Subject:
|
Re: From the first LEGO(r) Train Summit: LEGO(r) Trains are alive and well
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains, lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:05:56 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2754 times
|
| |
|
|
LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
that the things we want are different than what
kids want. I hear just about every day from
a very reliable source that parents and kids
hate juniorized sets. They want sets with more pieces.
They want sets with more "bricks" rather than special pieces.
They *really* want "girl sets that you can build like
the boy sets." Even parents buying Duplo want more bricks,
less tubes. They want mid-sized Technic sets so they don't
have to buy Mindstorms or Silver Champion to get some Technic
parts. They want sets they can build the main model, the alternate
models and their own ideas using all of the pieces in the set.
I'm not making this stuff up, this is what actual parents
and kids say every day while making LEGO purchasing decisions.
If LEGO is going to include the adult demographic in their
target market that's great! I hope they also realize that
most of the rest of their target market wants the same things.
They want sets that are fun and challenging to build. They want
pieces they can re-use.
My guess it that their current strategy focuses more on playing
than building. The problem is that LEGO is a building toy. It
inspires the creative mind through the building process. This is
because it is only a coarse representation of reality. The mind
must fill in the gaps. Play-focused toys are much more articulate,
but infinately less configurable. LEGO should return to focusing
on the building experience. Playablility still plays a minor role,
quite naturally after the building is complete, but it should
not be the primary focus.
KL
In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [...] The numbers on usage of lego.com are proprietary but they are
> > stunning blowouts in areas like satisfaction, number of visits, number of
> > repeat visits, stickiness, etc, *among the target market* for lego.com. That
> > target market is not us, except peripherally.
>
> I'm surprised to hear that, but if it's true, then it's good news, and it
> would make things a lot clearer. So, what then *is* the target market for
> lego.com, and how were things like satisfaction measured?
>
>
> > A site with the millions of visits that lego.com gets is not
> > something that you change willy nilly, you have to have a rigorous rollout
> > and promotion process.
>
> And usability testing, of course. :-)
>
>
> > [...]
> > What I find most ironic is the slamming of LD for not moving fast enough and
> > for not experimenting and for not doing things incrementally at the same
>
> What is meant mean by "not experimenting"? I missed that flame.
>
>
> > time that the website and the bulk assortment and other things are being
> > slammed for not being perfect on the first try. Gimme a break.
>
> I don't think it was being slammed for not being perfect on the first try.
> I think it was being slammed for totally sucking on the third try (2000),
> after mildly sucking on the second try (1998), after not so badly sucking on
> the first try (1996). But that's an AFOL view, and I understand what you are
> saying about AFOLs not being part of the target market for the site. Kids
> probably think it's better now than it ever was. More power to them.
>
>
> > [...]
> > But there are things that LD can and will do to help clubs, in areas like
> > formation, ongoing support, better contact points, etc. And there are things
> > that LTCs can do to help LD as well. This discussion, in depth, took up a
> > substantial part of the day.
>
> Awesome!
>
> --Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
44 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
|
|
|
|
