A mini-doll rant by a mini-doll fan

[Captain Pirate Man]

Just to clarify, I personally don't have anything against minidolls. If you like them, more power to you. Yes they do turn me and my family "off" from any sets with them in it. But I'm not going to rain on anyone else's parade.

[MAB]

What we DON'T know is how well the Friends lineup would do if it had similar minifigs rather than mini-dolls. If LEGO had the same theme focus ("friendships" rather than "playing house"), and the same color scheme, and the same building style, etc-- would the line still be a success? Or would it be a failure? I'm positive that LEGO analyzed this, and has data on it, but ultimately we don't know if it meant "not successful" or simply "less successful". All we know is that it's not what LEGO chose to do, and it proved very successful for them. And they've expanded mini-dolls into Disney Princess and Elves, so it's definitely working.

I imagine it would be less successful rather than not successful, but of course it is something that cannot be tested.

No doubt they have loads of interesting but different sales data, on sets like the blue and pink suitcase 10659 and 10660, that they can use to test popularity of similar minifig sets between boys and girls.

It would be more interesting if they did two very similar sets at the same price aimed at the same demographic containing minifigs and minidolls; the supermarket suitcase and Heartlake supermarket were almost there.

[x105Black]

I realize that clearly the minidolls have found a market and are successful, but having said that I dislike them. My daughter does as well. She "liked" them for about a year, but it didn't last. She likes minifigures better, by a long shot. I have no problem with Lego making specialized sets geared more towards girls, but why not give them figures instead of dolls? I'll never understand that. Honestly I don't feel the minidolls will have the long term appeal that minifigures do, I really can't see them still being around 20 years from now, but I could be wrong.

As a father of a daughter, I find the whole minidoll thing to be an example of sexism to a certain degree. Compared to minifigures they are the inferior figure (I don't think anyone can really argue this). So girls get their own Lego lines that are different and inferior to the "male" alternatives. I'm not saying it's this terrible injustice, just pointing out the elephant in the room.

I'm not saying minidolls are awful, or don't serve a purpose. I do think they are quite popular amounts the younger 6-9 crowd. But the problem is that's about it. Once girls get to be 10 or so, they want adventures, not playing house anymore. Obviously the Elves line is a step in the right direction, but again it would have been MUCH better with minifigures. To quote my daughter "minidolls look dumb when holding things like swords and bows. Their arms are straight, and the wrists don't turn." you can't argue with her logic, because it's true. Who holds a sword or a bow with their arms fully extended? Lets be honest and call a spade a spade, they are intended for more playing dress up, not adventures. Obviously girls like my daughter could just move onto non minidoll sets, and she did. But the thing is, the Elves line would REALLY be up her ally, but she won't even look at them because of the dolls. I'm sure she would love to have a line tailored to Her interest. Her friends all feel the same way as well, as a matter of fact we will be selling all of her minidolls in our Bricklink store.

Again I'm not disputing that minidolls have been popular in the demographic they were marketed towards, but I DO feel they would have still got that demographic and MORE with minifigures.

I agree with this post. Clearly, a market for minidolls exists. I have 3 nieces. One is still in Duplo. One loves minidolls (and minifigures, but to a lesser extent). She is 7. The other niece has a few minidolls, but prefers minifigures.. She is 9. So the age thing might indeed be a factor.

Also, the minidolls do indeed look ridiculous using certain weapons. The lack of articulation isn't only about playability, it's also customizability. You can't change the hands to give them gloves. You can't swap their arms like a minifigure. You can't swap out 1 leg at a time, or even pose them in a walking stride. Their heads are molded, so double printed heads are not a possibility.

Are there things about minidolls that are done better? Yes. Often, they are beautifully printed. Also, the molding of their clothing is more detailed. Proportionately, they are better. But despite these advantages, I think the minifigure is objectively superior for the reasons listed above. There is definitely a preference issue, as not everyone will like the same thing, but there are clear advantages to the minifigure that go above those of the minidoll.

Ultimately, I'm just voicing my opinion on the matter, and I am biased against the minidoll.

I also think it's sexist, but not because of the superiority of one over the other. I feel that it is sexist because it creates a separation between boy and girl products. It presents sets that appeal to girls, then gives them dolls, which is a form of stereotyping. Girls get dolls while boys get action figures. That's sexist.

[SweetiePie88]

Have you seen the grandfather of all the minifigs? It's laughable now but if we lookback in the LEGO history the minifigs had transformed over several iterations and until today, minifigs are still getting better. TLG is dedicated to make minifigs better -- dual moulded plastic, more advanced printing, better graphic design, and so on and so forth....

The old figures may be goofy looking but they are still respected b/c while they may be old, they are still the grandparents of modern minifigures. The old figures can still be used for statues/dummies in modern sets if they'd just be given a chance but the friend figures have no hope.

So you don't like them enough to use them, but you like them enough not to trade them?

I don't like the dolls, i like the prints. I'm a sucker for a nicely printed part.

[Sarah]

I also think it's sexist, but not because of the superiority of one over the other. I feel that it is sexist because it creates a separation between boy and girl products. It presents sets that appeal to girls, then gives them dolls, which is a form of stereotyping. Girls get dolls while boys get action figures. That's sexist.

Maybe the real sexism is feeling you have to call dolls for boys "Action figures"

They are all just dolls.

Minidolls remind me of my dollhouse figures growing up. (Except we need some kids to go with them). BONUS! WIth Lego, you can make your OWN dollhouse! Just the size you want, with all the exact parts you want. My sister and I played hours with our dollhouses. Going to visit each other, making up names for the characters (and birthdays, and likes and dislikes). We'd bribe babysitters to bring both dollhouses out to the living room to play with them. But lest you think I was brainwashed, I also played quite a bit with Hot Wheels, chemistry sets, a plastic magic kit, and star wars figurines when visiting at a friend's house (Which were played with pretty much like dollhouse figures). We seemed to have a good number of toys from all aisles of the toy store, just depending on our own interests. And most got played with. Oh and Lego. Starting with the Farm, then Homemaker Kitchen and bathroom sets. And continuing on with some space, a fire station, and a few small castle sets (though I remember *wanting* that Yellow Castle, it was out of the budget for our family or me personally). Some of those I bought myself with Christmas money/allowance.

Polly Pocket was also very popular with kids when I was growing up (Though I never had any? Maybe they came out when I was too old -- I was 10 in 1983.)

My daughter (who just turned 5) loves the hand sized figures and smaller stuff -- Disney Princess, Little Pony, and Lego minidolls and animals. My son loves putting together the sets. My daughter puts together pieces and then plays with them. She swoops the dragons around (with a horse for a passenger) and has the minidolls talk to the animals (and her brother's Minecraft minifigures when they go to The Dungeon to visit)

Edited September 9, 2016 by Sarah

[Aanchir]

The old figures may be goofy looking but they are still respected b/c while they may be old, they are still the grandparents of modern minifigures. The old figures can still be used for statues/dummies in modern sets if they'd just be given a chance but the friend figures have no hope.

That's assuming LEGO fans will always see the mini-doll as some Johnny-come-lately minifigure substitute, which simply isn't a realistic expectation. The mini-doll was introduced in 2012, over four and a half years ago. That means in just a few years, there will be girls entering the age range for LEGO Friends who have never known a time that the mini-doll did not exist. In ten years, kids who were four when the mini-doll came out will be eighteen, and many of them might become AFOLs.

As the LEGO brand changes, so too will the LEGO fan community. For instance, when it was launched fifteen years ago, Bionicle was treated basically as a punch line by the AFOL community as a whole, and many didn't consider it "real LEGO". Of course, there are still some curmudgeonly old AFOLs who believe Bionicle is worthless garbage, but as the millions of kids who grew up with Bionicle (including myself) have grown up, a considerable portion of them have joined the AFOL community, and now Bionicle hate among AFOLs is nowhere near as universal as it once was. So when you look at how certain segments of the AFOL community have already warmed up to the mini-doll, not to mention how warmly kids who previously never got bit by the LEGO bug have responded to it, what makes you so sure that it will never be respected by the wider AFOL community?

[x105Black]

Maybe the real sexism is feeling you have to call dolls for boys "Action figures"

Possibly. It's more that making dolls for girls feels like pandering.

Bionicle is worthless garbage

Agreed.

That's assuming LEGO fans will always see the mini-doll as some Johnny-come-lately minifigure substitute, which simply isn't a realistic expectation. The mini-doll was introduced in 2012, over four and a half years ago. That means in just a few years, there will be girls entering the age range for LEGO Friends who have never known a time that the mini-doll did not exist. In ten years, kids who were four when the mini-doll came out will be eighteen, and many of them might become AFOLs.

As the LEGO brand changes, so too will the LEGO fan community. For instance, when it was launched fifteen years ago, Bionicle was treated basically as a punch line by the AFOL community as a whole, and many didn't consider it "real LEGO". Of course, there are still some curmudgeonly old AFOLs who believe Bionicle is worthless garbage, but as the millions of kids who grew up with Bionicle (including myself) have grown up, a considerable portion of them have joined the AFOL community, and now Bionicle hate among AFOLs is nowhere near as universal as it once was. So when you look at how certain segments of the AFOL community have already warmed up to the mini-doll, not to mention how warmly kids who previously never got bit by the LEGO bug have responded to it, what makes you so sure that it will never be respected by the wider AFOL community?

You've got a point. Minidolls are successful enough (or LEGO is pushing them hard enough) to last until kids brought up with minidolls become AFOLs. I still don't feel that Bionicle and Constraction figures are "real LEGO," and I will continue to hold the same opinion of minidolls. I'm glad there are those that like them, definitely. I think what frustrates me the most is that, as a fan of the Castle theme, the closest Castle substitute right now is a minidoll theme. But there are many who enjoy Elves despite (and often including) the minidolls, so that's great. I hope it breeds more fans of a fantasy medieval Castle theme for the future (with minifigures, of course).

[danth]

Possibly. It's more that making dolls for girls feels like pandering.

I don't think it's any more pandering than all the violent themes with shooting guns marketed to boys.

I kinda feel like the opinions of grown men who don't like minidolls aren't valuable or important. Yeah, I'd prefer if the Friends & Elves lines came with regular minifigures, because I like them better, but I'm not gonna try to tell girls or women who like them how they should feel about minidolls. If girls like them, and they get girls into Lego, that's a huge win as far as I'm concerned.

[x105Black]

I don't think it's any more pandering than all the violent themes with shooting guns marketed to boys.

I kinda feel like the opinions of grown men who don't like minidolls aren't valuable or important. Yeah, I'd prefer if the Friends & Elves lines came with regular minifigures, because I like them better, but I'm not gonna try to tell girls or women who like them how they should feel about minidolls. If girls like them, and they get girls into Lego, that's a huge win as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not trying to say it's more or less. Both are indeed sexist pandering.

Personally, I'm not trying to tell girls how to feel, just expressing how I feel. I am happy that people are coming to LEGO, whether it's for minidolls, constraction, or any other theme I dislike. But I am a customer, so my opinions are both valuable and important as well.

[MAB]

Looking at how younger girls play, I don't think posability is a problem. My youngest has both dolls and figs, but rarely poses legs or arms / hands on the figures. When she is story telling / make believe playing, the characters just jump along from stud to stud. They never walk using their legs. Similarly they hold cups but don't need a realistic drinking action. Mind you, the boy plays in the same way.

[Captain Pirate Man]

@X105Black,

I agree with everything you have said in this thread. I appreciate hearing another voice of "reason". I don't say that to imply that those that disagree with us are unreasonable. But I have found that minidoll supporters tend to be very vocal in there support of them. Which I understand, but at the same time I feel "some" take the criticism personally, which I never intend. Or they jump right to the "Lego tested them and are happy with the results" defense.

Which ALL of that may be true to a certain extent, but like the both of us have witnessed, our older daughters lose interest in the mindolls as they age. I just don't feel these are isolated incidents. I bet this is a lot more common than many people would like to believe.

[davee123]

But I have found that minidoll supporters tend to be very vocal in there support of them. Which I understand, but at the same time I feel "some" take the criticism personally, which I never intend.

I dunno, I haven't really seen that. I think a lot of people will take critique of things they like a little harshly, so mini-dolls are no exception. I think you made a few statements in the thread that were probably exaggerated, though, and that's the tricky part. You said (for instance):

"Compared to minifigures they are the inferior figure (I don't think anyone can really argue this)"

So, obviously, anyone that likes mini-dolls can argue that. I think if there's any reaction to you in particular, it's probably to statements like that, which are probably a bit harsher than you actually intend. And there's other statements (not from you) like:

"... I think the minifigure is objectively superior ..."

Which, again, is just incorrect, since it's definitely subjective rather than objective. So, some of it is just pointing out that other opinions are valid, since it looks like some others are implying that mini-dolls are universally hated, when clearly they're not.

Or they jump right to the "Lego tested them and are happy with the results" defense.

To be honest, I think a lot of people don't really understand why LEGO did what they did. Many people who complained about Friends in general (back when they were released in 2012) seemed to be living in an echo chamber of gender equality activists, who seemed to assume that girls would flock to the toys if they were truly gender neutral. So, I often try to explain a bit further what was going on at LEGO. In fact ... you said:

"but why not give them figures instead of dolls? I'll never understand that."

So, it almost seemed like you were actually asking for an explanation, although I don't know if you really were or not.

I can't really say I'm a huge fan of the mini-dolls myself. They're ok, and they have their uses. They're yet-another-type-of-LEGO-figure to me, which I don't really view as overly positive or negative. I'd prefer to have minifigs, typically, but I can imagine some scenarios where I'd want mini-dolls.

DaveE

[Captain Pirate Man]

I don't disagree with what you said, and perhaps I came across a heavy handed in some of posts. I am not overtly against minidolls, or people that like them. To be completely honest with you, if I take the things MY daughter said about them, I would really not care either way about them.

But that's the thing, I am basing my opinions on things my daughter and her friends said and I witnessed. When they were 7, they played with them. They played with minifigures more, but the minidolls DID get some play. By the time she was 9, they were a once and a while type thing, while minifigs were her go to figs for sure. By the time she was 10, she no longer liked or even played with the minidolls. Now that she is 11, she hates them, thinks they are "dumb," and doesn't like sets that have them.

Seeing these kinds of changes out of you kid, will effect how you view certain toys. Honestly it's similiar to barbies, she won't have anything to do with those either.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Captain Pirate Man

[x105Black]

You said (for instance):

"Compared to minifigures they are the inferior figure (I don't think anyone can really argue this)"

So, obviously, anyone that likes mini-dolls can argue that. I think if there's any reaction to you in particular, it's probably to statements like that, which are probably a bit harsher than you actually intend. And there's other statements (not from you) like:

"... I think the minifigure is objectively superior ..."

Which, again, is just incorrect, since it's definitely subjective rather than objective. So, some of it is just pointing out that other opinions are valid, since it looks like some others are implying that mini-dolls are universally hated, when clearly they're not.

I think that, in the ways in which we discussed and measured quality, we successfully argued our case about objective superiority.

But you're right, minidolls are not universally hated. There are fans out there (as evidenced in the thread title), and their preference for minidolls is subjective, as is my preference for minifigures. And that's great, I appreciate that there are many different people out there with many different tastes. I'm not a big fan of punk music, but I'm happy punk music exists for those that enjoy it.

[RetroInferno]

Lego Elves and Friends are sexists now, what?

I get that social constructs has an influence on kids, and that toy companies gets a share of it, but that doesn't determine what boys and girls like entirely, that's completly putting aside scientific evidence.

[Artanis I]

Maybe the real sexism is feeling you have to call dolls for boys "Action figures"

They are all just dolls.

Who was the coool guy that came up with that term anyway

[Aanchir]

But that's the thing, I am basing my opinions on things my daughter and her friends said and I witnessed. When they were 7, they played with them. They played with minifigures more, but the minidolls DID get some play. By the time she was 9, they were a once and a while type thing, while minifigs were her go to figs for sure. By the time she was 10, she no longer liked or even played with the minidolls. Now that she is 11, she hates them, thinks they are "dumb," and doesn't like sets that have them.

Your daughter's insights on this matter are definitely a valuable contribution to this discussion, and it'd be interesting to see how widely they hold true. And yet, I don't entirely know how much of that is due to the actual characteristics of the figure failing to appeal to older kids, and how much of it might be due to other factors like societal pressure on girls to grow up fast and put aside interests they think of as "kids' stuff". If your daughter didn't live in an AFOL household that reinforced the idea that LEGO bricks and the LEGO minifigure can be for all ages, maybe by now she might have started to distance herself from those by now as well, and could be well on her way into her dark ages.

We have to remember that playing with LEGO into one's teenage or adult years used to be quite rare for boys and girls alike. And the LEGO Group is quite new to having any meaningful success with girls. Honestly it's not surprising to me that they started out focusing their girl-oriented products on the core toy-buying years (5–12) instead of trying to jump headfirst into marketing towards the older and less predictable audience that more boy-oriented "big bang" themes of the past decade like Exo-Force, Power Miners, Ninjago, Legends of Chima, and Nexo Knights tend to target.

Another factor to consider is that I'm assuming your daughter did play with LEGO before the launch of LEGO Friends, which might put her in a somewhat different category than other girls who first became interested in LEGO because of girl-oriented themes like Friends. If she played with minifigures more than with mini-dolls from the start, then it doesn't entirely surprise me that her interest in minifigures lasted longer than her interest in mini-dolls. But I get the feeling that the vast majority of girls who have made LEGO Friends such a reliable hit are in a very different boat.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Aanchir

[dr_spock]

Children's likes and dislikes can be influenced by their parents. Children will do whatever or play with whatever until you tell them it is wrong to do so. Some times you may have to tell them a bunch of times before it sinks in. As they get older, their peer group will be another source of influence. My daughter wasn't into Barbie until she started school and met other girls whose parents got them Barbies...

I suppose minidolls can be action figures too if you send them into action.

Day 251 of 365: Friendly Landing by dr_spock_888, on Flickr

Or activist actions.

Day 325 of 365: Photojournalist by dr_spock_888, on Flickr

[MAB]

I think that, in the ways in which we discussed and measured quality, we successfully argued our case about objective superiority.

Of course, but then you put focus on the qualities that you deem more important, which happen to be the ones that minifigures possess. Although of course it is really subjective, since the subjectivity comes from the questions you choose. Minidolls are actually more superior objectively if the only requirement tested is realistic body shape. That is, does the figure have relatively realistic human proportions? Minidolls clearly have objective superiority there. But it would be subjective in that I am choosing to only take one quality that interests me.

Minidolls and minifigures are different. Neither is better than the other.

There are more minifigs than minidolls. There are also more minifig collectors than minidoll collectors. Does that mean anything about their "quality" though? To me, no.

[AndyC]

What we DON'T know is how well the Friends lineup would do if it had similar minifigs rather than mini-dolls. If LEGO had the same theme focus ("friendships" rather than "playing house"), and the same color scheme, and the same building style, etc-- would the line still be a success? Or would it be a failure?

The closest thing would be the Paradisa line, which introduced pastel shades and was intended to bring girls into LEGO along similar lines to Friends. And it flopped.