Subject:
|
Re: Molds - I just don't grok the economics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Apr 2003 04:26:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1041 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kerry Raymond writes:
>
> My post is not motivated specifically by a desire for more cypress trees,
> but more for anyone who can offer an economic rationale for the TLC's
> observed behaviour in this regard? Do they really have an accounting model
> in which the cost of a new mold must be justified against the income
> anticipated for the first set in which it is used without any regard to
> amortising such an asset over a longer period?
First, it is a feather in the cap of the LegoDirect division NOT to resort to
the creation of new molds or making a new mold for an old part where no useable
molds exists. So for now, their policy is NO NEW MOLDS.
But that is only LegoDirect, just one division of the Lego corporate entity.
From information I have gathered over time, I also believe that the model shops
and the divisions that build the huge Lego models also have a NO NEW MOLDS
policy. In fact, my information is that Lego elements produced exclusively for
the model shops are actually produced with sub-standard, worn-out molds. This
results in pieces we would normally consider defective in some way. I have
seen evidence of this in the K-8 boxes of bricks provided by Lego to some Lego
Users Groups and Lego Train Clubs. For example, at BrickFest almost all of the
2x6 bricks in the K-8's are defective in that they are missing at least a
partial tube underneath or as much as two missing.
The rest of my statement is opinion and conjecture:
If there IS an accounting model for the Futura division, it is not always
followed very well. It seems to me that many of the new parts contained in
sets over the past 6 or 7 years have been under-utilized. I assume that
external economic forces may play a role here.
For example, the Rock Raiders line off sets contained many brand new parts of
which most have not been utilized again in other themes. My take on this is
that Rock Raiders was expected to be a success but it actually was an unpopular
line of toys so additional related products were not produced. Of the dozen or
so new parts from Rock Raiders, very few have been carried over into other
product lines.
My opinion is that many of these parts were lousy and extremely limited in
usefulness for anything outside of Rock Raiders. Since these products did not
sell well, Lego probably had to eat a lot of the development costs.
Every year we see more and more brand new parts in Lego sets. I ask myself all
the time, "Why is Lego wasting money like this? The development costs for this
set must have been enormous!"
I know I would prefer if more existing parts were made available in other color
selections rather than have more different parts produced. And I think many
people agree with that idea. Personally, I can not understand why slope bricks
and arch bricks are not made available in greater variety and in more colors.
Instead we keep getting new types of wheels and tires, more studless Technic
parts, and more Roboslizonicle parts that many of us consider useless junk.
We will likely never understand the Lego policy on new molds for new parts, in
part because it is a corporate secret and Lego does not want us or their
competitors to find out.
__Kevin Salm__
....Lego Brick enthusiast for over 25 years....
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Molds - I just don't grok the economics
|
| As I was building 4480 Jabba's Palace, I was thinking "nice pieces, useful colours, but what will I do with all those Jabbas if I buy more of them?" Then I thought to myself ... Why it is uneconomic to make new molds for cypress trees etc which (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-03, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
