Editorial 1 - What is the essence of LEGO?

[Niloc]

Hi everyone,

Here is the first "editorial" of what could be a serie (depending on... well... how it sparks interest). The thing is that I'm always bothered with questions about how things work, why things work and what people like and don't like about things. Yeah, it's pretty general So I had this idea to start small posts discussing and/or debating about the many ways LEGO bricks can be seen (as a toy, yes, and much more) and why they are so interesting and loved (I guess people like LEGO here, or am I on the wrong site? ) Each monthly post would be about a specific yet kind of general question, presented with a bit of introduction (that some may find obvious) and reflection around it. Anyway, let's start this with a big question!

What is the essence of LEGO, or what is the most important: bricks or sets?

We know that LEGO started mostly as wooden toys, as shown by the famous LEGO duck (see here: http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Duck ). At that time, it was all about the final product, which we could play with in only one way. But LEGO has evolved, and is now known worldwide for its "interlocking bricks". There are billion of bricks around the world, and thousands of type of bricks and ways to use them. Yet, LEGO has kept its way of selling its bricks in the shape of a "toy", or "set" that is specific to a genre or theme. The funny thing is that the question comes back in a way in THE LEGO MOVIE: if it's more about the way we can play with the bricks, there's also a bit of "should we build the sets or build our own things?".

The sets seem very important to LEGO, in particular to allow kids to play with a completed truck or spaceship full of functions, while if we handed them a bag of pieces, they may not be able to build such complicated models. But the sets are not only for kids: even adults like to buy completed sets. While some don't really play with them, they like to display sets on shelves and collect them. The sets are important for a reason or another and so, are sold on the shelves. Well, we know how it works.

On the other hand, LEGO bricks are very popular for the infinite possibilities their bricks allow. Almost everyone likes to build their own creations, whether simple or intricate. But if bricks seem to be a very important part of LEGO's reputation, are they essentially what we can today call "LEGO"? If so, why don't the company sells more separated bricks? Pick-a-brick walls show a concept that could be developed more, and yet, the LEGO company restrains itself.

In the end, the question is: do you think LEGO is more about the bricks alone and the way they are evolving now, or more about the sets (even if they're built with bricks), like how it all started and how it is sold in stores? Do you buy sets only for their parts or do you only collect sets? Do you think both are as important to the balance and if so, do you like to keep some completed sets and a brick collection to build MOCs? What does the term "LEGO" mean to you? (sorry, a lot of questions ... and a lot of "LEGO" )

End of edito. 1 - Niloc out

PS: If you have any critics, feedbacks or suggestions about the way the edito is presented (length, introduction, structure, sub-questions), don't hesitate!

Edited July 5, 2014 by Niloc

[Mutant Orc]

Well, I'd imagine that they sell more sets rather than individual bricks and such as there is more appeal with children. I'd also imagine that they could sell something more 'complete' at a higher price, i.e. people will spend more on something that looks whole rather than a random pile of bits and bobs. Although they do have pick a brick, and they do have motors and stuff that are sold separately, and they do have the brick boxes, so they do provide pieces, but only as a foundation for the owner to go out and buy sets. Most of the pieces in these things are rather useless by themselves. So LEGO is rather set orientated.

I like to collect some sets, and I very very rarely get a set solely for parts, otherwise I would be buying any random set just to be bulking up my collection, but I don't do that. I like a nice mixture of things in a set. Pieces, figures, visual appeal and fun stuff. So I buy for the sets themselves and for the pieces, as inevitably they get smashed for the parts.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Mutant Orc

[autorazr]

it seems to me the essence of lego has been lost to IP. More people are becoming interested in lego for the "collectability" or "display purposes." The Ecto-1 set is a prime example, I am a lego fanatic and a huge ghostbusters fan, however, $50 for a set containing just enough bricks for a car, does not sit right with me. As more and more sets are based on IP, and as Ideas proves that that's what people want, I predict a change in lego from this thing regarded as educational and good for kids, to just another toy based on an action movie. This is not a lack of creativity on Lego's part, it is the consumer, apparently we want this. What I see happening is very similar to what happened to comicbooks in the 90's. I see posts on Reddit's /r/lego along the lines of "should I leave this in the bag, will it be worth more?" This to me is the death sentence of creativity in lego, as it was in comicbooks.

The essence of lego was complete creative control. Figs were not gendered, race was never established, characters were created by the consumer, rarely by the company. We lose a bit of this essence with every new year of IP sets. Ya know why there is a gender and race imbalance in Lego? Cause there is in Hollywood, and thats who lego has decided to pair with.

[Peppermint_M]

Creativity.

In a word anyway. Since the Duplo boxes that I can't even remember when they were bought right up to the last set I purchased, I use the parts more than I build a set. Sure, I have bought a number of sets that I have never taken apart but 80% of my purchases are for parts alone (and occur during the sales when there is a nice discount). Whether it is a case of I chose the set for specific parts or it was super cheap so I just picked it up.

I guess this is why I do not have very many of the licensed sets, not many of them have good price/piece comparison. I think the only thing that would swing me on them is if there is a horse or a motorcycle. I like to add those to my collection and fairings/printing is nicely varied in those sort of sets.

[Wodanis]

I think the essence of Lego has been neither the sets nor the bricks but the system. Sets show us what is possible and the the bricks allow us to utilise our imagination.

Having grown up with Lego all my life since the 80s there has been a shift to Intellectual properties. In the 80s and early 90s it really was about using your imagination and disassembling sets to build something even greater. Now we have seen targeted marketing campaigns for various movies and themes (Superheroes, Star Wars, Lone Ranger etc) which isn't a bad thing as there are movies that I would like to own a corresponding set to. However it does makes sets more prevailent and relevant in the current climate. TLG makes more money off these IPs especially if a movie is popular. It's difficult to sell a box of bricks without some thought as to how it will be used by kids or AFOLs. Movies in particular are a great way to frame a product. I don't think TLG has lost focus due to IPs.

If anything AFOLs and kids alike have shown to appreciate non IPs such as Lego CITY or advanced models such as modulars. I know I do! Look at how modular buildings are so popular? Both as a set and to give us the framework for our imagination. This is why BnP and PAB are so important. These services provide balance to the system from exclusively offering sets. There can always be improvements made. I think you are right in that TLG restrains itself with PAB but I attribute that to cost rather than functionality. I would love to see that service expanded. Who knows maybe we will see it happen. :)

I like to collect and when I have more parts I will build more MOCs both are fun in their own way. However bricks and sets are two sides of the same coin: the system of play.

[autorazr]

From a marketing standpoint, IP sets are good. They have allowed lego to grow as a company in ways they might not have without them, yes, I agree with that. For me part of the essence of lego was that no one could be mad at it, how could you be mad at a cute little yellow, square, androgynous person with a smiley face? But you most certainly can be mad at Prince of Persia sets, a (great, lol) movie about the middle east starring white actors, translated to white legos. Or maybe the lone Ranger, another great movie starring a white actor as a non white person who is somehow brown when they are translated to lego. Anyone else super prepared for how good a movie Michael Bay's Ninja Turtles will be?

I think it was wise to make Star Wars lego, Star Wars is pretty infallible, who could be mad at that (girlfriends and wives)? But it kind of opened up a flood gate of questionable stuff, like flesh tones, printed on curves on women, and bad movie sets (in case I wasnt clear, lone ranger and prince of persia are terrible films, and I anticipate TMNT will be as well) I think lego maintains and expands upon its original line as well. There has not been any reduction in quantity or quality in non IP sets, really what scares me about the IP is a change in the fandom, if the most common lego fan becomes the Hobbit fan who buys sets to sit on his desk, a big part of the essence of lego is lost.

Edited July 9, 2014 by autorazr

[KringlesBricks]

I believe sets are important as well as selling of individual bricks. The way I look at it is... I buy sets (mostly modulars and train sets) to incorporate into a city or town layout. I then visit the pick-a-brick wall to "add-on" to my layout customizing landscaping around the buildings and sets I purchase from LEGO. I also build other buildings to tie in with other sets from LEGO. It's like LEGO is "fueling" my imagination by creating these sets I buy to inspire my next MOC or creation or "add-on" to my layout.

So, I would say both LEGO sets are as important to me as the individual pieces on the wall or through bricklink. I hope LEGO keeps both concepts going...cause to me it's a nice balance between being totally creative on my own gathering up loose pieces, or having fun building a model I'll place on the shelf or within my layout.

But, you do make a valid point with the LEGO movie. At the very end, it seemed most of the sets were MOC's or his own creations, and not sets. So, in the movie it's about what you can build with your imagination with all those pieces/bricks you buy separately and piece out from a set.