"2006 was the most profitable year for BIONICLE"

[TwistLaw]

It's reported by Bionicle Wikia. Any source for this claim?

I also read here on Eurobricks that GregF said back in 2007 that the Inika sold like crazy, and more or less so did the Piraka. This makes me wonder if all the bashing back then on 2007 had some reason to exist, since it looks like it was the year that killed BIONICLE (the cancellation was decided in early 2008).

[Tazakk]

To the contrary, I've heard 2002 was the peak of BIONICLE's sales numbers. 2006 would've definitely been up there, though. The reboot into the edgier style drew a lot of people in and generally seemed to revitalize interest in the brand.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Tazakk

[dviddy]

2001,2, and 3 outsold the rest of the line almost themselves. There is a sharp decline after 03 that never trended close to the line's first three years. 2006 as the highest selling year is laughably false. Even if we used "most profitable" as a different measuring stick than "sold best", that would be 2003 when the line was responsible for more than 100% of the company's profits.

[Lyichir]

It's possible that if such a Greg quote exists, it's been distorted over time and he had been referring specifically to the aspect of sales he had a part in—sales of the books.

Not that I have any facts that say that's the case, but it would not surprise me too much if the 2006 books saw a spike in sales due to the sudden lack of movies leaving the books as the only in-depth story medium.

[meowmachine]

From a pure literary standpoint, I think the 2006 Bionicle books were the best written.

[TwistLaw]

2001,2, and 3 outsold the rest of the line almost themselves.

Any source for this, except "a LEGO employee told me that"?

Edited August 18, 2015 by TwistLaw

[Aanchir]

Any source for this, except "a LEGO employee told me that"?

I don't see why that wouldn't be a good enough source, considering that DeeVee is incredibly trustworthy about this sort of thing and has been in close contact with a number of LEGO employees.

But because you asked, here's what I've got:

"In 2001, its inaugural year, Bionicle's sales exceeded $160 million and the Toy Industry Association declared it the year's 'Most Innovative Toy.' In 2003—the year the rest of LEGO came crashing down—Bionicle's soaring sales accounted for approximately 25 percent of the company's total revenue and more than 100 percent of its profit (as the rest of the company was tumbling to a net loss), making it a financial anchor in turbulent times.... At one point in 2003, the DC Comics Bionicle books, with a circulation of 1.5 to 2 million copies every other month, were the world's most widely read comics." —Brick by Brick, pp154–155

"As it turned out, Bionicle racked up its peak sales in 2002 and then began a long but very profitable return to earth." —Brick by Brick, p177

So no, no quotes that specifically refer to 2001–2003 sales nearly outselling all subsequent years, but it isn't at all difficult to believe.

[TwistLaw]

I don't see why that wouldn't be a good enough source, considering that DeeVee is incredibly trustworthy about this sort of thing and has been in close contact with a number of LEGO employees.

I know about DarthVader's fame in the community, but regardless of that I found his statement quite bold (a nine years long franchise selling almost half of its sets in its first three years makes someone wonder why LEGO made it last so long). Oh well, thanks for the investigation!

[One Very Agile Cat]

(a nine years long franchise selling almost half of its sets in its first three years makes someone wonder why LEGO made it last so long)

The same way any franchise starts huge and trails off. That's just business. Nothing's going to stay as successful as it first is, and expecting it to is unreasonable.

[1974]

You might want to look at SW numbers then

SW as in Star Wars movies. TPM sold more tickets than any of the first three films

But I'm sure GL was expecting that ..

[TwistLaw]

The same way any franchise starts huge and trails off. That's just business. Nothing's going to stay as successful as it first is, and expecting it to is unreasonable.

That seems pretty obvious to me, but with BIONICLE that's a really HUGE drop. Even Pokémon is selling these days 15 million copies with the two main titles of a generation, more than a half than the original RBG (these three alone sold around 25 millions). BIONICLE selling half of its toys in the first three years alone is at least a bit strange, if you allow me to say so.

Edited August 20, 2015 by TwistLaw

[Brickowski]

Bionicle is a toyline aimed at older children though. Lots of video game fans don't "out grow" video games when they hit 12 to 14 years old. I was at the older end of the target demographic when Bionicle started and lost all interest 2 years later just like I'm sure plenty of other kids did.

If we take the information we have about Bionicle's yearly sales and apply it to the basic knowledge we have about toylines and Lego dark ages, we can theorize a couple things. One possible theory is that after 3 years, enough of the original target demographic had entered their own toy dark ages (temporary or permanently) and Bionicle just really sucked at pulling in new kids by year 4 and that trend continued for some time. (Too much story with complicated, weird names. No longer newest big brand on the toy shelf. More competition in the market.)

I bet thats what Lego believes happened since the Gen 2 Bionicle has a planned expiration date of 3 years. Introduce the story and toyline, capitalize on it, and then scrap it. Maybe start over again if the market seems right.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Brickowski

[Aanchir]

I bet thats what Lego believes happened since the Gen 2 Bionicle has a planned expiration date of 3 years.

As far as I know, this is not true and I have seen nothing backing it up. The creators at NYCC said that they had plans for three years. That does not at all mean that they intend to end it after those three years are up — just that they haven't made any plans for what to do with it after that point. If it doesn't sell well for the first couple years, they MIGHT end it at that point. Otherwise, they will probably continue it. Not having plans beyond three years does not mean it has an "expiration date" in any sense of the phrase. Just that it hasn't been around long enough for them to make any plans beyond that point.

[Grima]

As far as I know, this is not true and I have seen nothing backing it up. The creators at NYCC said that they had plans for three years. That does not at all mean that they intend to end it after those three years are up — just that they haven't made any plans for what to do with it after that point. If it doesn't sell well for the first couple years, they MIGHT end it at that point. Otherwise, they will probably continue it. Not having plans beyond three years does not mean it has an "expiration date" in any sense of the phrase. Just that it hasn't been around long enough for them to make any plans beyond that point.

To my knowledge, the original Bionicle was only planned up to three years as well (hence Mask of Light ending saying they had woken Mata Nui, when they hadn't.) Considering it continued another seven years after, how much they have planned definitely shouldn't be considered indicative of when the line would end.

Not that I necessarily want Bionicle G2 to drag on if it truly has nothing else good to do after those three years. A story carrying on with the sole motivation of profit will show it.

[TwistLaw]

To my knowledge, the original Bionicle was only planned up to three years as well (hence Mask of Light ending saying they had woken Mata Nui, when they hadn't.) Considering it continued another seven years after, how much they have planned definitely shouldn't be considered indicative of when the line would end.

Not that I necessarily want Bionicle G2 to drag on if it truly has nothing else good to do after those three years. A story carrying on with the sole motivation of profit will show it.

It's actually much more complicated than that.

The story team had like seven books worth of story to take inspiration from, and in 2008 they ended the first one. So no, they had almost a real-life half century of story outlined in advance.

On the other hand BIONICLE was supposed to end in 2001, not 2003.

[Grima]

It's actually much more complicated than that.

The story team had like seven books worth of story to take inspiration from, and in 2008 they ended the first one. So no, they had almost a real-life half century of story outlined in advance.

On the other hand BIONICLE was supposed to end in 2001, not 2003.

Can I see some source on this? It seems unreasonable to plan a 10 year story for a toyline that could fail in one. I always assumed there had to be a point at which they were coming up with new things. Are you sure all those books were created back in the beginning?

[TwistLaw]

Can I see some source on this? It seems unreasonable to plan a 10 year story for a toyline that could fail in one. I always assumed there had to be a point at which they were coming up with new things. Are you sure all those books were created back in the beginning?

They weren't created at the beginning.

I read it somewhere at FaberFiles, the website of Chris Faber aka BIONICLE's dad, but can't find it anywhere so feel free not to trust me

[Mandate]

You might want to look at SW numbers then

SW as in Star Wars movies. TPM sold more tickets than any of the first three films

Did it? While profits and tickets are different measures of sale, adjusted for inflation A New Hope was the 3rd highest grossing film of all time.

[Tazakk]

I can't link a source because the old BZP forum is dead, but there was a time when Greg started a topic specifically to answer questions about what was determined at the beginning of BIONICLE. I recall distinctly that he said they had 3 books set out in 2001:

- 3 years on Mata Nui

- 1 year interlude flashing back to Metru Nui

- 3 years with the hunt for the Mask of Life

- 3 years with the return of the original Toa and their quest to finally awaken Mata-Nui

But of course, he also said things like the Dark Hunters were planned in 2001, so take it all as you will. In fact, Greg was probably wrong there, as Bob Thompson shared in 2003 there were seven books planned out. Even if you were to include the expansion of the Metru-Nui arc into a book of its own, that's a lot more. Source (Ctrl + F 'at least seven')

[Brickowski]

As far as I know, this is not true and I have seen nothing backing it up. The creators at NYCC said that they had plans for three years. That does not at all mean that they intend to end it after those three years are up — just that they haven't made any plans for what to do with it after that point. If it doesn't sell well for the first couple years, they MIGHT end it at that point. Otherwise, they will probably continue it. Not having plans beyond three years does not mean it has an "expiration date" in any sense of the phrase. Just that it hasn't been around long enough for them to make any plans beyond that point.

Ah okay, that makes sense. I followed Transformers on and off for several years (mostly during my dark age) and when Hasbro said they had plans for X number of years of this line, it usually meant they already had plans for a new line the immediate year after the current one ended. They started doing concurrent lines and and continuing some lines as store exclusives and such and things got muddled eventually, but my own personal context meant I read into the NYCC statement as meaning a hard deadline.