Subject:
|
Re: new lego sets? are they crazy?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:39:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
401 times
|
| |
|
|
<original snipped>
I have (or had) been harping on the juniorized sets as well, mostly due to the
quality of design, but after reading people's opinions I'm beginning to think
there is room for the lines.
Please excuse the analogy, but I think Lego is approaching this not in a "New
Coke replaces Coke" (and hence Coke Classic), but in the sense that The Coca-
Cola Company also produces the Fruitopia line. The juniorized sets do have a
reason for existing: to catch a segment of the market that was either missed or
has newly formed.
Times change and Lego must flex and experiment to garner the interests of a new
generation of children. That is what will keep them in business. And however
much we don't like the juniorized sets, I don't think they pose a threat to the
tried and true... Jack Stone (even if he were better sculpted) will not replace
minifigs anytime soon. But, I should also mention, if Lego in producing the
juniorized lines can subsidize the loss-leading sets you and I desire (like the
Classics series), how can I criticize?
The people at Lego are pretty smart folk from what I can tell. They are charged
with creating products that appeal across cultures, ages and genders. And they
are succeeding, I mean, just look at the diversity if not the very existence of
this community. But AFOLs are a minor consumer of Lego, statistically, I'm told.
Lego depends on kids wanting their stuff... make that a *lot* of kids wanting
*all* of their stuff. But despite this, they are being tremendously good to us,
too. They haven't forgotten the enthusiasts, they just can't afford to have us
as their sole focus.
But back to the original post, I will agree that the latest catalog is
disconcerting, the juniorized sets crowd out a lot that you and I maybe
interested in. But I think the catalog shouldn't be seen as the only
representation of the company's product line. For example, also not in the
catalog are the Scala and many of the Duplo sets, among other things that *can*
be found at the S@H website. The catalog can only be so many pages long (though
an argument could be made for different versions of the catalog, targeting age
ranges).
All in all, I think Lego is doing a great job. I'm still addicted, aren't you?
:)
Jim
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: new lego sets? are they crazy?
|
| (...) more snippage (...) Oh, I'm still addicted to Lego, but it's the older sets that I'm buying from sources such as Ebay and Brickbay. The secondary market is the ONLY game in town as far as I'm concerned for the purchase of good Space and Town (...) (23 years ago, 6-Aug-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego)
| | | Re: new lego sets? are they crazy?
|
| (...) At the prices LEGO charges for any sets, it is hard to imagine classifying any of them as loss-leaders. Generally this is a sales tool used by retail stores as 'bait' essentially to lure you in with an item being sold at or below cost. Usually (...) (23 years ago, 10-Aug-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego)
| | | Re: new lego sets? are they crazy?
|
| Jim Green wrote: <SNIP> (...) Actually, not as much as I used to be. And I feel myself that juniorisation and weird things (Bionicle, Slizers, Jack Stone, the lack of a proper catalog) has part in this. My main concern is the catalog. Offering (...) (23 years ago, 31-Aug-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
