Friends "Controversy"

[romdam]

I like the friends sets although i'm a male afol, there are many useful pieces even male AFOL's can use.

I don't mind the "weird" figs as throughout the whole history of Lego there where other figs than minifigs (like the ones in technic Lego), i also like that there is more Lego for girls as they are usually less interested in Lego than boys (my doughter for instance ).

Well i think this is a useless discussion for the controversy part, Lego is originally designed for kids ! get over it, buy those d#mn friends and use the pieces for your MOC's and throw away the figs (if you don't like them).

Great post from the "target audience".

[Texrob]

My son and my daughter both like playing with the Friends sets. Our philosophy has always been to let my son play with dolls and my daughter to play with trains and play tools. The same holds true for Lego; I've always encouraged them both to play with them from Quatro to Duplo to now Lego sets. I find the sets to be very playable and I love the new pieces and colors. There are a lot of possibilities there. I can't wait to see what the AFOL community creates using these new sets!

[Legogal]

Yup, purple is a very cool color! I love it in the new Friends' sets, and already had quite a bit of it bought off BL.

My whole family likes purple, aqua, dark pink, Maersk/sky/light blue, azure, all of the light oranges and greens and yellows. These colors are much easier on the eyes than the traditional red, green, blue, black and yellow of lego.

Let's hope that Lego does more sets in these colors!!!

[JackJonespaw]

Yup, purple is a very cool color! I love it in the new Friends' sets, and already had quite a bit of it bought off BL.

My whole family likes purple, aqua, dark pink, Maersk/sky/light blue, azure, all of the light oranges and greens and yellows. These colors are much easier on the eyes than the traditional red, green, blue, black and yellow of lego.

Let's hope that Lego does more sets in these colors!!!

Don't we all hope. I know the CM6 have some of those colors featured on them. But, truthfully, I haven't gotten a set in a long time with a red, or blue piece on it. And if it is, it's in some obscure place. I love the new colors.

[lightningtiger]

I found something very interesting and if Lego wins.....this controversy might blow over.

Nominations for the ToyAward 2012

Yes, a Friend's set is nominated for toy of the year ages 6 to 10.

[Aanchir]

I found something very interesting and if Lego wins.....this controversy might blow over.

Nominations for the ToyAward 2012

Yes, a Friend's set is nominated for toy of the year ages 6 to 10.

I think the fact that Friends is proving fairly popular, and that TLG is pushing it so strongly, is part of the reason there is a controversy. If it were seeming to be a flop then I'm sure many people who are worried about its implications would happily just watch it die. Any successes the theme has, though, will just continue to keep it within the public consciousness, and those who are dissatisfied with it from a gender-equality perspective will not be satisfied unless the issues they see in it are addressed.

Also, I believe Clikits won a Toy of the Year award at one point, so it should be understood that such awards are by no means a measure of a toy's longevity or success, only how innovative the toy is considered. In this case, Friends is innovative just by virtue of being a girl-oriented building toy that actually tries to treat girls with some degree of creative dignity.

Now, if it does win an award, then that perhaps brings the world one step closer to recognizing that girl-oriented building toys are a viable market, which is one goal I hope the Friends theme does bring about whether it proves to have staying power or not. The real measure of its success, I think, will not just be whether Friends sets continue to appear each year, but whether TLG's competitors in the building toy market begin to acknowledge girls as a suitable audience for their products.

[the enigma that is badger]

One of the sponsors of the Change petition, Bailey Shoemaker Richards, was recently interviewed by the NPR show Tell Me More.

Most of the information in the interview is identical to what has been posted online, although it's fairly short (only 7 minutes) and definitely worth a listen. Michel Martin (the host of Tell Me More and interviewer for this story) asks some fairly critical questions, some of which have been raised in this thread.

EDIT: Corrected interviewer from Michele Norris (of All Things Considered fame) to the correct Michel Martin. Do I need to mention I listen to way too much NPR? ;)

Edited January 28, 2012 by the enigma that is badger

[Capn Frank]

One of the sponsors of the Change petition, Bailey Shoemaker Richards, was recently interviewed by the NPR show Tell Me More.

Thank you Badger!

That was a good article.

The sets - we've talked to some people who work in toy stores who actually their job is to set up the display sets and they said the Lego Friends line is much more simplistic than lines aimed at other kids in the same age bracket. It's not as innovative as we would expect.

It's obvious to me that Richards and the people he talked to about these "simplistic" sets never read any reviews of the set or actually built them.

These sets are definitely on par with City Buildings and contain a lot more accessories.

[lightningtiger]

Reading the transcript raise my blood temperature , who does she think she is....seriously, " Lego Friends line is much more simplistic " some of the designs are more detailed than some city sets....some even fusion of creator too !

The line " It's extremely limiting. ", what is limiting.....a child's imagination is never limiting unless an overbearing adult dictates to the child what they can and can not play with.

I will love to see someone come up with a Friend's vig of female Jedi and Sith lords battling it out or a city style vig of a police woman or fire fighter or even a Rosie-The-Riveter !

Does it really matter what the Lego set looks like if a child likes it.....let the children play.

Play Well.

[LegoMyMamma]

Reading the transcript raise my blood temperature , who does she think she is....seriously, " Lego Friends line is much more simplistic " some of the designs are more detailed than some city sets....some even fusion of creator too !

Take your blood pressure meds

Here's the follow-up NPR interview with Michel Martin transcripts -- "Whether Pink Legos Are Just Building Stereotypes" -- in which 3 guests talk: one is a former Mattel employee, one is the mom of a girl who was (supposedly) teased for having a Star Wars water bottle at school, and the third has a male & female child. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=145705192

My personal take-away from it is the hypocrisy of Goldman, because if she demands her child be allowed Star Wars toys without recourse, then why can't another parent be able to buy LEGO Friends without harassment -- if that's what their child wants? I am now realizing the damage this "backlash" may cause to the psyche of the millions of girls who are thrilled with the new theme.

Something even more important to point out here is that the main "czar" behind the petition against TLG, Lyn Mikel Brown, is also against "macho" toys, along with her partner, who also teaches at Colby College (article with photos): http://www.colby.edu/colby.mag/issues/51/article/994/the-making-of-machismo/

So, it seems, only a grey blob toy will suffice

[AndyC]

I think my favourite bit from that first NPR interview is this one:

"I mean, they've looked at what is going to sell to girls, so when you market pink princesses and beauty to girls from the time they're infants, by the time they're in Lego's target market for this line, which is about five and up, they're going to associate pink, pretty, you know, this very specific gender role with what they think they're supposed to be playing with."

Yes, she's actually arguing that by the time girls are old enough to play with Lego, they're already indoctrinated into her 'pink ghetto'. And yet this is still the fault of Lego and their marketing. If you're going to put forward an argument against something, at least try to make it logical and consistent because otherwise you just come across as a bit crazy.

I'll have to have a listen to that follow up interview now.

[the enigma that is badger]

Thanks for sharing the follow-up, LegoMyMamma! Unfortunately, I found it disappointing in that it really didn't answer the key questions I have about the line: what does the target audience, namely girls in the appropriate age range, think of the line. Does it encourage them to build? What do they think of the marketing of and themes explored in LEGO Friends? That would have been much more interesting than the adult roundtable discussion they chose to feature.

Yes, she's actually arguing that by the time girls are old enough to play with Lego, they're already indoctrinated into her 'pink ghetto'. And yet this is still the fault of Lego and their marketing. If you're going to put forward an argument against something, at least try to make it logical and consistent because otherwise you just come across as a bit crazy.

The underlying hypothesis of everything I've read from the LEGO Friends detractors is that they think all (or the vast majority) of gender differences are social constructs and any marketing or products geared towards appealing to one gender do nothing but reinforce those artificial values onto the children meant to consume them. They view LEGO as part of a vicious cycle that helps create gender differences then exploit those differences to sell products, hence the somewhat confused nature of her argument.

This type of campaign has been around for quite some time. I think they're particularly annoyed with the LEGO Friends line because what they remember of LEGO is the basic brick, a product in their minds that was "pure" of any targeting towards a particular gender. I think that explains no small number of the confusions about "prebuilt sets", "fewer bricks", and "bricks that won't work with regular LEGO" that we've seen.

Unfortunately, they clearly aren't interested in understanding that LEGO today is a multi-fascated company with a variety of lines and products which are geared towards different audiences, including several lines that clearly are not gender-based (City, Architecture, Technic, Mindstorms), yet still function together as part of the LEGO building system. They're much more interested in fitting LEGO Friends into their "pink ghetto" narrative rather than truly trying to understand the nature of the Friends line and how it fits into the larger view of all LEGO products.

[Gryphon Ink]

I found something very interesting and if Lego wins.....this controversy might blow over.

Nominations for the ToyAward 2012

Yes, a Friend's set is nominated for toy of the year ages 6 to 10.

Er, you'll notice that even the people nominating it for this prize are aware of some of the problems people are talking about. They describe the set as follows:

It is obvious at first glance - Lego made LEGO® Friends: Olivia's House was made espe-cially for girls: floral patterns on the house walls, a pink roof and outfits, hairdos and accessories for the figures to be styled in different ways, all of this is in line with tradi-tional role stereotypes - but the young ladies find them fascinating. Lego added lovely details and comprehensive instructions thus presenting a sophisticated construction toy dedicated to girls between the ages of six and ten.

[def]

Yes, she's actually arguing that by the time girls are old enough to play with Lego, they're already indoctrinated into her 'pink ghetto'. And yet this is still the fault of Lego and their marketing. If you're going to put forward an argument against something, at least try to make it logical and consistent because otherwise you just come across as a bit crazy.

I don't think that's what's being said at all. The general criticism is not that LEGO is a leader in the gender marketing stereotype, it's that LEGO is falling in step with it. In general, despite Belville, LEGO had been a unisex company.

If Kenner or Mattel were releasing the same toy line, there would be no complaint, since those companies have been guilty of gender enforcement for decades.

The quote in that interview about the sets being simplified is ignorant, and shows that the speaker hasn't used them/doesn't use LEGO in general, but I don't see a criticism about the point you did.

So, it seems, only a grey blob toy will suffice

Way to understand the other side of the table

Thanks for sharing the follow-up, LegoMyMamma! Unfortunately, I found it disappointing in that it really didn't answer the key questions I have about the line: what does the target audience, namely girls in the appropriate age range, think of the line. Does it encourage them to build? What do they think of the marketing of and themes explored in LEGO Friends? That would have been much more interesting than the adult roundtable discussion they chose to feature.

For encouraging them to build, I think it's too soon to say. I think in the next few years, if we see a shift from the current "9%" that's been quoted, it will have been a success. I wouldn't ask a child about marketing personally, since few are aware that marketing exists. They tend to just see it as a fact of life. I think it's pretty rare for young kids to analyze the world in that way.

I'm not the target audience, but that's my two cents.

[fallentomato]

Here's the follow-up NPR interview with Michel Martin transcripts -- "Whether Pink Legos Are Just Building Stereotypes" -- in which 3 guests talk: one is a former Mattel employee, one is the mom of a girl who was (supposedly) teased for having a Star Wars water bottle at school, and the third has a male & female child. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=145705192

My personal take-away from it is the hypocrisy of Goldman, because if she demands her child be allowed Star Wars toys without recourse, then why can't another parent be able to buy LEGO Friends without harassment -- if that's what their child wants? I am now realizing the damage this "backlash" may cause to the psyche of the millions of girls who are thrilled with the new theme.

Thanks for sharing that NPR article, I think it has a nice mix of perspectives. I particularly like this line from Sarah Maizes:

"And it actually goes both ways because I've also seen boys express an interest in playing with some of these cafes or beauty parlors and now they're being taunted because they're being told that stuff is for girls, you're a sissy, so I think it's great to offer a full range of Lego products. I think it's great to offer beauty, you know, beauty products and whatnot, but just put them all in one place. Don't gender label them. Don't say these are for the girls, these are for the boys. You know, definitely put all different kinds of products out there and then let the kids choose."

I don't see where you are coming from calling Goldman a hypocrite. I don't see anywhere in that article where she suggests anything like harassing people who buy LEGO Friends. She even says, "I don't have a problem with the pink blocks or with creating Legos that appeal to some of the interests that have not been represented so far in Legos. My problem is that their marketing it as those interests has to be the realm of the girls."

[L@go]

I was amazed to see that Lego had made the front page of VG Helg, the weekend magazine from Norway's biggest newspaper VG (Verdens Gang). The caption on the front cover reads: "The Lego girl has become a babe - labelled as a hindrance to gender equality":

I thought you might like to read the nine-page story, so I've translated it for you. Now, I'm not a native English speaker, so I'd be very surprised (and delighted) if my translation is without flaws, but you'll get the idea. Here goes:

I'm a Lego girl in a Barbie world

Around the world, these figures are making people protest: The new Lego babes are too sugar sweet. And gender stereotypical.

She's got long, blond hair, a short skirt, pink shoes and a tiny tight top. Her name isn't Barbie, but Stephanie, and she's Lego's new girls' toy.

NEDRE EIKER/OSLO (VG) They're taller and slimmer than the classic, square Lego figure with the yellow head – and they've got female forms.

With friends Stephanie, Mia, Emma, Andrea, and Olivia, Lego wants to conquer all the world's girls aged five and up.

But the blonde waitress Stephanie, with her singlet and short skirt, has upset the people who regarded Lego as the "good" actor in a toy business that's getting more and more cynical and gender segregated.

Under the slogan #Liberate Lego the sugar sweet figures have been accused of being gender stereotypical Lego Barbies in social media.

Even the Danish Minister of Gender Equality, Manu Sareen, is put off by Lego's new series.

- It's annoying that Lego's unique and inspiring toys are now reinforcing the kind of traditional gender patterns that the Friends line does, the minister wrote on his Facebook profile.

At the same time, an old Lego advert from 1981 is going viral as an example that everything was better back in the old days.

On Facebook, 19,000 people have thus far liked the image of a tough, red-haired girl with jeans and blue trainers, proudly presenting a Lego build stripped of princesses and pink.

The headline goes like this: "What it is is beautiful".

On Facebook the image has been shared thousands of times, with the caption: "Dear Lego: More ads like this one, please".

The image has led to an endless number of blog posts, heated comments and tweets.

- The girl in the ad from 1981 is no tomboy; she's a completely ordinary girl. We are the ones who have turned five-year-old girls into pink princesses – and the toy industry has played a major part, says Solveig Østrem, associate professor at the Kindergarten Centre at the University College of Vestfold. She's been studying children playing and learning in nursery schools, and she thinks that girls' failure to participate in constructional play is hampering the girls' development.

- Pink "princess Lego" that can hardly be used for building won't help the girls. This is Lego designed to be put together easily and played with as dolls, it doesn't invite to constructional play, Østrem says.

According to human geographer Karl-Fredrik Tangen at the Oslo School of Management, constructing pink princesses can have dire consequences.

- Girls are socialised into a world of decorations and care, pulling them into low-salary care jobs. This contributes to women's powerlessness. It is a good thing if the girls learn how to build, but they should be building bridges and skyscrapers. Lego is playing a part in presenting the world like it's natural that women are subdued. Now Lego is going to reinforce the gender segregation in the shops, instead of decreasing it, Tangen says.

In Norway's biggest toy shop, Toys'R'Us at Alna in Oslo, shiny, tiny princess costumes fill the aisles. The pink trail of glitter and dolls continues through a corridor decorated with Barbie curtains. Long, thin legs with stilettos, pink toy castles, and Hello Kitty. And then, a towering wall of Lego reveals itself: Warriors, space ships, fast cars, swords and guns in dark colours.

But in February, the macho warriors will be accompanied by the Lego girls from the fictitious city of Heartland (sic), when the Lego Friends line is launched in Norway.

Birthday girl Agnes Eikseth Aas (7) is right in the middle of the new line's target group. Today, she's invited the girls from her class to a birthday party at Lindern, Oslo.

The girls are excited, sitting in a circle on the living room floor as the girl with the crown on her head spins the bottle.

Whomever the bottle points at, is to give her present to the birthday girl.

- Woooow, you're lucky, the classmates shout in unison as Agnes pulls the blonde Barbie doll from the wrapping paper.

- Mum, see what I got! Agnes shouts, reaching her arms in the air, clutching the plastic box.

Seven-year-old Agnes is no typical pink-girl. She joins in when her dad does carpenting, and her mother is very consciously avoiding the typical girl clichés. For Christmas, Agnes wished for a toolbox – and a make-up head.

- Our mothers were very politically conscious and wanted to show that girls can do the same things boys can do. But now the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, thinks mother Barbro Grude Eikseth, who's also got a nine-year-old daughter.

She feels that toy shops are way too occupied with pointing out gender differences.

Her seven-year-old daughter does not play with Lego; she associates it with boys' toys and Star Wars, the mother explains.

- I try to provide a critical voice, but I'm not fanatical. There's something life-affirming in dressing up and live out your dreams, she says.

- She yells at me when I buy Hello Kitty for the girls, laughs father Harald Aas.

Daniel Fernandez-Kaspersen is also celebrating his seventh birthday. The noise level is even higher than at Agnes's all-girl party.

- It's Lego! The birthday kid from Nedre Eiker shouts, throwing the paper away.

- Oh, it's war!

The seven-year-old boys gather around the box of Lego Kingdoms, knights with armour and shields.

The next present contains Lego Star Wars. It's a battlepack that Daniel's already got, then some NinjaGo, and some Bakugan figures.

- Boys are supposed to play with Spider-Man, Star Wars, Beyblade and karate. Girls play with dolls, Barbie and skipping ropes, classmate Andreas Wernar Hasselberg says, before the birthday boy's dad steps in to negotiate which one of the boys will get to borrow Daniel's Star Wars light sabre.

- Nowadays the toys are supposed to be very boyish. I was always thinking that I wouldn't let my children play with gender-stereotypical toys, and we gave him a toy kitchen when he was a little boy. We also thought that we weren't going to buy just pink stuff for our two-year-old daughter, but it doesn't work that way. She likes to dress up, and she likes pink. And boys like to be tough, says father David Fernandez-García.

- Toys are more divided into typical girls' and boys' toys now. At Daniel's age it's a crisis if he get something that can be considered girly, mother Eva Fernandez-Kaspersen chimes in.

- We had a lot of good intentions, but we can't escape the fact that we're living in a society, David sighs.

- It's been a clear trend for the past ten years that toys and clothes are less unisex, says Mari Rysst, a researcher at Norway's National Institute for Consumer Research (Sifo):

- Girls are supposed to be cute, pretty and even sexy, while boys are hard and tough. This stereotypical pattern is something that the gender equality movement has worked a long time to get rid of, so it's a paradox that this is the situation for children today.

Rysst thinks the extreme gender segregation in the toy industry shows two things:

- For one, that the manufacturers are looking for new niches to make money. And secondly, that maybe gender equality is taken more and more for granted, so one doesn't really realise that toys can reproduce old, stereotypical gender patterns, Rysst says.

But the consumers have spoken.

The Lego Friends figures are the results of four years' worth of research, design development, focus groups and play testing in girls' homes in several countries.

A collaboration between the company's own team of analysts, called "anthros", external consultants, designers and marketing people has resulted in what Lego thinks is exactly what girls and their mothers want.

So far, Lego products have proved not to appeal to girls; 90% of today's Lego users are boys.

- The idea of the unisex toy is dead. There's no use in giving girls and boys the same thing, states Niels Sandal Jakobsen, head of Market and Consumer Insights at Lego.

Even though girls like to build, they don't want to be warriors or aliens in Lego concepts like Star Wars, Hero Factory, Alien Conquest or NinjaGo.

- Lego might just as well have put up a sign saying "No girls allowed", Peggy Orenstein commented in the international best-selling book "Cinderella Ate My Daughter" from 2011, where she describes how the princess mania has taken over the present generation of little girls.

Internationally, the Danish toy manufacturer has gone from losing a million dollars a day in 2005 to increasing profits by 106% since 2006. The main focus has been on cultivating a portfolio with focused boys' themes. In Norway, Lego has grown with approximately 30% a year for the past five years.

After a very successful turnaround, Lego is now hungry for the remaining half of the market.

Lego is planning to use more than 40 million dollars on marketing for their new girls' concept.

- We're doing what we can to remain relevant for girls, and to reach them we need to move towards everyday themes and roles that they can identify with, Jakobsen declares.

In the decade leading up to the "tomboy's" appearance in the Lego ad from 1981, the battle for gender equality rages. There should be no differences between the sexes in children's toy boxes, either: Baby brother gets doll stroller. Baby sister gets hammer and saw.

- This has had no effect of any importance. The girls who grew up back then still didn't get any less traditional or concerned with make-up, Stein Ulvund says. He's a professor of pedagogy at the University of Oslo, and he has studied the importance of toys on children's intelligence.

Ulvund's opinion is that the toy business isn't solely to blame for the fact that children are trapped in an old-fashioned gender pattern, but he does think that the business is moving in the wrong direction.

- The toy industry reinforces traditional gender patterns, speculating in pink and blue. The gender segregation has become more extreme than ever, Ulvund says.

He doesn't think it's as simple as the gender difference in toy preferences is something that we're born with, like previous research has hinted at.

- I think that it's to a major extent something we learn through our social environment. We can't rule out the possibility that gender-segregated toys will have consequences for how children develop – we don't know a lot about this, Ulvund says, but he still thinks that the main influence on children's perception of gender roles is their parents.

Ulvund is disappointed in Lego.

- I've been thinking of Lego as a serious player, and I think they could have gained much more by resisting the pressure for gender segregation, the professor says about the new Lego.

Beauty has been an essential factor in the development of the new girl Lego.

- Girls like pretty things, and care about details and finesse, says Lego's Niels Sandal Jakobsen.

He thinks all kinds of play are about identity.

- When the girls are between the age of three and nine, they grow conscious about their sex and who they are. There are roles to adapt to, says Jakobsen. He's convinced that children's preferences have got to do with genes.

He thinks that the critics' opinions are based on a misconceived anxiety that the children will become what they play.

- They see "fashion dolls" and a view on women that they don't approve of, and conclude that "I won't let my daughter play with these kinds of products, because she'll become just like the dolls."

Despite the fact that Helle Vaagland, a program host with Norwegian national broadcaster NRK and author of the book "Go Mum", is a self-proclaimed feminist, she welcomes the new Lego line.

- I don't think the urge to decorate, or what we think of as typical girls' interests, can be oppressed. I have to admit that I have a hard time being engaged when my sons build Star Wars spaceships and Indiana Jones planes. But if I could build a pink café instead, where the Lego friends could get together for a chat, I might just get more interested, says Vaagland.

She's pleasantly surprised by the new Lego ladies, in spite of them "naturally being slimmer than the Lego figures for boys".

- They're very versatile. They build tree houses and run a design school, a beauty salon and a veterinarian clinic. And the fact that they also enjoy giving their dogs pink ribbons can hardly be dangerous, she says. Vaagland thinks that the politically correct approach from the 70s and 80s could actually work against its purpose.

- My mother dressed me up in blue jeans and brown corduroy, but deep inside I really wanted to wear pink princess dresses, a dream that I didn't fulfil until I grew up.

- Now I wear pink as often as I can, while fighting for gender equality on a daily basis, says Vaagland.

In seven-year-old birthday girl Agnes's room, VG Weekend introduces a little surprise to the girls' party: A sneak preview of the Lego Friends figures.

- Ooooh, so nice!

- That looks like a lot of fun!

- I want to be Mia, says Hanan (6).

- I want to be Sophia, says Sofie (6).

- I want to be Olivia, says older sister Ella (9).

- But there's none for me, the birthday girl exclaims – before she notices something she wants:

- I'll have the horse!

The girls rip open the bags with the small girl figures and immediately start talking about what clothes they'll dress them in.

- But do you like building?

- Yeeeeaaah, the girls answer in unison.

- But we must look at the building instructions first, says Helene (6) and picks up the little brochure buried under the pile of pink and purple bricks.

By ida.giske@vg.no, beate.koren@vg.no, janne.moller-hansen@vg.no

Edited January 29, 2012 by L@go

[fyrmedhatt]

Honestly, I don't seen the controversy here, toys have been marketed separately for boys and girls as long as toys have been marketed, and I doubt that will change anytime soon. These feminists that are stirring things up because Lego is marketing separately to girls should really study up, as it has happened for the past forty years, and I find it ironic that the outcry comes now that lego has finally introduced a girls line that provides a building experience on the same playing field as the usual boy themes.

My wife finally got the inventor's lab today, and she enjoyed the set tremendously. She likes Lego, although she doesn't build very often, and it takes something special for her to really enjoy it. I really think that these sets provide a good introduction to Lego for girls that would otherwise not like this kind of toy, and no one is telling girls that they have to only play with Friends Lego if they want to play with other themes.

[AndyC]

It still amazes me how often that 80s advert is brought up, when it should be clear to anyone that had that been a succesful advertisement we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.

[L@go]

EDIT: Posting mistake.

Edited January 29, 2012 by L@go

[LegoMyMamma]

They're much more interested in fitting LEGO Friends into their "pink ghetto" narrative rather than truly trying to understand the nature of the Friends line and how it fits into the larger view of all LEGO products.

Yes, this is what I have come to realize too. The more I read of their "campaign" and the way they pat each other on the back for coming up with cute little slogans to demoralize the Friends theme (like saying it targets the "lowest common denominator" and creating a wordle graphic to represent it) the more it is apparent they are barely casual LEGO consumers.

Their passive-aggressive tactic of putting TLG up on a pedestal ("oh, LEGO, you're our go-to toy") for then, what seems like, the purpose of knocking them off that pedestal with a campaign, skewing information, and a petition (demanding a meeting) it obvious to me.

----------

To: fallentomato, I referred to the hypocrisy of Goldman's participation in the conversation, since she is a de facto spokesperson for the "no pink" campaigners. I didn't say she harassed anyone -- yet I have read her comments on other sites in regard to Friends, so I am aggregating her overall intent. The campaign fails to realize (as 'the enigma that is badger' pointed out) that Friends is merely one new option. Why should they get to criticize my option, if they don't want their option criticized?

I was already aware of her child's story way before this controversy erupted. Yet, was she actually "bullied" or just teased? (I do think there is a difference in the two actions.) I wholly support her daughter's choice to have a Star Wars themed item; when I heard the story last year about the actress who voices Ahsoka in Clone Wars sending her support and even some cool SW items (light sabers) -- I thought it was great!

So, the flip side is that I would hope Goldman would embrace my daughter's choice to have LEGO Friends themed items without recourse (bullying/teasing) too!! It's all about having options. While I like SW, although am not a massive LEGO SW fan, I do respect those who are 100% and am happy for them when they are happy, ya know?

It only occurred to me while posting about that NPR transcript that there could be some cajoling of girls who do choose Friends. I certainly hope not! Yet, the way this campaign has been plastered online, it is possible. For all their concern of girls' psyche damage, in regard to being stereotyped -- they seems to have dismissed the possible damage to the psyche of girls who the Friends aspects represent. Girls who do like pink, who like Polly Pocket, who like to build houses with bricks, who comb their hair, who like animals, etc., have equal standing in society as girls who like Star Wars.

Plus, SW & Friends themes are not mutually-exclusive anyway

--------

To: L@go, Thanks for translating & posting that! No doubt the article was printed before the Danish Equality Minister actually retracted his criticism of LEGO Friends!

Perhaps you can provide that link in a comment to the article online, or the authors could print it as a follow-up/correction to the story

[Trent]

It still amazes me how often that 80s advert is brought up, when it should be clear to anyone that had that been a succesful advertisement we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.

Do you have statistics to say that it didn't work in the 80s?

The thing that I still can't get over with Friends is that Lego has neglected its female market in two major ways. Firstly, they rarely produced female minifigs - you buy a City set, and you always get a bunch of males. The occasional time that you get a female minifigure, it seems that she's passive - you don't get a female train driver, but you do get a female passenger. There are exceptions, but those two things apply for the most part.

Secondly, the newer themes have got more and more masculine as years have gone by - Ninjago, Star Wars, Hero Factory, Alien Conquest...they're all very male orientated. The Creator line taps more into what I would've loved as a child - the likes of Modular Houses (not even the grand scale of the Modulars, but things like Hillside House etc), Lighthouse, various Animals (e.g. the Safari set, Dinosaurs)...but even that has a leaning towards vehicles in the impulse sets.

It's not that these themes can't be enjoyed by girls, but over the years, Lego seems to have focused its lines at males - and now, to try and get girls back into building, they're having to overreach and make a stereotypical product instead.

This reminds me of when the Wii came out a few years ago. When I was a kid, you had all sorts of computer games on the PC that were great, and even on consoles like the Mega Drive, there were lots of games that were suitable for both genders - think of how popular Sonic and Mario were; neither of which were strongly marketed to males or females. By the time the XBox came out, the landscape was dominated by first person shooter games and most women seemed to lose interest in playing games. The Wii came out, made a bunch of games that weren't "shoot someone in the face" and ta-da, the whole world seemed to marvel at the fact that EVERYONE, including women and old people, were enjoying computer games. I can't help but wonder if some of the cause of this was because your world is re-enforcing... 15-30 males enjoy playing FPS games, 15-30 males get into the gaming industry, 15-30 males make games that they would enjoy...etc.

I think Lego has accidentally fallen into the same trap. I wonder how many female Lego designers there are? (Not that it's necessary to have females designing sets for them to be enjoyed by females...but if the female voice isn't heard, the designs become more and more masculine.)

[the enigma that is badger]

I wouldn't ask a child about marketing personally, since few are aware that marketing exists. They tend to just see it as a fact of life. I think it's pretty rare for young kids to analyze the world in that way.

I'm not the target audience, but that's my two cents.

I don't expect the target audience (girls 6-12 based on the information posted on the LEGO website) to have a detailed analysis about marketing strategies of LEGO. I'm speaking more broadly about the line itself and how it's being presented to them:

- What do they think of the new Friends figure? Do they prefer it to the traditional minifigure? Why?

- What do they think of the color palette of the elements in the Friends sets? Do they prefer it to the palette in other lines?

- Do the Friends sets appeal to them more than action-orientated lines (Ninjago, Star Wars) and other building lines (Architecture, City)? What themes would they most want to see explored in sets?

- Does the modular building of the Friends sets fit their style of play (as LEGO states)? Do they find the level of difficult present in the builds of Friends set to be at an appropriate level for them?

This is all information LEGO has discussed, particularly in the Business Week article, but I'm more curious for the raw data and get into the origins of what drove the Friends line then feedback from those same sources (girls in the target age and their parents) on the line itself.

Given the extremely competitive nature of the toy business, I don't expect LEGO to start publicly publishing their (costly!) research efforts, but still, that (or similar) data would certainly be a major contribution to this discussion.

[AndyC]

Do you have statistics to say that it didn't work in the 80s?

If it had worked, Lego wouldn't have been considered a "boys" toys, that should be reasonably self-evident.

[Trent]

If it had worked, Lego wouldn't have been considered a "boys" toys, that should be reasonably self-evident.

It's not self-evident at all. You're simply assuming that it didn't have the desired impact, based on the company's position at present - but that position could've been reached due to an enormous number of factors.

I'm not saying that you're wrong; you could well be right - but without the statistics to back it up, it's illogical to make sweeping "obvious" statements. Very often, what seems obvious at first glance, isn't obvious at all.

[AndyC]

I'm not saying that you're wrong; you could well be right - but without the statistics to back it up, it's illogical to make sweeping "obvious" statements. Very often, what seems obvious at first glance, isn't obvious at all.

Without any such statistics (which are unlikely to be public if they exist at all), the next best indicator was how TLG followed up. And that was to go in a completely different direction through things like Clickits, Scala and Belville, all aiming to draw in the girls market. It's difficult to see any logic in that strategy had the campaign been judged successful by any metric.

Which is nto to say that girls can't enjoy 'ordinary' Lego sets or that a similar campaign might not have worked. It could well be that the 'tomboy' image of the girl in the ad had completely the wrong effect, reinforcing a far worse stereotype that only boyish girls would want to play with Lego. It's difficult to ascertain why it didn't really succeed without considerable research, but all the surrounding evidence strongly indicates that it didn't.