LEGO vs. Held der Steine

[Lyichir]

3 minutes ago, danth said:

I love this. 

If I ran LEGO, I would probably run it into the ground, but we'd get some awesome Neo Classic Space and Castle themes for a few glorious years.

Hey, speaking of this, why does Lego have a "Classics" line that has nothing to do with their classic themes? 

The current "classic" theme is their theme for pure creative brick building—the sorts of sets that used to be classified as Basic, Free Style, or Bricks and More, among other categories. In other words, the "classic" Lego experience, prior to the introduction of discrete "themes" and brick sets designed to build one particular model.

If I had to guess why they picked that name, I'd guess it was to make them more obvious for the whiny parents who always complain about today's sets only being designed to build "one thing" despite the existence of instruction-based kits for decades and the presence of unstructured brick sets for the entirety of Lego's existence.

[MAB]

13 minutes ago, danth said:

I love this. 

If I ran LEGO, I would probably run it into the ground, but we'd get some awesome Neo Classic Space and Castle themes for a few glorious years.

 

And a whole load of LBG and DBG brick service packs.

14 minutes ago, danth said:

Hey, speaking of this, why does Lego have a "Classics" line that has nothing to do with their classic themes? 

 

Do LEGO use the terms Classic Space, Classic Castle, etc . Aren't they fan derived terms rather than company ones.

[Aanchir]

To put it another way: the most agreed-upon definition of "classic themes" among AFOLs is those introduced from around 1979 to 1989. Sets based on open-ended building using primarily basic bricks date back as much as 30 years earlier. As such, these types of sets are more classic by definition, and any definition of "classic themes" that excludes them is a misnomer.

That said, it's inaccurate to say the LEGO Classic sets have nothing to do with themes like Town/Space/Castle/Pirates. Several of the suggested builds are inspired by those themes, particularly those in the "Building Bigger Thinking" subtheme that was intended to tie in with the 60th anniversary of the LEGO Brick (specifically, the stud-and-tube patent).

[MAB]

25 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

That said, it's inaccurate to say the LEGO Classic sets have nothing to do with themes like Town/Space/Castle/Pirates. Several of the suggested builds are inspired by those themes, particularly those in the "Building Bigger Thinking" subtheme that was intended to tie in with the 60th anniversary of the LEGO Brick (specifically, the stud-and-tube patent).

 

Yes, good point about the link there. Personally, I would have preferred them to have branded these as BASIC sets, like in the 70s and 80s. Although I guess these Classic boxes have slightly more specialised parts than the Basic boxes (like 5529) of even about 8-10 years ago that were just traditional bricks, so they have made a distinction there.

[Aanchir]

1 minute ago, MAB said:

Yes, good point about the link there. Personally, I would have preferred them to have branded these as BASIC sets, like in the 70s and 80s. Although I guess these Classic boxes have slightly more specialised parts than the Basic boxes (like 5529) of even about 8-10 years ago that were just traditional bricks, so they have made a distinction there.

Also worth keeping in mind that the word "Basic" has a lot of negative associations. In modern slang, a person who's "basic" is uninteresting or uncool. But even in terms of its more conventional meanings, "basic" isn't all that great a selling point when other LEGO sets and toys from other manufacturers are all trying to emphasize how unique, advanced, or otherwise remarkable they are. And within the context of LEGO, "basic" also tends to be associated with sets for beginners rather than sets that more sophisticated or experienced builders will enjoy. While most LEGO Classic sets are designed for kids as young as 4, compared to a typical 4+/Juniors set which is purposely designed as a stepping stone to other themes, there tends to be a much more concerted effort to frame LEGO Classic as an "all ages" experience that you don't really "grow out of". Calling them "LEGO Basic" risks undermining that.

"Classic", on the other hand, is a very strong selling point. Whether you're talking classic cars, classic movies, or classic toys, the word "classic" implies a sense of timelessness, it suggests a long and rich heritage, and it suggests something definitive of the category it belongs to. If you refer to an older LEGO set as "basic", it can normally be assumed you're acknowledging its faults, but when you refer to it as "classic", if anything you're vindicating its faults. An adult who scoffs at modern sets and themes for being too simple or childish usually won't be questioned for enjoying sets and themes from three or four decades ago that were even simpler and aimed at even younger kids, because those sets are classic.

It's perhaps for this reason that the word "classic" can mean so many different things to so many different people. It often amuses me to hear people describe stuff like the 2006 Toa Inika sets and TV commercials from Bionicle as "classics" when for their time, even within the Bionicle community, they were perceived as a fairly radical departure from the theme's roots. I doubt a person who grew up with Classic Space or Classic Castle sets would ever describe ANY Bionicle product as "classic". But nowadays, I even see people waxing nostalgic for the "classic Ninjago" sets and TV episodes of 2011 and 2012, which to most of us AFOLs probably seem extremely recent in the grand scheme of things. It's all relative.

[kabel]

I think the main problem is that we AFOLs associate happy (if not the happiest) days of childhood with building Lego. I, at least, certainly do very much so. So building with Lego as an adult is a highly nostalgic endeavour to begin with as it means spending hours in a kind of "flow" situation in which the harsh realities of adulthood seem very far away. This also means that those of us growing up with Lego in the 80s and 90s have a completely conception of what you can and should do with Lego and what it should look like. Thomas really caters to this feeling when he produces his  hour long HDS videos in which he builds and talks about everything and nothing. I guess he sort of promotes a certain nostalgic feeling/atmosphere there. So the sudden realization that Lego is (and has always been) nothing but yet another capitalistic business enterprise driven by the interests of the share holders comes as a kind of shock. It kinda destroys the feelings we associate with plastic bricks and minifigures. It's almost like this moment when your parents interupted your playing with Lego as kid telling you that you still have to do the homework for tomorrow's day in school. I always almost hated my parents when did that to me as a kid. Maybe this explains this extreme reaction of Thomas's fans. For me it certailny seems very silly now, as I've become a 100% mocer over the last ten years anyways. Why should I care which sets Lego sells as long as I can buy used bricks on bricklink or on conventions. They even come cheaper that way! So I feel kind of embarressed to have started this thread the way I did.

[x105Black]

23 hours ago, MAB said:

Sure, there is a market for a lot of things that are never produced. And as consumers, we think the company is missing out on sales to people like us that want such and such, without really considering how this affects their current line-up, strategy, etc. One example is adult related items, that is items that would be 18+ not for build techniques but due to content. Some people think LEGO is missing out the adult market by not doing Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, etc, without really considering the impact that this would have on the image of the company.

I think some people underestimate the size of such a market, while overestimating the impact that such a change would generate.  Sets designed for an older market could still be very successful without being damaging to the brand.  It's all in how it is done.  For example, they don't have to do the sex and gratuitous blood of Game of Thrones in the sets, just the characters and locations.

Still, I acknowledge that I don't have all the information that LEGO has, and I probably have a different sense of the world than those who make their decisions.  There is a clear disconnect, so I will likely continue to openly wonder why they do / don't do things, while they will continue to operate along their status quo.

[MAB]

12 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Also worth keeping in mind that the word "Basic" has a lot of negative associations.

 

Yes, very true. Plus in the late 70s / early 80s when computers were becoming common in homes, it was reasonably popular to learn to program in Basic, "Basic" was quite cool. Then Pascal and C started to take over.

Just now, x105Black said:

I think some people underestimate the size of such a market, while overestimating the impact that such a change would generate.  Sets designed for an older market could still be very successful without being damaging to the brand.  It's all in how it is done.  For example, they don't have to do the sex and gratuitous blood of Game of Thrones in the sets, just the characters and locations.

1

Even then, there is damage to the brand if a parent sees the branding without looking at content. Some people have never seen GoT but from media "know" it is softcore porn, just boobs and swords. When they see LEGO is making sets based on it, they get a negative image of the LEGO brand.

[anothergol]

7 hours ago, MAB said:

Then Pascal and C started to take over.

That's when I picked Pascal... sadly :(

 

[x105Black]

On 1/25/2019 at 4:33 AM, MAB said:

Yes, very true. Plus in the late 70s / early 80s when computers were becoming common in homes, it was reasonably popular to learn to program in Basic, "Basic" was quite cool. Then Pascal and C started to take over.

Even then, there is damage to the brand if a parent sees the branding without looking at content. Some people have never seen GoT but from media "know" it is softcore porn, just boobs and swords. When they see LEGO is making sets based on it, they get a negative image of the LEGO brand.

I don't know how big of a negative impact that would have, if any, when taking into consideration the positive impact that GoT sets would generate.  Also, again, it's all in how they roll it out.  Maybe it's online only or sold in different storefronts.  Who knows, there are a number of ways that it could be done that could actually work.

[Flieger]

 

News from the Nuremberg Toy Fair: the CEO of Lego Germany held a press conference and his first point was addressing the issue of Held der Steine. That is not overly surprising since it even got substantial news coverage, and was noticed beyond the Lego world. Quite a stormy teacup...

Anyway, the CEO apologized for handling the issue poorly and admitted the mode of communication was wrong. Lego has reached out to Thomas Panke and they will talk.

There is also a short English segment at the end. I was surprised and not-surprised at the same time: the head of marketing in Germany is apparently incapable of speaking German. Yes, I know, TLG is an international corporation, but there is no shortage of people who speak English and German. Fact is she does not know what is going on in this country unless somebody translates it for her (aka second hand information). And that explains a lot. After all, it was a communication problem in the first place.

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Flieger

[koalayummies]

1 hour ago, Flieger said:

That is not overly surprising since it even got substantial news coverage, and was noticed beyond the Lego world.

Did that news coverage include what was revealed here on the second page of this thread? That it was the filing for a trademark bearing a certain image in order to sell merchandise containing that image that TLG objected to and not opinions and criticism of the company or product?

Because even though it was mentioned a few times on the second page it is continuously skipped over and the prevailing story is still that this youtuber is a poor hat in hand victim of a big strong powerful company trying to censor their freedom of speech and not someone who merely received a fairly standard cease and desist type of communication after filing for a trademark that the company objected to.

[MAB]

Journalists don't let details get in the way of a good story.

[Lyichir]

3 hours ago, koalayummies said:

Did that news coverage include what was revealed here on the second page of this thread? That it was the filing for a trademark bearing a certain image in order to sell merchandise containing that image that TLG objected to and not opinions and criticism of the company or product?

Because even though it was mentioned a few times on the second page it is continuously skipped over and the prevailing story is still that this youtuber is a poor hat in hand victim of a big strong powerful company trying to censor their freedom of speech and not someone who merely received a fairly standard cease and desist type of communication after filing for a trademark that the company objected to.

This. Not that I couldn't normally sympathize with even that... except for the fact that, instead of temporarily obliging the cease and desist notice and trying to appeal to the company to reconsider, he had a public tantrum where he made a big show of renouncing the brand and turned an incredibly minor legal dispute, which could have been resolved easily via better communication, into an overblown media firestorm.

But I guess when your audience is big enough that kind of self-important, juvenile behavior ends up paying off. So good on him, I suppose.

[Flieger]

4 hours ago, koalayummies said:

Did that news coverage include what was revealed here on the second page of this thread? That it was the filing for a trademark bearing a certain image in order to sell merchandise containing that image that TLG objected to and not opinions and criticism of the company or product?

Because even though it was mentioned a few times on the second page it is continuously skipped over and the prevailing story is still that this youtuber is a poor hat in hand victim of a big strong powerful company trying to censor their freedom of speech and not someone who merely received a fairly standard cease and desist type of communication after filing for a trademark that the company objected to.

Yes, it was mentioned. In fact, it was mentioned a lot, including in an interview with the state TV (HR). And, as I said on p2 (which was apparently skipped over, too...), the legal claim in question is at best dubious. That is what sparked speculations about ulterior motives in the first place. The media coverage was surprisingly balanced. SPON, the most important German online news platform, even revised an article after they were informed about the trademark filing.

 

25 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

This. Not that I couldn't normally sympathize with even that... except for the fact that, instead of temporarily obliging the cease and desist notice and trying to appeal to the company to reconsider, he had a public tantrum where he made a big show of renouncing the brand and turned an incredibly minor legal dispute, which could have been resolved easily via better communication, into an overblown media firestorm.

No, he did not renouce the brand. And yes, better communication would have been useful. Better communication from Lego's part. Their CEO and head of marketing admitted as much. And actually, most marketing experts agree (just like most lawyers agree the claim is feeble). That how my friends who don't care about Lego heart of this. They are marketing guys, and Lego's poor decision making in this process is obvious to anyone who looks into the matter.

Of course he could have handled it differently, too. But claiming it was all about his ego is just as onesided as the narrative of the poor shopowner who is harrased by an international corporation. Things are a lot more complex than that. Btw., it is rather curious that your wording went from "tempest in a teapot" to "overblown media firestorm". Again, it is neither one or the other.

[Vindicare]

1 hour ago, Flieger said:

Yes, it was mentioned. In fact, it was mentioned a lot, including in an interview with the state TV (HR). And, as I said on p2 (which was apparently skipped over, too...), the legal claim in question is at best dubious. That is what sparked speculations about ulterior motives in the first place. The media coverage was surprisingly balanced. SPON, the most important German online news platform, even revised an article after they were informed about the trademark filing.

 

No, he did not renouce the brand. And yes, better communication would have been useful. Better communication from Lego's part. Their CEO and head of marketing admitted as much. And actually, most marketing experts agree (just like most lawyers agree the claim is feeble). That how my friends who don't care about Lego heart of this. They are marketing guys, and Lego's poor decision making in this process is obvious to anyone who looks into the matter.

Of course he could have handled it differently, too. But claiming it was all about his ego is just as onesided as the narrative of the poor shopowner who is harrased by an international corporation. Things are a lot more complex than that. Btw., it is rather curious that your wording went from "tempest in a teapot" to "overblown media firestorm". Again, it is neither one or the other.

Didn’t he though? It was said in this thread early on that he’s going to now review competing brands, where he was exclusively LEGO before. That sounds like renouncing to me, at least in part. 

If it wasn’t ego, what was it? Being on the way outside looking in, I’m not educated on this...but how did this story about a cease & desist letter become public knowledge? I’m guessing he made a video about it? 

[Flieger]

5 hours ago, Vindicare said:

Didn’t he though? It was said in this thread early on that he’s going to now review competing brands, where he was exclusively LEGO before. That sounds like renouncing to me, at least in part.  

If anything he renounced being a retailer exclusively selling Lego. But he is not renouncing Lego in that he does not sell Lego anymore or does not want any Lego in his life, and that is what I would call renouncing the brand. He repeatedly stated to like the brand (as opposed to the company).

 

5 hours ago, Vindicare said:

If it wasn’t ego, what was it? Being on the way outside looking in, I’m not educated on this...but how did this story about a cease & desist letter become public knowledge? I’m guessing he made a video about it? 

Depending on your definition of public I'd argue state TV and national newspaper had more to do with it than his YT-channel. What he did on his channel was announcing a restructuring of his business model, which he had to explain of course. Again, he could have done it 'quitely' but the only benefactor would have been Lego. And as a business owner, he benefits a lot from the attention. Once more we return to the key question of how to handle marketing. Maybe his ego had a role in that but I think his valid business interest is more important here.

 

What irritates me is the judgemental attitude here, especially from those who have no clue what is actually going on in Germany. That is why the narratives in this thread shift so damn often, leading to a lot of - frankly - nonsense like ' he's reviewing knockoff sets alongside actual Lego sets while using a Lego-like logo'. This gross misjudgement of the situation however mirrors Lego's fundamentally flawed actions and initial reactions. When you have a head of marketing who does not understand the German language (and thus, more likely than not, German culture as a whole) it is quite easy to see how they underestimated the impact of their actions.

Pretty much every kid here has played with Lego because there was no alternative, and because they learned it from their parents for generations. However nowadays Lego's standing is not based on quality or lack of alternatives anymore; it is based on childhood memories of parents and AFOLs entirely.

Now Thomas Panke appeals to AFOLs who have either kids or a lot of money to spend on Lego. Either way, Lego benefits disproportionally from his videos, because he (re)activates childhood memories of the AFOLs.  In other countries, there may be others reasons to buy Lego, but here it is just because it is part of our upbringing and culture. And he was essentially carrying that torch.

Even if Lego had been right in their legal claim, which is debatable, their choice of communication was insanely stupid. It is attacking the very foundation of what makes Lego successful in Germany, i.e. nostalgia. No better way to kill it than with high-paid lawyers sitting in Mainhattan (sic). That is why it sent such shockwaves through the German Lego community, and beyond. That is why marketing guys in Germany, even if they are not AFOLs, shake their head in disbelieve. That is why this thread exists, because the German community is outraged this happened and wants to share.

 

I mean, I will give credit to you if you have such a brand loyalty that you are willing to side with Lego even if they behave stupidly. But you also have to understand this letter of Lego lawyer army hit German AFOLs right in the heart, and not just them. Once they feel Lego no longer deserves its nostalgia-based monopoly in this country, the company faces serious trouble. Lego, however, understands so they are apologizing and seeking contact with him.

 

 

[Vindicare]

@Flieger In all honesty, I’m not sure LEGO is behaving stupidly. They might be by going after him, because, as it seems from the Germans who have chimed in here, he is quite the marketing man for the company. We don’t have the full story though, from either side or at all officially from TLG. IP protection is something we all know TLG takes seriously. It’s understandable that you are on Panke’s side...almost like brand loyalty if you will.  

Appreciate the clearing up on my renouncing question. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Vindicare

[koalayummies]

7 hours ago, Flieger said:

And, as I said on p2 (which was apparently skipped over, too...),

Doh, my bad. Super embarrassed.