Is Cuusoo too easily taken over by Rabid Fandoms?

[Vindicare]

I dunno.

Minecraft seems to be sold elsewhere.

https://www.jinx.com/LEGOMinecraft

-Omi

You got me. I simply meant they wouldn't be sold in stores. Because, it's sounds like Lego Otaku thought Cuusoo projects would be on store shelves, where the confusion over Zelda/Mario sets would happen.

I largely disagree

I have always hovered on the edge of getting back into Lego, but the EVE Rifter linked on my facebook feed led me to Cuusoo. So I saw it and loved it and voted for it, also voted for western town, space marines and the UCS Sandcrawler.

I got back in to Lego because of that, have 154 minigigures now and over 12000 pieces in 2 months!

Still quick to write of fandoms and the good they can do? ;)

Just because I am a massive EVE fan does not mean I cannot like other themes/creations or enjoy Lego as well.

I don't know. I tend to agree more with pinioncorp that most people who came on and (for example) voted for the Winchester after seeing it talked about on Conan. Being a fan of Shaun of the Dead and not of LEGO, they came on, signed up and voted for it and never looked back. Those fans kind of ruin it and skew the info LEGO gathers when people support a project. Chances are those fans aren't going to buy, even know they said they would before they clicked submit.

[Brickadeer]

@OP:

I don't believe that a real problem exists since I assume Lego to be able to decide whether any proposal got 10,000 votes on its own merits or for other reasons.

There may be an issue of fairness, though. People who make proposals and cannot get 10,000 votes or cannot get them quickly might consider it unfair that others can rely on a fanbase whose votes doesn't root in the merits of the build. But since I believe that Lego can identify such propals, I don't see that the fairness issue is of relevance, either.

[SpiderSpaceman]

I wish the star wars bucket and the my little pony project would just get removed already so we didn't have to wait it out with them dominating legitimate projects forever.

Alternatively, I would say let's all vote for them so they can get denied and disappear, but that would ruin the system.

[Faefrost]

I wish the star wars bucket and the my little pony project would just get removed already so we didn't have to wait it out with them dominating legitimate projects forever.

Alternatively, I would say let's all vote for them so they can get denied and disappear, but that would ruin the system.

Well the my little pony project they can simply delete out of hand at any time, at least according to the newer rules. It's a competitors toy line. It's not a theme or a cartoon show. It was created as a toy by another company, and sits on toy shelves opposite their friends lines. I don't think Lego ever has or ever would sub license someone else's toys. ( now a few of their direct competitors... They'll license someone else's toys in a heartbeat, see Transformers, HotWheels etc)

The Star Wars bucket is a little more problematic. Lego has that license, and it isn't a bad idea per se, just a bit unsexy. That one will eventually die on it's own. But who knows maybe it will inspire them to do something interesting with a bucket set.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Faefrost

[Aanchir]

I wish the star wars bucket and the my little pony project would just get removed already so we didn't have to wait it out with them dominating legitimate projects forever.

Alternatively, I would say let's all vote for them so they can get denied and disappear, but that would ruin the system.

We don't know that the MLP project couldn't happen, since there's no known precedent for TLG attempting a partnership with Hasbro (as far as I know). It's possible that with some type of cross-licensing arrangement, an agreement could be reached.

Meanwhile I think it's working out perfectly fine the way they're doing it now, only accepting or rejecting projects when they reach 10,000 supporters. Sure, it leads to disappointment, but I think it's better that the disappointment comes in the form of an official statement created after the project reaches its goal than in the form of projects disappearing from the "Discover" page without warning, so people might not realize until after-the-fact that the projects got denied.

If TLG did decide that they would start denying projects before they reached the threshold, then I'd want them to make a consistent rule about it (i.e. we enter licensing discussions after ___ supporters and announce the results of those discussions, positive or negative, as soon as we get them). But in reality, it's possible TLG avoids licensing discussions until the threshold has been reached. They would have an understandable reason for it-- waiting gives them the largest possible cross-section of supporters so that during the discussions they could present the information about who supported the project and how much they would pay for the product.

[purpleparadox]

The Star Wars bucket is a little more problematic. Lego has that license, and it isn't a bad idea per se, just a bit unsexy. That one will eventually die on it's own. But who knows maybe it will inspire them to do something interesting with a bucket set.

That's an interesting idea...

I think it won't get made as it is because it's just a "figure pack", and only Hasbro can do that. But perhaps if they included a lot of SW-orientated bricks in a bucket with instructions for SW models, and threw in some minifigs, then maybe a Star Wars bucket'll be made.

[Aanchir]

That's an interesting idea...

I think it won't get made as it is because it's just a "figure pack", and only Hasbro can do that. But perhaps if they included a lot of SW-orientated bricks in a bucket with instructions for SW models, and threw in some minifigs, then maybe a Star Wars bucket'll be made.

It's interesting to think about whether that could be done with the Star Wars Bucket proposal at this stage. Certainly the rules allow for project creators to modify their project, but how much can you change a proposal that's gotten a lot of support without risking that people's reasons for supporting the project would no longer be valid? I imagine if this ever becomes an issue we will see a rule change to make up for it, such as perhaps requiring Cuusoo staff approval before major changes can be made to a project.

[Modulex Guy]

I dunno.

Minecraft seems to be sold elsewhere.

https://www.jinx.com/LEGOMinecraft

-Omi

FYI. Jinx.com is Mojang's/Minecraft's official merchandise web shop. Thats why it is sold on that site, and not just exclusively through LEGO.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

I believe they will raise the level over 10.000!

[Omicron]

FYI. Jinx.com is Mojang's/Minecraft's official merchandise web shop. Thats why it is sold on that site, and not just exclusively through LEGO.

I am aware. I was making a point that these sets are sold elsewhere besides Lego stores.

-Omi

[Paul Boratko]

I wish the star wars bucket and the my little pony project would just get removed already so we didn't have to wait it out with them dominating legitimate projects forever.

Alternatively, I would say let's all vote for them so they can get denied and disappear, but that would ruin the system.

The "My Little Pony" Project getting the Greenlight would be about the equivalent of Chevrolet debuting pictures of the all new Mustang GT...

Edited May 16, 2012 by Paul Boratko

[Lyichir]

The "My Little Pony" Project getting the Greenlight would be about the equivalent of Chevrolet debuting pictures of the all new Mustang GT...

I see it more like Batman and Spiderman appearing in a crossover comic. After all, it's not like LEGO would be taking over production of My Little Pony toys in general; they'd just be producing building toys based on the franchise. Perhaps LEGO could even the stakes by making a deal with Hasbro so that Hasbro in turn would get to produce some non-brick-based LEGO products (like the minifigure plushes or key lights, for example) that LEGO usually contracts out to a smaller company.

Is the success of this project unlikely? Yes. But there's no reason to nip that project in the bud before LEGO has gone into talks with Hasbro. The whole idea of Cuusoo is to take fan suggestions for products that might not be made otherwise. Creating an arbitrary list of "companies LEGO will not work with" would run counter to those goals. Cuusoo users can self-enforce these kinds of rules: if this project fails, the users will be able to use it as an example and will be less willing to support projects of properties owned by Hasbro in the future. With Cuusoo in its beta stages, each project that succeeds or fails creates a precedent that will influence future projects.

[Haltiamieli]

I don't know. I tend to agree more with pinioncorp that most people who came on and (for example) voted for the Winchester after seeing it talked about on Conan. Being a fan of Shaun of the Dead and not of LEGO, they came on, signed up and voted for it and never looked back.

Most probably do so, I don't deny that. But with Lego it's good to remember that while actual AFOLs are not that great in numbers, the amount of people who have latent admiration towards the brand is huge. Certainly for some of those people (only Lego knows how large portion they are, but rest assured that they do indeed know), when they encounter Cuusoo through a mention of The Winchester or The Legend of Zelda or whatever, enough interest is sparked that they may look at and support other entries too, before they go on in their lifes.

I'm quite certain this is how I would have acted a few years back (before my interest in Lego was reawoken) if there had been a Lego LotR project advertised on TheOneRing.net, for example. I would have followed the link and if I had been interested and impressed enough to register and support said project, I would have looked around for other interesting projects - after all I had already bothered to register, so why not.

Those fans kind of ruin it and skew the info LEGO gathers when people support a project.

Remember that Lego doubtlessly gathers information on the voting habits of the Cuusoo users so they can profile which sort of people have voted for any given project. If someone has voted only for one model and never revisited the site they probably put less weight on their opinion on pricing etc in the review stage.

[tafkatb]

*snip*

Hasbro isn't just another toy company, though - now that they have their own construction toys, Kre-O, they are a direct competitor. Hasbro has no incentive to agree to a license here since they can just make the toys themselves.

[Faefrost]

I see it more like Batman and Spiderman appearing in a crossover comic. After all, it's not like LEGO would be taking over production of My Little Pony toys in general; they'd just be producing building toys based on the franchise. Perhaps LEGO could even the stakes by making a deal with Hasbro so that Hasbro in turn would get to produce some non-brick-based LEGO products (like the minifigure plushes or key lights, for example) that LEGO usually contracts out to a smaller company.

Is the success of this project unlikely? Yes. But there's no reason to nip that project in the bud before LEGO has gone into talks with Hasbro. The whole idea of Cuusoo is to take fan suggestions for products that might not be made otherwise. Creating an arbitrary list of "companies LEGO will not work with" would run counter to those goals. Cuusoo users can self-enforce these kinds of rules: if this project fails, the users will be able to use it as an example and will be less willing to support projects of properties owned by Hasbro in the future. With Cuusoo in its beta stages, each project that succeeds or fails creates a precedent that will influence future projects.

It's a world of difference. Also keep in mind that it took decades for all parties to agree to the above mentioned batman/spiderman crossing. It was at best a one shot deal, and still causes the licensing lawyers to shudder in revulsion. But DC and Marvel had strong marketing reasons to do it. It was an event driven marketing stunt that benefitted both.

There is no business upside to Lego seeking a Hasbro product like MLP. There is no reason to do it. In comics there is a certain synergy between creative houses. Something that boosts one typically benefits all as they are a niche market. But toys? Not so much. Pure cutthroat competition. There is no reason, nor any perceivable benefit for them to ever consider working with a competitors toy line or license. The only thing that would change that would be a merger or acquisition. Heck even the projects presence on CuuSoo is technically feeding the competor marketing info and data. I'm surprised it hasn't been killed for that reason alone.

The day it crosses 10k we will get a simple and politely worded message from TLG informing us that while they like ponies and understand the fans interest, as a standard matter of business practice they don't license the direct competitors toy lines.

[Lyichir]

Hasbro isn't just another toy company, though - now that they have their own construction toys, Kre-O, they are a direct competitor. Hasbro has no incentive to agree to a license here since they can just make the toys themselves.

Hasbro doesn't even produce Kre-O. It is itself a licensing deal with Oxford bricks, a Korean clone brand. I understand that they would have many reasons to favor doing business with a smaller, less competitive outfit; All I'm saying is that they have shown willingness to license out their property in the past.

It's a world of difference. Also keep in mind that it took decades for all parties to agree to the above mentioned batman/spiderman crossing. It was at best a one shot deal, and still causes the licensing lawyers to shudder in revulsion. But DC and Marvel had strong marketing reasons to do it. It was an event driven marketing stunt that benefitted both.

There is no business upside to Lego seeking a Hasbro product like MLP. There is no reason to do it. In comics there is a certain synergy between creative houses. Something that boosts one typically benefits all as they are a niche market. But toys? Not so much. Pure cutthroat competition. There is no reason, nor any perceivable benefit for them to ever consider working with a competitors toy line or license. The only thing that would change that would be a merger or acquisition. Heck even the projects presence on CuuSoo is technically feeding the competor marketing info and data. I'm surprised it hasn't been killed for that reason alone.

The day it crosses 10k we will get a simple and politely worded message from TLG informing us that while they like ponies and understand the fans interest, as a standard matter of business practice they don't license the direct competitors toy lines.

Most of what you said is correct, but keep in mind that Hasbro has essentially zero marketing info or data, save for the number of supporters. They can't ape the actual designs for fear of getting into legal trouble, and LEGO has a lot more data than just the support level; they have how much each supporter would be willing to pay, how much they would buy, and more. Moreover, Hasbro has no idea what percentage of the supporters of that project would be fine with lesser-quality products, and how many consider the LEGO aspect of the proposal as important as the Pony side of it, if not more so.

And if it fails, what happens then? There's a lot that could result even from a rejection. For pony fans, Hasbro could see the demand and produce Kre-O sets, which would at least satisfy those fans who are less concerned about quality. For LEGO fans, Cuusoo will have gained an important precedent in showing the limits of the system. If this project is rejected it will be the first to do so due to an inability to license, unlike the other two rejected proposals, which were rejected for content.

As a pony fan I'll be disappointed if this project fails. But as a LEGO fan, I'll be watching intensely. In its beta stages, Cuusoo's regulations are subject to changes based on experience gained from projects which reach the support limit, whether they succeed or fail. Many have postulated a submission rule that would prevent projects based on properties which can't be licensed. I personally think such a restriction would be overly vague and would stifle creativity. But if LEGO sees fit to add such a restriction, I'll be intrigued as to what form it will take. The best idea I've come up with is a sort of "blacklist" that lists each company LEGO fails to license with, but the very idea of that has some very negative connotations LEGO may wish to avoid. But anything less explicit could result in uncertainty in user proposals. After all, users are not always privy to what goes on behind the scenes at LEGO. And if proposals start being eliminated for no discernible reason, it could undermine trust in the system. I see the best solution to be for them to do what they're doing now: letting projects gather support, and accepting or rejecting them only at the review stage. That way, if a project that normally wouldn't have a chance reaches the support threshhold when all the stars are aligned, LEGO could facilitate the occasional miracle.

[Meatman]

I don't see how a Lego project like MLP could ever not fail. I bet if this same project was submitted today that it would be rejected in the prereview stage. I think the original one is getting leniency because it is already over the 50% mark in Supports and they are letting it run it's course just to keep fans interested.

[1980-Something-Space-Guy]

I don't see how a Lego project like MLP could ever not fail. I bet if this same project was submitted today that it would be rejected in the prereview stage. I think the original one is getting leniency because it is already over the 50% mark in Supports and they are letting it run it's course just to keep fans interested.

I think that Lego should stop those projects before they reach 10,000, because there is a point at which it can be said with some certainty that a project is going to hit 10,000, and like Lego did with the Serenity project, sometimes they can and should be able to make the decision before it reaches 10,000. Otherwise, attention is drawn away from other projects, I would say.

[Vindicare]

I think that Lego should stop those projects before they reach 10,000, because there is a point at which it can be said with some certainty that a project is going to hit 10,000, and like Lego did with the Serenity project, sometimes they can and should be able to make the decision before it reaches 10,000. Otherwise, attention is drawn away from other projects, I would say.

Not too mention, it's just that many more people getting mad at LEGO. Which could turn some of them away from the company altogether. Especially if those people also voted for the Winchester and/or Serenity. They could lose faith with CuuSoo and TLG.

[1980-Something-Space-Guy]

Not too mention, it's just that many more people getting mad at LEGO. Which could turn some of them away from the company altogether. Especially if those people also voted for the Winchester and/or Serenity. They could lose faith with CuuSoo and TLG.

That's a valid point. I think that they are trying to spot those projects earlier on, so less people become excited with the idea. Could be the best they can do.

[Lyichir]

I think that Lego should stop those projects before they reach 10,000, because there is a point at which it can be said with some certainty that a project is going to hit 10,000, and like Lego did with the Serenity project, sometimes they can and should be able to make the decision before it reaches 10,000. Otherwise, attention is drawn away from other projects, I would say.

I think the opposite is true. As long as the projects remain open, they attract outside users who may stick around to support other projects. If LEGO shuts them down early, that hype is lost. Not to mention that if they started shutting them down before they reached the threshhold, LEGO would begin to be expected to do so. The 10,000 supporter goal would lose a lot of its meaning if so many projects started being axed prematurely.

With Serenity, the early decision was made due to brand standards, which were then codified and made public. The only way projects like MLP which may be unlicensable should be axed before the limit is if a similar path is taken, and some method of ensuring that these projects are not started in the first place is codified into the site guidelines. That way the Cuusoo staff can reduce the uncertainty of submitting a new project, and moreover can have ample justification to preempt the normal pattern of reviewing only at 10,000 supporters.

[Dakar A]

I think the opposite is true. As long as the projects remain open, they attract outside users who may stick around to support other projects. If LEGO shuts them down early, that hype is lost. Not to mention that if they started shutting them down before they reached the threshhold, LEGO would begin to be expected to do so. The 10,000 supporter goal would lose a lot of its meaning if so many projects started being axed prematurely.

With Serenity, the early decision was made due to brand standards, which were then codified and made public. The only way projects like MLP which may be unlicensable should be axed before the limit is if a similar path is taken, and some method of ensuring that these projects are not started in the first place is codified into the site guidelines. That way the Cuusoo staff can reduce the uncertainty of submitting a new project, and moreover can have ample justification to preempt the normal pattern of reviewing only at 10,000 supporters.

That sounds like a decsion that TLG would make. If they make it clear to the user what is and isn't gooing to work, it not only prvents oversaturation of un-liscensable projects, it also allows users to become more imaginative, and bring good projects, like the Space Marines, out of the woodwork. If you look to the current top projects, it's easy to see that the Dark Bucket won't make it through, based on Lego's comments on it. THat will discourage people from adding projects that have a similar concept, and prevents possible cluttering of the system. Also, I belevie that the current top projects (liscensed, that is) are a direct result of the success of Mincraft. Some smart people out there realised thattheir favourite cult show/movie/videogame had a good chance of getting a lot of exposure, and the better of these projects worked their way to the top. Once they are rejceted (assuming that they are), people will realise that EVRY popular thing that they think of is not guarnteed to become a Lego project, and will hopefully take some more time and think through their project idea a little more!

[Hive]

CUUSOO is a splendid idea that is, sadly, pestered with ideas that are unrealistic and/or immature. Too few people actually consider the business side from LEGO's perspective before submitting an entry and merely seem to either think with their raging fandom - or believes that it's a quick and easy way to earn money.

[Faefrost]

With Serenity, the early decision was made due to brand standards, which were then codified and made public. The only way projects like MLP which may be unlicensable should be axed before the limit is if a similar path is taken, and some method of ensuring that these projects are not started in the first place is codified into the site guidelines. That way the Cuusoo staff can reduce the uncertainty of submitting a new project, and moreover can have ample justification to preempt the normal pattern of reviewing only at 10,000 supporters.

I think a reasonable review standard for CuuSoo would be that the offered projects cannot currently be under license and production to another manufacturer, at least for the period under which they are seeking CuuSoo votes. At the very least that would clean up the hundreds of similar Dr. Who sets listed. A very simple and polite "as much as we like your idea someone else currently holds the rights to that property so we cannot pursue. Fell free to resubmit should those rights expire" would suffice. It would also clear the MLP controversy instantly, because regardless of whether or not Hasbro or Kree-o are making MLP sets, they do very clearly hold the license to do so, being the IP's owners.

Or is that just injecting common sense into the equation again?

[Dakar A]

I'm not sure wether this has been posted in here or not, but on the CUUSOO blog they go into depth on what will happen with production of CUUSOO sets and standards for reveiw selection (including profitablity!), with promises to go more into depth in the coming weeks!