Subject:
|
Re: What the heck is going on ?! - Heteronyms!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:56:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
453 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> In lugnet.general, Pedro Silva writes:
> > Good point.
> > In fact, now that I think of it, the core product of LEGO is the building
> > block *alone*, in its differnet sizes and shapes.
> > I wonder if LEGO enthousiasts from the '60s thought the same when LEGO
> > introduced the minifig in the '70s. The minifig, now so easily acceptable,
> > must have seemed a disform represenation in a world of harmonious villas and
> > buildings done in a different scale.
>
> Indeed. In fact, one of the reasons I feel compelled to stand up for LEGO in
> this sort of discussion is the opinions I held, as a child. First the
> minifig came along and played havoc with scale, and then, space came along
> -I thought it was an incredibly bad move for LEGO: it had all those
> specialty parts, which clearly had little or no use outside Space....
>
> I've learned my lesson... I think. I still don't own a single Bionicle
> though :-/. And I only own Jack Stone sets because they were presents.
>
> > We can take a bit of this juniorization, provided that LEGO *keeps the old
> > line in production*. If they want to conquer new markets or become more
> > visible or whatever, there is no need to abandon the product that so many of
> > us like. Keep both, and everyone gets to be happy.
> >
> > > > Seriously though aside from Lego Direct the whole company seems to be a • perfect
> > > > example of how NOT to run a business.
> > > Well, Bionicle and Harry Potter products seem to have been pretty • successful.
> > > Galidor has yet to be tested, but you never know...
> >
> > In what part is Galidor different from GI Joe?
> >
> > This sort of toys, not related to the LEGO main line, might be produced by
> > LEGO under a different name. Just a thought...
> > This way, they would keep the profit from a well explored merchandising
> > agreement without dilluting the brand name. It is a bit as if you would see
> > "Tupperware" written in every plastic stuff on earth: the brand is known,
> > but one immediately associates it with the kitchen utensils alone.
> > Everything beyond that, and it seems as if they were taking over the Earth
> > or something... ;-)
> > Just create a different identity, a heteronym. Easy enough.
> I think part of the motivation of keeping the LEGO name would be the
> association with quality that people know from LEGO. Not only is it a fun
> action figure, but you know that it is well engineered and manufactured, and
> if it does break, you'll be able to phone those friendly folks at LEGO.
Also remember that the Lego brand is a household word in that people go to
stores looking to buy Lego products that are made by a company of the same
name. Most other toy manufactures do not have this type of name recognition.
No one goes into stores asking where to find the Mattel, Kenner, MiltonBradley,
etc. toys. They ask for the toys by name such as Hot Wheels and Barbie and
Monopoly and do not care who the manufacturer is and most often cannot even
identify with their name. I have no idea who first marketed G.I. Joe toys and
it doesn't matter because I was not buying the company brand, but the product
brand.
But the name Lego is the same name for their toys. This may not mean much for
us, but it means a lot to the owner of the brand to be 100% associated with
their products.
____
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What the heck is going on ?! - Heteronyms!
|
| (...) Indeed. In fact, one of the reasons I feel compelled to stand up for LEGO in this sort of discussion is the opinions I held, as a child. First the minifig came along and played havoc with scale, and then, space came along -I thought it was an (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
