danth Posted April 8 Posted April 8 1 minute ago, icm said: Ah, but those X-wings aren't yellow or blue prequel spaceships, are they? ;) I admit, repeating a few space ship designs is better than repeating just one.
Murdoch17 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 42 minutes ago, Lion King said: My quesiton: is lego able to keep up with licensing fees when there are so many licensed themes? Some of licensing fees might be too expsnive for Lego to pay. LEGO is number one toy maker in the world, and continues to grow while the market is shrinking. I think they'll be fine with paying those fees... if they couldn't they would have said "no thanks, we'll pass on this one" to the originator of the license.
Lion King Posted April 8 Posted April 8 17 minutes ago, Murdoch17 said: LEGO is number one toy maker in the world, and continues to grow while the market is shrinking. I think they'll be fine with paying those fees... if they couldn't they would have said "no thanks, we'll pass on this one" to the originator of the license. What if those licensed sets /themes are not sold well ?
Murdoch17 Posted April 8 Posted April 8 (edited) 1 minute ago, Lion King said: What if those licensed sets /themes are not sold well ? Again, they are number 1 in the world. They've got the cash to cover it.... this isn't like it was in the early 2000's. Edited April 8 by Murdoch17
icm Posted April 8 Posted April 8 1 hour ago, danth said: If Cobi and Mega and Funwhole can make sets with no stickers and better PPP, then maybe Lego could too, if they were forced. In the USA, Cobi is quite a bit more expensive than Lego, per part and per gram. The recent Pokemon and GI Joe sets by Mega have also been just about as expensive as Lego. There isn't really much of a price difference between Lego and Mega anymore. Funwhole has been cheaper, but that's about to change, and it might have been subsidized anyway (to put on a tiny tinfoil hat that I don't really believe in). Cobi $$$ > Lego and Mega $$ > Funwhole and Pantasy $
imposter Posted April 9 Author Posted April 9 One possibility is the Marvel effect (movies). They made countless horrible movies and no whole movie industry suffers. TLG might do same mistake. License after License and then suddenly everyone are full of that. AND move on to some other hobby. Where are underwater themes? Agent themes? Spooky themes? Real adventure theme? AND list goes on and on...
BrickBob Studpants Posted April 9 Posted April 9 Just look at what Power Miners, Atlantis, Ultra Agents, Monster Fighters, Hidden Side, and Pharao‘s Quest all had in common: none of them made it further than two years, indicating somewhat sluggish sales. Doesn‘t exactly inspire confidence in immediately trying again, does it? Licensed themes come with a built-in fanbase whereas in-house themes need to accumulate fans first, and that‘s pretty risky. And expensive. As others have pointed out, developping a cohesive world takes huge effort, and then there are all the specialised pieces in-house themes usually get in way larger quantities than most licensed themes even. I’m not advocating against having more in-house themes, but most of them simply cannot compete with their licensed counterparts
Renny The Spaceman Posted April 9 Posted April 9 15 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said: Just look at what Power Miners, Atlantis, Ultra Agents, Monster Fighters, Hidden Side, and Pharao‘s Quest all had in common: none of them made it further than two years, indicating somewhat sluggish sales. Doesn‘t exactly inspire confidence in immediately trying again, does it? Sorta weird to lump in Atlantis and Power Miners here. The immediate post recession environment changed how LEGO worked. There's not a regular play theme licensed or otherwise started in the 2008-2010 period that stuck around for much more than 2 years. Harry Potter even back then was quickly brushed aside despite it formerly being of the same pedigree as LEGO Star Wars keeping it around after the movies wasn't an option. It's not really the same thing. Of course going down that rabbit hole we could say themes like The last airbender, Indiana Jones (twice), Sam Raimi Spider-Man, Ninja Turtles, Speed Racer and so on mean licenses aren't worth the effort. 26 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said: I’m not advocating against having more in-house themes, but most of them simply cannot compete with their licensed counterparts Well, to be fair, Adventures lasted longer than both Indy runs put together To be honest I could make the argument that "yes of course there's more money that goes into an original theme (though making a cohesive world is an odd thing to zero in on, like aside from the TV show themes there's very little lore for original themes, it's almost always just "bad guys need to collect all of X to take over the world") but the trade off for that is no licensing fee and by owning it completely it allows them to further monetise that IP and make they're brand stronger in the long run." But that's dumb, I don't really care about that nor am I particularly married to that belief. I don't care about LEGO's bottomline, why would I? Like I feel a lot of the arguments people make for why LEGO should do more original themes are weak, just vague platitudes about "creativity" that haven't really been thought of much, I think it's very easy to argue against so when people start talking about how "well if LEGO does that then they'll make less profit than usual" it's a little embarrassing. They have better arguments why are they using this, they don't really care about that because otherwise they wouldn't complain when say sets based off a license you like are entirely focused on a particular faction that sells better as of late, or a Captain America figure from the wrong movie is included or a certain character not getting new molds or prints. All of these things make perfect business sense because the average consumer doesn't care at all, they probably don't even notice. You don't actually care about how much richer LEGO gets this quarter, you want them to make better products that appeal to you. The people arguing for original themes want the same, you just both disagree on what qualifies for better. Argue about that part because that's the part you actually care for.
BrickBob Studpants Posted April 9 Posted April 9 19 minutes ago, Renny The Spaceman said: Sorta weird to lump in Atlantis and Power Miners here. The immediate post recession environment changed how LEGO worked. There's not a regular play theme licensed or otherwise started in the 2008-2010 period that stuck around for much more than 2 years. Fair enough. Sure, plenty of licenses also last shorter than 3 years, but that’s often by design. However, my point is that these themes clearly didn’t reach the 3-year plan which TLG usually have for their “big bang” themes, like Exo Force before them and Ninjago, Nexo Knights, Monkie Kid, and Dreamzzz after them. Power Miners and Atlantis also have a weird thing in common where they introduced new colour schemes and elaborate new enemy designs in a 1HY wave, only for the themes to then be discontinued without a 2HY wave even This indicates something went wrong sales-wise, no?
Mylenium Posted April 9 Posted April 9 12 hours ago, Lion King said: My quesiton: is lego able to keep up with licensing fees when there are so many licensed themes? Some of licensing fees might be too expsnive for Lego to pay. 11 hours ago, Lion King said: What if those licensed sets /themes are not sold well ? It's in the best interest of the license holder to not squeeze the rock too hard. If the fees become too high and the licensee toy companies don't make any revenue then neither is Disney and its subsidiaries. It's as trivial as that. There's an invisible red line they can't go over or this whole licensing business implodes. Also such deals are usually based on fixed numbers and/ or a pay as you go scheme where you only pay what you have agreed upon or what you actually sell. This can even have the opposite effect where a vendor cannot even produce more products than the agreement states. I vaguely remember a few cases over the years where companies even had to destroy products because they were over-producing and the artists didn't give them permission to sell more stuff. In any case, it's unlikely that licensing fees will ruin LEGO. The proof is kind of out there. Even the most awful Disney, Star Wars, Marvel etc. sets sold well enough and when they didn't sell they simply stopped producing them. Mylenium
Renny The Spaceman Posted April 9 Posted April 9 50 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said: Power Miners and Atlantis also have a weird thing in common where they introduced new colour schemes and elaborate new enemy designs in a 1HY wave, only for the themes to then be discontinued without a 2HY wave even This indicates something went wrong sales-wise, no? Elaborate might be a stretch, it's literally one new piece in Power Miners' case. It could be but also the general trend with every LEGO theme is each year gets a refresh, with themes like Adventurers and Alpha Team they had their most major revamp in their last wave, which is almost always just a 1HY wave, hell even something like Agents which kept the same design language rebranded to Agents 2.0 in their last wave. That doesn't innately imply greater plans any more than Ninjago introducing new molds for Stone Warriors and a new colour scheme for the ninja in the 1HY wave in 2013 meant they wanted to do more. With LEGO original themes this is just how they go most of the time.
Peppermint_M Posted April 9 Posted April 9 You have to remember that for those themes, the "three year plan" did not exist yet. They were two to three year lifespan sets. The launch of Ninjago and the unexpected success created the more ambitious aims. The longevity of past themes were never more than the standard cycle most novelty ideas have. Yeah, people can point out that themes after Ninjago might have "failed" or been "cancelled" because of early development plans that are out there, or story plans that don't reach fruition, but not everything is going to run indefinitely. However it would be foolish to not have some planning in place if there is runaway success. Conversely: say Monster Fighters had the same success as Ninjago. Would that theme then be listed as a not so creative theme that has taken the rightful place of something "better".
Lion King Posted April 9 Posted April 9 2 hours ago, Mylenium said: It's in the best interest of the license holder to not squeeze the rock too hard. If the fees become too high and the licensee toy companies don't make any revenue then neither is Disney and its subsidiaries. It's as trivial as that. There's an invisible red line they can't go over or this whole licensing business implodes. Also such deals are usually based on fixed numbers and/ or a pay as you go scheme where you only pay what you have agreed upon or what you actually sell. This can even have the opposite effect where a vendor cannot even produce more products than the agreement states. I vaguely remember a few cases over the years where companies even had to destroy products because they were over-producing and the artists didn't give them permission to sell more stuff. In any case, it's unlikely that licensing fees will ruin LEGO. The proof is kind of out there. Even the most awful Disney, Star Wars, Marvel etc. sets sold well enough and when they didn't sell they simply stopped producing them. Mylenium Thank you for your best answer! I think it makes more sense that Lego is doing ok with those licensing fees while there are so many licensed sets on shelves. I do understand that Desperable Me and Rise of Guru themes were disappointed and overwhelmed but I don’t know how expsnive that licensing fee was tho. Disney, Marvel, DC, and Star Wars theems are sold well so I think Lego is fine with paying fees.
MAB Posted April 9 Posted April 9 3 hours ago, Mylenium said: It's in the best interest of the license holder to not squeeze the rock too hard. If the fees become too high and the licensee toy companies don't make any revenue then neither is Disney and its subsidiaries. It's as trivial as that. There's an invisible red line they can't go over or this whole licensing business implodes. Also such deals are usually based on fixed numbers and/ or a pay as you go scheme where you only pay what you have agreed upon or what you actually sell. This can even have the opposite effect where a vendor cannot even produce more products than the agreement states. I vaguely remember a few cases over the years where companies even had to destroy products because they were over-producing and the artists didn't give them permission to sell more stuff. In any case, it's unlikely that licensing fees will ruin LEGO. The proof is kind of out there. Even the most awful Disney, Star Wars, Marvel etc. sets sold well enough and when they didn't sell they simply stopped producing them. Plus media companies want to be associated with LEGO. It is the number one toy company in the world. To be associated with LEGO promotes their IP. It wouldn't surprise me if licensing costs per unit sold are lower for LEGO than other companies as media wants that reach. 1 hour ago, Peppermint_M said: Conversely: say Monster Fighters had the same success as Ninjago. Would that theme then be listed as a not so creative theme that has taken the rightful place of something "better". Monster Fighters would have got boring very quickly once they had done the full classic roster of monsters. It was a perfect one year theme. It might have stretched to two. But longer? No thanks. 5 hours ago, Renny The Spaceman said: But that's dumb, I don't really care about that nor am I particularly married to that belief. I don't care about LEGO's bottomline, why would I? Because the health of the company is important to a fan that wants to continue to see new products. Look at the huge range of sets available now compared to 10, 20 then 30 years ago. The popularity of TLM and the growth after that, the initial forays into 18+ sets, trying out botanicals, buying bricklink to get the BDP running at a much larger scale. If they suddenly start making financial losses and lose market share, I wouldn't expect anywhere near as much choice any more.
imposter Posted April 9 Author Posted April 9 9 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said: Just look at what Power Miners, Atlantis, Ultra Agents, Monster Fighters, Hidden Side, and Pharao‘s Quest all had in common: none of them made it further than two years, indicating somewhat sluggish sales. Doesn‘t exactly inspire confidence in immediately trying again, does it? So what about Friends, Technic, Ninjago, CITY, (Speed Champions), Duplo, Creator... and list goes on and on. TLG if you here me... make theme for adults... 18+ Alien sci-fi theme, where there are comedy and horror elements.
JesseNight Posted April 9 Posted April 9 21 hours ago, Lion King said: What if those licensed sets /themes are not sold well ? I think the fact they keep up those licenses proves that they must in fact sell well, enough to keep a decent profit after fees. I'm no fan but I'm not everybody in the end. I guess in the end nostalgia plays a role too for many adults, having a special place for the themes we grew up with. I loved the old Town more than the modern City. I loved old Castle (which was more of a historical non-fantasy setting) more than more modern attempts. I loved 80s Space themes more than the new City Space, even though I admit that one was a breath of fresh air. Just for franchises that I love, I'm way more appealed to buy an accurate model than a Lego one. And I'm just really bored of the amount of superhero themes we got nowadays, but that's just my personal (dis)taste. No offense intended to anyone! @imposter Oh small note about that modular City set that you posted. I would surely define that as creative, and I love modular builds in general because it offers a grade of variety we otherwise wouldn't have. However... this set feels weird. City was always a realistic theme, and the way this was executed it just allows to change realistic builds into unrealistic and rather weird ones... I guess accuracy of themes is a whole different discussion though. Unless it's licensed accuracy
imposter Posted April 9 Author Posted April 9 That City Tower set is very basic. Far from Ninjago City sets. BUT probably that is the idea anyway. I really hope that Dreamzzz... shark submarine is something special!
danth Posted April 9 Posted April 9 1 hour ago, JesseNight said: I think the fact they keep up those licenses proves that they must in fact sell well, enough to keep a decent profit after fees. I don't know if we can really say that for sure. Take Star Wars. Most people admit the new trilogies sucked. And how many more sets of the same things do people need? Star Wars fatigue is real. It's possible that sales of Star Wars sets aren't what they used to be. But what is Lego going to do? Cancel the license? No way. You can't let someone else get it, even if it's not a hot seller right now. What if the next Star Wars trilogy ends up being actually good? I think Lego is stuck with the SW license, even if it has lackluster sales for years. What they would do instead is cut back on production, and maybe make their own sci-fi space sets.
danth Posted April 9 Posted April 9 28 minutes ago, icm said: Most people admitted the prequel trilogy sucked too ... Yes, I was including that one in "new trilogies".
BrickBob Studpants Posted April 9 Posted April 9 2 hours ago, danth said: Take Star Wars. Most people admit the new trilogies sucked. You make it sound as if that’s a fact And don’t tell me they’re “objectively bad” 2 hours ago, danth said: It's possible that sales of Star Wars sets aren't what they used to be. It’s still in the top 5 themes in every financial report they put out. And if sales dropped, they’d reduce the number of sets, which they clearly don’t. Also, there’s gonna be the first $1000 set soon. They obviously wouldn’t do that for a dying theme
danth Posted April 9 Posted April 9 14 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said: Also, there’s gonna be the first $1000 set soon. They obviously wouldn’t do that for a dying theme To me it means they're going after a smaller, much older and more fanatical customer base for Star Wars sets.
imposter Posted April 10 Author Posted April 10 Maybe the real QUESTION is why YOU don't buy LEGO Dreamzzz...? If we would there just might be more In-House Themes.
danth Posted April 10 Posted April 10 Oh. I remember the other thing I wanted to mention. Nostalgia. You know what's just as fair as calling someone's preferences for unlicensed themes of the past "nostalgia"? Saying that people who like new sets are just status quo warriors. People who are blinded by novelty. People who like every stupid new thing. There have been 47 years of minifig themes. By whatever criteria you have, what are the odds that the year you're in, is the best year? And what do you call wanting to buy X-Wings and Millenium Falcons? Those designs are literally older than minifig themes! How is that not nostalgia? The last Harry Potter movie came out almost 15 years ago and they're still making sets from those. Apparently, nostalgia sells. But if it sells licensed sets, then mum's the word.
icm Posted April 10 Posted April 10 17 hours ago, danth said: To me it means they're going after a smaller, much older and more fanatical customer base for Star Wars sets. That's the case across the board, including with Icons and BDP castles.
Recommended Posts