Subject:
|
Re: Whither LEGO Steam Trains? (was Re: QT Movie of 4565)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:30:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2442 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> > It would be a heck of a lot better though if a push train set was sold.
> > I suspect for $70, TLC could offer a push train with an engine and two
> > or three cars (mostly 4 wheel), an oval of track, and a few minifigs (a
> > good set would be to take 3225 and replace the train motor with two
> > wheelsets and an oval of track, which could probably be sold at
> > basically the same price).
>
> Excellent analysis, Frank! I just have to question whether people will pay
> 75 for a push train when for 60 more they can have the excitement of powered
> operation.
>
> Why did Duplo go powered? When I was buying Duplo for Taya (9 years ago when
> she was 2) it was unpowered. If they went powered for Duplo, I suspect that
> the window for kids that can handle system but can't handle power is pretty
> small. But I could be wrong...
I suspect that an unpowered train wouldn't exist to serve the 'system OK,
power bad' market segment, but rather the 'train set under $120 (US)'. If
LEGO were able to release a complete train set (more than 1 car, and track
oval) for significantly under $100, this would, IMHO, significantly boost
the visibility of the train theme; for a few reasons...
A <$100 train set, especially around the $60 mark would be less of a risk
for the stores, so would be stocked better (I have yet to see a store other
than Zellers have more than 2 4561's on the shelf at any one time). Right
now, if I went down to my local TRU and bought a train, it would likely be
several weeks, if at all, before another one showed up on the shelf. Large
toy retailers are more willing to carry multiples of smaller sets; A $60
dollar set would probably have a shelf density of 3 or 4, making it much
less likely to disappear for long stretches of time.
As soon as a toy hits 3 digits (and for most families, well before that), it
pretty much leaves the realm of 'impulse buy'. Very few parents are willing
to spend $120 on a toy without having some reasurance that it will be around
the toy room for a while. That reasurance often comes in the form of
something similar, but cheaper.
At $60, a train set is within (although barely) the buying power of many
children, although it would typically be a 'save up for' thing. $120 leaves
the kids behind, and means a train set isn't very likely to happen without a
birthday or Christmas.
An unpowered train can be entrusted entirely to a child, without having to
check if the controller is actually off, or if the motor is left running on
the track all night. Any toy that involves plugging in is less attractive
to a parent, for any number of reasons.
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Whither LEGO Steam Trains? (was Re: QT Movie of 4565)
|
| (...) Excellent analysis, Frank! I just have to question whether people will pay 75 for a push train when for 60 more they can have the excitement of powered operation. Why did Duplo go powered? When I was buying Duplo for Taya (9 years ago when she (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
