LEGO® CUUSOO 空想 - Turn your model wishes into reality

[BlueberryWaffles]

I also think Nickelodeon outright owns the entirety of the franchise now, including the prior shows. So any contracts for Turtles stuff would likely go through them (excepting Playmates designs).

They own every everything except the original cartoon, Lionsgate owns that. That's why 'Krang' had to switch to 'Kraang'.

[jimmynick]

Hmmm? Sherlock up 1200 votes in a few hours. A huge stream of (mostly female) outside supporters.

That's tumblr for you...

[Blondie-Wan]

On a related not to the Magic School bus project, has anyone ever put forth a Sesame Street one? That would seem to be the better positioned Children's Television Workshop type IP? It carries much more nostalgia value and has deep decades long penetration around the world. The only draw back is it would probably need character molds.

New character molds aren't the biggest obstacle to LEGO Sesame Street; this one is the major issue, and it completely precludes the possibility for the time being, I'd say. It's too bad; I think Sesame Street would be a good fit for LEGO, too.

[dvsntt]

I just them to make amusement park rides. I love the carousel and the Ferris wheel. I want the whole park.

[Blondie-Wan]

BTW, I hadn't seen it actually mentioned in this thread yet, but that Macross VF-1 Valkyrie project finally hit 10,000 votes a few days ago, securing it the first spot in the Winter 2013 review period (unless it's declined in advance of that, of course).

[Another Brick In The Wall]

The problem isn't that can or cannot interfere with future products. The problem is publicly announcing said projects. An actual future product or something saved for later will not impede a license. However an announced future product will. It's the act of announcing the product that causes conflict. This is fairly well understood in business. Knowledge of a future product will impede sale of a current project.

This whole statement is incredulous.

What percentage of people who buy Lego products have knowledge that CuuSoo even exists?

Of those, what percentage would forgo buying LR licensed models in the faint hope that a project that is mothballed (i.e. may or may not be produced) in 18-24 months time is brought to the market?

Only the legal form of the LR license terms conflicted with MWT not the economics of it. Modulars are directed to different Lego demographic. Most LR Lego products were marketed to 6-12 year olds. Only one set (Colby City Showdown) incorporated constructions that resembled anything remotely like MWT.

Therefore, mere knowledge of their existence could not have conflicted with the LR license.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Another Brick In The Wall

[Faefrost]

This whole statement is incredulous.

What percentage of people who buy Lego products have knowledge that CuuSoo even exists?

Of those, what percentage would forgo buying LR licensed models in the faint hope that a project that is mothballed (i.e. may or may not be produced) in 18-24 months time is brought to the market?

Only the legal form of the LR license terms conflicted with MWT not the economics of it. Modulars are directed to different Lego demographic. Most LR Lego products were marketed to 6-12 year olds. Only one set (Colby City Showdown) incorporated constructions that resembled anything remotely like MWT.

Therefore, mere knowledge of their existence could not have conflicted with the LR license.

No really, knowledge of upcoming products do have a very heavy impact on sales of current products. This is not a myth. It is not a misconception. This is precisely why companies such as TLG fight so hard to control the release of new product information and limit product announcements to specific dates and schedules. Or why Apple will only show off a new model iPad or iPhone 30 or 60 days before the product hits the streets. This is why TLG cares that pics of their next Star Wars wave have been leaked from confidential catalogs. CuuSoo may be an obscure forum, but it is still a public forum. And one that does get a surprising amount of spread on the internet. It does not matter if the plan would be to produce the set well after the license. TLG would be completely blocked from saying so or even implying that such production might occur while the license is in effect. It is very basic in a licensed contract. The no compete clauses include that the licencor cannot release or announce a directly competing product (with directly competing being defined in the contract, and often giving the license holder a review or veto option in the event of something borderline.) A promise of a product in the future will cost you sales of a similar product today. And there is no logic to it. If the public knows that you might even be simply be working on a new product they will start ignoring your current ones. This has driven some major manufacturers of consumer goods under in the past.

In this case it is the public crowdsourced element of CuuSoo that causes the conflict. As you say a license does not preclude them from doing development on another future product. But it can preclude them from talking about such, at all. CuuSoo by its nature does an end run around that, and puts potentially developing products in the public eye in ways that none of the TLG or Licencor's lawyers would have been expecting.

And really it isn't something that needs a lot of deep debate. From TLG's point of view the no compete says no competing products no competing product announcements. Everyone in business knows exactly what that means and it is something they honor without question. Either TLG's contract lawyers or the licencor Disney said no. We've discussed earlier in this thread why they can't simply mothball a project for use later. Just trying to do that would kill CuuSoo and open Lego up to too much exposure going forward.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Faefrost

[Another Brick In The Wall]

No, deep debate is necessary.

1. Mothballing a project does not amount to "Knowledge of a future project".

2. The extent of the LR license restriction would be, at the most, to refrain from undertaking a competing Western theme for the duration of the LR license. Anything more would be an unenforceable as a restraint of trade in most legal jurisdictions.

As with the example of PotC, a hiatus in film production allows TLG to market generic Pirates themed models. The LR license would have been concluded on identical terms, as it was between exactly the same parties.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Another Brick In The Wall

[Faefrost]

No, deep debate is necessary.

1. Mothballing a project does not amount to "Knowledge of a future project".

2. The extent of the LR license restriction would be, at the most, to refrain from undertaking a competing Western theme for the duration of the LR license. Anything more would be an unenforceable as a restraint of trade in most legal jurisdictions.

As with the example of PotC, a hiatus in film production allows TLG to market generic Pirates themed models. The LR license would have been concluded on identical terms, as it was between exactly the same parties.

I think we are arguing around the same thing. They can mothball all the projects they want. They can gear up to release new stuff the day a license ends. But while the license is in effect they cannot advertise or announce a competing product. The underlying assumption is it says "don't buy what we have now wait x amount of time and we'll have something better".

The problem is CuuSoo is not structured for mothballing projects once they hit review. It is a public review so either the project fails review and is formally declared to not be a product, or any other answer unintentionally becomes a defacto potential product announcement. CuuSoo has more recently changed the system so that they can mothball products before the review stage in order to avoid license conflicts. They basically say licensing prevents us from even entertaining the idea at this time so we can't look at it. That satisfies all parties (well except the dude who's project just got killed.) MWT ran into a one in a million conflict. It hit review before the conflicting license was publicly announced. Lego could not mothball it because that would announce the LR license before they were allowed to. The MWT was an unfortunate sacrifice to the license timing of the LR theme.

[LiamM32]

Came across two projects today that I fell in love with.

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/48249

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/48240

I can't think of any old nostalgic movies/shows to make projects of.

-Sci

Thank you very much. I just downright love the Home Alone project. It is now one of my favourite on the website, even though I am rarely into licensed projects. Being a regular house makes it easy to fit into a Lego town, but the playability is very impressive.

Not supporting the Magic School Bus though. Much unlike Home Alone, I don't see it

being very adaptable into Lego.

Both are interesting properties to base projects around. I think both will do well in voting, but would probably not do as well in review.

Home Alone has some different issues going on. It's great fun and a fondly remembered movie. But the question of brand fit may come into play. Yeah it's a fun cartoony movie, but it is still hard to completely ignore that it is a live action movie whereby two thugs seek to terrorize and harm a small child, and said child proceeds to direct copious amounts of violence against them, including lighting them on fire. While we know this is all in fun, and as I said, cartoony, in the movie. This might not translate well to a more static presentation such as a Lego set. "Little Billy with a Flame Thrower" does not seem typical of the sort of play features Lego goes for. But hey, you never know.

I don't know how Lego would decide this but I think that it's fine (at-least with the current violence standards). My family let me enjoy Home Alone when I was 6, and I have liked it since. I really think that it's significantly more tame than Star Wars; which they have made for years and sold very well. I don't think anyone died in Home Alone.

[SandMirror38]

Bit of a shame bout jP ;/

I'm a big tintin fan and saw this and got really excited!

The 2 big sets are far fetched but still!

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/44705

[The Real Indiana Jones]

Hi, Here is a good Cuusoo question I want to ask everyone... Where did people get the idea that Cuusoo would never do a set above $50?

They would have been overjoyed to do Modular Western Town for $150-$180, if it hadn't been a tragic victim of licensing conflict...

And I think it's pretty certain that they will do Japanese Old-Style Architecture as a modular style building for about $180...

And if that happens, then the debate will be resolved, and for the best, because I'd like to see bigger ideas win!

So again, where do people get the idea that a batch of 10,000 units of a $100 or $150 set would be a risky venture for a $4,300,000,000 per year company? If my math is correct, then that is about 1/3000 of their total. Plus, I think that TLG gives several times that amount to charity at the end of every year, purely as a gift to the world!

Edited September 18, 2013 by The Real Indiana Jones

[Blondie-Wan]

$50 is the highest price of any CUUSOO set they've released (in the US) so far; I'd guess people are drawing their assumptions / conclusions from that. But you're right, we really don't know. I don't think anything has actually been declined on "business case" grounds yet, which I believe would be the rejection reason category for a set that would be too large & expensive to move, and LEGO's official comments on various large projects that have passed various vote milestones so far do mostly sound receptive to the idea of doing such large sets as those (with a few notable exceptions). I'm sure a large set will have to really make its case well, even more so than a modestly-sized set, but I suspect it's certainly doable.

BTW, Real Indy, I like your CUUSOO projects and intend to support them.

If I might offer a suggestion, you might want to list the estimated piece counts for the sets (or the exact piece counts for your LDD models), to help us get rough ideas of how much these should cost (of course I realize there's much, much more to LEGO pricing than pure price-per-piece, but it would be a nice baseline). :)

Edited September 18, 2013 by Blondie-Wan

[ShaydDeGrai]

(snip)

Where did people get the idea that Cuusoo would never do a set above $50?

(snip)

I don't know, but in some cases it borders on a self fulfilling prophesy.

As Blondie-Wan points out, there is historical precedent for imagining a $50 cap on CuuSoo kits, but I think the stigma of a $50 glass ceiling for "experimental" stuff goes deeper than that and, at least in my opinion, is pretty arbitrary.

I remember back when word first leaked that TLG gotten the LOTR license. I was participating in various forums where people were comparing wish lists for what sets would come out. Even there, there was a strong cadre of nay-sayers that insisted that there wouldn't be a single set in the first wave with an asking price over $50 and that there'd never be a big flagship model unless the first wave sold really well. As it turns out, the nay sayers were half right/half wrong, LOTR _did_ debut with the typical range of price points but (depending on your opinion of Helm's Deep) one could argue that it did take until this past summer for a real "flagship" model to come out (Orthanc).

I don't know where this idea that unproven ideas have to be kept under $50 began (perhaps someone who totally misinterpreted the whole concept of polybag promotions?) but with CuuSoo, it goes from a misconception to a detriment. As someone who likes large, complex builds, I've lost track of the number of times I've seen postings (both in CuuSoo threads at various forums AND on the comments of individual projects themselves) where self-appointed gatekeepers are actively telling AFOLs not to support big projects because they won't get made and that one would have to be pretty stupid to disagree with them. These pundits cite the magical $50 boundary or 500 part "limit" as if TLG had carved that in ABS somewhere (which, as far as I've seen from postings and talking to community reps, they have not).

The idea of a "don't bother supporting this BECAUSE Lego will never produce it" mindset makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like looking at the roster for your favorite sports team before opening day and deciding that, since you're convinced they won't finish as the champion of the playoffs, you're going to boycott the entire season and anyone who roots for the team must be a moron.

Aside from being a free advertising vehicle for the brand, CuuSoo is also a channel for AFOLs to tell TLG what we _want_ them to produce and how much we'd be willing to pay for it. If WE withhold support from all but the 500 part, <$50 proposals, we're sending the message that we're not interested in things like the beautiful Scorpion's Soul Pirate Ship (it really blows the official Imperial Flagship right out of the water). Yes it may be unrealistic to expect them to actually release _that_ model as proposed, but by telling TLG that at least 10,000 people out there are willing to spend $400 on a really impressive ship of the line rather than yet another $99 skiff gives them something to think about. Yes, the UCS Sandcrawler was rejected. but with 10,000 people saying that they wanted a bigger, more detailed version of the model with lights and motors, and would pay an appropriate price for one even though that already own the "official" one that came out a few years back - that had to resonate. Even if CuuSoo couldn't produce _that_ set for licensing reasons, the Lego Star Wars group would have to be blind and deaf not to realize that there's a demand for a UCS Sandcrawler whether it comes out of the CuuSoo group or not.

I think it is useful to post approximate part counts when proposing things on CuuSoo so people have a better basis for guessing what they'd be willing to pay for a set. I also think it's vital that supporters be realistic about their price estimates when they vote for something (I knew one guy who always entered $1 for everything because he thought Lego was overpriced and felt he was sending a message that the should be cheaper - another mindset I just don't get...), but withholding support _because_ a set is "too big" or would be "too pricy", I think, sends exactly the wrong message.

Edited September 18, 2013 by ShaydDeGrai

[Faefrost]

Hi, Here is a good Cuusoo question I want to ask everyone... Where did people get the idea that Cuusoo would never do a set above $50?

They would have been overjoyed to do Modular Western Town for $150-$180, if it hadn't been a tragic victim of licensing conflict...

http://blog.lego.cuusoo.com/2012/06/26/141364880/

Pay particular attention to their endorsement of "CuuSoo user Dralcax" suggestions and how Lego highlights number 6.

Also see item #3 http://blog.lego.cuusoo.com/2012/05/29/cheat-sheet-how-to-pass-the-lego-review-with/

And we do not say that there is a hard limit of $50-60 on a CuuSoo set. We say that they will not go above such a limit unless they have very very clear market data on the viability of such a project. Ie a large technic, UCS Star Wars or Modular building project. They will almost certainly not price something that has no underlying product history or third party IP tie in above $100. Do they explicitly say his? No, but they do make enough comments about things like project size and scale that you can see it rather clearly if you apply some common sense.

And yes it is extremely doubtful that they would price your historical projects anywhere near $100. They have no positive or affirmative data in support of such a project priced that high. At best they have research data from a few years ago when they were considering the Europa theme, which would lead them to aim lower.

The misconception with the MWT is that they would have made it as it looks in the picture. TLG had already clearly said that they were evaluating the Saloon only. Which probably would have put the set at $99 or below.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Faefrost

[Blondie-Wan]

I think it is useful to post approximate part counts when proposing things on CuuSoo so people have a better basis for guessing what they'd be willing to pay for a set. I also think it's vital that supporters be realistic about their price estimates when they vote for something (I knew one guy who always entered $1 for everything because he thought Lego was overpriced and felt he was sending a message that the should be cheaper - another mindset I just don't get...), but withholding support _because_ a set is "too big" or would be "too pricy", I think, sends exactly the wrong message.

This is a particularly important point. All those who actually do vote for CUUSOO projects should keep this in mind, as the LEGO CUUSOO team itself does consider the prices people say they're willing to pay for a project when it evaluates the business case for that project.

That's not to say we should enter grossly overinflated prices of thousands of dollars when we vote for projects - I suspect those sorts of obviously overblown price commitments are probably tossed out along with the $1 cheapskate votes - but I do think that if you seriously want to see a project become a real set, it'll help if you enter a price that falls into a realistic range, and perhaps skews a little toward the higher end of that range rather than the lower one.

[The Real Indiana Jones]

$50 is the highest price of any CUUSOO set they've released (in the US) so far; I'd guess people are drawing their assumptions / conclusions from that. But you're right, we really don't know. I don't think anything has actually been declined on "business case" grounds yet, which I believe would be the rejection reason category for a set that would be too large & expensive to move, and LEGO's official comments on various large projects that have passed various vote milestones so far do mostly sound receptive to the idea of doing such large sets as those (with a few notable exceptions). I'm sure a large set will have to really make its case well, even more so than a modestly-sized set, but I suspect it's certainly doable.

BTW, Real Indy, I like your CUUSOO projects and intend to support them.

If I might offer a suggestion, you might want to list the estimated piece counts for the sets (or the exact piece counts for your LDD models), to help us get rough ideas of how much these should cost (of course I realize there's much, much more to LEGO pricing than pure price-per-piece, but it would be a nice baseline). :)

Thanks... I can't promote here, but if you want to see, you'll see a complete chart in post #123 of my thread. I don't think anyone has ever posted that much detail yet, with realistic part-budgets and targeted price-points all laid out right from the start of the design phase. Then the final part counts and price tags are printed on Post #180 of the same thread.

I definitely agree with Blondie-Wan, and I think everyone should stick to a part-budget, and post part counts and price tags... But of course, cheaters would underestimate it by 20% or even 50% just to lure kids and casual fans in to vote more.

I don't know, but in some cases it borders on a self fulfilling prophesy.

As Blondie-Wan points out, there is historical precedent for imagining a $50 cap on CuuSoo kits, but I think the stigma of a $50 glass ceiling for "experimental" stuff goes deeper than that and, at least in my opinion, is pretty arbitrary.

I remember back when word first leaked that TLG gotten the LOTR license. I was participating in various forums where people were comparing wish lists for what sets would come out. Even there, there was a strong cadre of nay-sayers that insisted that there wouldn't be a single set in the first wave with an asking price over $50 and that there'd never be a big flagship model unless the first wave sold really well. As it turns out, the nay sayers were half right/half wrong, LOTR _did_ debut with the typical range of price points but (depending on your opinion of Helm's Deep) one could argue that it did take until this past summer for a real "flagship" model to come out (Orthanc).

I don't know where this idea that unproven ideas have to be kept under $50 began (perhaps someone who totally misinterpreted the whole concept of polybag promotions?) but with CuuSoo, it goes from a misconception to a detriment. As someone who likes large, complex builds, I've lost track of the number of times I've seen postings (both in CuuSoo threads at various forums AND on the comments of individual projects themselves) where self-appointed gatekeepers are actively telling AFOLs not to support big projects because they won't get made and that one would have to be pretty stupid to disagree with them. These pundits cite the magical $50 boundary or 500 part "limit" as if TLG had carved that in ABS somewhere (which, as far as I've seen from postings and talking to community reps, they have not).

The idea of a "don't bother supporting this BECAUSE Lego will never produce it" mindset makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like looking at the roster for your favorite sports team before opening day and deciding that, since you're convinced they won't finish as the champion of the playoffs, you're going to boycott the entire season and anyone who roots for the team must be a moron.

Aside from being a free advertising vehicle for the brand, CuuSoo is also a channel for AFOLs to tell TLG what we _want_ them to produce and how much we'd be willing to pay for it. If WE withhold support from all but the 500 part, <$50 proposals, we're sending the message that we're not interested in things like the beautiful Scorpion's Soul Pirate Ship (it really blows the official Imperial Flagship right out of the water). Yes it may be unrealistic to expect them to actually release _that_ model as proposed, but by telling TLG that at least 10,000 people out there are willing to spend $400 on a really impressive ship of the line rather than yet another $99 skiff gives them something to think about. Yes, the UCS Sandcrawler was rejected. but with 10,000 people saying that they wanted a bigger, more detailed version of the model with lights and motors, and would pay an appropriate price for one even though that already own the "official" one that came out a few years back - that had to resonate. Even if CuuSoo couldn't produce _that_ set for licensing reasons, the Lego Star Wars group would have to be blind and deaf not to realize that there's a demand for a UCS Sandcrawler whether it comes out of the CuuSoo group or not.

I think it is useful to post approximate part counts when proposing things on CuuSoo so people have a better basis for guessing what they'd be willing to pay for a set. I also think it's vital that supporters be realistic about their price estimates when they vote for something (I knew one guy who always entered $1 for everything because he thought Lego was overpriced and felt he was sending a message that the should be cheaper - another mindset I just don't get...), but withholding support _because_ a set is "too big" or would be "too pricy", I think, sends exactly the wrong message.

Yes, an $800 sandcrawler is definitely pushing it, but I think they are happy to go up to $150. We will see soon, because Japanese Old-Style Architecture and the UCS Delorean should both pass this quarter, both being potential $150+ sets with no licensing roadblocks, so I think we will all see this question resolved by official announcements, not speculation, soon enough!

Plus, I think if people vote for $1, then they probably just trim those votes off the end as outliers, or even just assume it was a simple typo! I'm sure they look at the broad curve of various price-points that people voted for, and snip both tails, including trimming down the kids who say they would pay $1,000,000,000!

http://blog.lego.cuu...6/26/141364880/

Pay particular attention to their endorsement of "CuuSoo user Dralcax" suggestions and how Lego highlights number 6.

Also see item #3 http://blog.lego.cuu...go-review-with/

And we do not say that there is a hard limit of $50-60 on a CuuSoo set. We say that they will not go above such a limit unless they have very very clear market data on the viability of such a project. Ie a large technic, UCS Star Wars or Modular building project. They will almost certainly not price something that has no underlying product history or third party IP tie in above $100. Do they explicitly say his? No, but they do make enough comments about things like project size and scale that you can see it rather clearly if you apply some common sense.

And yes it is extremely doubtful that they would price your historical projects anywhere near $100. They have no positive or affirmative data in support of such a project priced that high. At best they have research data from a few years ago when they were considering the Europa theme, which would lead them to aim lower.

The misconception with the MWT is that they would have made it as it looks in the picture. TLG had already clearly said that they were evaluating the Saloon only. Which probably would have put the set at $99 or below.

Thanks for the links! I had never heard of those "Europa" prototypes. Wow, it looks very mid-'90s. When exactly was TLG testing it?

I am still reading through all of those links carefully, but I do think the blogger named Dralcax is being a tad bit pessimistic to set $50 or $60 as a hard upper limit... I think TLG is happy to go up to $100 and $150 if people are excited enough about the core idea.

And as Blondie-Wan and GlenBricker have said, some people do vehemently insist that a $100 or $150 idea would be impossibly big to ever do, even telling people not to vote for it. That kind of "kill-this-project" talk directly sabotages TLG's marketing initiatives, and it ultimately sabotages TLG's profits.

Plus, they they are not relying on imperfect analogies from past-data to do the risk-assessment during the business case. This is the internet age, they so they simply let the voters vote on the appropriate price-point when they click to support, then they build a real prototype in real bricks in that specified size, and then they show it to various focus-groups of kids and AFOLs and just ask them outright, "Hey, do you think this is cool or uncool? Would you buy it? How much would you pay?"

This is a particularly important point. All those who actually do vote for CUUSOO projects should keep this in mind, as the LEGO CUUSOO team itself does consider the prices people say they're willing to pay for a project when it evaluates the business case for that project.

That's not to say we should enter grossly overinflated prices of thousands of dollars when we vote for projects - I suspect those sorts of obviously overblown price commitments are probably tossed out along with the $1 cheapskate votes - but I do think that if you seriously want to see a project become a real set, it'll help if you enter a price that falls into a realistic range, and perhaps skews a little toward the higher end of that range rather than the lower one.

Yes, well said... The mass of voters choose the price when they vote, and then the focus groups choose what to make, within certain various flexible limits.

And I am glad I got such thoughtful responses. And I'm glad we are talking about the future of Cuusoo, not dwelling on it's past!

Edited September 18, 2013 by The Real Indiana Jones

[Faefrost]

I am still reading through all of those links carefully, but I do think the blogger named Dralcax is being a tad bit pessimistic to set $50 or $60 as a hard upper limit... I think TLG is happy to go up to $100 and $150 if people are excited enough about the core idea.

I'm not saying it's impossible. Just highly highly improbable. Note that the official CuuSoo Blog specifically took the effort to point out highlight and endorse Dralcax's point #6 and call attention to it in their posting. I think that is about as clear an official indication of the typical CuuSoo pricing inclinations as we are probably going to see. Will they go higher for something that they absolutely fall in love with? Maybe? But it has to pass the Business Case. And the Business case involves a lot more than simply how excited some people may be over the core idea. I am sure we will not see that price threshold crossed by something completely new. They would be more inclined to take that business risk with something they have clear data on. so once again, Large Technic sets, Star Wars UCS, Modular building, Train set and possibly large Pirate Ship. They know exactly how many regular purchasers they have for these type sets. In some cases they have so much detailed info that they probably have the home address and e-mail for each one.

[The Real Indiana Jones]

I'm not saying it's impossible. Just highly highly improbable .....

Ah, well I get a thrill from facing a challenge! It makes me feel so alive!!

Edited September 19, 2013 by The Real Indiana Jones

[The Real Indiana Jones]

Or, on a more serious note, It is cool that you are worried about TLG's financials, but I think you might be overestimating their risk a bit here. Remember the creator does not participate directly in the business-case phase, and they don't get to make a pitch that could sway the decision-makers. Lego will only produce a set if they coldly calculate that they can break even, or at least gain in terms of good PR, based on real-world focus-group responses. And in the end, even if a Cuusoo set somehow made absolute zero sales, then the entire loss could probably be easily written off on taxes as a promotional expense, and even a total loss would only be a small fraction of the millions of dollars that they give away to charity every single year, purely as a gift to the world. That nanoscopic amount of risk is barely enough to register a blip...

And in the worst-case-scenario, Lego might just have to give a slightly smaller gift to UNESCO at Christmas-time!

Pacem in Terris!

therealindy

Edited September 19, 2013 by The Real Indiana Jones

[Faefrost]

Or, on a more serious note, It is cool that you are worried about TLG's financials, but I think you might be overestimating their risk a bit here. Remember the creator does not participate directly in the business-case phase, and they don't get to make a pitch that could sway the decision-makers. Lego will only produce a set if they coldly calculate that they can break even, or at least gain in terms of good PR, based on real-world focus-group responses. And in the end, even if a Cuusoo set somehow made absolute zero sales, then the entire loss could probably be easily written off on taxes as a promotional expense, and even a total loss would only be a small fraction of the millions of dollars that they give away to charity every single year, purely as a gift to the world. That nanoscopic amount of risk is barely enough to register a blip...

And in the worst-case-scenario, Lego might just have to give a slightly smaller gift to UNESCO at Christmas-time!

Pacem in Terris!

therealindy

You are greatly underestimating the importance of the business case in the review process. You are way too optimistic that a specific reason must be found to justify not making a set, such as a license conflict. CuuSoo works in the opposite manner. 10k votes gives the opportunity to present why a set should or could be made. But contrary to many AFOL's belief the default position once it hits 10k is not "make it unless we can prove a case not to." The numbers matter. Big time. They have to be able to clearly and unequivocally justify the costs and the pricing and see a clear and determinable target market for the price offered.

As an example, you seem positive that the Japanese Old Style Architecture will pass review with flying colors. I'm not so sure. It's a great project. But even if trimmed down to one building it would still be pricey. And it is playing in a niche that might not have particularly strong cross cultural or international sales. Their data for a small run Japanese specific subject has been somewhat mixed. Case in point. Hayabusa, which seems to be something of a shelf warmer when compared to the #3 and #4 CuuSoo projects. How much did it sell where? After the multiple sell out runs of Minecraft and BttF, I am doubtful that the CuuSoo review team will be anxious to swing back around to a geographically limited niche subject.

As far as what the risk is. The risk is not in whether Lego can afford to absorb a retail run of sets. The risk is in Lego's obligation to use their limited production capacity in the best way possible. And to generate a certain reasonable roi. This is almost doubly true for CuuSoo. They remain an experimental program. Sets that more than hit their target numbers and are booming successes help the CuuSoo program justify its existence to their bosses. Whereas risky niche projects have a greater chance of limiting or decreasing the range of the CuuSoo program. At least at this time.

[The Real Indiana Jones]

It seems like we are 90% in agreement here, and one of us is being a bit more optimistic, and one of us is being a bit more pessimistic... The argument may be entirely resolved when they make the official announcement about Japanese Old-Style Architecture within a few months time.

Also, Hayabusa (and Shinkai) are not necessarily specifically iconic to Japan. They are more squarely in the category of scientific exploration vehicles, like the Curiosity Mars Rover Cuusoo set. It makes more sense to compare Japanese Old-Style Architecture to the popular Ninjago Fire Temple... or perhaps the older Adventurers East Asian sets from the '90s, like the Dragon Fortress set styled after Dynastic China, or the Buddhist-Tibetan-styled Temple of Mount Everest... or more directly, to the entire Ninja versus Samurai theme that came out right before that, including The Emperor's Stronghold and the Flying Ninja Fortress.

Simply put, the sales for Ninjas versus Samurai were obviously very strong, because they did 26 sets of it in total... and then they immediately reprised it with 15 more Eastern Asian sets in the Adventurers East Asian sub-theme just a few years later. Ninjas and Samurai are globally popular.

Edited September 20, 2013 by The Real Indiana Jones

[Faefrost]

It seems like we are 90% in agreement here, and one of us is being a bit more optimistic, and one of us is being a bit more pessimistic... The argument may be entirely resolved when they make the official announcement about Japanese Old-Style Architecture within a few months time.

Also, Hayabusa (and Shinkai) are not necessarily specifically iconic to Japan. They are more squarely in the category of scientific exploration vehicles, like the Curiosity Mars Rover Cuusoo set. It makes more sense to compare Japanese Old-Style Architecture to the popular Ninjago Fire Temple... or perhaps the older Adventurers East Asian sets from the '90s, like the Dragon Fortress set styled after Dynastic China, or the Buddhist-Tibetan-styled Temple of Mount Everest... or more directly, to the entire Ninja versus Samurai theme that came out right before that, including The Emperor's Stronghold and the Flying Ninja Fortress.

Simply put, the sales for Ninjas versus Samurai were obviously very strong, because they did 26 sets of it in total... and then they immediately reprised it with 15 more Eastern Asian sets in the Adventurers East Asian sub-theme just a few years later. Ninjas and Samurai are globally popular.

We don't actually count Shinkai, as it was a much smaller production run sold only in Japan, and voted exclusively there, as part of CuuSoos beginnings. Whereas Hayabusa while an interesting space and science kit, has a principle niche as Japan's farthest reaching spacecraft. And a source of national pride. But the interest from that pride doesn't translate as well elsewhere outside of a small dedicated niche of hard core space nuts.

And that will be a similar issue with the Japanese Buildings. Unless you are already familiar with the concept of a Japanese bath house or classic house design, it will be unfamiliar to most of the target audience. Even those that love ninja. (Granted I am one that would buy multiples of such a set, I hope and wish it passes review. But my business sense says its unlikely.)

[Blondie-Wan]

We don't actually count Shinkai, as it was a much smaller production run sold only in Japan, and voted exclusively there, as part of CuuSoos beginnings. Whereas Hayabusa while an interesting space and science kit, has a principle niche as Japan's farthest reaching spacecraft. And a source of national pride. But the interest from that pride doesn't translate as well elsewhere outside of a small dedicated niche of hard core space nuts.

And that will be a similar issue with the Japanese Buildings. Unless you are already familiar with the concept of a Japanese bath house or classic house design, it will be unfamiliar to most of the target audience. Even those that love ninja. (Granted I am one that would buy multiples of such a set, I hope and wish it passes review. But my business sense says its unlikely.)

Quite possible, but of course we really don't know. Look at it all the exclusive D2C sets of various world landmarks, like the Tower Bridge. Before that set was released, I don't think it's something any of us thought LEGO was particularly itching to do as a set, but they obviously saw a business case for it. As soon as it was announced, many of us - not all LEGO fans by far, obviously, but no small number of AFOLs, either - oohed and ahhed over it and made plans to squeeze it into their LEGO budgets. I think something like the Japanese old-style architecture project would have at least as decent a business case as something like Tower Bridge, purely on the aesthetic appeal of the model (and yes, I realize it'd be changed, but presumably / hopefully the final product would be comparable in beauty to the concept model on CUUSOO). I think the very existence of sets like the Tower Bridge, the Sydney Opera House, both of the large VWs, etc. - all of which are large, detailed, expensive models that don't fit into specific themes (and don't necessarily even match the majority of contemporary sets in being done in a minifigure-compatible scale) but have undeniable beauty - suggests that something like the Japanese Old-Style Architecture wouldn't necessarily be flat-out impossible and automatically ruled against, at the very least.

[The Real Indiana Jones]

Yes, good point there Blondie-Wan, It looks like a lovely Architecture set, plus it will include several minifigs of Ninjas and Samurai, which are globally popular favorites. When I was in middle-school, I wanted to be a Ninja, and when I was in high-school, I wanted to be a Samurai, even though I've never even visited Japan! Sounds like a strong contender to me! It should be interesting to hear how their decision goes in a few months.

Overall, I think that any set that is like a "vacation-in-a-box" (British: "on-holiday-in-a-box") will have a lot of appeal!

Edited September 20, 2013 by The Real Indiana Jones