Subject:
|
Re: Time to write Lego Consumer Affairs a (nasty) letter..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 9 Mar 2002 18:40:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
493 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Travis Matheson writes:
> > I want to see Lego survive as much as anybody, but does anyone really
> > want to see Lego survive in this fashion?
No way! It's funny how Lego has to resort to large, chunky parts in order to
appeal to the younger crowd. But, in total irony, the younger crowd deems
these sets as 'simple' and 'lame'. If Lego went back to its traditional
values, I suspect they would see a massive increase in their sales. It would
take a small amount of extra startup capital to make smaller and basic
bricks, but I'm sure they would make excellent profits if they did.
> I have to say that I pretty much agree with most everything you have said. I
> thought that the Bonical stuff, though interesting, really wasn't LEGO in the
> traditional sense, Jack Stone is an abonimation. I was never ever going to pay
> that much money for a set where I can count the pieces in the set from the
> picture on the box and still not have used up all my fingers (o.k. maybe that's
Yeah. I hate that stuff. Most of the parts are completely incompatible with
the basic LEGO brick. Wasn't universatility the main focus on Lego bricks,
to have every part compatible (excluding some technic parts)
> an exaguration) These two themes were a direct reaction by the LEGO company to
> compete with all thos Action Figures on the market (Action Man, Max Steele
> etc...)
You have a point there. I just don't know why Lego would compete with the
action figure market. I though their specialty was in basic building bricks
and themed models.
>
> My question is this. Why are LEGO competing with them? Finance and business
> aside I really want to know why LEGO are taking this approach. LEGO has always
> been a versitile and reusable toy. That was it's attraction, always have been.
> but nowadays we see LEGO trying to conpete with toys that really, are in no
> way like LEGO. Why is the company playing to others strengths?
Probably. I don't see any changes in the future ahead. I think it's partly
our responsibility to tell Lego what we think is best for them, not other
companies. Maybe a petition is necessary?
> If the LEGO group fails, it will be because they have put themselves out of
> business. Over the last few years LEGO has made some smart moves, Star Wars
> license, Harry Potter (not that I really like the sets, but they are LEGO in
> essence). Playing to their own strengths, and these two lines have been very
> successful.
Yeah, but Harry Potter is only sucessful because it's another part to the
bandwagon approach. If you look closely at these sets you would notice that
they use the same chunky parts everyone hates. Yes, they have PAPER
rooftops, and backdrops. Isn't that cheap!
> I was in a store a few weeks ago, looking over some of the sets that were
> there, before any of the 2002 sets had arrived (we always have to wait for
> everthing in Australai, I don't think we are even getting the new Alpha Team
> stuff this year) and there was a young boy, with his Mum. She asked him what
> Lego Set he wanted, He wanted one that had sold out (I suspect that I may have
> just brought the last ATST the day before) so she asked him to pick another
> one. He was there for 10 minutes, lookinmg at all the other sets, Mostly Jack
> Stone, Bonical and Creator. He turned to his mum and said "I don't like any of
> these sets, they are too simple" Now this kid must have been around 10, not
> really young, but part of the "Target" market for these types of sets. Jack
> Stone and Bonical sets are still widely avaliable most everywhere, I don't
> think they are moving as fast as Star Wars and Harry Potter stuff.
Ha! The same happened to me, Christmas 2001. I was looking for a good
present to buy myself, and guess what? I found nothing of interest! I must
have went to about ten stores before I gave up. Now, I buy all of my Lego on
Ebay, the only place that has what I'm looking for, for a price. I would
rather my money go to Lego, but they're not supplying me, as a consumer,
with the products of my interest (castle, space, town), so if they don;t
want my money, fine. I'm sure someone else with old sets will.
> My point is that LEGO will not win like this. They may have initinal success
> but it will not last. I cannot say that I have the answers, but I truly hope
> that somebody does.
Yeah, me too. Bandwagon approaches don't last indefinitey. Sure, the Lego
Star Wars theme has been going strong (financially) for four years, but the
newest line is very weak in design mobility and approach. If you've seen the
new sets, you'd probably agree in several cases.
> So in answer to you question, No, I do not want to see LEGO survive like this,
> because they will not. Do they need to evolve past the Brick, yes they do,
> evolve not discard.
Definitely. You can't mold a million bricks into one chunky model, but
reahter connect them to add versatility, and an infinite amount of
combinations. After, all, that was the original approach of Lego. It's
almost binary, with the amount of infinite combinations, you can turn a
large sculpture of a castle, into a chicken, or anything else, all with
something so simple as a basic brick.
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet member No. 1112
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Time to write Lego Consumer Affairs a (nasty) letter..
|
| (...) I have to say that I pretty much agree with most everything you have said. I thought that the Bonical stuff, though interesting, really wasn't LEGO in the traditional sense, Jack Stone is an abonimation. I was never ever going to pay that much (...) (23 years ago, 6-Mar-02, to lugnet.space)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
