Friends "Controversy"

[Haltiamieli]

All I want for them is a wider, less stereotypical range of interests. How about a couple of girls who like to play soccer? How about an artist, or a sculptor? How about one punk girl in the theme, or a mountain biker, or one who likes fishing or gaming? A girl who likes to cosplay, with steampunk goggles? While we're wishing, how about if the one black character wasn't a singing, dancing diva?

I suspect, or at least hope, that later waves will reveal new interests for the main characters, some less stereotypical than others. Admittedly summer wave seems to be a let down on that front. Some sports would be good (is soccer still too obscure for most Americans?). Cosplay might still be a bit too fringe activity, but how about an old-style masquerade party at someone's home? Mia as a pirate captain, Andrea as a female cowboy and Emma as a princess (so that it would please everybody )? There are certainly a lot of possibilities, we just have to hope that if the theme proves to be a success, Lego will be brave enough to try them out later. By the way didn't someone already like drawing in those descriptions, so we could very well get her as an artist with the CMF Series 3 paint brush some day?

Gender neutrality isn't having one special theme for girls with incompatible minidolls and a pastel color palette. Gender neutrality is making your existing themes more neutral. Make Nya a real ninja, for crying out loud. Let there be more than one female per action theme, and let them actually do something aside from being monster bait. Put some pastels in the standard City sets. Design a veterinary theme that doesn't have cutesy misshapen puppies, using the standard Lego animals - they've made plenty of them over the years. THAT would be gender neutrality.

This is the opposite. It's gender polarization.

I agree, but optimistically (or cynically, dunno?) I also think that sometimes, maybe, you have to take a step backwards to be able to take two forward. Lego wants to catch the attention and interest of millions of children worldwide, children who have not previously had much interest in Lego at all. That is a very hard if not impossible thing to do if you are just going to up the amount of female minifigs in existing themes, add some non-trivial hero girls into action themes and so on. That would surely please the girls that are already interested in Lego (and that's why they have been doing that exact thing too, even if we can probably all agree they are making it with irritatingly (and unnecessarily?) slow advancements). But all in all it's not very marketable. It doesn't make much more visibility, buzz or hype. It doesn't get people talking (except AFOLs, but we would talk in any case). I'm still wondering if the controversy people aren't just playing into Lego's pockets with their campaigns, as regardless of their agenda they are still giving the theme launch more visibility.

[Perry the Platypus]

We'll had to laugh when I saw this!

+snip+

Female minifigures don't even like the minidolls!

Edited January 6, 2012 by Peppermint_M
Massive Quote!

[sharky]

There is a factor that we haven't talked about yet really, the retailer....where will they stick this theme in the girls section next to Barbie or in the actual Lego section, because the latter will still be seen by girls and their interest could be broadened by seeing other themes,.....just a thought.

At one Target they are on an endcap at the end of the Lego aisle. At another Target they are in the girls section right next to the Polly Pockets and similar toys. At TRU it was on an endcap on a Lego aisle.

[Haltiamieli]

I forgot to say in my last post that by no means do I think Friends is a perfect theme. I think my positive stance towards it is partly because I think it could have been so much worse – and realistically, maybe it could not have been that much better, all things considered. When it comes to gender stereotyping Friends is far from ideal, but nevertheless I think it could be Lego's best attempt (yet) at a "girl theme". Yes, that includes Paradisa, even if it had normal minifigs (lazing away idly in their pink beach paradise, faces distorted eternally into a duckface, waiting for Manolo to bring more piña colada). Actually I think the ladyfigs are quite good and I appreciate their compatibility in size with normal System themes. Minifigs are all kinds of awesome, but I don't think they need to be the only answer.* As a child I was a Fabuland fan, and those figs were much less compatible with other themes. And lo! They are still fondly remembered by many AFOLs of today.

* (I'm in a safe hiding place, so lynch mobs don't bother)

Edited January 5, 2012 by Haltiamieli

[lightningtiger]

Female minifigures don't even like the minidolls!

Now, now girls....

Actually look closely the complaining minifig has a pink top on under her jacket, plus figure lines of a figure showing hips and breasts.....in reality the collectable minifigs as well as some standard females side on are of course flat chested but front on the lines show C-cup or greater.

I just wished female minifigs in police/fire/etc., would have the same treatment so they don't end up looking sort of butch.

[Hinckley]

I just wished female minifigs in police/fire/etc., would have the same treatment so they don't end up looking sort of butch.

Ask and ye shall receive:

[Perry the Platypus]

Ask and ye shall receive:

I see no breast lines on THAT one!

[Hinckley]

I see no breast lines on THAT one!

The outward slope is there. Look at how the pockets buldge.. and definitely the hourglass waist lines are there...

[Perry the Platypus]

The outward slope is there. Look at how the pockets buldge.. and definitely the hourglass waist lines are there...

Right you are. I don't know if LEGO was trying to be sexist with that figure or what!

[lightningtiger]

I see no breast lines on THAT one!

Ah, but she's wearing a all that uniform....wait to you see her pole dance on a Saturday night !

Back on track....sort of....now if only the paramedic and garage collection girls remember to wear their bras then those torsos would look more realistic and if they did it for the police chief there well why not eh ?

Anyway, this is not about minifigs as such, but Friend's and their minidolls.

[Perry the Platypus]

Ah, but she's wearing a all that uniform....wait to you see her pole dance on a Saturday night !

I'll be there.

[lightningtiger]

I'll be there.

And she'll bring her handcuff's too !

Actually I'm wondering if what 'Perry' raise over in the 2012 Friends Discussion Thread about girl's in bikini's....I just underwear might also be a problem, though sleepwear I would say be on the cards...slumber party....that's a girl thing to do isn't it ?

Though some of the girls only in bra's and panties might be interesting....dam, that will P.O. those feminist's wouldn't it eh ?

[vynsane]

Aesthetics notwithstanding, the comparisons to Polly Pockets are false for two main reasons: These figures can sit on things (even without tubes in the backs of their legs) and can stand up without falling over (since PP are always on tippy-toes for some reason). Playing with PP's with my daughter is the biggest lesson in frustration.

My 5 y/o daughter is a girly-girl by nature. It's always a fight to get her to wear pants when it's below freezing out (it's always a dress or skirt with her). She's also interested in many "boy things" like Spider-man, Batman and Star Wars (she asks for "The Empire Strikes Back", her favorite of the series, by saying she wants to watch "the one where Luke gets his hand cut off").

She's been most into Kingdoms to this point, but she went INSANE when she saw the prelim pics in October, January catalog insert, and actual sets at TRU this past weekend. She built all three of the sets we bought that night by herself - one that night, one the next morning before school, and one that afternoon. She was VERY enthusiastic to do so, which is out of character for her - whenever we built anything in the past I would be driving the action and we'd have to take breaks. She was more active in building Kindoms Prison Tower Rescue recently, but we only got through two bags so far. Granted, the three sets we got were one $6 and two $10 sets, so smaller - but we just ordered the Beauty Shop, so we'll see how her enthusiasm translates to a larger scale build shortly. I anticipate only minimal help on my part, probably mostly to apply stickers.

Anyway, yes - as stated elsewhere in this topic, there are gender stereotypes at play here, but I'd much rather she play with these sets that show regular, every-day girls being friends with diverse personalities over fluff like Disney Princesses and Polly Pockets any day, especially with the added benefit of the spatial relations and direction-following afforded by the building process.

[Aanchir]

Something to keep in mind about the suggestion of "add more female figures to regular themes" or "give female characters more significant roles in action themes"-- while these ideas would promote gender neutrality, would they really be good business? Part of the reason the gender ratios are how they are is because young boys would be less likely to buy sets with lots of female figures.

BIONICLE is a shining example, because, being an action figure theme, the figures are the sets. And the gender ratios in that theme have always been preposterous: each year, for the most part, one girl to every five boys. Hero Factory is no better in this regard. There's no reason TLG was unable to put more female characters in the theme, except that female action figures in general sell poorly compared to male ones. Some action figure manufacturers "shortpack" female figures for this reason, producing fewer of them and sending fewer of them per shipment of action figures to retailers. TLG, at least, has not utilized this tactic.

So by asking TLG to even out their gender ratios, you're basically asking them if they're willing to gamble away their success with one audience on the possibility of appealing to a different audience that they have never been able to secure the same success with-- even with themes like Paradisa and Belville that were designed for girls and reversed the typical gender ratios. Needless to say, I think it's astoundingly brave that they're even adjusting the gender ratios so much in this year's City sets.

TLG isn't a stupid company, and the cheapest possible solution to the gender gap in their customers is without a doubt the option they would have considered first. But the fact that the gender gap is so significant, whether in story-driven themes or in more dedicated "building themes" like Technic and Creator, should make it obvious that the characters and figures in LEGO themes aren't the only factor causing this gender gap, even if they are a major one. The things girls want to play with are just in many cases different than the things boys want to play with, and creating "middle of the road" toys that might appeal to neither gender is not the wisest solution.

[Perry the Platypus]

And she'll bring her handcuff's too !

Actually I'm wondering if what 'Perry' raise over in the 2012 Friends Discussion Thread about girl's in bikini's....I just underwear might also be a problem, though sleepwear I would say be on the cards...slumber party....that's a girl thing to do isn't it ?

Though some of the girls only in bra's and panties might be interesting....dam, that will P.O. those feminist's wouldn't it eh ?

I'm all for it. Especially if we get some stripped dolls! I bet girls would feel awkward buyig a slumber party set with girls in their panties, but it's part of the human body. There is no lies about what lies underneath those clothes...

[lightningtiger]

Thanks 'vynsane' for adding another parents point of view, now the Pocket Polly thing, I only ever mean't that the figures look similar....we all know that minifigs can sit and stand....so can the minidolls too.

There is one thing not talked of yet, unless I've missed somewhere along the line (what else is new for me eh Hinckley ? ).....peer group pressure. One girl has it, so do the rest of the crew eh ?

[Perry the Platypus]

Thanks 'vynsane' for adding another parents point of view, now the Pocket Polly thing, I only ever mean't that the figures look similar....we all know that minifigs can sit and stand....so can the minidolls too.

Even though Polly Pockets and the minidolls are similar, they are different. The minidolls are LEGO plastic, and Polly Pockets are rubbery plastic. Minidolls can be taken apart. So they are similar, yet different.

[Flipz]

Actually, no there isn't. There's no stereotyping involved with a construction worker minifig, because "construction worker" isn't a stereotype, it's a job description. Those minifigs don't have shallow personalities, because we don't know anything about their personalities. We only see them on the job. Off duty, the Lego builder is free to imagine that the construction worker's hobbies are anything s/he can imagine, from hang gliding to singing German opera. We can picture them as straight or gay, white or black or Asian, rich or poor, image-obsessed or interested only in sports - whatever we want, they can be. Stereotype level = zero. With the Friends minidolls, on the other hand, we know EXACTLY what their interests are, because their interests are the focus of the sets and because the website tells us. And their interests are stereotypes.

The Friends girls are clearly too young to have actual jobs, which is a whole different ball of wax, but I can live with it. All I want for them is a wider, less stereotypical range of interests. How about a couple of girls who like to play soccer? How about an artist, or a sculptor? How about one punk girl in the theme, or a mountain biker, or one who likes fishing or gaming? A girl who likes to cosplay, with steampunk goggles? While we're wishing, how about if the one black character wasn't a singing, dancing diva?

You're right, and that is exactly the tactic I think TLG should have focused on for bringing more girls to play with Lego. The shortage of female minifigs in the classic themes is one of the biggest problems for girls. I see this constantly at home. My girls are perfectly happy to play with standard Lego, but they always want the female minifigs. I'm happy that TLG is addressing this issue, but at the same time I think it would have worked just fine without introducing a "girls' theme".

Gender neutrality isn't having one special theme for girls with incompatible minidolls and a pastel color palette. Gender neutrality is making your existing themes more neutral. Make Nya a real ninja, for crying out loud. Let there be more than one female per action theme, and let them actually do something aside from being monster bait. Put some pastels in the standard City sets. Design a veterinary theme that doesn't have cutesy misshapen puppies, using the standard Lego animals - they've made plenty of them over the years. THAT would be gender neutrality.

This is the opposite. It's gender polarization.

Again, I have to state for the record that I don't hate Friends, although the more I post about it the more it sounds like I do. It's not a horrendous theme, and I think my girls might like it. I plan to buy one of the sets for my eldest today, in fact, as a reward for doing a fantastic job in school. (No, it won't be the beauty salon...) But there IS a sexist element to the theme, no matter how much AFOLs want to deny it. I hope that TLG are paying attention to comments that point out problems with the theme, and that they will attempt to fix them in future waves. They did listen to the complaints about not having enough female minifigs, after all.

And then we can all be Friends again.

I suspect, or at least hope, that later waves will reveal new interests for the main characters, some less stereotypical than others. Admittedly summer wave seems to be a let down on that front. Some sports would be good (is soccer still too obscure for most Americans?). Cosplay might still be a bit too fringe activity, but how about an old-style masquerade party at someone's home? Mia as a pirate captain, Andrea as a female cowboy and Emma as a princess (so that it would please everybody )? There are certainly a lot of possibilities, we just have to hope that if the theme proves to be a success, Lego will be brave enough to try them out later. By the way didn't someone already like drawing in those descriptions, so we could very well get her as an artist with the CMF Series 3 paint brush some day?

*snip*

I agree with both of your points; I'd love to see some diversity in both directions. Friends could use some more girls with less "girly" interests (not to mention it needs more than just ONE guy, especially since he's so much older than the rest!), and System needs more women in general and needs more "artists" and other less "burly man" occupations. (The Collectible Series minis do a lot for that, but I want to see a Lego theatre with actors performing Shakespeare, and other more artistic pursuits.)

In response to the bolded comment in Haltiamieli's comment, it's becoming less obscure with Americans...however, there are also those who view soccer as a girl's sport for some reason. (I've endured some unwelcome* remarks about my sexuality when I played soccer with a local group. Of course, other friends immediately told them off for it, but still...)

*Off-topic (highlight)Unwelcome because it was none of their business, and because they insinuated I was "sinful" if I didn't adhere to their concepts of manhood.

I forgot to say in my last post that by no means do I think Friends is a perfect theme. I think my positive stance towards it is partly because I think it could have been so much worse – and realistically, maybe it could not have been that much better, all things considered. When it comes to gender stereotyping Friends is far from ideal, but nevertheless I think it could be Lego's best attempt (yet) at a "girl theme". Yes, that includes Paradisa, even if it had normal minifigs (lazing away idly in their pink beach paradise, faces distorted eternally into a duckface, waiting for Manolo to bring more piña colada). Actually I think the ladyfigs are quite good and I appreciate their compatibility in size with normal System themes. Minifigs are all kinds of awesome, but I don't think they need to be the only answer.* As a child I was a Fabuland fan, and those figs were much less compatible with other themes. And lo! They are still fondly remembered by many AFOLs of today.

* (I'm in a safe hiding place, so lynch mobs don't bother)

Unless you play forum Mafia...

[def]

Actually, no there isn't. There's no stereotyping involved with a construction worker minifig, because "construction worker" isn't a stereotype, it's a job description.

>snip<

I share a lot of your sentiments, but I already voiced my opinion more than enough in this thread to keep it up

I did want to say though, my hope is that this series is successful and it allows TLG to diversify things later on. One of the things I didn't care for about this was how conservative the sets are. The notion that it took TLG years and millions of dollars of research in order to raid the girls' aisles at Toys R Us is kind of sad But it is a first line in the series, and hopefully it is successful and this will lead them to expand and create sets that are appealing to girls without being "For Girls". Right now, the City/Town line is pretty action job oriented (Fire, Police, Astronauts, etc) and the City would be well served to have more down to earth sets. If they can build a bridge between the Friends line and the rest of their lines, there will be a blurrier line between the boy sets and girl sets. It would be great if there were other lines compatible with Friends without being Friends, the way the mini-figs from all other series are compatible. Right now the company has a very small selection with which to represent its "girl campaign"

It will be a year or so though before we get to see what kind of effect, influence or long term prospects this new style has.

[Perry the Platypus]

I share a lot of your sentiments, but I already voiced my opinion more than enough in this thread to keep it up

I did want to say though, my hope is that this series is successful and it allows TLG to diversify things later on. One of the things I didn't care for about this was how conservative the sets are. The notion that it took TLG years and millions of dollars of research in order to raid the girls' aisles at Toys R Us is kind of sad But it is a first line in the series, and hopefully it is successful and this will lead them to expand and create sets that are appealing to girls without being "For Girls". Right now, the City/Town line is pretty action job oriented (Fire, Police, Astronauts, etc) and the City would be well served to have more down to earth sets. If they can build a bridge between the Friends line and the rest of their lines, there will be a blurrier line between the boy sets and girl sets. It would be great if there were other lines compatible with Friends without being Friends, the way the mini-figs from all other series are compatible. Right now the company has a very small selection with which to represent its "girl campaign"

It will be a year or so though before we get to see what kind of effect, influence or long term prospects this new style has.

Agreed. It seems that LEGO is taking a learning curve from this new theme's profits. It needs to sell and appeal well to girls and AFOLs before LEGO decides to make more girl projects. Themes like Belville failed ultimately. This new line takes things to a different level, with pieces and colors that will appeal to not even girls, but boys as well. LEGO went through years of market researchto find out how to appeal to girls, and so far, it's been working. My LEGO Store's shelves are almost empty! Why, girls are going wacko over these new playsets! As long as Friends sells and LEGO is satisfied with the success, they'll keep it around for a while.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Perry the Platypus

[Gryphon Ink]

Something to keep in mind about the suggestion of "add more female figures to regular themes" or "give female characters more significant roles in action themes"-- while these ideas would promote gender neutrality, would they really be good business? Part of the reason the gender ratios are how they are is because young boys would be less likely to buy sets with lots of female figures.

So says conventional wisdom, and somebody is bound to mention this every time we talk about gender in Lego. To counter, I have only anecdotes about boys who simply loved playing with dolls and girls who loved playing with trucks, until interfering parents or horrified uncles thought that the boys would catch TEH GAY from playing with Barbies, and firmly directed them towards more masculine pursuits. Yes, it's only anecdotes, and probably won't convince you, but I've seen the phenomenon often enough as a parent and a former daycare worker to be really, really sure that what boys and girls "like" to play with has more to do with social programming than with inherent differences between the sexes. And I seriously doubt that boys would suddenly stop wanting Lego because there were two female characters in Pharoah's Quest.

The thing about conventional wisdom, especially regarding gender roles, is that in many cases, it's totally wrong thinking based on centuries-old paradigms that were simply never challenged because our whole society was based on them. For at least a couple thousand years, the conventional wisdom was that women would never make good soldiers, or doctors, or engineers, and that to even ask them to fill those roles would be an unnatural perversion that would insult their gender. Fast forward to the late twentieth century, and we suddenly discover that women are perfectly good at all those things, and many of them absolutely love doing them. And they don't even have to wear pink to like their jobs!

TLG isn't a stupid company, and the cheapest possible solution to the gender gap in their customers is without a doubt the option they would have considered first. But the fact that the gender gap is so significant, whether in story-driven themes or in more dedicated "building themes" like Technic and Creator, should make it obvious that the characters and figures in LEGO themes aren't the only factor causing this gender gap, even if they are a major one.

I would not spend so much time on an AFOL site if I thought TLG was a stupid company. But market leaders in every branch of industry have made bad calls, despite the fact that they almost always do market research before launching a new product. TLG has foundered before, and they will founder again. They have made themes that hardly anybody liked before, and they will do it again. Every company makes mistakes.

Disney once thought that Mars Needs Moms was a good idea, and before that they thought it was a good idea to fire Tim Burton and Chris Sanders because their ideas weren't in tune with Disney's corporate culture. Years later, Tim Burton is one of Disney's biggest moneymakers, and Chris Sanders' first non-Disney movie was How To Train Your Dragon (worldwide gross, $500,000,000).

Research In Motion used to completely dominate the smartphone market. They had it tied up. They could do no wrong. Then they decided, based on conventional wisdom and market analysis, that the iPhone was just a toy and would never be a significant challenge to Blackberries with a dedicated keyboard and a solid business-ready infrastructure, so they kept on making pretty much the same phone with the same app store. If you had asked me about this situation two years ago, I would have told you RIM were a market dominator and would never make such a stupid mistake. But they did, and they lost their place as market leader.

The things girls want to play with are just in many cases different than the things boys want to play with, and creating "middle of the road" toys that might appeal to neither gender is not the wisest solution.

This reminds me of another case where a company defied conventional wisdom and launched products that most hardcore consumers predicted would never sell, and that the company had sealed its own fate: Nintendo. While Sony and Microsoft went all-out to capture gamers with state-of-the-art graphics processors and high-end multimedia drives, Nintendo launched a console and a handheld that couldn't compare in any way. And they followed the hardware launch with hundreds of titles that were decidedly "middle of the road". People said they would lose their audience, because no self-respecting gamer would even buy the Nintendo systems. But Nintendo is currently annihilating the competition in the console wars, because they marketed their weak systems and middle of the road games to audiences far beyond the traditional gaming market - audiences that, by the way, include millions of women and girls that would never think of buying a PS3. And they didn't even lose their traditional audience - most hardcore gamers eventually bought two systems, an X360 or a PS3 AND a Wii. Maybe they don't play the Wii as much as their prefered console - but the money is already in Nintendo's pocket.

Lord, I do carry on. Long story short, you could be right, you could be wrong, Friends might be an awesome "gateway drug" for girls to get into Lego, or maybe putting more females in Ninjago and doing some gender-neutral marketing would have made it the toy of the decade - but it's not necessarily true that TLG must know what they're doing because they are professionals and they did some market testing. Remember Mars Needs Moms! (Production budget: $150M. Gross box-office: $40M. Market tested out the wazoo, like every Disney product.)

Apologies for the tl;dr.

[Aanchir]

Thanks for the in-depth reply. However, I have to point out that whether or not boys are "hardwired" to dislike female figures and so forth, there are influences on boys and girls alike that lead them to want different things. Nature vs. Nurture is a very interesting subject on its own when it comes to gender roles, but from a marketing perspective nature and nurture boil down to the same thing: powerful influences outside of LEGO's control that lead boys and girls to want different sorts of toys and media.

I have no doubt that boys and girls from birth can enjoy the same sorts of toys-- otherwise there would be little explaining why girls and boys tend to buy and play with Duplo to about the same extent. But as they get above the Duplo age range, they start to seek out different play experiences. Whether that is because of some type of inherent mental development, because of entering grade school where peer pressure has a more profound influence, or some combination of the two, the types of things girls and boys at these ages enjoy tend to diverge.

Moreover, while you're right that conventional wisdom can't always be counted on when it comes to this sort of thing, keep in mind that TLG is not in much of a position to challenge conventional wisdom in such a profound way. Their past attempts at getting girls to buy LEGO sets have had mediocre success for the most part. If a company is to challenge conventional wisdom regarding what girls will or won't like, then it would be a company that already has a significant female audience. These are the companies that can probably afford to take such risks.

But as it is, TLG is already "pushing the envelope" just by trying to market a building toy with this level of construction quality to girls. The closest I've seen in recent years was Mega Bloks's Hello Kitty license, and I have no way of knowing whether that enjoyed any significant level of success. It certainly didn't try to challenge girls with any type of building complexity, that's for certain.

I apologize if I sound like a LEGO fanboy grasping at straws. I have difficulty being judgmental about any issue like this where I don't have all the facts, and so from my perspective TLG is putting forth a valiant effort to make the Friends theme a stronger and more constructive toy than past attempts. But I don't feel they're in any position to change the nature of how toys are marketed to girls.

On a side note, some people have observed that the City theme has more balanced genders in many of its sets next year. I wonder whether perhaps TLG is deliberately timing this to correspond with the Friends theme so that they can have two comparable attempts at marketing products to girls and then compare their levels of success with that audience?

[NiceMarmot]

I think Friends is all about Marketing. I believe girls will play with LEGO if it's in front of them, especially if it's an interesting set to them. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience with my daughter, my wife, and my kids' female friends, they tend to prefer sets from themes like Kingdoms and Harry Potter, and are less interested in things like Hero Factory and Star Wars (although one of my son's female friends is a huge SW fan, so it does happen). And they will play with them, sometimes endlessly. My wife and daughter love our Mill Village Raid. If we had a MMV or Hogwarts, they'd probably love that too. And I think TLG knows that girls love these types of sets.

However, girls aren't going to play with sets they don't have. And they're not going to get LEGO sets unless Mom or Dad or Granddad go down that aisle in the store and buy them. And I don't think Mom goes down the LEGO aisle in Target, TRU, or Walmart when they're shopping for toys for little Hannah. I certainly haven't seen many moms dragging their little girls down the LEGO aisle in the store. And putting a few more female minifigures into a Ninjago set isn't going to make that happen.

So I think Friends is all about getting Mom and Aunt Katherine to notice LEGO as a viable option for little Hannah. And even if Kingdoms or HP sets were in the Barbie aisle in the store, I don't think Mom would pull them off the shelf, because she thinks her little girl is a princess, and those sets aren't going to resonate with Mom's mental image of her little girl. This is all about getting Mom to pull a LEGO box off the shelf in the girl's toys aisle, and asking Hannah whether she would like it, and having Hannah respond "Yes!!".

So TLG creates some new, well-designed Town sets, in colors they know will appeal to Mom, modifies the minifigure design to make it more modern and similar to other dolls Mom has bought for Hannah, and dresses it up in nice purple packaging. Now they can get the retailer to put it in the Barbie aisle. And when Mom walks by, she'll say, "Wow, look at that! Isn't that cute! I love that little kitty and hedgehog!" And TLG is betting that once Hannah gets a few Friends sets and signs up for the LEGO Club, they can market City/Town and HP and whatever else to her too.

I'm all for TLG putting more female minifigs into standard sets, but I don't think that helps them much get girls playing with LEGO. I hope they do it anyway, and I think they will because it will help girls transition from Friends to other themes.

So in my mind, the whole controversy is totally misplaced. Friends is not targeted at girls. Friends is targeted at people who buy toys for girls, especially moms.

Edited January 6, 2012 by NiceMarmot

[lightningtiger]

So in my mind, the whole controversy is totally misplaced. Friends is not targeted at girls. Friends is targeted at people who buy toys for girls, especially moms.

Well, it's aimed at both girl's and parents.....plus unashamed AFOL's who see through the BS and sees it for what it really is.....Lego....play well.

[lightningtiger]

Today, I was able to do something no one might have done yet....ask a dad and his girls....well I did.

The youngest given the option of Friend's vs. Lego City Forest Police....she pointed at....the police station.

Her slightly older sister, said she didn't care...to her Lego is Lego.

The dad was happy just to buy what his girls want.

All the jumping up and down, etc., have been done by adults without consulting the one's that really count....the children. I guess only a parent or grandparent could understand that....you not sure, you ask the child...never assume, they are not you or somebody you want them to be.

Controversy.....the only controversy really is how different groups of adults might be acting more childish over a toy than children who are childlike playing with that toy.

Just my two cents worth tonight.