Subject:
|
Re: This is stupid... I can't tolerate this *juniorization*...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Aug 2001 06:57:00 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWEST.NETnospam
|
Viewed:
|
1949 times
|
| |
|
|
Allan Bedford wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal writes:
> > Okay, Joe (and Dan)-
> >
> > Although I can't speak for TLC, I bet I have a good idea as to what they would
> > say to your collective concerns, and rather than let a brush fire blaze out of
> > control here, let me point out a few things which hopefully will help you to
> > understand TLC's POV.
>
> I can't speak for Joe, or Dan, or John, or the LEGO company... I can only
> speak for me. So here goes:
>
> > First thing to keep in mind is that LEGO is a toy. It is intended for children,
> > and although we as adults (I have kids your age) can still play with LEGO
> > (attesting to its marvelous flexibility as toy and as a creative outlet), the
> > mass market for this product is young kids.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. If there isn't the quality of
> product being presented to these young kids that they deserve... they will
> go elsewhere for their entertainment.
And they have-- in droves. Themes like Bionicle are attempts to win
them back.
Guess what? I have not the *slightest* interest in Bionicle, but I'm
not going to
rail on it. And why should I? It's not intended for me.
> LEGO's claim to fame is based on its
> past and isn't a guaranteed right. They need to earn new fans... they don't
> just deserve them because they are the LEGO company.
>
> > Times have changed. LEGO has competition from places we never dreamed about 20
> > years ago-- the internet, video games, cable television, etc. Now the
> > philosophy of TLC has been one of marketing at particular age groups
>
> Then have them market smartly... decisively and with extreme attention paid
> to design of sets.
Hence Bionicle. That is what the kids of today are interested in--
thanks to video
games and Saturday morning cartoons.
> > But here's my point. Don't get so worked up about "juniorization". The fact
> > is, there has never been a better time for LEGO builders old and young than
> > right now today, and it will keep getting better. Take a look out there--
> > LUGNET, LUGs, LTCs, Brickbay, Brickshelf, bulk services-- what fantastic
> > resources!
>
> What about LEGO selling some really really cool sets? Isn't that a good
> resource?
Are you going to sit there and tell me that the Sopwith Camel, the
Statue of
Liberty, Mindstorms, Star Wars, etc, etc aren't cool??!!! Every set
can't be a
classic; every hit can't be a homer. You are so lathered up about the
little kid's
themes that you can't see the good stuff that is available right in
front of you.
> > You guys are getting older now; don't worry about building sets.
> > Sets are for kids.
>
> Then I guess I'm just a big 33 year old kid. Because let me tell you that
> when I got out all my old LEGO about 3 years ago the best thing was putting
> together some of the old sets from 20+ year old instructions. Putting
> together the 565 Moon Landing set was a joy... an absolute joy.
I'm sure. But I'm also sure (because I've experienced it myself) that
you are also
describing a nostalgic event as well.
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/565_1
>
> It is a well designed set.... in a single primary color with a couple accent
> colors. It looks like what it is supposed to look like. It is a set that
> is still a solid design after more than a quarter century. It's for kids of
> all ages who ever dreamed of walking on the moon.
>
> > As Mike Timm so eloquently puts it in his sig: "All other
> > themes are just spare parts for Castle!" (or spare parts for *anything* you
> > want). Start building MOCs and let the *real* creativity begin!
>
> Using Bulk Parts that cost upwards of 10 cents each?
>
> Isn't buying poorly designed sets, purely for the sake of turning them into
> something else, a sad comment on the quality of the sets?
Not at all. It's a commentary on the creativity and determination of
the builder.
Some of my MOCs were *years* in the making, due to the time/effort in
collecting the
particular elements. The quality of sets in fine, and, actually, irrelevant.
> I remember
> getting new LEGO sets and carefully, and happily working to put together the
> primary model first. That was the goal. Then, after some time had passed,
> the bricks could be taken apart and used for original creations. BUT....
> the instructions for the original set were never far away and the sets often
> got put back together just as they appeared on the box cover.
>
> > So this is about where TLC is coming from. You may not agree with their
> > marketing strategies, and even I strongly disagree with some of their
> > strategies, but try to understand why they are doing what they are doing.
>
> If you, and I and any number of other people disagree with their marketing
> strategies... isn't that a problem? Shouldn't the company's customers agree
> with what they're selling and why they're selling it? They are here to
> please us, not the other way around. We don't *have* to buy their
> products... but shouldn't we *want* to? This isn't as though we are part of
> some community group or committee that we just have to agree with because
> it's a nice thing to do.
>
> > Rather than rail on in an NG, tell them with your pocketbook. Buy the Guarded
> > Inns and Sopwith Camels and Metroliners; if there is one thing TLC gets very
> > well, it's the bottom line. Let's *show* TLC that there is a market for
> > non-juniorized sets.
>
> But what if these aren't the sets I *want* to buy? Shouldn't I raise my
> voice... as I'm trying to do now... and tell the company what it is that
> will get me to open my pocketbook and hand them my money? If Guarded Inns
> were a penny each and LEGO paid the delivery on them.....I still wouldn't
> waste the toll-free call to order one.
Okay, now you're getting melodramatic here. If Guarded Inns were a
penny and you
wouldn't buy them, then you simply don't get it. You want TLC to do *everything*
for you-- you just want to follow the instructions and viola, you have
your nice
set, and you're happy. I am here to tell you that LEGO is *way* more
than that.
Sets are just fancy parts tubs. Sure, you build them and learn building techniques
from them, but ultimately you need to progress beyond that. Build your
own stuff!
Therein lies the creativity. It really doesn't take much creativity to
build a set
from instructions. That's not what LEGO is about.
> It simply isn't what I would
> consider a classic set.
>
> When this set:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/570
>
> Is reissued... then we'll talk.
Are you serious? There is absolutely *nothing* to that set! I could
build you a
fire station that is ten thousand times better than that! You know what you
are--you are a collector! And a nostalgic one at that. Bricks are
bricks! That
set could be essentially reproduced with common bricks from today's sets
in a NY
minute.
It's not really my intention to get into some sort of debate here. All
I wanted to
do was to point out that things are not as bad as they might seem.
Something I have
learned over the last few years here in LUGNet is that there is *always* someone
ranting on about TLC this, that and the other (And once upon a time I
was among
those who did that) But if you really take a step back and see the big
picture, you
will see that things are getting better...much better. Remember, Jack
Stone et al.
were developed years ago in Billund and are just now hitting the market.
It
reflects decisions made long ago. LD, on the other hand, is able to
deliver at
light speed by comparison. This is not an insignificant point. The
future of TLC
is LD IMO (sorry, acro fever:) and the best is yet to come, if you are
willing to
see it.
-John
> If this is the venue that LEGO prefers to use in order to communicate with
> its customers, then perhaps everyone should let them know what they think of
> this catalog. This thread was started by a 13 year old LEGO fan. Doesn't
> that bother anyone besides me? Shouldn't he be drooling over the catalog,
> rather than being frustrated by it?
>
> Allan B.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
74 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
|
|
|
|
