Subject:
|
Re: train windows
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:36:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1319 times
|
| |
|
|
I find it hard to believe that they're willing to give up the econmies of
scale here. How many of us are there? 1000? Compared to the number of
children who consume sets one at a time... well, let's do the math:
300 or so million people in the US. Let's say a quarter (I guessed, anyone
got a better estimate?) are children who can afford the odd lego set for a
birthday or something. So that's 75,000,000 children. Let's say one in ten
likes lego. Assume most buy the smaller, under $20 sets. But the odd larger
set offsets the plentiful $5 sets. So 7,500,000 x 20 = $150,000,000 a year.
vs.
1000 AFOLs. Each spends an average of $3000 a year on lego. (I've done more
and less than that in some years). That's $3,000,000 a year. easily dwarfed
by the number above (even if my estimates are off by a lot), but still nothing
to sneeze at.
But if the goal is to encourage those children to become AFOLs, that could be
the biggest benefit of this service. What if lego compiled photos of
spectacular AFOL creations (ed boxer's cathedral comes to mind) and included
them in the circular my kids get (the lego club thing, can't remember the
name). That could do lots to encourage kids to buy bulk bricks, especially if
they publish large instructions on their website.
I agree with the free advertisement idea. I think TLG would be smart to
exploit that angle. True, they can make all the impressive models they want
themselves, but to advertise incredible creations created by ordinary people,
that would be a great marketing tool.
brian
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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).
>
> 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...)
>
> ++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
