Is LEGO entering a Dark Age - or am I?

Aanchir · September 14, 2017

11 hours ago, Hart New Bob said:

Yep.....they really only seem to care about the +75$.......but IMO they seem to mostly care about the 90$+ when it comes to design, quality. ETC.

I could definitely name even more sets I consider especially strong designs from Friends, Elves, Ninjago, Speed Champions, etc. And that's just this year's sets — the past couple years have also had plenty of noteworthy products of their own even at low-to-medium price points. I think it's unsurprising that to us AFOLs these sets get overshadowed by the bigger stuff, especially the stuff targeted at older builders, but I don't think that's a sign that the smaller stuff is lacking in quality, value, or design effort.

x105Black · September 14, 2017

I think you missed an aspect of his argument. While he was saying that the under $75 sets are less impressive build-wise, he was also saying that they put the best minifigures in the over $75 sets. I agree with that.

I honestly wouldn't miss Castle half as much if they released battle packs of 2 factions at a time every wave. Do 2 factions a year, and release 1 pack in the early Winter wave, one in the Summer, and one in the Fall. That's 6 battle packs a year, for a total of 12 minifigures per faction, 24 overall. If that were to happen, I'd change my tune from "We need Castle sets to return" to "When are they going to release faction X?" And with 2 factions a year, faction X might not have to wait long. That said, I want the same level of detail we get on CMFs, with dual molded and printed arms & legs, printed backs, and new accessories (or at least repurposed accessories in new colors, prints, or styles).

Captain Pirate Man · September 14, 2017

@Aanchir,

While I agree many of those sets you pointed out are nice, some of them not so much. No baseplates is the problem I see. Without a baseplate, it makes it harder for kids to get creative imo. Back in the 80s and 90s, all sets came with them. Now very few sets do. That is another turn off for parents imo, they don't feel like they are getting a value. A 600 piece set with a baseplate really feels like something. The same set without one feels lackluster.

I'm not just making this stuff up, I actually read parent comments. After the Lego news came out about losing profits, I read an article published by a neutral news source like business insider or something similar (it was NOT Brickset or another Lego fan type article). Anyways, I read through the comment section and was SHOCKED. 95% of the comments were extremely negative towards Lego. Parents were saying things like "I don't even let my kids play with Lego because they are too expensive." The vast majority of comments talked about how ridiculously over priced Lego is. I'm telling you guys... this is a real problem.

Today's kids DO want minifigs they like though, but parents are NOT willing to pay $100 for a set so their kid can have that minifig. That's probably why minifigs fly off the shelves of my brick link store. IMO, Lego really needs to rethink their strategy. CMF series was fun at first, but I feel that has gotten stale as well. The blind bag aspect is probably off putting to some parents. I think minifig team packs are the way to go. Give kids access to the minifigs they want, stop hiding them in blind bags and expensive sets. Also, bring back baseplates and make the $75 and under sets really shine. I think a less is more type of mentality. Less sets, but make them BETTER. Compare the smaller sets of the 80s and 90s vs today, and I'm sorry the older ones WERE better imo. Take Lagoon Lock up for example, you got EVERYTHING you could want in the set, for a good price. Today you get bits and pieces of a cool idea that isn't fully realized. Not to mention, I feel the girl centered lines have failed. Why? The minidoll. I went rounds with people on this board and on Brickset about minidolls being a mistake. Well, last time I checked my local Wal-Mart, the girl Lego isle was gone. Friends and Elves were jammed next to Duplo. I think it's clear they didn't perform as well as some thought they would. They should have made them with cool and unique minifigs, not minidolls. I hate saying "I told you" but, I TOLD YOU SO. Girls don't want to be treated different, period.

I whole heartily feel Lego NEEDS to reevaluate things.

Aanchir · September 14, 2017

1 hour ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

@Aanchir,

While I agree many of those sets you pointed out are nice, some of them not so much. No baseplates is the problem I see. Without a baseplate, it makes it harder for kids to get creative imo. Back in the 80s and 90s, all sets came with them. Now very few sets do. That is another turn off for parents imo, they don't feel like they are getting a value. A 600 piece set with a baseplate really feels like something. The same set without one feels lackluster.

I'm not just making this stuff up, I actually read parent comments. After the Lego news came out about losing profits, I read an article published by a neutral news source like business insider or something similar (it was NOT Brickset or another Lego fan type article). Anyways, I read through the comment section and was SHOCKED. 95% of the comments were extremely negative towards Lego. Parents were saying things like "I don't even let my kids play with Lego because they are too expensive." The vast majority of comments talked about how ridiculously over priced Lego is. I'm telling you guys... this is a real problem.

Today's kids DO want minifigs they like though, but parents are NOT willing to pay $100 for a set so their kid can have that minifig. That's probably why minifigs fly off the shelves of my brick link store. IMO, Lego really needs to rethink their strategy. CMF series was fun at first, but I feel that has gotten stale as well. The blind bag aspect is probably off putting to some parents. I think minifig team packs are the way to go. Give kids access to the minifigs they want, stop hiding them in blind bags and expensive sets. Also, bring back baseplates and make the $75 and under sets really shine. I think a less is more type of mentality. Less sets, but make them BETTER. Compare the smaller sets of the 80s and 90s vs today, and I'm sorry the older ones WERE better imo. Take Lagoon Lock up for example, you got EVERYTHING you could want in the set, for a good price. Today you get bits and pieces of a cool idea that isn't fully realized. Not to mention, I feel the girl centered lines have failed. Why? The minidoll. I went rounds with people on this board and on Brickset about minidolls being a mistake. Well, last time I checked my local Wal-Mart, the girl Lego isle was gone. Friends and Elves were jammed next to Duplo. I think it's clear they didn't perform as well as some thought they would. They should have made them with cool and unique minifigs, not minidolls. I hate saying "I told you" but, I TOLD YOU SO. Girls don't want to be treated different, period.

I whole heartily feel Lego NEEDS to reevaluate things.

To be honest, I kind of see things the other way. The thing I've found about baseplates is that they encourage fairly rigid, grid-based thinking compared to smaller and more customizable bases. Not to mention that a 16x16 plate is much more versatile than a 16x16 base since you can connect things either to the top or to the bottom. With a set like https://brickset.com/sets/41311-1/Heartlake-Pizzeria, another amazing offering this year, you get both a 16x16 plate and an 8x16 plate. With those, you can do like the set does and use the larger one for the base and the smaller as a roof or second story, or you can use them both together as a larger base, or you can even raise them both for a building with a raised foundation. And you can extend them with other plates from your collection without the base becoming uneven. Baseplates discourage that kind of free thinking. In the hands of a kid or even most adults, the base of the pricier https://brickset.com/sets/6376-1/Breezeway-Café is unlikely to be used for anything other than a base.

Don't get me wrong, baseplates have their uses. They're OK for creating perfect grid streets in a city, for example, which is how the modular buildings use them. But I've seen so many MOCs where builders try to force Castle or Elves sets together onto a rectangular grid, and it really spoils the more organic look that comes from being able to rearrange smaller bases to one's liking. Us AFOLs know advanced techniques to take builds "off-grid", but for kids the simplest way to achieve this kind of look is to be able to move the sets around freely on separate bases without an unnecessary rectangular footprint implying a "right" or a "wrong" way to line them up. The Elves sets, with their frequent use of rounded plates to give them a more organic-looking footprint, excel at this.

Overall, I think we're much better off with full-thickness plates than half-thickness baseplates. In fact, I dream of a day when the outdated road plate system is supplanted by a more customizable system of plates and tiles. It'd mean no more need for AFOLs to waste effort transferring modular buildings onto road plates when they could just build the roads up around the buildings. Not to mention make it much easier to create inclined roads so your street layout is less "samey".

Your notions about the mini-doll are simply at odds with reality. Friends has been a greater success with girls than any other theme in the company's history, and Elves is doing alright for itself as well. Friends has been among the top five best-selling LEGO themes for the past two years and will probably remain on that list this year. The Friends amusement park roller coaster was literally the second best-selling set last year, ranking higher than literally any other 2016 LEGO set (the only set ranking higher was 2015's Millennium Falcon). And the idea that the girls who love friends would love it even more with the classic, blocky minifigure is pure ignorance that flies in the face of the findings of an extensive global study of over 3500 girls and their families. I don't see why the idea that many girls might prefer their figures more lifelike than the minifigure is so hard for AFOLs to grasp. Have you considered that maybe the reason your Walmart moved Friends and Elves sets might be to bring them closer to other LEGO themes now that Friends has done so much to erode the stereotype that LEGO building is for boys? Or even that Walmart is sometimes just kind of clueless in terms of their shelving policies?

Edited September 14, 2017 by Aanchir

koalayummies · September 14, 2017

1 hour ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

CMF series was fun at first, but I feel that has gotten stale as well. The blind bag aspect is probably off putting to some parents... Give kids access to the minifigs they want, stop hiding them in blind bags and expensive sets.

I agree that the blind bag distribution method seems like a slimy unscrupulous way to sell toys to kids but I have also met several parents and kids who were very good at feeling the characters out. The Lego store doesn't seem to mind much (and all other retailers that carry them couldn't care less) about locating figures this way so its not as horrible as it once seemed. If on the other hand they hid them all behind a counter and made you buy whatever they randomly grabbed with no touching then it would be truly disturbing, which is basically what buying them on Lego Shop @ Home is like. Here's 4 of the one character you didn't want. :laugh:

Lyichir · September 14, 2017

Just now, koalayummies said:

I agree that the blind bag distribution method seems like a slimy unscrupulous way to sell toys to kids but I have also met several parents and kids who were very good at feeling the characters out. The Lego store doesn't seem to mind much (and all other retailers that carry them couldn't care less) about locating figures this way so its not as horrible as it once seemed. If on the other hand they hid them all behind a counter and made you buy whatever they randomly grabbed with no touching then it would be truly disturbing, which is basically what buying them on Lego Shop @ Home is like. Here's 4 of the one character you didn't want.

The blind-bag sales method also allows for more variety than visible characters would, as strange as that might sound. By selling figures as part of a blind-packaged assortment, more niche or unusual subjects can be sold alongside more universally popular subjects without the lopsided demand making half of them into shelfwarmers.

Hart New Bob · September 14, 2017

3 hours ago, Aanchir said:

15 hours ago, Hart New Bob said:

I'd dispute that. This year I feel like there have been a lot of great sets under the $75 price point. Some assorted standouts:

https://brickset.com/sets/41188-1/Breakout-from-the-Goblin-King-s-Fortress
https://brickset.com/sets/41317-1/Sunshine-Catamaran
https://brickset.com/sets/31070-1/Turbo-Track-Racer
https://brickset.com/sets/70614-1/Lightning-Jet
https://brickset.com/sets/70626-1/Dawn-of-Iron-Doom
https://brickset.com/sets/41323-1/Snow-Resort-Chalet
https://brickset.com/sets/70904-1/Clayface-Splat-Attack
https://brickset.com/sets/31064-1/Island-Adventures
https://brickset.com/sets/41183-1/The-Goblin-King-s-Evil-Dragon
https://brickset.com/sets/75881-1/2016-Ford-GT-1966-Ford-GT40

I could definitely name even more sets I consider especially strong designs from Friends, Elves, Ninjago, Speed Champions, etc. And that's just this year's sets — the past couple years have also had plenty of noteworthy products of their own even at low-to-medium price points. I think it's unsurprising that to us AFOLs these sets get overshadowed by the bigger stuff, especially the stuff targeted at older builders, but I don't think that's a sign that the smaller stuff is lacking in quality, value, or design effort.

Take in mind I said IMO (In my opinion). Plus, I have not seen most of the sets you listed because I pretty much only follow City and Creator.

Captain Pirate Man · September 14, 2017

I absolutely adore Lego as a product, toy, hobby, ECT. That is, and always will hold true. As a business though, I think there is always room for improvement. The last handful of years it's been really hard to criticize them (they were #1 toy company in the world), it's hard to argue with those results. Now that they have fallen from their lofty perch, I feel it is helpful to offer constructive criticism on areas where you see improvement. Not because I want to see Lego fail, but because I want them to succeed.

It's like rooting for your favorite sports team. Some fans are blindly loyal, even when the team stinks. While I will ALWAYS support my team (Lego), I'm not afraid to say "Hey we need a new a quarterback."

Vindicare · September 14, 2017

19 hours ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

My 2 cents...

Lego overall is GREAT right now. Is it the best for ME right now? No. But that's ok. I think it SHOULD be goal to get into moc/mods eventually for AFOLS. I know it's where I am heading. The actual sets (except for THE really good ones) serve a better purpose as a basis for something bigger and better. I have a rather large layout (city, pirates, castle, lotr) and I tend to think more about "how can I improve this" as opposed to "what new set do I want?" But again this is just me, we all have different wants. Would I prefer a new pirates or castle line? Sure. But I did get the silent Mary this year, and I feel she's pretty impressive. Now they have Destiney's Bounty out. Even though I'm not a Ninjago fan, I'd still love to add that set to my layout, same goes for Ninjago City. Which is why Lego is still great, because I could care less about Ninjago, but I like those sets.

Interesting sets will always get interest. They have NEVER been better than they have for the last few years. The place where Lego needs to improve is with the $75 and under range. Parents are sick of buying $75 sets when their kid only wants a certain minifig. I say, make less sets, but make them BETTER, and sell team packs for minifigs. Dimensions was a gold mine for minifigs, keep that going but lose the game.

From a business perspective, I get the desirable fig in a high dollar set. As a fan & collector, it sort of irks me *cough* Velma *cough* :grin: I can't agree more on their success of Dimensions minifgs. I have quite a few, including the Fantastic Beasts story pack, just because I want the minifigs. And there's at least a dozen I plan on getting.

Hive · September 15, 2017

On 14/9/2017 at 5:24 PM, Captain Pirate Man said:

@Aanchir,

While I agree many of those sets you pointed out are nice, some of them not so much. No baseplates is the problem I see. Without a baseplate, it makes it harder for kids to get creative imo. Back in the 80s and 90s, all sets came with them. Now very few sets do. That is another turn off for parents imo, they don't feel like they are getting a value. A 600 piece set with a baseplate really feels like something. The same set without one feels lackluster.

I'm not just making this stuff up, I actually read parent comments. After the Lego news came out about losing profits, I read an article published by a neutral news source like business insider or something similar (it was NOT Brickset or another Lego fan type article). Anyways, I read through the comment section and was SHOCKED. 95% of the comments were extremely negative towards Lego. Parents were saying things like "I don't even let my kids play with Lego because they are too expensive." The vast majority of comments talked about how ridiculously over priced Lego is. I'm telling you guys... this is a real problem.

Today's kids DO want minifigs they like though, but parents are NOT willing to pay $100 for a set so their kid can have that minifig. That's probably why minifigs fly off the shelves of my brick link store. IMO, Lego really needs to rethink their strategy. CMF series was fun at first, but I feel that has gotten stale as well. The blind bag aspect is probably off putting to some parents. I think minifig team packs are the way to go. Give kids access to the minifigs they want, stop hiding them in blind bags and expensive sets. Also, bring back baseplates and make the $75 and under sets really shine. I think a less is more type of mentality. Less sets, but make them BETTER. Compare the smaller sets of the 80s and 90s vs today, and I'm sorry the older ones WERE better imo. Take Lagoon Lock up for example, you got EVERYTHING you could want in the set, for a good price. Today you get bits and pieces of a cool idea that isn't fully realized. Not to mention, I feel the girl centered lines have failed. Why? The minidoll. I went rounds with people on this board and on Brickset about minidolls being a mistake. Well, last time I checked my local Wal-Mart, the girl Lego isle was gone. Friends and Elves were jammed next to Duplo. I think it's clear they didn't perform as well as some thought they would. They should have made them with cool and unique minifigs, not minidolls. I hate saying "I told you" but, I TOLD YOU SO. Girls don't want to be treated different, period.

I whole heartily feel Lego NEEDS to reevaluate things.

I agree that baseplates make big and expensive sets look much more impressive. Personally, I'm a sucker for big baseplates (especially raised ones!) and miss them dearly.

I also agree that Lagoon Lock Up was a perfect set in its' price range. It had it all! And great minifigs, too! But... in today's prices, that set (which cost $29.99 at the time) would cost $54. The $50-60 price range sets of today (while I don't find them quite as enticing as builds) actually holds at least the same amount of minifigures (often more) and has LOTS more bricks... so the "LEGO was much better value for money back in the 80's and 90's" argument is actually invalid.

But yeah, I really wish they hadn't felt forced to introduce those minidolls... but since they have currently 3 lines with them, I suspect they're actually good business.

xboxtravis7992 · September 15, 2017

I think I remember hearing Lego has a sticky legal situation since the baseplates are made using vacuum molding instead of injection molding, they licensed them to a 3rd party manufacturer. So the 3rd party makes them, Lego buys them back from them, then Lego sells them. I don't know how true it is, but from what I understand it is why Lego is avoiding using baseplates beyond special sets; because they don't want to have to buy more from the outside manufacturer than they need to. Now why Lego doesn't invest in their own vacuum molding tech and buy back the molds from the 3rd party is a question I have with that report, but mass product manufacturing is a strange strange world anyways...

Hart New Bob · September 15, 2017

35 minutes ago, Hive said:

I also agree that Lagoon Lock Up was a perfect set in its' price range. It had it all! And great minifigs, too! But... in today's prices, that set (which cost $29.99 at the time) would cost $54. The $50-60 price range sets of today (while I don't find them quite as enticing as builds) actually holds at least the same amount of minifigures (often more) and has LOTS more bricks... so the "LEGO was much better value for money back in the 80's and 90's" argument is actually invalid.

I don't believe in inflation, sounds fishy to me.

Captain Pirate Man · September 15, 2017

4 minutes ago, Hart New Bob said:

I don't believe in inflation, sounds fishy to me.

Lol

Faefrost · September 17, 2017

On 9/8/2017 at 11:13 PM, Legogal said:

Does anyone else feel overwhelmed by so many themes and different products in the LEGO stores?

You are not alone. It's actually one of Lego's major problems right now. One that they had years ago and managed to recover from. Back before their near bankruptcy they had among other things lost control of product discipline. They were putting two much new product offerings on the shelves, canibalizing themselves and creating overwhelming decision points on the toy aisle. This is bad business. Right now there are too many Lego sets being brought to market at far too many and too high price points.

Look at a traditional Lego wave for an annual or seasonal theme. 5-6 sets, perfectly spaced along a cost curve starting with an impulse buy, up through a $20 ish set, going up a few price tiers to the theme anchor set. The big fortress etc. that tops out around $90-120. It was an environment where a kid or parent could reasonably menlly and financially invest in a theme and gather the full set. Which made it feel complete, and good and special. They might come back the next year and do it again with another theme.

Now look at the Lego Batman Movie sets and you can clearly see where it all went wrong. Look at the shear volume of them. The random pricing. The overpricing. The difficulting in assembling anything that felt complete. And even how disjointed the sets felt to each other. No kid is going to collect them all. At that point other than say a batmobile, why get any of them? To much choice leads to a negative decision loop where the consumer walks away. A sure thing purchase becomes "do I really need or want this?" And in the past two years Lego has grossly over saturated their offerings.

The number of upper tier adult targeted sets has quite frankly gotten untenable. Look at the Lego Ninjago movie sets. There are at least three sets in there that are so insanely outside the kid target market as to call into question the product managers judgement. They are gorgeous sets. Glorious sets. Some of the finest sets that we as AFOL's have ever seen. But they really weren't made for the kids now were they? That Destiny's Bounty? Yeah no. That Ninjago City? Heck no! And while the AFOL in me is squeezing with delight, the MBA in me is looking aghast and wondering what unhinged lunatic in product management and approval thought an $800 Millenium Falcon was a good idea?

This all gets back to another problem that we have seen looming for a few years. The adult "Speculators Bubble". Instead of taking steps to counter it, or simply ignore it and proceed as normal, Lego started to sell into it, thus increasing their product offerings to the current saturation levels and their pricing past tenable levels for the original intended purpose of their product. That bubble is now bursting. Big time. Just as it did with comic books, beanie babies and any other kid thing adults get fascinated by. (For those curious I am sensing a bubble starting to build over in high end die cast robot toys. The nerd collector is an ever fickle soul.)

Lego will have some hard decisions to make in the next year. Their product lines are over saturated. They have too many of them. And too many of those are locked in licensed properties that limit their flexibility and shelf space to go back to their traditional strengths.

At the end of the day Lego also has a bigger looming problem. The bulk of their sales do not go through Lego stores or shop.lego.com. They go through Big box stores. Has anybody looked at TRU's balance sheets lately? Notice that Walmart and especially Target have been trimming sales with regard to inventory on hand? Notice that the Lego aisles at these chains are looking more mangy and picked through lately? Re stocks aren't happening, or aren't happening as frequently. If the product isn't out there to buy, it won't get bought. And weaknesses in other areas get transferred through and spread to other vendors via the available cash flow for inventory of the mass merchants. If you watch the shippers in the stores Lego remains one of the most desired brands on the toy aisle'. But it still suffers when the stores high margin products are being steadily eroded by Amazon. Lego is the lucky one. Has anyone tried finding Mega brands on store shelves lately? The terms sparse, sporadic and short term come to mind for any of their offerings. They are still doing better than any of the other brick competitors that aren't Chinese bootleggers.

Aanchir · September 17, 2017

44 minutes ago, Faefrost said:

You are not alone. It's actually one of Lego's major problems right now. One that they had years ago and managed to recover from. Back before their near bankruptcy they had among other things lost control of product discipline. They were putting two much new product offerings on the shelves, canibalizing themselves and creating overwhelming decision points on the toy aisle. This is bad business. Right now there are too many Lego sets being brought to market at far too many and too high price points.

Look at a traditional Lego wave for an annual or seasonal theme. 5-6 sets, perfectly spaced along a cost curve starting with an impulse buy, up through a $20 ish set, going up a few price tiers to the theme anchor set. The big fortress etc. that tops out around $90-120. It was an environment where a kid or parent could reasonably menlly and financially invest in a theme and gather the full set. Which made it feel complete, and good and special. They might come back the next year and do it again with another theme.

Bear in mind that back in the classic era, sets had a longer shelf life, so new sets would be competing for attention on shelves with sets from the past two or three years. I wouldn't say there was less internal competition in that scenario — just less consistent demand from set to set due to some being years older than others. I also think your notion that "too many sets" is the problem that nearly sent them to bankruptcy is a bit reductive. There are a lot of things that LEGO was doing wrong back then, which in general they've taken great care to avoid repeating.

The number of sets on shelves this year didn't happen abruptly or without warning. Years before The LEGO Ninjago Movie and The LEGO Batman Movie, other themes like LEGO Ninjago, LEGO City, LEGO Star Wars, and LEGO Friends all had large numbers of sets, and rather than hurting their sales it's helped make them year-after-year bestsellers. LEGO is very good at growing or reducing individual themes gradually as they test what the market can bear, and if you think the LEGO Ninjago Movie or The LEGO Batman Movie's huge numbers of sets came out of nowhere, you haven't been paying very close attention. The reason they get such big waves is that they follow in the footsteps of The LEGO Movie and LEGO Ninjago, which each have had success with similarly broad product ranges.

44 minutes ago, Faefrost said:

The number of upper tier adult targeted sets has quite frankly gotten untenable. Look at the Lego Ninjago movie sets. There are at least three sets in there that are so insanely outside the kid target market as to call into question the product managers judgement. They are gorgeous sets. Glorious sets. Some of the finest sets that we as AFOL's have ever seen. But they really weren't made for the kids now were they? That Destiny's Bounty? Yeah no. That Ninjago City? Heck no! And while the AFOL in me is squeezing with delight, the MBA in me is looking aghast and wondering what unhinged lunatic in product management and approval thought an $800 Millenium Falcon was a good idea?

I'm curious which three sets you think are "insanely outside the kid target market," considering that there are only two sets that are priced higher than $120 (Destiny's Bounty and Ninjago City), and Ninjago has had a $120 set nearly every year since the theme began. I hardly think anybody would argue that every one of those bigger Ninjago sets was adult-targeted. For that matter, City has had sets priced as high as $180 or $200, and it is a decidedly kid-targeted theme! Going back further, classic pirate ships Black Seas Barracuda and Skull's Eye Schooner both cost over $200 in 2017 dollars when they first came out. Parents spend way more on toys for their kids than you give them credit for.

There's no denying that Ninjago City is aimed mainly at teens and adults (and I doubt LEGO would have priced even it so high if it weren't following in the footsteps of other successful adult-targeted sets like Temple of Airjitzu and Metalbeard's Sea Cow). But there's no reason to think that Destiny's Bounty or Temple of the Ultimate Ultimate Weapon are not in fact aimed at kids in the age ranges marked on the box.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Aanchir

Captain Pirate Man · September 17, 2017

1 hour ago, Faefrost said:

You are not alone. It's actually one of Lego's major problems right now. One that they had years ago and managed to recover from. Back before their near bankruptcy they had among other things lost control of product discipline. They were putting two much new product offerings on the shelves, canibalizing themselves and creating overwhelming decision points on the toy aisle. This is bad business. Right now there are too many Lego sets being brought to market at far too many and too high price points.

Look at a traditional Lego wave for an annual or seasonal theme. 5-6 sets, perfectly spaced along a cost curve starting with an impulse buy, up through a $20 ish set, going up a few price tiers to the theme anchor set. The big fortress etc. that tops out around $90-120. It was an environment where a kid or parent could reasonably menlly and financially invest in a theme and gather the full set. Which made it feel complete, and good and special. They might come back the next year and do it again with another theme.

Now look at the Lego Batman Movie sets and you can clearly see where it all went wrong. Look at the shear volume of them. The random pricing. The overpricing. The difficulting in assembling anything that felt complete. And even how disjointed the sets felt to each other. No kid is going to collect them all. At that point other than say a batmobile, why get any of them? To much choice leads to a negative decision loop where the consumer walks away. A sure thing purchase becomes "do I really need or want this?" And in the past two years Lego has grossly over saturated their offerings.

The number of upper tier adult targeted sets has quite frankly gotten untenable. Look at the Lego Ninjago movie sets. There are at least three sets in there that are so insanely outside the kid target market as to call into question the product managers judgement. They are gorgeous sets. Glorious sets. Some of the finest sets that we as AFOL's have ever seen. But they really weren't made for the kids now were they? That Destiny's Bounty? Yeah no. That Ninjago City? Heck no! And while the AFOL in me is squeezing with delight, the MBA in me is looking aghast and wondering what unhinged lunatic in product management and approval thought an $800 Millenium Falcon was a good idea?

This all gets back to another problem that we have seen looming for a few years. The adult "Speculators Bubble". Instead of taking steps to counter it, or simply ignore it and proceed as normal, Lego started to sell into it, thus increasing their product offerings to the current saturation levels and their pricing past tenable levels for the original intended purpose of their product. That bubble is now bursting. Big time. Just as it did with comic books, beanie babies and any other kid thing adults get fascinated by. (For those curious I am sensing a bubble starting to build over in high end die cast robot toys. The nerd collector is an ever fickle soul.)

Lego will have some hard decisions to make in the next year. Their product lines are over saturated. They have too many of them. And too many of those are locked in licensed properties that limit their flexibility and shelf space to go back to their traditional strengths.

At the end of the day Lego also has a bigger looming problem. The bulk of their sales do not go through Lego stores or shop.lego.com. They go through Big box stores. Has anybody looked at TRU's balance sheets lately? Notice that Walmart and especially Target have been trimming sales with regard to inventory on hand? Notice that the Lego aisles at these chains are looking more mangy and picked through lately? Re stocks aren't happening, or aren't happening as frequently. If the product isn't out there to buy, it won't get bought. And weaknesses in other areas get transferred through and spread to other vendors via the available cash flow for inventory of the mass merchants. If you watch the shippers in the stores Lego remains one of the most desired brands on the toy aisle'. But it still suffers when the stores high margin products are being steadily eroded by Amazon. Lego is the lucky one. Has anyone tried finding Mega brands on store shelves lately? The terms sparse, sporadic and short term come to mind for any of their offerings. They are still doing better than any of the other brick competitors that aren't Chinese bootleggers.

I agree with all of this.

bagalux · September 17, 2017

I had similar thoughts and decided to pull some data from Brickset. Originally posted this over at BP, but will post here as well as I believe it works well in the context of this discussion.

-----

----

bagalux · September 17, 2017

To clarify on the above graphs:

Only sets with at least 10 pieces are included
Sets from theme "Educational" were excluded
Sets from sub-theme "Product Collections" were excluded
Some sets were manually excluded (e.g. staff gifts, tour sets)

I think the main problem is, just like Faefrost mentions, flooding of the market. Too many sets are released on a yearly basis, both as a whole and within specific themes. It's becoming difficult (especially for kids) to decide what they want. Even more so, impossible to collect everything released within a theme of their interest. There are now seven $100 sets within a theme, rather than one or two. There's simply too much and I believe the long term reaction will be that people simply won't bother.

I believe some themes are kept for way too long (Star Wars, Minecraft) and some rather new themes (Nexo Knights, Ninjago, Batman) have received way too many sets already and the interest for these themes will soon die. Same with the DC and Marvel series.

I think LEGO needs to go back to its roots a bit more (while still staying modern) - more sets around classic themes such as pirates, castles, boats, airports, animals, cars etc as well as SHORT-term and FEW sets around more niche, limited themes like current TV shows, computer games, movies and so on. The jungle theme is interesting and in the right direction, imo.

Technic, Architecture and Ideas are great addition for an older crowd, imo!

Perhaps LEGO sales numbers say otherwise, but it's clear they're facing challenges considering the lay-offs.

Lyichir · September 17, 2017

2 minutes ago, bagalux said:

To clarify on the above graphs:

Only sets with at least 10 pieces are included

Sets from theme "Educational" were excluded

Sets from sub-theme "Product Collections" were excluded

Some sets were manually excluded (e.g. staff gifts, tour sets)

I think the main problem is, just like Faefrost mentions, flooding of the market. Too many sets are released on a yearly basis, both as a whole and within specific themes. It's becoming difficult (especially for kids) to decide what they want. Even more so, impossible to collect everything released within a theme of their interest. There are now seven $100 sets within a theme, rather than one or two. There's simply too much and I believe the long term reaction will be that people simply won't bother.

I believe some themes are kept for way too long (Star Wars, Minecraft) and some rather new themes (Nexo Knights, Ninjago, Batman) have received way too many sets already and the interest for these themes will soon die. Same with the DC and Marvel series.

I think LEGO needs to go back to its roots a bit more (while still staying modern) - more sets around classic themes such as pirates, castles, boats, airports, animals, cars etc as well as SHORT-term and FEW sets around more niche, limited themes like current TV shows, computer games, movies and so on. The jungle theme is interesting and in the right direction, imo.

Technic, Architecture and Ideas are great addition for an older crowd, imo!

Perhaps LEGO sales numbers say otherwise, but it's clear they're facing challenges considering the lay-offs.

We need some sort of drinking game for when people suggest ENDING Lego's most successful themes would make the company MORE profitable.

There's a reason themes like Star Wars and Ninjago get so many sets, and such large sets, and that's because they are some of Lego's most popular. So it's hard to tell where you're getting the idea that the interest for Ninjago "will soon die", or that a perennially successful theme like Star Wars has been kept for "way too long". From the perspective of a fan who dislikes those themes, maybe—but from a business perspective you couldn't be more off the mark. The thing about Lego is they don't keep themes around until they become unsuccessful—if interest in a theme looks like it's beyond the point of no return, they won't hesitate to put it on the chopping block (as a Bionicle fan, I'm more aware of that than ever). They also have much better data on the sales and interest in those themes than mere fans do. So when a theme not only continues for so many years but continues to expand, that's a pretty safe indication that interest in the theme is growing, not shrinking. That's not to say that they can't over- or underestimate a theme's potential. But the expansion of themes is a measured risk and one that can be quickly reversed if it proves to have been a bad call.

Aanchir · September 17, 2017

Don't those graphs indicate that the number of sets has been falling for the past two years? Isn't that sort of the opposite of the argument you're trying to make (that lately there have been too many sets)? After all, LEGO was certainly not struggling for sales in 2014 or 2015 — they were thriving, generating more demand during the holiday season than they could even manage to satisfy.

bagalux · September 17, 2017

I think it's more important to look at the long term trend line since 2007. Last year (2016) was pretty much the same as the year before. This year, we see slightly fewer sets, which indeed is a break in the trend - hope it continues in that direction. Only one year with such a small difference won't matter. The major part of the market won't react immedeately, it takes (will take) years to change, I think.

However, we can also see that we have a record high percentage for big sets, which I don't think is a good development.

Also worth noting that there may be sets from 2017 that haven't had their piece count added (I'm only counting sets with 10+ pieces) to Brickset yet, making them not be included in the set count.

Edited September 17, 2017 by bagalux

Aanchir · September 17, 2017

30 minutes ago, bagalux said:

I think it's more important to look at the long term trend line since 2007. Last year (2016) was pretty much the same as the year before. This year, we see slightly fewer sets, which indeed is a break in the trend - hope it continues in that direction. Only one year with such a small difference won't matter. The major part of the market won't react immedeately, it takes (will take) years to change, I think.

However, we can also see that we have a record high percentage for big sets, which I don't think is a good development.

Also worth noting that there may be sets from 2017 that haven't had their piece count added (I'm only counting sets with 10+ pieces) to Brickset yet, making them not be included in the set count.

That's the problem, though — for most of those years since 2007, LEGO has been thriving. Even today their sales are much stronger than they were three or four years ago. Why, then, is anyone assuming that something that's been going on for over ten years without issue is now a severe threat to LEGO? If anything, the long-term growth in the number of sets has been a response to continuous year-on-year sales growth. It's not just something that's been happening by accident.

I'd question whether bigger sets/higher piece counts are actually a bad thing. That seems to rest on the assumption that price and piece count are rising at a similar rate. But as a counter-example, the average price-per-piece of recent Ninjago sets is much, MUCH lower than it was in 2011 or 2012. $80 in 2012 would buy you the 680-piece Destiny's Bounty or 622-piece Ultra Sonic Raider, while $80 this year would buy you the 1137-piece Dragon's Forge or 914-piece Ice Tank. Piece counts in 2011 and 2012 were also brought down by the large number of Ninjago spinner sets, which offered less than 25 pieces for $10. By comparison, Nexo Knights impulse sets like the Ultimate Knights and Battle Suits offer around three times as many pieces for the same price.

Also, just as sets that don't have piece counts on Brickset might mean the number of sets this year is greater than it seems in the graph, it could also mean that the average piece counts and percentage of 999+ piece sets are less than they appear. You can't just assume that the missing data from your graph will reinforce your argument.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Aanchir

Lyichir · September 17, 2017

30 minutes ago, bagalux said:

I think it's more important to look at the long term trend line since 2007. Last year (2016) was pretty much the same as the year before. This year, we see slightly fewer sets, which indeed is a break in the trend - hope it continues in that direction. Only one year with such a small difference won't matter. The major part of the market won't react immedeately, it takes (will take) years to change, I think.

However, we can also see that we have a record high percentage for big sets, which I don't think is a good development.

Also worth noting that there may be sets from 2017 that haven't had their piece count added (I'm only counting sets with 10+ pieces) to Brickset yet, making them not be included in the set count.

I don't see why the average number of pieces or the number of larger sets going up is that much of a bad thing anyway. After all, if the number of sets per year is on the rise, as you state, that means it's not necessarily a case of fewer small sets so much as the addition of larger sets to the overall product range. On top of that, your graphs start at the turn of the millennium—an era where Lego's business was struggling and set design was trending toward sets that relied on fewer, bigger, and more specialized parts (a trend that was so despised that to this day the main term for it is filtered to "<insert that tiresome argument>"). In that context, the tendency for today's sets to include larger part counts on average (even for sets at lower price points) probably ought to be considered a good thing, shouldn't it?

Edited September 17, 2017 by Lyichir

bagalux · September 17, 2017

"I don't see why the average number of pieces or the number of larger sets going up is that much of a bad thing anyway."

Not necessarily the increase in average number of pieces per se, but I believe releasing more of the really big sets (i.e. 1000 pieces and up) will quickly saturate the market.

"[...] that means it's not necessarily a case of fewer small sets so much as the addition of larger sets to the overall product range"

It's more sets across the whole size range. The general increase in number of sets released doesn't match the increase in number of big sets released.

koalayummies · September 17, 2017

16 hours ago, Faefrost said:

But they really weren't made for the kids now were they? That Destiny's Bounty? Yeah no. That Ninjago City? Heck no!

One anecdote, when the Ninjago Movie minifigures came out I was at the Lego store and a group of moms and their kids were all feeling the figures out. While we were talking and exchanging the figures we were each looking for one of the kids asked me what I thought of the Ninjago City, he was so incredibly excited about that set and said it was the coolest set he's ever seen. I don't know how old he was but if I had to guess he was maybe half the age recommended on the box.

In other words, some kids build way above their age and Lego set recommended ages. I have no doubt he'd put it together perfectly.

Is LEGO entering a Dark Age - or am I?

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements