My problem with CUUSOO

[Aanchir]

The fact that the Portal set is still in "testing" is interesting and unusual. Especially that they opted to give out the rest of the results. The one thing that it has me suspecting (though I may be completely wrong) is parts. The Portal set had one or two new structural type parts. Now normally this probably would have killed it... Unless the review team thinks that these might be really useful structural parts to have, and is worth doing some tests on. This might be one of he rare cass where they are actually considering a new part from a CuuSoo set. And they have said that in such cases the review would be much much longer.

Alternatively, perhaps the designers think that the new structural elements in the Thinking with Portals project could be achieved with existing parts, or parts that are already in development for inclusion in other themes.

As I asked on CUUSOO, and don't reply harshly, why can't LEGO make one or two parts for the project when they made over 300 just this year? It confuses me.

-Sci

This has been answered in detail by Mark Stafford in the comments here: "Cuusoo sets are produced in batches of 10/20,000 whereas retail LEGO sets are produced with a minimum of half a million sets each. Sales pay for the mold which is a very expensive item - until Cuusoo sets go on sale demand is considered hard to predict, so the rule of no new molds was introduced."

In other words, putting new molds in a Cuusoo set as a part of that set's budget is gambling on the likelihood that the set will sell well enough to justify multiple production runs. It's possible that a Cuusoo set could include new molds if those new molds were appended to the budget for another theme that would use them. But the smaller budget for a Cuusoo set simply cannot allow for that kind of upfront expense. Molds with the level of precision that TLG demands tend to cost at least $15,000 and potentially over ten times that for molds that are more complex than a simple two-piece mold. That's not even considering the cost in factory floorspace of putting parts into production for such small batches of sets.

[Faefrost]

As I asked on CUUSOO, and don't reply harshly, why can't LEGO make one or two parts for the project when they made over 300 just this year? It confuses me.

-Sci

Cost of part tooling is between $80,000 and $300,000 per new part. These costs have to be amortized over the parts planned use. A typical retail set is produced in numbers somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million. CuuSoo sets are produced in lots of 10,000 to 20,000. So while a new part may add $1-$2 to a Star Wars set, it can add $10 to $20 to the cost of a CuuSoo set. The small run numbers mean the new part alone could be 20% of the sets price to the customer. Which tends to fail as it falls outside the expected value curve. The only hope for seeing a new part in CuuSoo is if it is something that has a more general use, and the use and costs of it can be shared out with regular retail sets. This all but rules out unique new character headpieces, but may allow some structural stuff.

[ShaydDeGrai]

(snip)

CuuSoo sets ...

(snip)

The fact that there are "CuuSoo Sets" really speaks to my problem with CuuSoo. If TLG really wants to take crowd sourcing seriously then they need to stop pigeon-holing the ideas solicited into small production runs in a specialty line of kits that don't really fit (or I suppose "conflict") with things they are (or might be) planning to market anyway. I realize there are legal and IP issues that need to be worked out (or simply acknowledged as intractable and related projects disallowed) but, true or not, the way things are done now gives people the impression that CuuSoo is a just a guerilla marketing campaign to promote the LEGO brand. They want people to promote their "LEGO" ideas on Twitter and Facebook and on blogs and various other media (effectively free advertising for Lego) but in the end TLG only wants to produce a few (cheap) token sets (no custom parts, small production runs, essentially things that, if they don't sell, TLG could easily write off as promotional expenses and probably representing a smaller investment of capital than a prime-time TV ad campaign in the US).

I mean no disrespect to the projects that have made it through the gauntlet to date (if it were up to me, there'd be a few more of you out there), but in the grand scheme of things, the release of a "CuuSoo Set" isn't exactly a landmark moment in the way TLG does business. The different themes are still little feudal estates that aren't about to sacrifice their autonomy based on an opinion poll on a website. I think there are a lot of people on CuuSoo who think that linking their project to already licensed IP will make it easier for their project to pass review. I think just the opposite is true - for example, I doubt the Lego Star Wars group want (or may not even (legally) be able) to accept outside ideas. Tying a project to a popular IP may make it easier to get 10,000 votes, but it may make the journey moot once you get to the review stage. (In the interest of full disclosure, I'll point out that I have several LOTR related projects on CuuSoo - if any of them were to make it to 10K support, I'd be willing to bet my 1% royalty that TLG would find a reason not to produce any of them.)

Were I running CuuSoo (and serious about crowd-sourcing as a form of product development) I would abolish "CuuSoo" as a theme for sets and make it a development channel for the existing themes. If you were to create a set proposal on CuuSoo, one of the first questions you'd be asked is which (existing) theme did it fit into (Creator, Technic, Architecture, Star Wars, etc.) and before your project could even go public, someone from that theme would need to sign off on its match to the theme and lack of conflict with existing plans. I'd also set up completely separate proposal, browsing and support protocols for new parts, new themes and non-brick products and handle each differently from 'Sets'. If a set made it through review, it would be released as a _regular_ Lego set for its respective theme. The only difference is I'd include an "About the designer" page in the instructions book (as one sometimes sees in the Architecture line) and pay a flat fee (more an honorarium than a percentage cut) to the designer.

Perhaps, legally speaking, this just isn't possible. There may be a contract signed in blood somewhere with some massive conglomerate like Disney that says no outside consultants on designs for Star Wars, Lone Ranger, Marvel Super Heroes, whatever. If that's the case, fine, be up front about it and lump it in with existing prohibitions against realistic depictions of war, religion and substance abuse. Don't exploit internet buzz for projects you have no intention/legal option of allowing past the review stage - it may be cheap advertising today but it builds resentment in the long term.

I just feel that, as more and more sets make it to 10K only to get shot down and TLG revises the rules to scale down what might make a good _CuuSoo_ set, more and more people will get the impression (valid or not) that TLG really isn't interested in the success or failure of crowd-sourced ideas - they just want people talking about LEGO. They don't want to gamble real money on outside ideas (new specialty molds, high part counts, complex licensing issues, etc) when they have internal products and processes that are already profitable. When it comes to CuuSoo, it feels like it's not about products, it's just about the media buzz; a 1% royalty on a small production run of low priced kits is just the carrot they're dangling in front of us to keep us volunteering content and maintaining the conversation.

[Faefrost]

What would you have them do instead? How much business risk reasonably should be undertaken on the basis of a crowd sourced project? Really the only hope we will ever have of seeing a more expansive crowd sourced program as you dezcribe is for these early sets to vastly exceed projections. Now this is not a forlorn hope. Im betting minecraft and bttf will do that easy. But thats the only way the platform will grow. And only through growth will it get to where things like no new parts will fade.

And to keep those restrictions in perspective. Do you realize that many intrnal themes such as modular buildings and winter village have zimilar restrictions?

The licensed theme issue gets very very complicated. Im sure it is not simply the fact that a project is from a licensed theme but the specific nature that can cause issue. As an example in the Star Wars license I am sure lucasfilms holds a difference between things that simply exist in the SW universe vs things that were designed and created by LA and ILM and appear on screen. There is the further complication of has this design been rendered before as part of the ofcicial lego sets. A CuuSoo proposal of Dash Rendars Moldy Crow could probably go through. A CuuSoo proposal of a Tie Interceptor probably not. Its just subtlties of licensing.

[Aanchir]

The fact that there are "CuuSoo Sets" really speaks to my problem with CuuSoo. If TLG really wants to take crowd sourcing seriously then they need to stop pigeon-holing the ideas solicited into small production runs in a specialty line of kits that don't really fit (or I suppose "conflict") with things they are (or might be) planning to market anyway. I realize there are legal and IP issues that need to be worked out (or simply acknowledged as intractable and related projects disallowed) but, true or not, the way things are done now gives people the impression that CuuSoo is a just a guerilla marketing campaign to promote the LEGO brand. They want people to promote their "LEGO" ideas on Twitter and Facebook and on blogs and various other media (effectively free advertising for Lego) but in the end TLG only wants to produce a few (cheap) token sets (no custom parts, small production runs, essentially things that, if they don't sell, TLG could easily write off as promotional expenses and probably representing a smaller investment of capital than a prime-time TV ad campaign in the US).

I mean no disrespect to the projects that have made it through the gauntlet to date (if it were up to me, there'd be a few more of you out there), but in the grand scheme of things, the release of a "CuuSoo Set" isn't exactly a landmark moment in the way TLG does business. The different themes are still little feudal estates that aren't about to sacrifice their autonomy based on an opinion poll on a website. I think there are a lot of people on CuuSoo who think that linking their project to already licensed IP will make it easier for their project to pass review. I think just the opposite is true - for example, I doubt the Lego Star Wars group want (or may not even (legally) be able) to accept outside ideas. Tying a project to a popular IP may make it easier to get 10,000 votes, but it may make the journey moot once you get to the review stage. (In the interest of full disclosure, I'll point out that I have several LOTR related projects on CuuSoo - if any of them were to make it to 10K support, I'd be willing to bet my 1% royalty that TLG would find a reason not to produce any of them.)

Were I running CuuSoo (and serious about crowd-sourcing as a form of product development) I would abolish "CuuSoo" as a theme for sets and make it a development channel for the existing themes. If you were to create a set proposal on CuuSoo, one of the first questions you'd be asked is which (existing) theme did it fit into (Creator, Technic, Architecture, Star Wars, etc.) and before your project could even go public, someone from that theme would need to sign off on its match to the theme and lack of conflict with existing plans. I'd also set up completely separate proposal, browsing and support protocols for new parts, new themes and non-brick products and handle each differently from 'Sets'. If a set made it through review, it would be released as a _regular_ Lego set for its respective theme. The only difference is I'd include an "About the designer" page in the instructions book (as one sometimes sees in the Architecture line) and pay a flat fee (more an honorarium than a percentage cut) to the designer.

Perhaps, legally speaking, this just isn't possible. There may be a contract signed in blood somewhere with some massive conglomerate like Disney that says no outside consultants on designs for Star Wars, Lone Ranger, Marvel Super Heroes, whatever. If that's the case, fine, be up front about it and lump it in with existing prohibitions against realistic depictions of war, religion and substance abuse. Don't exploit internet buzz for projects you have no intention/legal option of allowing past the review stage - it may be cheap advertising today but it builds resentment in the long term.

I just feel that, as more and more sets make it to 10K only to get shot down and TLG revises the rules to scale down what might make a good _CuuSoo_ set, more and more people will get the impression (valid or not) that TLG really isn't interested in the success or failure of crowd-sourced ideas - they just want people talking about LEGO. They don't want to gamble real money on outside ideas (new specialty molds, high part counts, complex licensing issues, etc) when they have internal products and processes that are already profitable. When it comes to CuuSoo, it feels like it's not about products, it's just about the media buzz; a 1% royalty on a small production run of low priced kits is just the carrot they're dangling in front of us to keep us volunteering content and maintaining the conversation.

The problem with this strategy is that with TLG's existing themes, they've already done plenty of research to find what kinds of sets (and how many sets) are likely to sell, and they've planned out each wave of sets accordingly. They can't just add sets to an existing theme's production schedule willy-nilly or they risk oversaturating the market and diverting sales from the products they already had planned for development (note that generally a theme's sets are spread out across several price points each wave to maximize sales; throwing in an additional set means you may easily have two sets competing within the same theme at the same price point). And if they encourage fans to only build within existing themes, then they will probably end up rejecting a lot more ideas just on account of those projects being too similar to products they already have planned!

The LEGO Cuusoo platform is, at its core, about imagination. The intent is for fans to create suggestions for products that TLG's designers wouldn't have thought of on their own, or at least wouldn't have anticipated enough support to push those product ideas into development. Constraining LEGO Cuusoo projects to existing themes would weaken the platform's effectiveness at this task. Sure, the Cuusoo sets so far have been niche products — which is good, because those are the sorts of products LEGO Cuusoo is designed to yield!

Additionally, your suggestion doesn't really solve a single problem because Cuusoo sets would still have to be made in small batches. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that TLG should conduct market research on par with the research that goes into planning a regular wave of sets after each LEGO Cuusoo set succeeds. This would inevitably have to be part of the review process, slowing that process down even further. And if a project succeeded on LEGO Cuusoo but the market research indicated there wasn't enough demand for a full-scale production run, congratulations! You just rejected ANOTHER project that could have perhaps succeeded just fine in small batches like the current LEGO Cuusoo system entails.

This system also ignores the issue of sets proposed through LEGO Cuusoo taking a long time to develop. By the time a LEGO Cuusoo proposal designed to fit within a certain theme is fully developed into a feasible set, it's entirely possible the theme it was intended to fit in has ended. If it's for a licensed theme, the license agreement may have expired; if it's for a non-licensed theme then the product line it was supposed to tie in with may no longer have the momentum and hype behind it to achieve strong sales. All that time developing the set could end up wasted on a product that few people are interested in buying any longer. By keeping LEGO Cuusoo products small-scale and independent of existing themes, they can be given an appropriate and timely marketing push instead of feeling like ideas that were held back from a previous product line.

LEGO Cuusoo also serves another purpose beyond producing sets: creating awareness. LEGO Cuusoo sets aren't just aimed at fans of existing LEGO themes. Every time a project like the Shinkai 6500 or Hayabusa or Minecraft Micro-World or Back to the Future Time Machine gets made, it draws attention to the LEGO brand from niche interest groups and that normally might not buy LEGO, just like any time a new theme is announced. By only working within existing themes, you limit that potential. You sort of touch on this when you mention the Cuusoo platform's promise in terms of generating hype, but you seem to think that hype begins and ends with the online portion of the platform. In reality, the most significant hype and attention is going to come from actual product releases, which encourage people who might not normally buy LEGO to pick up a set. This then increases the likelihood that the person will continue to buy LEGO (either for themselves or as gifts for others).

Overall, besides your problem with Cuusoo (that apparently being the fundamental nature of the platform), there's not a single problem I imagine that your system would solve and dozens it would create. Now, I understand that you may not like Cuusoo sets, in which case the solution is of course not to buy them. It'd be the same way if someone were to ponder "LEGO City is great in concept, but it really needs more castles and pirate ships!"

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to Cuusoo projects that occur within existing themes, or think they have no chance. I'd love to see a really impressive Ninjago chess set, for instance. But it'd probably be impractical for several reasons for such a project to be created as a standard-issue Ninjago set. The "no new parts" rule is a frustrating obstacle at times, but increasing the default batch size of LEGO Cuusoo sets would create far more obstacles than it eliminates.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Aanchir

[ShaydDeGrai]

What would you have them do instead? How much business risk reasonably should be undertaken on the basis of a crowd sourced project?

As I said, I would abolish the idea of releasing the set under the CuuSoo banner. An idea that makes it to 10K gets reviewed to the same standards as any that would have come from an internal (salaried) source and would be subject to the same part and building restrictions as other products in the line. Take the fact that it began as a crowd sourced idea out of the equation, let the review process determine the viability (and production size run) and whether or not it warrants the expense of new parts (unlikely, but new parts have to start somewhere). TLG would assume no more risk than they would have otherwise because whether the next Technic (for example) set begins as the brainchild of a staff designer or some AFOL in Seattle, it goes through the same analysis and must make the same good business sense in order to get produced.

Perhaps this would mean that _nothing_ would pass muster. I'm okay with that actually, so long as the process is open and the players know what to expect.

And to keep those restrictions in perspective. Do you realize that many intrnal themes such as modular buildings and winter village have zimilar restrictions?

I never said to lift the restrictions, I said level the playing field: Hold CuuSoo set proposals to the same standards and practices that apply to their most closely affiliated theme and break down the (perception of?) territorial boundaries between established internal theme fiefdoms and AFOL input.

The licensed theme issue gets very very complicated. Im sure it is not simply the fact that a project is from a licensed theme but the specific nature that can cause issue. As an example in the Star Wars license I am sure lucasfilms holds a difference between things that simply exist in the SW universe vs things that were designed and created by LA and ILM and appear on screen. There is the further complication of has this design been rendered before as part of the ofcicial lego sets. A CuuSoo proposal of Dash Rendars Moldy Crow could probably go through. A CuuSoo proposal of a Tie Interceptor probably not. Its just subtlties of licensing.

This is precisely why I don't think you'll ever see much "existing licensed theme" stuff allowed under a CuuSoo banner and why I think they should either evaluate the projects under the umbrella of a "native" theme or just disallow such projects from the beginning. If the Lego SW team decides it wants to adopt the Dash Rendars Moldy Crow project and release it as a regular set, great crowd sourcing has succeeded. If the licensing wouldn't have let them make it on their own, they should have said that before long before the proposal crawled to the 10K threshold. If the SW group could make one but chooses not to, but the CuuSoo group can't because they're playing in the SW group's sandbox - that's just internal politics being dishonest with CuuSoo users.

As I said I think the 1% commission is (legally) problematic and should be done away with in favor of a flat honorarium. Once that is off the table, the only reason _not_ to fold CuuSoo born ideas into the regular themed kits proposal and review is if the teams doing the work don't want the external inputs.

I'm sorry if this sounds overly negative, but I've yet to hear anything come out of CuuSoo (or Lego Reps talking about CuuSoo) that suggests that TLG takes crowd sourcing seriously; it comes off as more of a LEGO Factory/Design byME token follow-on with more of a social networking and free advertising twist. It seems like the amount of time and effort that TFOLs and AFOLs devote to CuuSoo is significantly disproportionate to the amount of resources TLG itself puts into it and, to me, is an indicator of the disparity between what each party expects to get out of it in the end.

[ShaydDeGrai]

The problem (snip..)

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that TLG should conduct market research on par with the research that goes into planning a regular wave of sets

I'm aware of the issues and yup, that's pretty much what I'm proposing. If a kit isn't up to LEGO standards or market demand as a normal set, it should be rejected as a "CuuSoo Set". But to clarify a couple points I think you misread (or I expressed poorly):

1) I'm not saying all proposals need to map to sets in existing themes. I'm saying that sets that DO map to themes should be held to the standards of that theme and released or rejected as regular sets not "CuuSoo sets" Sets that don't map to existing themes should be handled as "new theme proposals" with example sets, and new parts should likewise be on dedicated new part proposals threads. The CuuSoo website would be restructured to handle them separately (top ten new themes, top ten sets, top ten parts, etc.)

2) I wouldn't wait for a proposal to get to 10k only to get mired down in the review process, I'd put a CuuSoo liaison on every active theme whose job it is to review new proposals to address the issue of "Fit" before the idea ever goes public. If I say I want to propose a new Lone Ranger set and it doesn't play well with the foreseeable future of the planned Lone Ranger line, the process ends there. It's harsh but that's business for you. The extra personnel required to do this sort of thing is part of that lack of commitment to the idea of crowd-sourcing I perceive, it's an expense/investment I don't think TLG wants to make at this point.

3) I'm not saying increase the size of CuuSoo production runs, I'm saying never put a product on the shelf with the word "CuuSoo" on it. If the market research says idea X can only sell 50,000 units but the economics say it needs to sell 250,000 to justify a new mold (or whatever) then the project isn't viable, let it die. If BttF truly is viable, then it should be the BttF Theme with multiple kits, not a CuuSoo BttF kit.

4) You call it creating awareness, I call it guerilla marketing. The end result is the same, you generate buzz without overtly paying for advertising and reach people traditional ads might miss. The difference I see is that CuuSoo SAYS its about imagination first and brand awareness is just a happy by-product but it feels like just the reverse.

I don't think _my_ version of CuuSoo would solve any of the many grips AFOLs have with it (slow, arbitrary, too many things rejected, etc.) except one, honesty. CuuSoo feels like a con job at this point, a lot of hype married with with diminishing returns. I'd rather TLG rejected 99% proposals before they even went public based on cursory (but informed) review and only posted the ones they thought might pass a rigorous review later. I think a candid, specific, rejection letter on day-one is both more merciful and more honest than to have a sea of projects struggling to get noticed where the "reward" is to ultimately get shot down for reasons TLG had been aware of since before the proposals were ever posted. The way CuuSoo is currently staffed and structured, they can't do that sort of pre-screening and things go down hill from there.

[TheLegoDr]

Minecraft was popular enough they are now producing more sets within that theme. Something they normally wouldn't have done without CUUSOO (at least to my knowledge). Granted I never heard of Minecraft until LEGO released a set about it. I still don't really know what it is though. But it was immensely popular and the "CUUSOO set" was released and the royalties paid. But since it was so popular, TLG is coming out with their own sets not created by the same person, therefore they can get their feet wet by an outside source, but still maintain future revenue by adding in their own creations. I found that interesting. So the same thing goes for SW or other licensed themes. As stated above, they could release a set based on the CUUSOO plans, but then want to update it again in the future because that is what they do. So they make a "throw-away" CUUSOO product that they will change again anyway. Doesn't make a lot of sense if they were planning on doing it in the first place

As far as BTTF goes, I doubt they were looking into that as a viable set in the future, so it does help add in extra awareness to this niche product. I will probably buy one if it looks appropriate, but I have to wait and see how it ends up.

[Aanchir]

2) I wouldn't wait for a proposal to get to 10k only to get mired down in the review process, I'd put a CuuSoo liaison on every active theme whose job it is to review new proposals to address the issue of "Fit" before the idea ever goes public. If I say I want to propose a new Lone Ranger set and it doesn't play well with the foreseeable future of the planned Lone Ranger line, the process ends there. It's harsh but that's business for you. The extra personnel required to do this sort of thing is part of that lack of commitment to the idea of crowd-sourcing I perceive, it's an expense/investment I don't think TLG wants to make at this point.

Do you even realize how difficult this would be? LEGO Cuusoo staff can't predict the future, and while in some cases (like conflicts with a new licensed theme) brand fit can be determined before the project even approaches 10,000 supporters, this is just one type of brand fit conflict. What if the Cuusoo project could potentially conflict with an idea being explored in a new non-licensed theme, but which is not yet set-in-stone?

Furthermore, this is a tremendous waste of time and resources since it is impossible to know how long the project will even take to reach 10,000 supporters. By the time it does, brand fit issues that previously existed might have gone away or new ones might have sprung up, which defeats the purpose of even exploring that before the project is made public.

3) I'm not saying increase the size of CuuSoo production runs, I'm saying never put a product on the shelf with the word "CuuSoo" on it. If the market research says idea X can only sell 50,000 units but the economics say it needs to sell 250,000 to justify a new mold (or whatever) then the project isn't viable, let it die. If BttF truly is viable, then it should be the BttF Theme with multiple kits, not a CuuSoo BttF kit.

That's some pretty confusing reasoning. What if someone wants to propose something as a stand-alone set? Do they then have to plan out an entire new theme? Cuusoo has done pretty well so far working with stand-alone sets, and I think complicating things for TLG and users alike in this way serves no purpose.

4) You call it creating awareness, I call it guerilla marketing. The end result is the same, you generate buzz without overtly paying for advertising and reach people traditional ads might miss. The difference I see is that CuuSoo SAYS its about imagination first and brand awareness is just a happy by-product but it feels like just the reverse.

You are paying for advertising, because the advertising is in the form of the set itself and you're paying royalties to the creator (and anyone you have to enter into a license agreement with). There's generally no difference between the ethics of creating a new Cuusoo set to gain attention and creating a new theme to gain attention: the only difference in the two situations is that in the latter scenario, you're relying on ideas generated in-house, whereas in the former you're asking (and paying) fans for niche ideas to draw the attention of a niche audience.

Believe it or not, the hype generated by the proposals themselves before they're approved as products is probably negligible when it comes to the eventual sales, because you can't make a meaningful profit off of just the product's supporters, or even just off of people in their communities. The community support is the tip of the iceberg, and like any kind of sample-based statistics, LEGO Cuusoo basically hinges on the idea that a strongly-supported project is evidence of a more widespread sentiments "under the surface". A "silent majority", if you will.

Once the product is on store shelves, that's what will get the general public's attention, not any hype that came from within the LEGO community or fan communities that lent their support to the project.

I don't think _my_ version of CuuSoo would solve any of the many grips AFOLs have with it (slow, arbitrary, too many things rejected, etc.) except one, honesty. CuuSoo feels like a con job at this point, a lot of hype married with with diminishing returns. I'd rather TLG rejected 99% proposals before they even went public based on cursory (but informed) review and only posted the ones they thought might pass a rigorous review later. I think a candid, specific, rejection letter on day-one is both more merciful and more honest than to have a sea of projects struggling to get noticed where the "reward" is to ultimately get shot down for reasons TLG had been aware of since before the proposals were ever posted. The way CuuSoo is currently staffed and structured, they can't do that sort of pre-screening and things go down hill from there.

I don't think anything about LEGO Cuusoo feels like a con job. The returns, as far as I've been able to tell, are perfectly reasonable. While they may not be sets that excite a lot of people tremendously, the point is that many of them are sets that would not otherwise have been considered without the community's involvement.

Rejecting projects before they go public is, as I said, a waste of time and resources, as many of the reasons for accepting or rejecting them could change completely by the time that they actually reach the threshold that gets them to review. It also requires a lot of involvement from many departments of TLG, which is not just a single monolithic entity. The people who determine whether a LEGO set meets the LEGO Group's brand standards may not be the same people who determine whether a project conflicts with an existing license agreement, who are in turn not the same people who decide whether a project may conflict with licensed or non-licensed products already in development.

And some of these questions cannot be answered on day one. Note that the Modular Western Town project, one of those people felt should have been shot down before getting to review, was created in October 2011. It's entirely possible that TLG had not even signed a contract to produce sets for the Lone Ranger movie at that point, or that the departments of TLG that were in direct correspondence with the LEGO Cuusoo team hadn't been informed that it was in development. Your plan seems to hinge on TLG operating with 100% awareness of everything going on in the headquarters in Billund, but sometimes plans for new themes are kept secret even from other designers, especially early in development. Frankly, I think LEGO Cuusoo is currently operating about as efficiently as it can. If that's not good enough, then it will be up to the staff to find what changes have to be made or cancel the project entirely. But given the success of the Minecraft set, I don't think the LEGO Cuusoo team has any reason to give up on this little experiment just yet.

[ShaydDeGrai]

Do you even realize how difficult this would be?

Yes, actually, I do. I've consulted on brainstorming and crowd sourcing projects for companies a lot bigger than TLG and it is those experiences that make me feel that CuuSoo is not a serious crowd-sourcing effort.

(...) it is impossible to know how long the project will even take to reach 10,000 supporters.

This is very true. A 10k goal post is an arbitrary and self-defeating goal if the purpose of the exercise is to actually crowd source. For those purposes, the useful data is not how many votes an idea got, but how long it took to get there, how big the initial splash was, how quickly did support fall off to a trickle, where is the support coming from, etc. These things are easy to data mine and extrapolate into real information. Finding a viable idea via crowd-sourcing is a more complicated exercise than winning an election for high school prom queen; just having the most votes doesn't mean you're the best candidate.

An arbitrary magic number like 10k is only good if your goal is to create buzz and the illusion of progress in terms anyone can understand. It dumbs the process down to a popularity contest where people can root for their favorites, post stats and, in general embrace a contest-like atmosphere which is good for advertising purposes but not so great for real IP development.

What if someone wants to propose something as a stand-alone set? Do they then have to plan out an entire new theme?

The existing themes already cover a lot of ground, particularly Creator, Architecture, and Technic. In what I've seen from following CuuSoo since it went live in the US, in those rare cases where an argument can be made that a given set doesn't map to an existing theme, that same argument suggests that there is room for a new theme to be explored.

Certainly themes (particularly licensed ones) change with time, but as you point out these things are mapped out months, if not years in advance. It is not a lack of information that creates issues, it is a lack of communication and a corporate culture that wants to compartmentalize efforts and maintain secrecy.

Sometimes changing themes and information sharing can be a good thing. I'm told that the Stagecoach from the Lone Ranger Line was originally developed for the generic Western theme and was going to be shelved when the contract for The Lone Ranger was signed, but they showed the prototype to Disney and the studio execs liked it so much that the wrote the stagecoach scene into the movie to accommodate the kit. I doubt an idea that originated on the current CuuSoo system would have been afforded the same opportunity regardless of quality.

Believe it or not, the hype generated by the proposals themselves before they're approved as products is probably negligible when it comes to the eventual sales, because you can't make a meaningful profit off of just the product's supporters, or even just off of people in their communities.

In this I believe you've completely missed the point of my argument. The sales of the eventual CuuSoo kit are largely a non-issue (it's like DesignByME - the fact that a kit exists is secondary to the process that led to its existence. The value of CuuSoo as a guerilla marketing tool has nothing to do with whether or not the CuuSoo idea succeeds, it's in how much buzz for the LEGO brand it created during the voting. Whether Purdue Pete eventually becomes a kit or not, the value of that project to TLG is in the number of Purdue students and alumni who were reminded of the days when they played with Lego as a child and are now more likely to buy kits for themselves or as gifts because of the hype and frenzy over the voting. Those voters aren't going to wait a year or more until a 'Pete kit comes out, in fact they might have forgotten all about it by then, but in the weeks that followed that massive campaign to hit 10k in record time, I'll bet Lego sold a fair number of kits to people who hadn't thought about Lego in years. Likewise, there were probably people at other schools who went out and bought a bucket of bricks to tackle the design of their own school mascot, dreaming of their own fame and riches when Tufts' Jumbo the Elephant, the MIT Beaver or the Clemson Tiger becomes the next Purdue Pete.

Even "failed" projects are wins for the LEGO brand. As a lawyer friend of mine is fond of saying, "you can't un-ring a bell." How much would it cost TLG to get Simon Pegg or Nathan Fillion to go on national television and repeatedly endorse LEGO? Probably a lot more than the cost of a web site and 1% royalties on the occasional limited run kit. CuuSoo got the celebrity endorsements even though The Winchester and Serenity projects were ultimately rejected. Yes, there were good reasons for the rejection and yes a lot of AFOLs didn't like it, but the LEGO brand overall came out ahead. Likewise, if Purdue Pete gets rejected, I doubt the people who bought Lego during or after the 'Pete campaign are going to try to return the kits in protest. The cash register bell has run and it sounds like cheap advertising and a sales bump regardless of the outcome of the CuuSoo process.

I don't think anything about LEGO Cuusoo feels like a con job. The returns, as far as I've been able to tell, are perfectly reasonable. While they may not be sets that excite a lot of people tremendously, the point is that many of them are sets that would not otherwise have been considered without the community's involvement.

I'm not saying that crowd-sourcing is a bad thing, I saying that TLG does not give the impression that it takes crowd-sourcing seriously. Marketing aspects aside, it feels more like when Lego Factory first came out and they held a contest to select a handful of AFOL submitted designs as actual kits. The value to the company is not on who wins (provided that the ultimate winner is in fact satisfactory) but rather on the attention paid to the process outside of it's normal advertising channels. Crowd-source isn't a competition, it's a process; if it feels like a competition then you're doing it wrong.

I don't think the LEGO Cuusoo team has any reason to give up on this little experiment just yet.

Neither do I. The success of Minecraft aside, I think that as a marketing tool for the Lego brand it is a very cost effective platform. Volunteers (I call them this because most people who post ideas will never see their set produced and even those few that do won't exactly be positioned to give up their day job ) provide the content. We volunteer our time, screen real estate and disk space promoting pet projects and debating pet peeves. When some of us take exception to how CuuSoo operates or whatever decisions it hands down, others of us rush to CuuSoo's defense touting the party line and decrying the critics; the AFOL community argues amongst itself and TLG walks away with clean hands.

In the grand scheme of things, the cost to TLG is trivial. What would it cost to buy perpetual advertising space on three quarters of a million web pages (a rough count of the number of unique URLs with at least one link back to CuuSoo that a spider of mine found while I was typing this)? How much would multiple celebrity endorsements from fan-boy favorites on national media cost? My guess is quite a bit more than the combined salaries of the (relatively small) CuuSoo Team plus the overhead of maintaining the web site. As for the kits that _do_ get produced, 1% of the money from a $35 kit with a production run of 10,000 is less than half of what I spent on Lego last year alone. Companies have spent far more on a single Superbowl ad and had less to show for it as far as branding is concerned.

So, no, if I were TLG I probably wouldn't want to change a thing because as a marketing gimmick for the LEGO brand, CuuSoo is fine just the way it is. The "dishonesty" comes in when it claims to be all about crowd-sourcing when they've yet to demonstrate any true commitment to that product development model while benefiting from the creativity, effort and emotional commitment of fans with unrealistic expectations.

[GregoryBrick]

I have never cared whether CUUSOO is True Crowdsourcing or not. Have they even used the term at all, or as much as is implied? All I care is if the CUUSOO reps from LEGO are upfront about expectations and conditions, as well as about potential grey areas, since this is a work in progress. It seems to me they have been. The argument that the overt rationale for CUUSOO is actually camouflage for a marketing gimmick strikes me as rather extravagant and a circuitous way of driving sales.

I don't know why TLG would start accepting freelance design work, especially if they had to pre-screen every submission. Firstly, adding a set to something like the Monster Fighters line would completely dislodge the economics of that theme - they clearly have distinct sets at particular pricepoints with particular consumers in mind, and adding one into the mix is a nightmare for the company and retailers. Secondly, their designers and other staff are paid for a reason. I sincerely doubt they are having trouble coming up with IP. Thirdly, competitors could just flood their offices with projects to get a sense of what TLG's plans were.

Edited June 18, 2013 by GregoryBrick

[BlueberryWaffles]

My problem with CuuSoo is it looks so boring. Seriously. LEGO is a colorful product, can't they do better than GREY?

[Aanchir]

I'm not saying that crowd-sourcing is a bad thing, I saying that TLG does not give the impression that it takes crowd-sourcing seriously. Marketing aspects aside, it feels more like when Lego Factory first came out and they held a contest to select a handful of AFOL submitted designs as actual kits. The value to the company is not on who wins (provided that the ultimate winner is in fact satisfactory) but rather on the attention paid to the process outside of it's normal advertising channels. Crowd-source isn't a competition, it's a process; if it feels like a competition then you're doing it wrong.

For the record, I never heard the slightest thing about a contest to make AFOL-submitted designs into official kits until the aforementioned LEGO Factory sets were actually out. And that's my point about LEGO Cuusoo as well. A lot of people probably don't pay much attention to these kinds of things until the set is actually revealed, even if celebrities and websites plug the project during the voting process. It's when TLG can reveal official pictures of the sets and make a big press release about their features that the news really starts to spread like wildfire. The Minecraft set may have gotten plugged on a lot of major video game blogs, but the amount of exposure it got increased substantially once it reached review, increased even more once it passed review, and peaked after the final set was revealed and a press release was sent to major news media.

Does this mean that the earlier hype is irrelevant? Of course not. It's a great way to spread brand awareness, and it gets more people using LEGO Cuusoo which leads to more meaningful data. I think the latter, not the former, is where pre-approval hype for Cuusoo projects generates a measurable benefit to TLG: the platform would be meaningless if people didn't see any benefit in taking part. But frankly I highly doubt its impact at those earlier stages is where TLG sees the most benefit, especially since a lot of hype for a project that turns out to be non-viable can be a double-edged sword if the audience that the project has the most appeal with later gets rejected. Plenty of AFOLs have already announced that they've given up on LEGO Cuusoo after their favorite projects got struck down. How do you think the reaction is with people who didn't even start paying attention to LEGO Cuusoo until these same projects garnered their attention?

As for the threshold of 10,000 supporters being arbitrary, that may be the case, but sometimes you need to simplify things to terms people can understand if you actually want them to have any faith in a system. People like nice, definite numbers. Even if the Cuusoo approval process were conducted in a more statistically meaningful way, people wouldn't be as interested in the platform if they couldn't actually see visibly and comprehend numerically the impact their collective support had on a project's progress. Maybe LEGO Cuusoo would be a more genuine process if it didn't have as many superficial bells and whistles like this to get people excited, and just asked people to volunteer their opinions without being able to see their impact immediately. However, is the lack of hype really worth it if not enough people become engaged with the platform to generate any meaningful data?

[AndyC]

3) I'm not saying increase the size of CuuSoo production runs, I'm saying never put a product on the shelf with the word "CuuSoo" on it.

Do any of them actually have the word 'CuuSoo' on them? As far as I can tell (and I haven't bought any as yet) they aren't actually branded any differently to other sets.

Even if the Cuusoo approval process were conducted in a more statistically meaningful way, people wouldn't be as interested in the platform if they couldn't actually see visibly and comprehend numerically the impact their collective support had on a project's progress.

I'd be genuinely surprised if TLG aren't performing that kind of analysis on the process anyway, it's a fairly obvious source of good data.

[Navy Trooper Fenson]

And some of these questions cannot be answered on day one. Note that the Modular Western Town project, one of those people felt should have been shot down before getting to review, was created in October 2011. It's entirely possible that TLG had not even signed a contract to produce sets for the Lone Ranger movie at that point, or that the departments of TLG that were in direct correspondence with the LEGO Cuusoo team hadn't been informed that it was in development. Your plan seems to hinge on TLG operating with 100% awareness of everything going on in the headquarters in Billund, but sometimes plans for new themes are kept secret even from other designers, especially early in development. Frankly, I think LEGO Cuusoo is currently operating about as efficiently as it can.

That brings me to another problem. Western Town was rejected because Lone Ranger is currently on shelves.

Everyone knows that Lone Ranger will be out of production and from the shelves next summer or even at the end of the year. Even when they release a sequel they won´t start doing sets until a few years later, those tie-in lines are only available during the movies cinema-run.

So why did they just scrap the Western Town project entirely and didn´t say "this project will be produced in the forseeable future"?

[TheLegoDr]

That's true, but I think TLG doesn't want multiple IPs just sitting there waiting to be produced/released if they weren't planning on doing the production at that given time when it passes review. It is very possible the Western Town wouldn't conflict with Lone Ranger at all and could come out next year when the sets aren't on the shelves, but who knows what other sets will pass review between those times. I honestly think it was bad timing by the creator. It was right after the Western contest, so there was good buzz, but no one knew Lone Ranger was coming out (or did they?). I bet, if it was put on CUUSOO now, so it would pass the 10k mark after Lone Ranger isn't on the shelves, things may be a little different. Granted, it may be a running license agreement that they can't have any conflicting themes for x number of years or something. I'd think TLG would want to keep their contract with them since it would be such a huge supporter/outlet for their product.

As far as Portal, they said it still isn't a pass or fail. They were still doing research, which is odd since it is past the review date. Wasn't that the point of the review date? So the main speculation could be they are delaying it, so it can pass the "next" review. Instead of having multiple sets pass at the same review period. The only reason I could think of is the planning/design stage and then packaging to get produced. That may clog the system with multiple CUUSOO builds plus the regular themes.

[Faefrost]

That brings me to another problem. Western Town was rejected because Lone Ranger is currently on shelves.

Everyone knows that Lone Ranger will be out of production and from the shelves next summer or even at the end of the year. Even when they release a sequel they won´t start doing sets until a few years later, those tie-in lines are only available during the movies cinema-run.

So why did they just scrap the Western Town project entirely and didn´t say "this project will be produced in the forseeable future"?

It probably has more to do with the nature of how the non compete clauses work. Chances are that they can't work on, design, review or plan for a directly competing product until the license has run its course. Probably more of a legal thing than a planning or scheduling thing. The license holder wants the full focus on their license.

As far as Portal, they said it still isn't a pass or fail. They were still doing research, which is odd since it is past the review date. Wasn't that the point of the review date? So the main speculation could be they are delaying it, so it can pass the "next" review. Instead of having multiple sets pass at the same review period. The only reason I could think of is the planning/design stage and then packaging to get produced. That may clog the system with multiple CUUSOO builds plus the regular themes.

That's why I am thinking that they actually sent the whole portal project over to the parts design team for further analysis. If they were trying to accomplish the same thing with existing parts that would have been part of the normal review and it would have been rejected or approved with the others. But if they were actually taking a deeper look at the parts I can see that as being a completely and totally separate review process above and beyond the normal one. That's just the only thing I can imagine (That we know of) that might cause a project to be broken free from the rest of its review cycle like that. If that's the case than it might be a hopeful sign for the portal project. I can't see them bothering to take that extra step unless or until the project had mostly passed the business case review. 9Why research new parts if you don't think the set has a viable enough target market?) Once again pure speculation, but I just think that anything other than parts testing would have given us a straight up or down answer. Especially since they did have another pass review. (Although we still do not know for sure of each review period is a zero sum type deathmatch? Can 2 projects pass?)

I suspect that the next review will probably come a little faster. Space Troopers and Purdue Pete. The Space Troopers is a well refined non licensed IP that has a solid steadily building fanbase and has the potential to be an army building CuuSoo set to help drive sales. I think it is a very strong candidate for passing. The only pitfall is if Games Workshop attempts some sort of claim that it falls too close to their Warhammer 40k IP. While BS I don't think TLG will put up much of a fight for a CuuSoo project. Purdue Pete is just not going to happen as a global project. I don't think many Americans know where Purdue is let alone what their mascot is. I would imagine that our non American friends are completely baffled by this one? It's a small but vocal local vanity project. If the Eve Grifter failed, this one will too.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

I suspect that the next review will probably come a little faster. Space Troopers and Purdue Pete. The Space Troopers is a well refined non licensed IP that has a solid steadily building fanbase and has the potential to be an army building CuuSoo set to help drive sales. I think it is a very strong candidate for passing. The only pitfall is if Games Workshop attempts some sort of claim that it falls too close to their Warhammer 40k IP. While BS I don't think TLG will put up much of a fight for a CuuSoo project. Purdue Pete is just not going to happen as a global project. I don't think many Americans know where Purdue is let alone what their mascot is. I would imagine that our non American friends are completely baffled by this one? It's a small but vocal local vanity project. If the Eve Grifter failed, this one will too.

There's no way Space Troopers will be passed while Galaxy Squad is still running.

Galaxy Squad is a non-licensed version of the film series "Starship Troopers" (Much like the Dino theme was non-licensed "Jurassic Park"). From what I've been told, Galaxy Squad has enjoyed some decent sales numbers, especially since

Space Troopers is essentially the same theme except it replaces Insects with Lizards, as the main adversaries. The lizard vehicles are almost identical to insect vehicles in GS, The Marine vehicle is an inferior version of the Galactic Titan (70709).

The four-legged aliens would also require a special mold which would be useless beyond that theme.

Above anything else, Space Troopers is a blatant attempt at a theme builder. TLG is not going to give 1% commission across an entire theme. Cuusoo is not a lottery.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Another Brick In The Wall

[Faefrost]

There's no way Space Troopers will be passed while Galaxy Squad is still running.

Galaxy Squad is a non-licensed version of the film series "Starship Troopers" (Much like the Dino theme was non-licensed "Jurassic Park"). From what I've been told, Galaxy Squad has enjoyed some decent sales numbers, especially since

Space Troopers is essentially the same theme except it replaces Insects with Lizards, as the main adversaries. The lizard vehicles are almost identical to insect vehicles in GS, The Marine vehicle is an inferior version of the Galactic Titan (70709).

The four-legged aliens would also require a special mold which would be useless beyond that theme.

Above anything else, Space Troopers is a blatant attempt at a theme builder. TLG is not going to give 1% commission across an entire theme. Cuusoo is not a lottery.

Ah, but in this case there is no conflict with Galaxy Squad, because Galaxy Squad is not a license. TLG owns that IP. There are no no compete clauses and no third party review. It's simply at best a complimentary set with a new color of space dudes. To put it more in perspective, they released the Space Skulls and Star Justice "designed by me" Factory sets on top of Mars Mission and with Space Police III in the pipeline. They have a great deal more flexibility with their own IP. As far as new molds, they re not that critical to the sets. Yeah the proposed Aliens use them, but the real focus of the sets is the Space Troopers. Lego can easily swap out the proposed Aliens for something using standard parts without radically changing the nature of the project. And I would imagine that just like the aforementioned Space Skulls and Star Justice, it could easily be done with a single set and not need an ongoing theme. A tank, 4 Troopers and 2 Alien foes. Done. Next!

[Another Brick In The Wall]

Ah, but in this case there is no conflict with Galaxy Squad, because Galaxy Squad is not a license. TLG owns that IP. There are no no compete clauses and no third party review. It's simply at best a complimentary set with a new color of space dudes. To put it more in perspective, they released the Space Skulls and Star Justice "designed by me" Factory sets on top of Mars Mission and with Space Police III in the pipeline. They have a great deal more flexibility with their own IP. As far as new molds, they re not that critical to the sets. Yeah the proposed Aliens use them, but the real focus of the sets is the Space Troopers. Lego can easily swap out the proposed Aliens for something using standard parts without radically changing the nature of the project. And I would imagine that just like the aforementioned Space Skulls and Star Justice, it could easily be done with a single set and not need an ongoing theme. A tank, 4 Troopers and 2 Alien foes. Done. Next!

So just because there's no license, does that mean they will cannibalise an existing theme (with moderate sales)? How many sci-fi themes do you think the Lego market can support? The examples you cite are arguably the reason we were left without a generic sci-fi theme for a short period. It's called market saturation.

I don't mean any disrespect to the Space Trooper's creator, but this project adds absolutely nothing to Lego's range. There's nothing unique, creative or original about it. It's not consistent with the same genus of projects that have been accepted (substantial builds with limited minifigs, one-off projects that do not conflict with existing themes)

The creator admits he's borrowed off existing TLG designs. Do you seriously believe Lego will entertain giving somebody a commission based on their own creations?

Don't take the explanations Cuusoo give for accepting/rejecting projects as "the law". At the end of the day each project is assessed on a case-by-case basis independently to what they have previously stated.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Another Brick In The Wall

[Faefrost]

So just because there's no license, does that mean they will cannibalise an existing theme (with moderate sales)? How many sci-fi themes do you think the Lego market can support? The examples you cite are arguably the reason we were left without a generic sci-fi theme for a short period. It's called market saturation.

I don't mean any disrespect to the Space Trooper's creator, but this project adds absolutely nothing to Lego's range. There's nothing unique, creative or original about it. It's not consistent with the same genus of projects that have been accepted (substantial builds with limited minifigs, one-off projects that do not conflict with existing themes)

The creator admits he's borrowed off existing TLG designs. Do you seriously believe Lego will entertain giving somebody a commission based on their own creations?

Don't take the explanations Cuusoo give for accepting/rejecting projects as "the law". At the end of the day each project is assessed on a case-by-case basis independently to what they have previously stated.

I take it more that a single set 10 to 20,000 set run primarily only available as an exclusive does not seriously in any practical way undermine their developed internal IP. No more so than their Master Builder Academy sets do. Is there a chance of a slight conflict. Maybe. But it is far mor e minimal than anything licensed. Most of the hard conflicts will not pop up unless either a license is involved, the set is a direct expansion of an existing sub theme or set remake. Or it is really really close to something they are just releasing. Space Troopers probably comes in more complimentary to GS. But something li ke a CuuSoo Friends Yacht might be an issue. Overall they have more room to work with.

Also unless I am mistaken is not Space Troopers the very first unlicensed project to come up for review?

[hjmediastudios]

The creator admits he's borrowed off existing TLG designs. Do you seriously believe Lego will entertain giving somebody a commission based on their own creations?

I based the armor design of the Space Marines off the Galaxy Patrol armor. It's not like I ripped off actual set/theme ideas; I was just reusing a piece.

Also unless I am mistaken is not Space Troopers the very first unlicensed project to come up for review?

Actually, no- The Modular Western Town was first. All the previous ones were based off an existing vehicle or IP. Since then, however, we've seen more original designs make it to 10k- The Exo-Suit and Female Minifig Project, namely.

[Another Brick In The Wall]

I based the armor design of the Space Marines off the Galaxy Patrol armor. It's not like I ripped off actual set/theme ideas; I was just reusing a piece.

Your words, not mine:

Q: Wow! That armor looks like the Series 7 "Galaxy Patrol" minifigure! Did Lego take your idea?

A: No, it's the other way around.

[hjmediastudios]

Your words, not mine:

Yes- the armor is an original TLG design.

I think the continuing problem with Cuusoo is that there's no sort of preliminary quality filter on entries beyond checking them for porn and spam. There's a glut of five-minute LDD-screenshot projects out there that crowd out other, more interesting projects. And the people who post what I've come to think of as "LDD spam" don't stop at one- usually such individuals pump out a stream of said projects.

[t-brick]

It sounds likely that the "Portals" review is prolonged because they like the project but wanted to produce the BTTF car first. Maybe LEGO also plays for time because they want to see how the other LEGO Cuusoo Portal projects progress...