Subject:
|
Re: Fed UP!!!!!!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 04:34:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3608 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, David Laswell wrote:
> There are a lot of factors that should be considered there, though. Even many
> LUGNET users weren't sure which bulk packs were the old colors and which were
> the new, and it was really only publicized here on LUGNET, so it's unlikely that
> any closet AFOLs were even aware that they'd been produced at all, much less
> which ones they should be buying, and it's possible that many people skipped
> them because it's cheaper to buy the specific bricks they need on Bricklink
> rather than buy large quantities of bulk mixed packs in order to get the
> individual pieces they actually need.
Those are all valid possibilities that are unknowns in any analysis. Still, I
think that with a few reasonable order of magnitude conjectures it's very
difficult to make a financial case that we (serious AFOLs) represent 5% of TLC
revenue. I'd certainly like to see some good evidence that refutes it. But as I
said before, regardless of quantitative importance of AFOLs, we do have some
stake in what the Lego company does and their actions over the past few years
support that idea.
Spencer
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Fed UP!!!!!!!!
|
| (...) There are a lot of factors that should be considered there, though. Even many LUGNET users weren't sure which bulk packs were the old colors and which were the new, and it was really only publicized here on LUGNET, so it's unlikely that any (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
