Friends "Controversy"

AndyC · January 11, 2012

As for why the Friends hairpieces are rubber, I'm not entirely sure, since I haven't ever felt them myself. Perhaps the use of rubber for them is just because softer and more flexible materials for hair look and feel more "natural" to girls, tying in with the overall changes in fig design for the theme aiming for greater realism. The matte finish of the hairpieces definitely makes some of them look more natural on Friends figs than traditional ABS hairpieces, at least from the photos I've seen.

One obvious advantage is that you can turn a Friends figure's head to face any direction without the hair getting in the way, since there is enough flex in the rubber that it will bend over the shoulders. In a theme with predominantly long haired girls, that's a massive benefit when it comes to posing figures.

SilvaShado · January 11, 2012

Perhaps some mad scientist creations?

Steph Spider Bot by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr

ROFL! Yeah, we need a contest on what crazy and odd creations people can make with bald Friends dolls.

Esurient · January 11, 2012

The reason Friends has had any wider "controversy" than the issues you mention is that the issues you mention mostly apply to the LEGO fan community in particular, whereas the "controversy" over the Friends theme is presented as a part of a larger debate over the social implications of gender-specific toy design.

My belief is that Lego toys has always been unisex. It has been a stereotype for a long time that Lego are meant for males. I believe TLG has made a firm stand on that by creating Friends. Lego is meant for all, young and old, and it is also educational.

AndyC · January 11, 2012

ROFL! Yeah, we need a contest on what crazy and odd creations people can make with bald Friends dolls.

Do they have to be bald? :devil:

Aanchir · January 11, 2012

My belief is that Lego toys has always been unisex. It has been a stereotype for a long time that Lego are meant for males. I believe TLG has made a firm stand on that by creating Friends. Lego is meant for all, young and old, and it is also educational.

Believe me, I agree. The LEGO toy is not inherently gendered, whether or not product designs are made to appeal to one gender or the other, and some of my female friends in real life regret that they didn't grow up with LEGO because it was steretyped as a "boys' toy". I'm just mentioning the reason why this "controversy" has been mentioned outside the LEGO fan community more than other controversial decisions by TLG.

This controversy is part of a larger discussion that has been going on for years. To be fair, so is Chinese manufacture, but by now consumers have generally accepted Chinese manufacture of toys as the norm, unless they are very strongly patriotic in which case they prefer toys to be manufactured in their home countries. In contrast, there is still an ongoing discussion about how "gendered" toy design influences boys and girls, and it's a discussion where people share very strong opinions one way or the other regardless of national origin.

SilvaShado · January 11, 2012

Do they have to be bald?

Oh fantastic!! No, I think the contest should be about using the dolls in unusual ways...

weasel47 · January 12, 2012

As for why the Friends hairpieces are rubber, I'm not entirely sure, since I haven't ever felt them myself. Perhaps the use of rubber for them is just because softer and more flexible materials for hair look and feel more "natural" to girls, tying in with the overall changes in fig design for the theme aiming for greater realism. The matte finish of the hairpieces definitely makes some of them look more natural on Friends figs than traditional ABS hairpieces, at least from the photos I've seen.

Rubber hair is good for holding the tiny accessories (bows, sunglasses, etc.) that come in some of the sets. The accessories would fall out of ABS hair much more easily.

**def** · January 13, 2012

LEGO has taken their next logical step in letting boys and girls know what they should be playing with. Market research, natural tendencies, etc etc :sweet:

http://brickset.com/news/article/?ID=2304

So yesterday, my 'male' version arrived featuring Ninjago, Super Heroes, Star Wars, Creator, City, Dino and Technic and today my wife's 'female' one landed on the doorstep featuring Friends, City, SpongeBob, LEGO Champions game and a 'cool creations' page featuring just girls. The only common content is the City (forest) spread.

Thanks LEGO, for letting people you can either be normal, or be a girl. I think it's safe to say to all the people minimizing the Friends line as 'Lego simply reaching out to girls who wouldn't otherwise' will have a hard time explaining why all girls who were already playing with LEGO enough to have subscribed to the LEGO magazine need to be reached out to (and not given a choice in the matter of what they received). If it was any other toy company, I wouldn't care.

AndyC · January 13, 2012

Thanks LEGO, for letting people you can either be normal, or be a girl. I think it's safe to say to all the people minimizing the Friends line as 'Lego simply reaching out to girls who wouldn't otherwise' will have a hard time explaining why all girls who were already playing with LEGO enough to have subscribed to the LEGO magazine need to be reached out to (and not given a choice in the matter of what they received). If it was any other toy company, I wouldn't care.

Hmmm, does this mean I have to make a fake "girl" subscription to Lego Club if I want the Friends one too? That seems kind of dumb. I'm hoping that the "Special Edition" thing just means it's a one off.

**def** · January 13, 2012

Hmmm, does this mean I have to make a fake "girl" subscription to Lego Club if I want the Friends one too? That seems kind of dumb. I'm hoping that the "Special Edition" thing just means it's a one off.

Apparently not. I read that the Girls one has an "opt out" somewhere in it, if you'd like to get the "regular" one in the future. Maybe it'll only be now and again, and not every issue, but they do have plans to do this again in the future.

Also interesting, the magazine often shows kids with their creations. Now for the time being, girls photos will only appear in the girls magazine, according to a commenter on one site (a parent who phoned LEGO to check). So, girls are allowed to read the 'regular' one (if they contact the company to change it back), but can't appear in it. This is exactly the kind of dumb shit that I don't want my daughter to have to put up with in life. It was nice having a company like LEGO that didn't pander. Oh well, I can still support her playing, but I would not subscribe her to the LEGO magazine. Gender-dividing MOCs :hmpf:

Laura Beinbrech · January 13, 2012

Apparently not. I read that the Girls one has an "opt out" somewhere in it, if you'd like to get the "regular" one in the future. Maybe it'll only be now and again, and not every issue, but they do have plans to do this again in the future.

:facepalm: :wall: Ok, I want to know what LEGO's marketing execs were smoking when they came up with that "genius" idea, and where I can get some... Seriously, I can't think of anything worse they could have done in the name of "reaching out" to girls. Way to freaking, go LEGO! :thumbdown:

**LegoMyMamma** · January 13, 2012

Apparently not. I read that the Girls one has an "opt out" somewhere in it, if you'd like to get the "regular" one in the future. Maybe it'll only be now and again, and not every issue, but they do have plans to do this again in the future.

Also interesting, the magazine often shows kids with their creations. Now for the time being, girls photos will only appear in the girls magazine, according to a commenter on one site (a parent who phoned LEGO to check). So, girls are allowed to read the 'regular' one (if they contact the company to change it back), but can't appear in it. This is exactly the kind of dumb shit that I don't want my daughter to have to put up with in life. It was nice having a company like LEGO that didn't pander. Oh well, I can still support her playing, but I would not subscribe her to the LEGO magazine. Gender-dividing MOCs

Hi def, while I agree that TLG should have offered an "opt-in" subscription to this (how do they even know subscribers are girls, do parents indicated it somewhere when ordering club magazine, or is it by name -- which could be tricky for all the gender-neutral named kids). I highly doubt the club magazine that has been published for years will simply never have another photo of a girl & her creation in it. If someone phoned S@H to get that reply -- I'll wait and get more correct source.

This post shows the inside pages of that particular issue: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=53012&view=findpost&p=1169395

The goal of Friends is to get more girls building with LEGO. If it isn't of interest to your daughter who already owns LEGO bricks, then just opt-out. Maybe she can give this issue to a real life friend. TLG will certainly send her the "Max" club magazine she didn't receive due to this launch of the new theme Friends. They are cool like that :thumbup:

If you can set aside your frustration a bit, the Friends subsite has a Quiz to help a kid match up her interests with one of the new mini-dolls. The Quiz has a pop-up of 2 images from which kids can select their general preference for, an example: riding a bike or reading a book; painting or kicking a soccer ball, etc., etc., since I don't want to spoil the fun :wink:

I think it's fine for fans to mail paper letters of their own opinion to TLG in regard to Friends. However, the change.dot.org petition electronically sends e-mails to 4 TLG execs on behalf of the mostly hoodwinked signers. As of today, that's 45k people (45k e-mails to the 4 TLG execs) out of the 5 million members which change.dot.org sent a mailing to on behalf of the petition creators (one of them has already admitted to not owning or playing with LEGO as a kid due to its assembly required).

Here is what that e-mail said, including false information, which members don't even have to verify -- they can just 'click-through' and electronically 'sign' therefore, another e-mail sent: http://www.paganomation.com/2012/01/the-ongoing-lego-friends-controversy/

Let's think of how much the fan community has asked to be heard: about colors, boxes, themes, bulk bricks, etc., and now we have Ambassadors, surveys, and established ways to send category-specific e-mails. Well, these young women just cut in line in front of you!

Personally, I'd rather the TLG execs be busy with real LEGO issues for real LEGO fans. You know, the fans who actually buy LEGO, like you & me :sweet:

sharky · January 13, 2012

Thanks LEGO, for letting people you can either be normal, or be a girl. I think it's safe to say to all the people minimizing the Friends line as 'Lego simply reaching out to girls who wouldn't otherwise' will have a hard time explaining why all girls who were already playing with LEGO enough to have subscribed to the LEGO magazine need to be reached out to (and not given a choice in the matter of what they received). If it was any other toy company, I wouldn't care.

Sure, because we all know that only existing Lego fans will be getting the club magazine from today forward. No need to try to bring in new members.

Aanchir · January 13, 2012

I personally think it would have been cool to see the regular Club magazine become more gender-neutral in general, perhaps with a new female counterpart to Max so that the two could go on adventures together in magazine comics and on the LEGO Club Show. But I can see how that might work out even more poorly than making the LEGO themes in general more gender-neutral. My mania magazines never had Belville sets in them, after all, so I'm pretty sure there was a realization a long time ago that boys (the majority of LEGO magazine subscribers, I'm sure) wouldn't enjoy their magazines as much if they had to skip through stuff they consider "girly", and girls would prefer their magazine features to be geared toward them in more ways than just two-page features on the designated "girls' themes."

The fact that the Cool Creations are being segregated is the most controversial decision I see in this. While it's nice to see more girls on a Cool Creations page, it would also be preferable for girls and boys alike to see the opposite gender's creativity at work, and I have a feeling it would have been nicer to try and segregate them based on content rather than the gender of the builder-- create a pool of "cool creations", present them to a panel of boys and girls, and see which ones the girls consider "coolest" and which ones the boys consider "coolest", regardless of the gender of the builders. There's still room for bias, but boys would still get to see and appreciate girls' creative accomplishments and vice-versa.

There was a poll on the LEGO Club site specifically for girls a while back, so I was kind of expecting something like this to happen, and I feel there are still parts that need to be ironed out to make both magazines fully enjoyable for their target audiences. But I imagine it was based on what girls in the LEGO club said they wanted, so hopefully it's a step in the right direction.

**def** · January 14, 2012

I highly doubt the club magazine that has been published for years will simply never have another photo of a girl & her creation in it. If someone phoned S@H to get that reply -- I'll wait and get more correct source.

It seems for at the moment. I don't think it's forever. Unless they plan to keep the Girls magazine published forever. But it will likely occur again.

The goal of Friends is to get more girls building with LEGO. If it isn't of interest to your daughter who already owns LEGO bricks, then just opt-out. Maybe she can give this issue to a real life friend. TLG will certainly send her the "Max" club magazine she didn't receive due to this launch of the new theme Friends. They are cool like that

I fully understand the goal of Friends, and really haven't shown any complaints with the line, except for the way LEGO chooses to market it.

Automatically opting-in girls who are already interested in LEGO is the opposite of reaching out. It's nice that they can opt-out, but it's a pain in the megablocks.

I'm trying to think if you were subscribed to a magazine, and that company had a new magazine coming out aimed at girls, that they then automatically switched your existing subscription to that one since you're a girl... I'm trying to understand what is acceptable about that business practice, to you I guess, or anyone who thinks that is appropriate or acceptable. ("We decided you'd like this better, because you're a girl" It sounds patronizing to me. :sceptic: )

I think it's fine for fans to mail paper letters of their own opinion to TLG in regard to Friends. However, the change.dot.org petition electronically sends e-mails to 4 TLG execs on behalf of the mostly hoodwinked signers. As of today, that's 45k people (45k e-mails to the 4 TLG execs) out of the 5 million members which change.dot.org sent a mailing to on behalf of the petition creators (one of them has already admitted to not owning or playing with LEGO as a kid due to its assembly required).

Why are you telling me about the Change.org petition? :wacko: I didn't sign it, I didn't support it. I actually have said somewhere in this thread that the most upset people about the Friends line are people who most likely don't buy LEGO for themselves or kids.

Personally, I'd rather the TLG execs be busy with real LEGO issues for real LEGO fans. You know, the fans who actually buy LEGO, like you & me

Sure. But that magazine takes all the stuff that sucks in the Friends line and wraps a big bow on it :wink:

I think the sets are nice. Some people (not me) complained they were <insert that tiresome argument> with big parts, before they were released. Having seen the sets, we know that's not the case. There are many commendable things about the sets (and I've ordered two for when they are released here next week). My main complaint was that they were segregating their LEGO (ie. discouraging girls from using other series), and using Girly stereotypes to pander to kids. I understand the argument that this series can turn on young girls who might not be interested otherwise :sweet: In the future, if this is successful, and LEGO broadens the 'girls' line the way they do their adventure lines, this will be really nice, and won't feel quite so much like they're isolating girls in purple valley, er, Heartlake City.

I realize you're a strong defender of the line, but please realize that I'm not starting an Internet campaign against it. And Friends lovers don't need to quash any criticism of it. There is a chance that it's not 100% perfect, and is worthy of some criticism. I know I am :wink:

My daughter is too young just yet for the LEGO magazine, but the lesson of simply this Special Edition is the exact opposite of the ones I want for her. People keep saying, "Listen to the children!" (not you specifically), but 1) the role of a parent is to not listen to children. After teaching for years, I know that if kids were listened to, they'd be eating chicken nuggets at every meal and have a Nintendo DS glued to their face. It's a parents job to guide. More importantly, 2) LEGO did not give the kids the choice. That is to say, LEGO did not listen to the children in this case.

Imagine it had just been a bonus issue. And the boys issue, aka the regular issue, had still included girls. It would have been far less pandering.

I'm all for expanding the range of LEGO :sweet:

Sure, because we all know that only existing Lego fans will be getting the club magazine from today forward. No need to try to bring in new members.

Bring in new members by automatically switching existing girls to a girly magazine. Thank you for your eloquent reasoning :sarcasm:

While it's nice to see more girls on a Cool Creations page, it would also be preferable for girls and boys alike to see the opposite gender's creativity at work, and I have a feeling it would have been nicer to try and segregate them based on content rather than the gender of the builder-- create a pool of "cool creations", present them to a panel of boys and girls, and see which ones the girls consider "coolest" and which ones the boys consider "coolest", regardless of the gender of the builders. There's still room for bias, but boys would still get to see and appreciate girls' creative accomplishments and vice-versa.

That's quite a sensible suggestion :classic:

AndyC · January 14, 2012

From the pictures I've seen of the "girls" version, it did include quite a few of the traditional minifigure lines too, so it's not exactly pushing Friends as the only Lego sets for girls. That said, the Club magazine has never really been anything other than very thinly veiled advertising material, so it's hardly surprising if TLG would start to push out differing adverts to the target market in question. I may not agree on an ethical standpoint, but I can certainly see the business sense in it.

Laura Beinbrech · January 14, 2012

Hi def, while I agree that TLG should have offered an "opt-in" subscription to this (how do they even know subscribers are girls, do parents indicated it somewhere when ordering club magazine, or is it by name -- which could be tricky for all the gender-neutral named kids). I highly doubt the club magazine that has been published for years will simply never have another photo of a girl & her creation in it. If someone phoned S@H to get that reply -- I'll wait and get more correct source.

Ha! Yes, I agree that an "opt-in" option would be good... Who's to say that there aren't some guys out there who prefer the friends stuff to the more usual LEGO fare...

As for the change.org petition jumping in front of us by bypassing the ambassador programs and such.... Well, I was in the military for 6 years, and what they're doing is what we called "jumping the chain of command", which was SEVERELY frowned upon (unless you already tried going through the normal channels), and I'm willing to bet that the LEGO execs are going to give it the same time and consideration that such a breach of etiquette deserves. :wink:

alexgeorge101 · January 14, 2012

What doesn't make sense is the fact that LEGO spent over $40 million in marketing research and it still looks like a stereotypical girls toy, with all the pink, etc.

slovakiasteph · January 14, 2012

What doesn't make sense is the fact that LEGO spent over $40 million in marketing research and it still looks like a stereotypical girls toy, with all the pink, etc.

Well, LEGO is trying to make money, and if that's what sells, that's what their marketing will tell them to create, however "stereotypical" that might seem to us. I'm pretty sure most 6-year-olds aren't trying to buck the trend.

Dwellington · January 14, 2012

What doesn't make sense is the fact that LEGO spent over $40 million in marketing research and it still looks like a stereotypical girls toy, with all the pink, etc.

What they basically ended up doing is scientifically proving that "today's modern little girl" really is all about fashion and friendship and pink.

The problem with this, though, is that these "modern little girls" are all inundated with pretty princesses in pretty much all of their other media and toy outlets. I'm not sure if any of the studies Lego did gathered any information on outside influences. Is the stereotype really ingrained in some nigh-biological connection between prepubescent females and pretty ponies? What about the Barbie empire, or peer pressure from other girls, or Overly Concerned Parents who refuse to buy their daughters boy-oriented toys?

What if there's some kind of sick, twisted cycle that girls' toys got trapped in, that they can't ever get out of?

From some of those articles, it seems like TLC was only focusing on the little girl mindset in relation to Lego, ignoring the context of that mindset.

AndyC · January 14, 2012

What doesn't make sense is the fact that LEGO spent over $40 million in marketing research and it still looks like a stereotypical girls toy, with all the pink, etc.

I think that ignores a lot of what Friends is, because you could just as easily say the same thing about Belville or even Paradisa. Clearly the intention was finding out what changes they needed to make to make Lego more appealing to girls. Putting a doll in the box and colouring it in typically "girly" colours obviously didn't work out so well and neither did simply making pink bricks.

Esurient · January 14, 2012

What girls look for in toys are different to that of boys. Need to have that in mind.

**LegoMyMamma** · January 14, 2012

Why are you telling me about the Change.org petition? I didn't sign it, I didn't support it. I actually have said somewhere in this thread that the most upset people about the Friends line are people who most likely don't buy LEGO for themselves or kids.

I realize you're a strong defender of the line, but please realize that I'm not starting an Internet campaign against it. And Friends lovers don't need to quash any criticism of it. There is a chance that it's not 100% perfect, and is worthy of some criticism. I know I am

Oh, the petition part of my comment is meant for anyone reading; I initially came to the thread to see if anyone had mentioned it. I thought Paganomation's reveal of what misleading information the e-mailing included might be of interest to anyone following this thread. I just included all my thoughts into one post. I never implied you signed their petition.

When I first saw images of the sets, I merely thought of them as another option. Any strong defending on my part is mainly in response to their "campaign" of spreading false information & images. It's interesting that comes across as me being a "Friends lover" when I didn't think I would actually buy any sets. :wink: I was curious about the new mini-dolls (plus there are a few new colors & pieces I wanted) so I did buy some -- here's my first MOC of Friends: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=64716

Knowing how seriously TLG takes research/focus groups, the portrayal of them taking the easy way out and just making this a dumbed-down version for girls -- which is claimed by the campaigners -- compelled me to speak up online.

I'm certainly not intending to quash any criticism based on facts -- which is why I added the link to the inside images of the new magazine to the thread.

To buy or not is simple. Yet, each person's interpretation of the marketing of Friends most likely depends on many geo-sociological factors. Like I said, I agree, there should have been an opt-in for the magazine. Maybe a sample sent along with the standard club magazine would have been better. That way, if the receiver isn't interested, they can either file it or give it to someone they think may be :classic:

To: Hikaro Takyama, Yes, I served in the military too :thumbup: and I do agree TLG realizes their tactics. Have you seen this? http://aboutus.lego.com/en-US/PressRoom/CorporateNews/article/393912.aspx

It will be lovely when this is no longer a controversy -- I wonder what the next one will be :laugh:

brickie · January 14, 2012

My granddaughters and some of their girl friends were here today.

I showed them the EB reviews of some of the Friends sets.

Apart from the ooooows and wows, they managed to tell me that they loved the minidolls and that they wanted each one of them. The animals were so 'cute' and the orange juice cartoon was cool.

They then went off to the kid's room where they could be heard role playing with some series of ghost / monster dolls.

I can't recall hearing any comment about gender from them.

As I said once before, " Viva la difference".

**L@go** · January 14, 2012

As I said once before, " Viva la difference".

And as you will probably say it again, please let me correct your French, in the Friendliest way:

Vive la difference.

Viva is Spanish :)

Friends "Controversy"

Friends Controversy 525 members have voted

1. Do you like the LEGO Friends line?

2. Do you think the LEGO Friends line is too "effeminite" in appearance?

3. How could LEGO improve this "problem?"

4. Which of the above issues affects your stance on this product the most?

5. What is your expertise on the subject?

6. How do your children respond to the LEGO Friends line?

7. Do you consider LEGO to be a unisex toy?

8. Do you think keeping Friends promoted only among girls toys in store and not with LEGO will reinforce the impression that LEGO is a boys toy in general?

9. Do sets marketed specifically to girls enforce the idea that the other sets are meant only for boys?

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Friends Controversy
525 members have voted