Subject:
|
Re: train windows
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Jun 2000 02:34:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1309 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ...
> >
> > More specifically, what name do we call these things that will get some
> > mundanes interested in buying them? I mean, what mundane is going to buy
> > something called a "thin wall"? What would a mundane do with that? But
> > calling it a "train window" gives it a _purpose_. Admittedly, it's a • limited
> > name to give the part, but then what's the odds that a mundane chose that
> > name? ;-)
>
> Who cares about the mundanes?
>
> Target them and LD will be a flop. We're the heavy users. Give us what we • want
> so we can wow the mundanes, doing free marketing for TLG in the process, • and do
> it in a way that is:
> - low fixed cost
> - low variable cost
> - gives a good enough return on investment that when you factor in the
> qualitative marketing benefits it's a good business decision (it doesn't • have
> to match the quant best IRR the company can get, it just shouldn't LOSE • money).
>
That's fair enough, but I can't help wondering whether they're trying to
market to the mundanes anyway. And how exactly does _our_ Lego expenditure
compare to that of the mundanes? Is it comparable? Does anyone have hard
data?
>
> One way to reduce fixed cost is: no tooling, and no brand new colors.
> One way to reduce variable cost is: only from current production and high • per
> order volume requirements
>
> Another way to reduce variable cost is to (remember the target market, • which is
> US, not Johnny who wants to buy 5 windows) use the right nomenclature or at
> least describe what is being sent accurately to reduce phone time and to • reduce
> return volume. If you use the correct nomenclature and give references to • the
> lugnet parts repository, you can foregoe doing illustrations which reduces • the
> fixed cost of adding a new part to what is being sold.
>
> Seems obvious to me. But then there may be info I don't have. (but I doubt • that
> if I don't have it, that Brian Lanning or Paul Baluch do, so there...)
That would certainly be so. All I have is speculation.... I always thought
that the logistics of bagging and carting elements would be the real killer
financially, but I guess that's not necessarily true if they're
automatically bagged off the conveyor belts and all bags are shipped
directly to LD's warehouse... what other possible logistical processes would
operate here?
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: train windows
|
| (...) TLC does or would if they'd do a little anaylsis. I don't think anyone else does. I've heard a lot of numbers batted around. I'd be surprised if we were less than .5% of the total and very surprised if we were more than 10%... But that is an (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jun-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: train windows
|
| (...) Who cares about the mundanes? Target them and LD will be a flop. We're the heavy users. Give us what we want so we can wow the mundanes, doing free marketing for TLG in the process, and do it in a way that is: - low fixed cost - low variable (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jun-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
48 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
|
|
|
|
