Subject:
|
Re: Time to write Lego Consumer Affairs a (nasty) letter..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:20:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
827 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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
> 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...)
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
Thanks for responding people! Travis, I'm glad that someone else has
taken notice of this year's terrible product lineup. Actually, I too
couldn't find a set that I want. I've received Lego sets for Christmas
since I was like 2 years old, and for Christmas 2001, I don't recall
receiving or requesting any sets more expensive than $7, and the sets
that I did receive were from the 2000 and '99 lineups.
--
Discover the might of the Solarian Empire!
http://www.geocities.com/stuttgartergunther/
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
