Subject:
|
Re: LEGO fires COO Plougman - concentrates on bricks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:33:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1768 times
|
| |
|
|
> http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=pressdetail&contentid=3380
(Note: I fixed the thread subject. Plougman was the COO, not the CEO.)
My official dose of pessimism for today: the press release says
"In spite of the general decline in sales, sales of Make & Create, the core
products, were more than doubled."
Well, the 2002 equivalent of Make & Create was, as far as I know, buckets of
bricks, whatever was left of Max & Tina, and non-Bionicle Technic. 2003 saw the
continuation (or strengthening) of buckets and Technic, the introduction of
Inventor and Designer sets, and a big advertising push for the latter. *Of
course* Make & Create did better---it was a better supported and advertised part
of TLC's product range. Not to say that 2003 Make & Create sets weren't
great---they were---but I don't think you can usefully compare sales of 2002 and
2003 Make & Create.
One illustrative example that came to my mind: in 2002, if I wanted a
cool-looking $50 set, I would go with Jango Fett's Slave I
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/7153
In 2003, I would go with Air Blazers
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4403
I think that 4403 is a better set than 7153, but that's not important here.
What is important is that my choice, if matched by thousands of other buyers,
would cause a gain for Make & Create---but at the expense of Stories & Themes
(or whatever that part of the product line is called). What TLC needs, of
course, is for people to buy both, or for people who wouldn't buy 7153 to buy
4403 (or vice versa). That is very hard to measure, and can't be determined
simply from how Make & Create did compared to the year previous.
TWS Garrison
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
