prof1515

Of the five Wal-Marts, two K Marts (or Big K as they call themselves now) and two Targets I've been to in my region, your experience would be completely different. Of the five Wal-Marts, one has not offered ANY Lego whatsoever since mid-2000 and the other hasn't ever since I first visited it years ago (I can't vouch for that one any further back than 2008). Two others haven't offered more than 5-10 different sets (counting Bionicle) at any time other than Christmas and even then haven't offered more than 10-15 different types (counting Bionicle) or shelf space more than three feet wide. The fifth has about half of a twelve-foot long aisle dedicated to Lego with fairly good selection of about 35-40 different kinds of sets (heavily favoring Star Wars and Bionicle). The two K Marts have drastically cut down their shelf space for Lego from an entire side of an aisle to a space about six feet wide. The two Targets have had the most shelf space with about 25-30 different sets (counting Bionicle) on shelf space consisting of one side of an aisle twenty feet long. In each case Bionicle has comprised a quarter to half of their inventory while a couple sets from the other themes have been represented. The sets I've seen mainly on the shelves have been Star Wars and Bionicle. This may be because they stock more of them than other lines. I've rarely seen City sets. In fact, in 2008 I don't recall seeing any City sets in any of the Targets or Wal-Marts. It was just Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Bionicle for the most part. No, we don't know it, some speculate that it will happen. Lego's best seller a few years ago was a fire station that many AFOLs despised as ugly. If AFOLs were as significant of a purchasing power as they like to think they are, sets like that and lines like Bionicle wouldn't have done nearly as well as they apparently did. For the first time last year, AFOLs comprised about 25% of Lego's sales but they're also far more inclined toward shopping online. Since 2003 I have not bought a single set in a retail store other than Lego's own and I doubt I'm the only one. I only know three other AFOLs but I can think of dozens of friends' kids that collect Lego. There are also only 3683 stores on Bricklink. I doubt they are enough to clean out all of the stores in the country, provided most stores aren't like those in my region. While there's no doubt that AFOLs continue to represent a larger share of sales and are a more vocal minority of the fanbase, I think the community is too given to inflating their importance in Lego's marketing strategies and sales figures. Purchases for and by children still outnumber AFOLs three-to-one and that's not taking into account a wider difference in previous years.

These are economic hard times for a lot of people. Spending money on something they have less than a 7% chance they’ll actually end up with is not fun nor is it something that’s popular. Retailers felt the pinch last December because spending thoughtlessly was not “fun” or “interesting” to most shoppers. If this marketing scheme were fun, wouldn’t DVD manufacturers want to get in on it? Wouldn’t it make buying movies so much more fun and interesting? After all, it’s popular in the toy market these days. Utter megablocks. They can “bring several figures into the market” without blind packaging. They’re doing it in a manner that is popular amongst other toy companies because it allows them to maximize sales on less desired products by mixing them with those more desired by consumers. It’s a cheap trick that works because parents try to provide for what their children want. The companies know that and exploit it. It’s good business but it does make them complete and utter bastards. Those are errors in the manufacturing process, not deliberate marketing decisions aimed at preventing the consumer from knowing what they’re purchasing. No, I didn't speculate on which would be. I pointed out the more financially profitable strategy but made no speculation on what course of action Lego would take. And if you and your friend each want two cowboys and no cheerleaders? Actually, that's what they do anyway. Sure, you know what you're getting, but they'll release three Dukes before they release Lifeline, or Tripwire. Why?, because Duke sells more. But in order to eventually purchase Lifeline or Tripwire you don’t have to risk purchasing three Dukes. You just wait for the one you want to be released. With Lego’s model, the one you want may be released but you still have no way of buying just the one you want without potentially buying many that you don’t want. That's an opinion, not a fact, as there has been no direct comparison possible between a similar product such as these. Mini-figures are often purchased not for the figure as a whole but for the potential to use them in other combinations. The forums are filled with MOCs to attest to this. I do my best to avoid the trappings of consumerism although obviously it’s impossible to completely avoid having to deal with it. Nevertheless I make no concessions so long as there is any option, even abstaining, available to me. I had my computer custom-built to my specifications, not the company’s. I dress in clothes I find comfortable regardless of fashion. I once walked eight miles round trip in a blizzard because I refused to accept the unfairly high price of a cab which held a monopoly in the town I was residing. I ignore as much advertising as I can and only purchase what I have independently-researched and want. I am an extremely picky eater, sticking to foods that I prefer unless I choose to be adventurous and even then I make a decision as to what I want before I look for it. I am quick to complain when something is not acceptable. I’m skeptical of any form of marketing and given the choice of settling for what I’m given instead of what I want or doing without, I will always settle for the latter because there aren’t many things that are necessary in life. I know my capabilities and my limits and where I stand in relation to ninety-nine percent of the population. I’m also well aware of the attitudes, especially in the United States, toward intellectuals and academics. But no one knows everything and for everything I know about a field like history, there’s an equally large amount of things I don’t know about a field like popular music. Still, if I believed in a god, I'd say I was blessed. I don't though so I know I'm just lucky. Regardless, that doesn't mean I have to lower my expectations of others though. So, my suggestion is that you get an education and then you won't feel the need to be so angry.

It's deliberate but it's not a misspelling. It's a slang term for anyone who irrationally defends their interest in a product or company beyond a reasonable degree and without regard to objective analysis. If Lego does indeed look for community opinion, I am providing it. I'm not talking to you. If you check back, you'll find the personal attacks began elsewhere. It might even have been you. Can you understand that any opinion of someone else does not matter? I don't care about your opinion of me or anyone else's opinion of me. First, even if opinions mattered, you don't know me and hence your opinion would be based on ignorance. Second, I don't respect your opinion because I respect intelligence and knowledge and you have thus far displayed neither.

No, but wealthy aristocrats increasingly were not risking themselves in the heart of a battle either. I agree with you; a knight need not have a horse. The image of a knight on horseback is a romanticized one, not a historical one. That's not to say it didn't have some truth but it wasn't the way Hollywood portrays it.

It's not a relevant example. R-rated films are not made for children (and quite often even films not made for children are edited in an attempt to open them to a wider market). Lego are toys which are made for children but which happen to be appreciated by adults as well. It's not about the children buying, it's about the appeal of different things that they can't get simply by buying it directly. If a consumer, be they a child or an adult, wants A they should be able to buy A. They shouldn't have to possibly end up buying B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P before they get what they or their child wanted in the first place. It's a cheap trick that is disrespectful of the consumer. But let's use your R-rated movie example. If you go to a store and buy a DVD, you know what film is inside. They don't sell unlabeled movies. If you want to buy a particular movie, you won't have to buy 10 DVDs in the hopes of getting the one you wanted. It's the same when you buy a video game or a pair of shoes. Go back and read what I originally wrote. I said this is an example of Lego not respecting their customers and just looking for a way to make money selling stuff that they might otherwise not be able to sell. As 75% of their customer base are children, that's a pretty dishonorable way to make a buck. Lego has increasingly been resorting to cheap tricks to increase sales but this is a new low. At least before when you bought Lego you knew what you were paying for. As you said, it's not a significant cost difference. Lego isn't producing bricks for $0.09 and selling them for $0.10; no business does that. Markup is at least a couple times that of production. With a large line of anything, one product makes up for the difference in another. That's why you can have two sets with different numbers of parts and different parts still cost the same. It's not reflective of the proportional difference in cost being identical, it's a rounded-off markup. A slightly lower profit from one is compensated elsewhere by a slightly higher markup in another. First of all, you don't know that they are going with "less popular" being more rare. It's speculation on your part. In fact, to maximize profits it actually makes sense to make the more desired ones more rare in order to increase sales. Additionally, gender makes a huge difference in terms of desireability. My nieces, for example, wouldn't give a rat's big behind about cowboys or ninjas. They'd want the cheerleader. But the point is that why should a child who wants the cowboy get stuck with three of the zombie in order to get one cowboy? Why should the child that wants the ninja have to get four cheerleaders? Or for that matter, why should the child that does want the cheerleader have to end up with six zombies and five ninjas? The package still clearly states that it's Duke, Snake Eyes or Cobra Commander that's for sale. You're not buying blind. To compare it with Lego's decision, you'll end up with three Dukes to get whatever figure you really wanted. Again, you're comparing two totally different sale strategies. My point of contention with Lego's decision is based on the blind packaging. I don't assume everyone else is wrong. But I do recognize naive and mindless consumerism when I see them and American society is filled with consumer sheep. It sold SUVs, music, clothes and it sells Lego. People take what they're given and while they may complain occassionally, they still buy. You would most likely be wrong then as most everyone is superior to others in some respect. To believe otherwise would be arrogant and quite uncivil not to mention flat-out incorrect. Negative use of the word "elitist" is typically an anti-intellectual reaction. Whether it's conservatives complaining about liberals, fundamentalists complaining about academics or under-educated children complaining about anyone with more than a tenth grade education, the negative use of the word is always directed at others that they feel threatened by. Such feelings typically stem from insecurities about themselves or resentment resulting from their inability to articulate a defense of their position. Elite means superior. Thus, when I hear the term used, I take pride in it. Being perceived as elite isn't something to be ashamed of. Calling oneself elite would be demonstrating a lack of humility but I didn't call myself elite. As is the case with almost everyone, I'm superior in some things and inferior in others. For example, I don't call myself a genius either but if someone else perceives me as such, I'll take pride in the compliment (though they would be wrong). Same goes for the term "elite".

(edited for relevant commentary)Now that you've made your arguments, let's examine the legitimate and intelligent aspects of your post. Done. I would be laughing over the history comment if it didn't seem like you actually believed that.

My brother is quite good about not giving into fads with his children but a lot of parents are not. That's why year after year you hear about store altercations and shortages of supply for popular toys. We're a consumer nation (and a consumer world) filled with bad parents because their parents did a poor job too and gave in too much. I'll sit and read the holiday posts by people I know on Facebook and ask myself when they became mindless consumer drones. Inevitably the answer is when they became parents and faced the desire to please their children. Their goal is to get people to buy as many as possible in an attempt to get the ones that they want. If that were the case, some figures wouldn't be rarer than others. Then why not make the packaging clear or label them? This would lead to selective purchases of desired figures and an inevitable lack of sales for undesired ones. I used the term fanboi in the context of what it typically means, namely a person who has an exagerrated appreciation for something without a reasonable potential for criticism of it. People may or may not like being called fanboi or naive but if the shoe fits..... As for coming off as "an elitist", I consider that a compliment. If someone feels insecure enough to think I'm better than them, who am I to argue. Elitism isn't a negative, it's a positive. It's only viewed as a negative by those who feel themselves to be the opposite, ie. inferior. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission." Some have and some haven't. Clear or labeled packaging takes exactly 0.00000000% more shelf space. The clear plastic isn't any thicker nor would the additional pigment of the printing add significantly to the volume of the bag. Bingo, we have a winner. So in other words, by not letting people see what they're buying, they end up buying that which would otherwise "sit there". All of this is irrelevant. I didn't say they had to package them in blister packs or ship them separately. I simply said that the consumer should be able to know what is in the package they're buying. Clear packaging doesn't require any more effort in distribution or more shelf space. They could still ship the exact same way, in boxes of sixty randomly packaged figures. The only difference would be that the consumer would know what they were buying. If Lego did their marketing research, they shouldn't fear that sales of some would be lower than expectation. They stand nothing to lose by selling products that the consumer can see if they know that those products will sell. They only stand to lose if the consumer rejected what they were offering. I grew up in the 80s as well. I didn't get everything I want either. I didn't have every Star Wars figure and very few of the vehicles or playsets. All of my old Star Wars figures are in a box over in my parents' basement somewhere, complete with their accessories and in fairly good condition. But this isn't the 80s and parents and children aren't the same as our generation. The "Tickle-Me Elmo generation" of the parents in the 90s, as I once heard it called, is about children demanding and parents going to extremes to obtain it. The blame probably lies in the "Me Generation" attitude (or like that line in Wall Street, "Greed is good.") of the 80s but whatever the cause it's there. The present recession had an effect on this finally but there are still indicators that consumer mindsets have not changed dramatically for the long-term.

If your earlier "arguments" are typical of your reasoning skills, it's likely to be the highest compliment that you will receive.

Adults, well most of them at least, do. Children don't and a lot of parents have a difficult job with balancing the happiness of their child with the necessities of sound economic judgement. As the uncle to two nieces, I see the way kids react to the world around them, especially to things like deferred gratification and "want versus need". I also think back to the folly of my own childhood in regard to those topics and I'm a lot less forgiving of corporate exploitation of children in that regard. Even more so, in hard economic times like this, when some families have to watch expenses all the more closely, gimmicks like blind packaging are a sign of desperation and economic predation. I'm a firm believer that if a company wants to sell everything they produce then they should make everything they produce worth buying. Actually, I'm not worried about their reputation, I take offense at the way that Lego is treated by some of the community in spite of their actions. I agree with your following statement: You're spot on correct in that assessment. However, in the Lego community there is a "Respect the Brick" attitude amongst some fans. This has always irritated me because Lego is a business and respect is something to be earned, not given just because of fandom for some of the products that company produces. I respect Lego when they do things like sell designer models for charity or support other such efforts. I don't respect them because they're out to make money. That's perhaps the most ridiculous and ignorant post I've ever seen on these forums and an excellent example of the fanboi behavior I'm referring to.

I understand the point. It's about producing a range of figures that Lego isn't sure will sell equally. Therefore, they resort to gimmicks to ensure that the figures few want will sell as well as those that would be in demand. It's lazy, it's deceitful (these are toys after all and will appeal to kids) and it's the opposite of producing quality that the consumer wants. Baseball cards are sold in blind packaging because not everyone would buy the card of some player who sucks and they could care less about. Hundreds of players' cards wouldn't sell because people would buy what they want. The gimmick of blind packaging under the "gamble" excuse is about selling what the consumer doesn't want by making it difficult for them to get what they want without buying that which they don't. As for "<insert that tiresome argument>" sets, if you look at the sets of the 1980s and then those of the mid-to-late 90s, you'll see that the quality of design declined dramatically. The sets were ugly little monstrosities. I don't intend to "gamble" on these figures to get the ones that appeal to me. I'm also not going to be a fanboi defending Lego when they've made a conscious choice as to marketing these figures. They'll get the money from a lot of people intent on getting the figures they want. They'll also get a lot of money from parents trying to get the figures their children want by buying a lot of figures their children don't want. They know that. I may not play their game but just don't expect me to look at Lego and say they're a virgin when it's quite obvious they're a whore.

It's a cheap trick because it's a toy. Toys appeal to children and children don't always think about the probability that they're going to get the one they want. They're using the gimmick of not letting you choose which one you buy because some may be more popular than others. So why produce the ones that aren't popular? They're hedging their bets on taking chances that they're producing something that some won't want by ensuring they'll sell just as many of those as figures that will be in higher demand. For a company that claims to be selling educational toys, they're resorting to marketing schemes commonly employed by brainless crap like Pokemon. If they want to focus on profit at any cost, they need to knock off the sanctimonious megablocks. Fanbois view things through rose-colored lenses and will defend such things that non-fanbois are often times more critical about. It doesn't matter whether it's fanbois arguing that the Star Wars prequels don't suck or this gimmick by Lego, it's about taking a critical eye and not a blind one even to things that one likes. They could just as easily have made them with clear packaging so the figure is visible. They're trying to hock crap that people may not want instead of producing to demand. That's disrespectful for a company that prides itself on its relationship with its fans and which claims to care about producing the best quality product that people want. The problem lies with Lego's reputation versus the nature of this business decision. They like feedback. Well, this is feedback on behalf of every parent out there who'll have to shell out money trying to get their child the figure that they want by potentially buying fifteen others that their kid may not give a rat's big behind about.

All examples of crap using gimmicks to get people to buy it. Years later, they've got a pile of stuff that they regret. Lego bills itself as an educational toy and prides themselves in the quality of their product. Gimmicks used by trash like that are the opposite of such a reputation.

There have been plenty. They were widely used in Lego's soccer/football theme and in several city sets. So where, pray tell, do you think blond hair originates? Blond hair isn't a dominant gene but it's hardly rare in European populations. In fact, it's in European populations that blond hair has the greatest frequency of appearance whether "Western European" or "Eastern European". This is because populations in Europe as well as the rest of the world have never been as static, despite what common ignorance seems to believe. Alexander the Great conquered all the way to India. The Roman Empire extended from northern Britain to Iraq. The Huns drove all the way into France and Italy pushing wave after wave of people forward through the continent as they did. The Mongols went all the way across Asia into Europe doing the same. The Muslim armies of Suleiman laid siege to Vienna in the heart of the continent. There is no genetic "purity" in history; such stereotypes are just the result of ignorant and arrogant modern view perpetuated by flag-waving nationalists sometimes bearing racial and ethnocentric prejudice. In other words, don't buy into that crap. Full suits of armor were on the whole not the norm. The spread of the use of plate mail was a response to more powerful weapons like the longbow and firearms. The spread of such weapons made such armor popular in the minds of people but on the whole the armor was not common. Men dressed head-to-toe in plate weren't very common both on account of cost and practicality. The future of warfare did not rest with such warriors and they quickly faded from the scene. As one historian once said to me, the reason we have so many fine suits of armor so well-preserved is because no one ever used them. They were produced and fell by the wayside of history as warfare changed. Wars were won by building castles to secure the territory and by fielding large armies consisting of blocks of pikemen flanked by musketeers. The armored knight was a romantic notion of writers and poets more than anything.

Having a balance of good and bad guys is a good thing in a set that increases the play value to a child. But it's not a coincidence that the obscure, desired mini-figures are always tossed into the overpriced sets to try and persuade someone to shell out 20% more money for an already expensive set with 20% fewer parts. And that would be fine but Lego has, in recent years, resorted to tossing in highly-desired figures in expensive sets regardless of the sense it makes (look at the first Mace Windu with the original Turbo Tank). Lego knows that and exploits it regardless of whether or not the pairing is suitable. That's what I find offensive more than anything. Sure, it's a good way to make money and that's their ultimate goal but they could at least have the respect for their customers that their public relations image tries to maintain they do. I feel sympathy for people in other countries who do have to pay jacked up prices. As I said, it's disrespectful on Lego's part to use gimmicks like that to entice people to buy sets they might otherwise find poorly-designed or over-used (I'm just waiting for them to throw snowspeeders into other lines just to jack up the price. "Join the battle in Prince of Persia with the snowspeeder!"). Lego doesn't need to resort to such gimmicks if they offer creative, quality sets. They have a popular product and a large, loyal customer base. They should keep that in mind.

I don't think you understand the concept of collectible. Nothing about it requires deceitful packaging. These aren't limited edition that are obtainable on a first-come-first-serve basis. These are mass-produced items that are packaged in a manner so that you can't tell what it is you're buying. That's just a cheap trick on Lego's part. These are baseball cards where instead of a pack, you get one to a pack. For the same price, or possibly even more, you're getting one product you may not even want. They're not even making a sorry attempt to put some bad-tasting gum in to pretend that they're not shucksters trying to just fleece you with a product you really don't want. It's a dishonorable, cheap gimmick from a company that likes to boast of its quality and good customer relations. Lego has legions of loyal fans, be it children or adult collectors, but this tactic isn't respectful to them no matter how much naive fanbois will think it is.