Subject:
|
Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:34:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
13444 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal wrote:
| |
But it is their system. What the clones should be doing is creating
unique bricks that work within the LEGO system, not recreating them.
|
Doesn’t work that way. Without a core of standard basic elements, the best
they’d be able to hope for is a business model similar to what you see with
BrickForge/BrickArms/Little Armory etc. If all you can make are elements that
enhance the basic bricks, it limits you to a niche market that really wasn’t
even feasible ten years ago. Essentially, it puts the competitor in a situation
where all they can sell are parts packs, and where full sets are all but
impossible. You know, unless they did something goofy like make all their
bricks two plates high so they fit into the gap between LEGO bricks and LEGO
plates, but still adhered to the LEGO dimensions well enough that there wouldn’t
be issues like you get with Tyco’s plates being 50% taller than LEGO plates.
Scaling the dimensions up or down doesn’t work either, because the whole point
of copying the LEGO system is to be able to use someone else’s existing LEGO
collection as a selling point for why they’d prefer to buy your clone bricks
over, say, K’Nex. This is the reason that MB is so much more successful than
any of the non-compatible construction toys out there. LEGO is the dominant
brand on the market (partly due to quality and how long the system has been
around, but I’d say mostly due to the fact that it’s by far the most versatile
of the construction toys...and minifigs don’t hurt in that regard, either), and
by making stuff that’s compatible/identical, you benefit from their advertising
budget (I guarantee that you’ll see more LEGO TV ads than you will for all other
construction toys combined, including MB...in the US at least), you benefit from
the fact that many people won’t notice that they’re buying clone-branded sets
when toy stores intentionally place them right next to each other, and you
benefit from the fact that you can offer bigger sets at lower prices. That last
one is a huge selling point for a lot of parents because all they’re going to
see when they look at it is something they’re just going to have to throw away
in a few years, so the less it costs is just that much less money they have to
“waste” on it.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
| (...) I completely agree with all of what you are saying, Dave. What I am saying is that it doesn't seem right for a company to sponge off of another without providing compensation or something. Licensing, for example. It is little wonder why clones (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
30 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
|
|
|
|
