LEGO for that matter) are incorrect to lump all of the EU together as (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | According to TLC...
|
| (...) Well, have a look at TLCs own findings. The latest annual report from LEGO - available at (URL) - avoids to give exact numbers, but have a look at the charts: P.3 Total drop in sales: World 29%, US 35% P.4 Worldwide distribution of the sales: (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
