LEGO Collectable Minifigures General Discussion

[prof1515]

Then perhaps their parents should, you know, parent. If a child can't understand what is written on the package they shouldn't be in a position to buy it.

My brother is quite good about not giving into fads with his children but a lot of parents are not. That's why year after year you hear about store altercations and shortages of supply for popular toys. We're a consumer nation (and a consumer world) filled with bad parents because their parents did a poor job too and gave in too much. I'll sit and read the holiday posts by people I know on Facebook and ask myself when they became mindless consumer drones. Inevitably the answer is when they became parents and faced the desire to please their children.

Clearly, their master plan is to make you buy crap figures. They clearly have some huge benefit from that course of action.

Their goal is to get people to buy as many as possible in an attempt to get the ones that they want.

Or it could be that market research says all of those will be popular.

If that were the case, some figures wouldn't be rarer than others.

I mean, this is the same market reasearch that says LEGO City should appear to be a police state made up entirely of construction vehicles, fire departments, airports, and police so who knows. There is no good reason for them to make figures they know won't be popular. That is just plain stupid. Some may be less popular than others, but then again I defy anyone to make a set of 16 equally liked figures that have teh same level of appeal to everyone. It can't be done, so when something like this happens it really isn't the folks on top trying to get you to buy figures they know are crap.

Then why not make the packaging clear or label them? This would lead to selective purchases of desired figures and an inevitable lack of sales for undesired ones.

And I believe just like with Star Wars most people don't enjoy being called a fanboy because 99% of the time it's meant as an insult. You're continued comments illustrate that was your intended use as well. Likewise, people don't enjoy being called naive. The one saying that typically comes off as an elitist or know it all.

I used the term fanboi in the context of what it typically means, namely a person who has an exagerrated appreciation for something without a reasonable potential for criticism of it.

People may or may not like being called fanboi or naive but if the shoe fits.....

As for coming off as "an elitist", I consider that a compliment. If someone feels insecure enough to think I'm better than them, who am I to argue. Elitism isn't a negative, it's a positive. It's only viewed as a negative by those who feel themselves to be the opposite, ie. inferior.

As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission."

I believe I, and others, have illustrated that we completely understand the system LEGO is about to employ here so naive isn't even an accurate term. We understand and accept it.

Some have and some haven't.

This sounds like something that will be part of an endcap. What you are wanting would require shelf space.

Clear or labeled packaging takes exactly 0.00000000% more shelf space. The clear plastic isn't any thicker nor would the additional pigment of the printing add significantly to the volume of the bag.

Then the popular ones would sell and the others would sit there (and again, some will be more popular than others and there is nothing that can be done about that).

Bingo, we have a winner. So in other words, by not letting people see what they're buying, they end up buying that which would otherwise "sit there".

With action figures, this leads to a store not ordering anymore because they have excess inventory just sitting around and they have no desire to buy more stuff that in their mind won't sell. It happens all the time with action figures that feature the exact same distribution system you want. This leads to certain regions never even seeing whole waves of figures, which usually leads to later sets having figures that go for absurd amounts on the secondary market. Stores have a tendency to order the hell out of the first set, and then it sits there after the fans have bought all they want and you are lucky if you even see the next wave. Despite the fact this happens again and again and again, the stores keep doing it. There is absolutely nothing saying this isn't exactly what will happen with these too if they are sold how you want them to be sold.

All of this is irrelevant. I didn't say they had to package them in blister packs or ship them separately. I simply said that the consumer should be able to know what is in the package they're buying. Clear packaging doesn't require any more effort in distribution or more shelf space. They could still ship the exact same way, in boxes of sixty randomly packaged figures. The only difference would be that the consumer would know what they were buying. If Lego did their marketing research, they shouldn't fear that sales of some would be lower than expectation.

Again I have to comment. They stand to gain absolutely nothing by selling items they know to be crap. That does not help them in any way, shape, or form.

They stand nothing to lose by selling products that the consumer can see if they know that those products will sell. They only stand to lose if the consumer rejected what they were offering.

I'll say this again because it apparently is worth repeating. I grew up in the 80s. I didn't get everything I wanted and what I wanted was sold in individual packages that were available for an entire year and cost roughly $4 (GIJoe figures for anyone curious). The same also applied to LEGO. I was grateful for what I had, for the most part. In fact, I still have a lot of it because I took care of what I had and respected it. If I asked for something and it couldn't be found, then it couldn't be found. My parents didn't go to the ends of the earth sparing no expense to aquire it, and no parent should do that. You can't always get what you want. That is a very important lesson for kids to learn. Here's a way to teach them that since we are apparently quite concerned about the children.

I grew up in the 80s as well. I didn't get everything I want either. I didn't have every Star Wars figure and very few of the vehicles or playsets. All of my old Star Wars figures are in a box over in my parents' basement somewhere, complete with their accessories and in fairly good condition. But this isn't the 80s and parents and children aren't the same as our generation. The "Tickle-Me Elmo generation" of the parents in the 90s, as I once heard it called, is about children demanding and parents going to extremes to obtain it. The blame probably lies in the "Me Generation" attitude (or like that line in Wall Street, "Greed is good.") of the 80s but whatever the cause it's there. The present recession had an effect on this finally but there are still indicators that consumer mindsets have not changed dramatically for the long-term.

[Sir Dano]

Nothing like grown men arguing over a children's toy, eh?

If we can get back to the topic...

The printing on the zombie looks very good, as does the head on the diver.

I'm really looking forward to the Cheerleader and the Forestman. :3

[prof1515]

(edited for relevant commentary)

Now that you've made your arguments, let's examine the legitimate and intelligent aspects of your post.

Done.

I would be laughing over the history comment if it didn't seem like you actually believed that.

Edited February 11, 2010 by prof1515

[Tyrant]

My brother is quite good about not giving into fads with his children but a lot of parents are not. That's why year after year you hear about store altercations and shortages of supply for popular toys. We're a consumer nation (and a consumer world) filled with bad parents because their parents did a poor job too and gave in too much. I'll sit and read the holiday posts by people I know on Facebook and ask myself when they became mindless consumer drones. Inevitably the answer is when they became parents and faced the desire to please their children.

You completely ignored my quite relevant example. Do you allow kids to buy other things, such as R rated movies and M rated video games, that they don't fully comprehend what they are buying? Why should this be any different? As for the bad parents, how is that your or my problem again? Bad parents will do stupid things no matter what anyone else does. You can't idiot proof the world and you only bring down the rest of civilization when you take it to stupid extremes.

As for pleasing children, the world seemed to get by just fine since roughly the dawn of human civilization to a few decades ago without absolutely spoiling children. I think it can get by just fine now without giving in to their every desire and we will in fact be far better off in the long run if people would teach their kids that they can't always get what they want.

Their goal is to get people to buy as many as possible in an attempt to get the ones that they want.

As opposed to their normal goal of getting you to buy a lot of their products? Their goal has never changed, only the means. And again, the normal sets are still there.

If that were the case, some figures wouldn't be rarer than others.

I know I've commented on this before. It could (possibly) have to do with differences in production costs. The Mexican figure is a prime example. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that sombrero costs more than just about any other hat. And he has the poncho and his maracas. Overall, he costs more to make than say, the vampire. Now, that cost difference is likely not huge, but once you figure in how many are going to be made, it raises the overall production cost of the line to make an equal number of those.

Now, I know you're going to say something about how none of that matters despite the fact it most certainly does matter. So, try this line of reasoning. The focus groups determined which ones will be more rare. They are going with the ones that were less popular as the rare figures making the common figures the ones that were popular in teh focus groups. The focus groups are kids. Do kids want zombies and cheerleaders or do they want cowboys and ninjas? It's a toy for kids right?

For whatever it is worth, Hasbro (makers of star wars and GIJoe among many others) has determined through focus groups that names characters are more popular with kids so lines like GIJoe feature remake after remake of Duke, Snake Eyes, and Cobra Commander. Guess which three figures sit around collecting dust? Do you know why? Because despite evidence to the contrary Wal Mart refuses to accept that the GIJoe line (and likely the Star Wars line) are in large part driven by adult collectors. Hasbro gets this, but Hasbro isn't the only one who has a say in what sits on the shelves at Wal Mart. I can't imagine the relationship with TLG being a whole lot different.

Then why not make the packaging clear or label them? This would lead to selective purchases of desired figures and an inevitable lack of sales for undesired ones.

Because the goal is to sell them all. The goal is not to use Wal Mart as their own personal field trial and Wal Mart is smart enough to know when that is happening. As with the action figures, Wal Mart has input into what gets made to be sold on it's shelves. The company that made the Lord of the Rings figures planned on producing a huge Balrog figure. Guess which major retailer had no interest in a giant fiery demon sitting on their shelves and their disinterest helped kill the idea completely? Again, these decisions aren't made in a void and aren't completely in TLG's hands. It could very well be that major retailers were unwilling to carry the line. It's not an absolute and I freely admit that this could all just be the evil cash grab you keep trying to get us all to believe it is. Or maybe it isn't. That's been my point. You are dead set in your way of thinking and assume everyone else is wrong, naive, and a total fanboy. That is not a reasonable position to take, especially given how easily you blow off the results of decades of attempted action figure sales like it's all bs.

People may or may not like being called fanboi or naive but if the shoe fits.....

As for coming off as "an elitist", I consider that a compliment. If someone feels insecure enough to think I'm better than them, who am I to argue. Elitism isn't a negative, it's a positive. It's only viewed as a negative by those who feel themselves to be the opposite, ie. inferior.

I'm glad to see civility is alive and well. As for the compliment, it isn't. I neither meant it as one nor do my feeling fit your idea of what you apparently believe them to be. I can quite easily and truthfully state that I in no way consider you my superior. I really don't know what to say about the idea of elitist being a compliment other than the fact that clearly humility isn't a factor in that way of thinking.

As for the rest, I don't care anymore. If you want to insult the others on here, go ahead. I'll let you drag someone else down with you.

And to clarify for any interested parties, I would prefer to have them in visible packages. However, I understand that that isn't always an option for various reasons and I accept that that may be the case here. If the options were get the figures but they are random, or not get them at all, I will choose random every time. I know from the miniatures I buy that random allows for things non random does not such as variety.

[Lordofdragonss]

Nori the man who gets this says that Indeed minifig is made in china, and some pieces are the same quality as in battlepack last year...

But who cares? And the accesories are made of normal plastic.

New mold:

[Rick]

Nori the man who gets this says that Indeed minifig is made in china, and some pieces are the same quality as in battlepack last year...

But who cares?

I don't know yet, because I don't own any of those. But some people seem to care. Although the pics on the polish forum don't look too bad.

And the accesories are made of normal plastic.

New mold:

Too bad, I liked the old mold with the thicker edge on the shovel and the rounded top.

[Peppermint_M]

Wow, major argument ON!

Ah well, I have to say I didn't see a thing wrong with my Mace Windu magnet set figure and in fact only noticed the "glaring" plastic issue when I took off his head and noticed no black mark. Upon very close inspection I noticed a minimal difference between it and a regular Lego torso. Then I got my clone brand figures out and thought "These Lego ones are still better quality" the day that Lego matches it's clones is the day I go for the cheaper option.

That's a point prof(random stream of numbers), if Lego is too expensive, well I have a list of reviews of non-Lego much cheaper sets, see if there is anything you like? If not we can make you a protest sign and I am sure is everyone chips in a few cents we can ship you to Billund.

Seriously guys, these are a kids toy, kids love collectables and these figures have further use beyond just owning (like my FF figures, SD Tachikoma and other varied collectable figures I have accumalated) as they do intergrate with Lego. Parents who do not want their children to have them will say no. Parents who don't mind it will let them have them. Parents who can't afford it will go the same route as mine did when I was a sprog, buy what they can when they can as a treat.

And remember kids! Any amount of ranting on the internet isn't going to change the world!

(PS, I never did have any of those trading crazes as a kid, Mother and Father knew they were a waste of money and when they controlled the purse strings I had none. Any I own were triples from my friends)

I say before and I say again: If you don't like them, don't get them but at least hide your contempt for those who do, it's more polite in the long run.

[Fugazi]

I for one think that quality issues are far more damageable to TLC reputation than using collectible figures as a marketing gimmick. I don't mind the latter, but if the collectible minifigs really turn out to be as bad as previous Chinese products, I will write a letter to Lego expressing my disappointment with a good idea poorly implemented. Then I will buy a new train set or Grand Emporium instead of spending tens and hundreds of pounds for a minifig collection that I won't be proud of in the end.

[Ras 74]

Some people need to calm down in here ASAP!

Stay on target, and stop arguing now.

[Peppermint_M]

Nori the man who gets this says that Indeed minifig is made in china, and some pieces are the same quality as in battlepack last year...

But who cares? And the accesories are made of normal plastic.

New mold:

I'll have to check that against some non-Lego. Not being negative but the black one looks a little pitted. Not the shiny standard Lego usualy has, not that it will stop me, just slightly disappoint. Then again it might be the harsh light of the camera.

[David Thomsen]

Wow... I hardly ever have to use the Ignore User function on this forum, then I have to use it a bunch of times in one go.

I'd hate for this thread to be locked, it's where I look for new information on the minifigs.

[prof1515]

You completely ignored my quite relevant example. Do you allow kids to buy other things, such as R rated movies and M rated video games, that they don't fully comprehend what they are buying?

It's not a relevant example. R-rated films are not made for children (and quite often even films not made for children are edited in an attempt to open them to a wider market). Lego are toys which are made for children but which happen to be appreciated by adults as well. It's not about the children buying, it's about the appeal of different things that they can't get simply by buying it directly.

If a consumer, be they a child or an adult, wants A they should be able to buy A. They shouldn't have to possibly end up buying B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P before they get what they or their child wanted in the first place. It's a cheap trick that is disrespectful of the consumer.

But let's use your R-rated movie example. If you go to a store and buy a DVD, you know what film is inside. They don't sell unlabeled movies. If you want to buy a particular movie, you won't have to buy 10 DVDs in the hopes of getting the one you wanted. It's the same when you buy a video game or a pair of shoes.

Why should this be any different? As for the bad parents, how is that your or my problem again? Bad parents will do stupid things no matter what anyone else does. You can't idiot proof the world and you only bring down the rest of civilization when you take it to stupid extremes.

Go back and read what I originally wrote. I said this is an example of Lego not respecting their customers and just looking for a way to make money selling stuff that they might otherwise not be able to sell. As 75% of their customer base are children, that's a pretty dishonorable way to make a buck.

As opposed to their normal goal of getting you to buy a lot of their products?

Lego has increasingly been resorting to cheap tricks to increase sales but this is a new low. At least before when you bought Lego you knew what you were paying for.

I know I've commented on this before. It could (possibly) have to do with differences in production costs. The Mexican figure is a prime example. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that sombrero costs more than just about any other hat. And he has the poncho and his maracas. Overall, he costs more to make than say, the vampire. Now, that cost difference is likely not huge, but once you figure in how many are going to be made, it raises the overall production cost of the line to make an equal number of those.

As you said, it's not a significant cost difference. Lego isn't producing bricks for $0.09 and selling them for $0.10; no business does that. Markup is at least a couple times that of production. With a large line of anything, one product makes up for the difference in another. That's why you can have two sets with different numbers of parts and different parts still cost the same. It's not reflective of the proportional difference in cost being identical, it's a rounded-off markup. A slightly lower profit from one is compensated elsewhere by a slightly higher markup in another.

The focus groups determined which ones will be more rare. They are going with the ones that were less popular as the rare figures making the common figures the ones that were popular in teh focus groups. The focus groups are kids. Do kids want zombies and cheerleaders or do they want cowboys and ninjas? It's a toy for kids right?

First of all, you don't know that they are going with "less popular" being more rare. It's speculation on your part. In fact, to maximize profits it actually makes sense to make the more desired ones more rare in order to increase sales. Additionally, gender makes a huge difference in terms of desireability. My nieces, for example, wouldn't give a rat's big behind about cowboys or ninjas. They'd want the cheerleader.

But the point is that why should a child who wants the cowboy get stuck with three of the zombie in order to get one cowboy? Why should the child that wants the ninja have to get four cheerleaders? Or for that matter, why should the child that does want the cheerleader have to end up with six zombies and five ninjas?

For whatever it is worth, Hasbro (makers of star wars and GIJoe among many others) has determined through focus groups that names characters are more popular with kids so lines like GIJoe feature remake after remake of Duke, Snake Eyes, and Cobra Commander. Guess which three figures sit around collecting dust?

The package still clearly states that it's Duke, Snake Eyes or Cobra Commander that's for sale. You're not buying blind. To compare it with Lego's decision, you'll end up with three Dukes to get whatever figure you really wanted.

You are dead set in your way of thinking and assume everyone else is wrong, naive, and a total fanboy. That is not a reasonable position to take, especially given how easily you blow off the results of decades of attempted action figure sales like it's all bs.

Again, you're comparing two totally different sale strategies. My point of contention with Lego's decision is based on the blind packaging.

I don't assume everyone else is wrong. But I do recognize naive and mindless consumerism when I see them and American society is filled with consumer sheep. It sold SUVs, music, clothes and it sells Lego. People take what they're given and while they may complain occassionally, they still buy.

I'm glad to see civility is alive and well. As for the compliment, it isn't. I neither meant it as one nor do my feeling fit your idea of what you apparently believe them to be. I can quite easily and truthfully state that I in no way consider you my superior.

You would most likely be wrong then as most everyone is superior to others in some respect. To believe otherwise would be arrogant and quite uncivil not to mention flat-out incorrect.

I really don't know what to say about the idea of elitist being a compliment other than the fact that clearly humility isn't a factor in that way of thinking.

Negative use of the word "elitist" is typically an anti-intellectual reaction. Whether it's conservatives complaining about liberals, fundamentalists complaining about academics or under-educated children complaining about anyone with more than a tenth grade education, the negative use of the word is always directed at others that they feel threatened by. Such feelings typically stem from insecurities about themselves or resentment resulting from their inability to articulate a defense of their position.

Elite means superior. Thus, when I hear the term used, I take pride in it. Being perceived as elite isn't something to be ashamed of. Calling oneself elite would be demonstrating a lack of humility but I didn't call myself elite. As is the case with almost everyone, I'm superior in some things and inferior in others. For example, I don't call myself a genius either but if someone else perceives me as such, I'll take pride in the compliment (though they would be wrong). Same goes for the term "elite".

[vexorian]

I may not play their game but just don't expect me to look at Lego and say they're a virgin when it's quite obvious they're a whore.

And all this time I thought it was a Danish toy company ...

Negative use of the word "elitist" is typically an anti-intellectual reaction.

Are you the guy that uses the word 'fanboi'? this is an adult forum so please avoid leet speak, it is cute when you are 13 to 15 years old but it gets lame afterwards.

You keep trying to come up with attacks like fanbois or anti-intellectual, please focus on the actual argument and points.

Elite means superior. Thus, when I hear the term used, I take pride in it. Being perceived as elite isn't something to be ashamed of.

There is a large difference between being part of an elite and being an elitist.

But who cares? And the accesories are made of normal plastic.

I would have rather had the accessories in bad plastic and the figs in normal.

Bad plastic figs = limeish color instead of yellow = ugly.

I care because in my case I really can't help but notice the odd gloss of the bad plastic, generally everything on it looks awful to me. I also care because bad plastic tends to last a lot less than the usual LEGO quality and the announced price is just not justified if the plastic is bad quality.

I think this is a much more real and serious issue than 'marketing gimmicks' so I hope that those pushing to continue the discussion about the randomization could get over it and let us focus on the plastic quality...

Edited February 11, 2010 by vexorian

[mikey]

I care because in my case I really can't help but notice the odd gloss of the bad plastic, generally everything on it looks awful to me. I also care because bad plastic tends to last a lot less than the usual LEGO quality and the announced price is just not justified if the plastic is bad quality.

I think this is a much more real and serious issue than 'marketing gimmicks' so I hope that those pushing to continue the discussion about the randomization could get over it and let us focus on the plastic quality...

My thoughts exactly. It has come as no surprise to me that these are likely to be the inferior quailty. Its not were they are manufactured that is the issue, there is no reason why the ingredients used to make plastic in China have to any worse than anywhere else in the world, its an issue of selection of the raw materials. Surely they do not save that much by using this different grade they have chosen for certain merchandise?

I look forward to more reviews, so that I can make the choice and decide if I want to buy into this or not. Im dissapointed because I wanted them to live up to my expectations of the MiniFig should be like.

[escortmad79]

I wonder if each different figure has a different item code above the barcode?

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/nori-gal...ies01/box02.jpg

For example 4559116 would be the zombie, 4559117 would be say the clown?

We could check each code to see what they are & then check the code to get the figs required?

I'm not interested in them all so will only be looking for selected figures

Edited February 11, 2010 by escortmad79

[thelast]

I wonder if each different figure has a different item code above the barcode?

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/nori-gal...ies01/box02.jpg

For example 4559116 would be the zombie, 4559117 would be say the clown?

We could check each code to see what they are & then check the code to get the figs required?

I'm not interested in them all so will only be looking for selected figures

Lets hope you are right! I want couple of figs, don't want to gamble on them.

To be honest I agree with prof1515. You guys jumped on him, but he is right from kids point of view. Kids don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on hobby and to buy full boxes. Doubt any parent who isn't LEGO fan will tolerate his kid spending fortune, just to buy his favorite fig. At the end lots of kids will stuck with couple of random figures and lots of anger to their parents, because they can't get what they want.

Yes I know, some one is going to say, but they could trade them with other kids, good, but what is this couple of months period of sales only, there is not enough time for collecting and trading. So the kid have to buy his fig from internets.

All this stuff seems to me made towards fast and easy money making and adults only, with deep pockets.

I can give a suggestion, make the figs completely random for a price of 1-2$ and make millions of them. Sell them for a year or so and people will buy them like a gum, there will be no frustration, no broken hopes, no Brick Links. I bet every time kid or adult visit a local store, they will buy couple of figs.

3 months period of sales seems to me like reverence to internet traders, buy fast now, sell later for more.

[B-Lister]

Now that you've made your arguments, let's examine the legitimate and intelligent aspects of your post.

Done.

I would be laughing over the history comment if it didn't seem like you actually believed that.

and somehow your deliberate misspelling of fanboy, as well as your constant "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!" ignorance is intelligent or legitimate?

you're screaming into an empty room. The only reason I even care is because you're getting so worked up about it, and I think its hilarious.

it never fails to amaze me however, when a troll like yourself runs out of anything to say (or in your case never had anything worth saying in the first place), they resort to personal attacks.

can't you realize that everybody here thinks you're clown shoes? It's pathetic. But then, your life must be pure bliss if the only thing you've got to complain about is toys.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Mister Blisterfists

[richb]

The funny thing about this argument is that no matter which side you are on, both sides keep throwing out the same rebuttals, "it's a toy company," and "these are made for children!"

On that, I call BS. TLG hasn't been marketing to children for at least five years. Oh sure, they might make products recommended for ages 2-5, or 4-9, or 8-13, but it's the AFoLs that are driving their year-over-year double-digit growth.

Does anyone honestly feel all these $99 and up sets are made for children? Are kids buying the modular houses? The Creator houses? The Taj Mahal and the Grand Carousel? The UCS or Architecture sets? No.

I grew up with LEGO, and I will make sure my children grow up with LEGO. My 20-month old daughter had a very DUPLO Christmas this past December, and my 9-year old step son has buckets full of Star Wars LEGO. But make no mistake, the biggest LEGO collection in the entire house belongs to ME. It's my name on the VIP membership to the LEGO store, my name on those catalogs that arrive in the mail, and it's my name on the credit card bill.

TLG is more successful now than ever precisely because they're NOT a childrens toy maker any longer. That's ancillary to their core business today. Children don't have credit cards, and TLG have finally figured that out.

[B-Lister]

It's not a relevant example. R-rated films are not made for children (and quite often even films not made for children are edited in an attempt to open them to a wider market). Lego are toys which are made for children but which happen to be appreciated by adults as well. It's not about the children buying, it's about the appeal of different things that they can't get simply by buying it directly.

If a consumer, be they a child or an adult, wants A they should be able to buy A. They shouldn't have to possibly end up buying B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P before they get what they or their child wanted in the first place. It's a cheap trick that is disrespectful of the consumer.

Only if the consumer feels disrespected. I imagine most would think this a fun, and interesting way of doing things, since blind pack figures are so popular in the toy market these days.

But let's use your R-rated movie example. If you go to a store and buy a DVD, you know what film is inside. They don't sell unlabeled movies. If you want to buy a particular movie, you won't have to buy 10 DVDs in the hopes of getting the one you wanted. It's the same when you buy a video game or a pair of shoes.

This isn't DVDs, I understand you didn't bring that into the conversation, but you're stretching plausibility to the limit with your 'example'.

Go back and read what I originally wrote. I said this is an example of Lego not respecting their customers and just looking for a way to make money selling stuff that they might otherwise not be able to sell. As 75% of their customer base are children, that's a pretty dishonorable way to make a buck.

This is NOT what they're trying to do in the slightest. They're trying to bring several figures into the market that they otherwise wouldn't be able to. And they're doing it in a fun and creative way that has proven popular amongst other toy companies, and amongst toy fans.

Lego has increasingly been resorting to cheap tricks to increase sales but this is a new low. At least before when you bought Lego you knew what you were paying for.

No you didn't. The boxes are printed, and there's no window on 'em at all. I've seen PLENTY of fans who got miscast bricks in their sets, and I personally have been stiffed on minifigures, and accessories before.

As you said, it's not a significant cost difference. Lego isn't producing bricks for $0.09 and selling them for $0.10; no business does that. Markup is at least a couple times that of production. With a large line of anything, one product makes up for the difference in another. That's why you can have two sets with different numbers of parts and different parts still cost the same. It's not reflective of the proportional difference in cost being identical, it's a rounded-off markup. A slightly lower profit from one is compensated elsewhere by a slightly higher markup in another.

At least you have a basic understanding of supply side economics.

First of all, you don't know that they are going with "less popular" being more rare. It's speculation on your part. In fact, to maximize profits it actually makes sense to make the more desired ones more rare in order to increase sales. Additionally, gender makes a huge difference in terms of desireability. My nieces, for example, wouldn't give a rat's big behind about cowboys or ninjas. They'd want the cheerleader.

Let's stop and examine what you just said here. You don't know which ones are going to be "less popular". That's Speculation on YOUR part.

But the point is that why should a child who wants the cowboy get stuck with three of the zombie in order to get one cowboy? Why should the child that wants the ninja have to get four cheerleaders? Or for that matter, why should the child that does want the cheerleader have to end up with six zombies and five ninjas?

The entire point is to trade for the ones you want. So if you have four cheerleaders, and your friend has two Cowboys and no Cheerleader, you trade for the Cowboy.

The package still clearly states that it's Duke, Snake Eyes or Cobra Commander that's for sale. You're not buying blind. To compare it with Lego's decision, you'll end up with three Dukes to get whatever figure you really wanted.

Actually, that's what they do anyway. Sure, you know what you're getting, but they'll release three Dukes before they release Lifeline, or Tripwire. Why?, because Duke sells more.

Again, you're comparing two totally different sale strategies. My point of contention with Lego's decision is based on the blind packaging.

Which has proven very popular in many, MANY other instances. Enough to justify it in this instance.

I don't assume everyone else is wrong. But I do recognize naive and mindless consumerism when I see them and American society is filled with consumer sheep. It sold SUVs, music, clothes and it sells Lego. People take what they're given and while they may complain occassionally, they still buy.

And so do you.

You would most likely be wrong then as most everyone is superior to others in some respect. To believe otherwise would be arrogant and quite uncivil not to mention flat-out incorrect.

Most Everyone. But there are exceptions to every rule. For example, YOU.

Negative use of the word "elitist" is typically an anti-intellectual reaction. Whether it's conservatives complaining about liberals, fundamentalists complaining about academics or under-educated children complaining about anyone with more than a tenth grade education, the negative use of the word is always directed at others that they feel threatened by. Such feelings typically stem from insecurities about themselves or resentment resulting from their inability to articulate a defense of their position.

You're doing fine leading by example.

Elite means superior. Thus, when I hear the term used, I take pride in it. Being perceived as elite isn't something to be ashamed of. Calling oneself elite would be demonstrating a lack of humility but I didn't call myself elite. As is the case with almost everyone, I'm superior in some things and inferior in others. For example, I don't call myself a genius either but if someone else perceives me as such, I'll take pride in the compliment (though they would be wrong). Same goes for the term "elite".

You just take pride in thinking you're right. I'll take pride in KNOWING you're wrong.

[mikey]

TLG is more successful now than ever precisely because they're NOT a childrens toy maker any longer. That's ancillary to their core business today. Children don't have credit cards, and TLG have finally figured that out.

Whilst you are totally right that Lego markets certain sets for an adult audience, I think you wrong in that they are driven by the AFOL market. Im not sure how many people I know, but I have never met another adult who collects Lego in a face to face situation. Realisticly your AFOL is a very rare species in the wild of the real world. Admittidly the average AFOL spends a lot on thier hobby, but it is probably small change to Lego, when you compare it with what Parents spend on buying Lego for their kids.

[prof1515]

[A]nd somehow your (sic) deliberate misspelling of fanboy...

It's deliberate but it's not a misspelling. It's a slang term for anyone who irrationally defends their interest in a product or company beyond a reasonable degree and without regard to objective analysis.

[Y]ou're screaming into an empty room.

If Lego does indeed look for community opinion, I am providing it. I'm not talking to you.

it never fails to amaze me however, when a troll like yourself runs out of anything to say (or in your case never had anything worth saying in the first place), they resort to personal attacks.

If you check back, you'll find the personal attacks began elsewhere. It might even have been you.

[C]an't you realize that everybody here thinks you're (sic) clown shoes? It's pathetic. But then, your life must be pure bliss if the only thing you've got to complain about is toys.

Can you understand that any opinion of someone else does not matter? I don't care about your opinion of me or anyone else's opinion of me. First, even if opinions mattered, you don't know me and hence your opinion would be based on ignorance. Second, I don't respect your opinion because I respect intelligence and knowledge and you have thus far displayed neither.

[richb]

Whilst you are totally right that Lego markets certain sets for an adult audience, I think you wrong in that they are driven by the AFOL market. Im not sure how many people I know, but I have never met another adult who collects Lego in a face to face situation. Realisticly your AFOL is a very rare species in the wild of the real world. Admittidly the average AFOL spends a lot on thier hobby, but it is probably small change to Lego, when you compare it with what Parents spend on buying Lego for their kids.

Take a stroll down any toy aisle today and the remarkable thing is that some of the most popular recent toys are the same toys that were on the shelves in the 80s. Over the last half of this past decade, in America at least, G.I. Joe, Transformers, Hot Wheels, Star Wars, and LEGO were HUGE sellers. One of the driving factors for that is that the 10-year old boys of the 80s became the 35-year old fathers of 10-year old boys in the 00s, and we all steered our kids into the same interests we had as children. Heck, even Nintendo enjoyed a renaissance with grossly inferior product the past five years -- sales driven as much by being retro as being "blue ocean."

While AFoLs may not be the majority of the LEGO market by raw numbers/percentages, their spending accounts for a huge slice of the pie. Additionally, I think we need to expand the definition of AFoL to encompass those adults who make the purchasing decisions for their children based on their own history, though they are themselves only casual builders or presently in their dark age.

In a five mile radius of my home, there are four major retailers that stock LEGO: Meijer, Target, Wal-Mart, and K Mart. All four of these retailers have expanded the shelf space they allot to LEGO by three or four times what is was in 2006. If I walk into any one of them on any given day, the out of stock items will invariably always be the same ... the creator houses, the non-emergency City themed sets, and the super-expensive Castle sets. It never fails. Nobody is buying the Toy Story or Ben 10 or Indiana Jones or Star Wars stuff with the frequency of the others, and kids are just not the primary purchasers of the first group. All it takes is one AFoL cleaning out a retailer of six copies of the Family Home (that's a $360 spending spree for tan bricks and windows), to offset ten kids begging for a $35 set.

And the family home is a cheap AFoL set!

These blind purchase minifigs are not targetted toward children. They will not be advertised on TV, they will not even be on store shelves long enough for kids to see them. They will be snatched up by the case by AFoLs and resold for $10+ on Bricklink and eBay. All of us know it, so I think it's disingenuous to argue otherwise.

[-Tilius-]

I may not play their game but just don't expect me to look at Lego and say they're a virgin when it's quite obvious they're a whore.

And I'm not going to say you're a whore when it's quite obvious you're a virgin.

It's deliberate but it's not a misspelling. It's a slang term for anyone who irrationally defends their interest in a product or company beyond a reasonable degree and without regard to objective analysis.

Which wasn't what I was doing. I criticize Lego quite a bit for various things. I just don't think them giving us new minifigures is a bad thing.

- Tilius

Edited February 11, 2010 by -Tilius-

[prof1515]

It's not a relevant example. R-rated films are not made for children (and quite often even films not made for children are edited in an attempt to open them to a wider market). Lego are toys which are made for children but which happen to be appreciated by adults as well. It's not about the children buying, it's about the appeal of different things that they can't get simply by buying it directly.

If a consumer, be they a child or an adult, wants A they should be able to buy A. They shouldn't have to possibly end up buying B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P before they get what they or their child wanted in the first place. It's a cheap trick that is disrespectful of the consumer.

Only if the consumer feels disrespected. I imagine most would think this a fun, and interesting way of doing things, since blind pack figures are so popular in the toy market these days.

These are economic hard times for a lot of people. Spending money on something they have less than a 7% chance they’ll actually end up with is not fun nor is it something that’s popular. Retailers felt the pinch last December because spending thoughtlessly was not “fun” or “interesting” to most shoppers.

But let's use your R-rated movie example. If you go to a store and buy a DVD, you know what film is inside. They don't sell unlabeled movies. If you want to buy a particular movie, you won't have to buy 10 DVDs in the hopes of getting the one you wanted. It's the same when you buy a video game or a pair of shoes.

This isn't DVDs, I understand you didn't bring that into the conversation, but you're stretching plausibility to the limit with your 'example'.

If this marketing scheme were fun, wouldn’t DVD manufacturers want to get in on it? Wouldn’t it make buying movies so much more fun and interesting? After all, it’s popular in the toy market these days.

Go back and read what I originally wrote. I said this is an example of Lego not respecting their customers and just looking for a way to make money selling stuff that they might otherwise not be able to sell. As 75% of their customer base are children, that's a pretty dishonorable way to make a buck.

This is NOT what they're trying to do in the slightest. They're trying to bring several figures into the market that they otherwise wouldn't be able to. And they're doing it in a fun and creative way that has proven popular amongst other toy companies, and amongst toy fans.

Utter megablocks. They can “bring several figures into the market” without blind packaging. They’re doing it in a manner that is popular amongst other toy companies because it allows them to maximize sales on less desired products by mixing them with those more desired by consumers. It’s a cheap trick that works because parents try to provide for what their children want. The companies know that and exploit it. It’s good business but it does make them complete and utter bastards.

Lego has increasingly been resorting to cheap tricks to increase sales but this is a new low. At least before when you bought Lego you knew what you were paying for.

No you didn't. The boxes are printed, and there's no window on 'em at all. I've seen PLENTY of fans who got miscast bricks in their sets, and I personally have been stiffed on minifigures, and accessories before.

Those are errors in the manufacturing process, not deliberate marketing decisions aimed at preventing the consumer from knowing what they’re purchasing.

First of all, you don't know that they are going with "less popular" being more rare. It's speculation on your part. In fact, to maximize profits it actually makes sense to make the more desired ones more rare in order to increase sales. Additionally, gender makes a huge difference in terms of desireability. My nieces, for example, wouldn't give a rat's big behind about cowboys or ninjas. They'd want the cheerleader.

Let's stop and examine what you just said here. You don't know which ones are going to be "less popular". That's Speculation on YOUR part.

No, I didn't speculate on which would be. I pointed out the more financially profitable strategy but made no speculation on what course of action Lego would take.

But the point is that why should a child who wants the cowboy get stuck with three of the zombie in order to get one cowboy? Why should the child that wants the ninja have to get four cheerleaders? Or for that matter, why should the child that does want the cheerleader have to end up with six zombies and five ninjas?

The entire point is to trade for the ones you want. So if you have four cheerleaders, and your friend has two Cowboys and no Cheerleader, you trade for the Cowboy.

And if you and your friend each want two cowboys and no cheerleaders?

The package still clearly states that it's Duke, Snake Eyes or Cobra Commander that's for sale. You're not buying blind. To compare it with Lego's decision, you'll end up with three Dukes to get whatever figure you really wanted.

Actually, that's what they do anyway. Sure, you know what you're getting, but they'll release three Dukes before they release Lifeline, or Tripwire. Why?, because Duke sells more.

But in order to eventually purchase Lifeline or Tripwire you don’t have to risk purchasing three Dukes. You just wait for the one you want to be released. With Lego’s model, the one you want may be released but you still have no way of buying just the one you want without potentially buying many that you don’t want.

Again, you're comparing two totally different sale strategies. My point of contention with Lego's decision is based on the blind packaging.

Which has proven very popular in many, MANY other instances. Enough to justify it in this instance.

That's an opinion, not a fact, as there has been no direct comparison possible between a similar product such as these. Mini-figures are often purchased not for the figure as a whole but for the potential to use them in other combinations. The forums are filled with MOCs to attest to this.

I don't assume everyone else is wrong. But I do recognize naive and mindless consumerism when I see them and American society is filled with consumer sheep. It sold SUVs, music, clothes and it sells Lego. People take what they're given and while they may complain occassionally, they still buy.

And so do you.

I do my best to avoid the trappings of consumerism although obviously it’s impossible to completely avoid having to deal with it. Nevertheless I make no concessions so long as there is any option, even abstaining, available to me. I had my computer custom-built to my specifications, not the company’s. I dress in clothes I find comfortable regardless of fashion. I once walked eight miles round trip in a blizzard because I refused to accept the unfairly high price of a cab which held a monopoly in the town I was residing. I ignore as much advertising as I can and only purchase what I have independently-researched and want. I am an extremely picky eater, sticking to foods that I prefer unless I choose to be adventurous and even then I make a decision as to what I want before I look for it. I am quick to complain when something is not acceptable. I’m skeptical of any form of marketing and given the choice of settling for what I’m given instead of what I want or doing without, I will always settle for the latter because there aren’t many things that are necessary in life.

You would most likely be wrong then as most everyone is superior to others in some respect. To believe otherwise would be arrogant and quite uncivil not to mention flat-out incorrect.

Most Everyone. But there are exceptions to every rule. For example, YOU.

I know my capabilities and my limits and where I stand in relation to ninety-nine percent of the population. I’m also well aware of the attitudes, especially in the United States, toward intellectuals and academics. But no one knows everything and for everything I know about a field like history, there’s an equally large amount of things I don’t know about a field like popular music.

Still, if I believed in a god, I'd say I was blessed. I don't though so I know I'm just lucky. Regardless, that doesn't mean I have to lower my expectations of others though. So, my suggestion is that you get an education and then you won't feel the need to be so angry.

[RocketClone]

First we talk about quality then all this crap, listen if you have a problem (prof1515) please leave it off this topic. (more importantly this website) Furthermore lets get back on topic i shouldn't have to be a mini-mod for the mods themselfs.

Edited February 11, 2010 by RocketClone