Is LEGO entering a Dark Age - or am I?

[AFOLguy1970]

Here is my take on this........Lego is doing great as far as demand is concerned.  Problem is they cannot keep up with demand and this is frustrating a lot of people.  The Lego factories are working night and day, and yet, they cannot fill demand with what is produced.  Millennium Falcon and Saturn V are the obvious examples of where demand is huge, and supply is far less.  Last June, I walked into the Dallas Lego Store about a week into the month hoping to purchase one of the newer Star Wars or Creator sets that came out.  They were already wiped out on most of the new releases.  Shelves were filled with various older sets.  There were a couple of older sets I would have also been interested in, however they were no longer there either.  An employee asked me if there was anything they could help me find.  I told them none of the things I was hoping to find from the new catalog were actually in the store.  The employee told me that several people told him the same thing in recent days.  A couple of the sets I would have liked were missed by just a day or two.  So, I bought very little and walked away empty handed.  Found one of the sets at Target a couple of days later.  Point is, people do not spend money if the item is not available for purchase.  Sadly enough, I also notice that there are far fewer display models of the newer sets these days, because the store employees do not want to constantly have to explain why all of these new releases are not available.  Of course, Assault on Hoth was one of the display models, because it is usually available for purchase.  I hope to go back at the end of the month when I get paid.  Hoping to see some of the Lego Ninjago sets and maybe some Creator sets and then pick one to build.  In the back of my mind, I am preparing for little or none of the stuff to be there, especially once the movie comes out.  

Maybe the solutions would be to prioritize and try to pinpoint which sets will be in demand so that there is enough to go around.  Obviously, they have not yet learned from the Saturn V fiasco since it repeated with the Millennium Falcon.  They also need to fix the website to where it does not crash every single time there are new releases.  I have said this before, but they really need to allow pre order.  It would help establish where the demand is and would eliminate the mad rush at the Lego stores and online when the new releases come out.  

[bagalux]

4 hours ago, Lyichir said:

We need some sort of drinking game for when people suggest ENDING Lego's most successful themes would make the company MORE profitable.

There's a reason themes like Star Wars and Ninjago get so many sets, and such large sets, and that's because they are some of Lego's most popular. So it's hard to tell where you're getting the idea that the interest for Ninjago "will soon die", or that a perennially successful theme like Star Wars has been kept for "way too long". From the perspective of a fan who dislikes those themes, maybe—but from a business perspective you couldn't be more off the mark. The thing about Lego is they don't keep themes around until they become unsuccessful—if interest in a theme looks like it's beyond the point of no return, they won't hesitate to put it on the chopping block (as a Bionicle fan, I'm more aware of that than ever). They also have much better data on the sales and interest in those themes than mere fans do. So when a theme not only continues for so many years but continues to expand, that's a pretty safe indication that interest in the theme is growing, not shrinking. That's not to say that they can't over- or underestimate a theme's potential. But the expansion of themes is a measured risk and one that can be quickly reversed if it proves to have been a bad call.

There's a difference between short-term profit and long-term interest and brand building. I'm sure it makes a lot of sense profit wise for Apple to keep pushing out iPhone iterations. However, where will that take them in a 5-year perspective? Guess we'll see, if all they do is stick to the "why change what's working" approach.

What is your analysis of why LEGO is losing revenue and 1400 people (almost 10 % of LEGO employees) are laid off?

2 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Why, then, is anyone assuming that something that's been going on for over ten years without issue is now a severe threat to LEGO? If anything, the long-term growth in the number of sets has been a response to continuous year-on-year sales growth. It's not just something that's been happening by accident.

What is your analysis of why LEGO is losing revenue and 1400 people (almost 10 % of LEGO employees) are laid off?

Edited September 17, 2017 by bagalux

[Aanchir]

1 hour ago, AFOLguy1970 said:

Maybe the solutions would be to prioritize and try to pinpoint which sets will be in demand so that there is enough to go around.  Obviously, they have not yet learned from the Saturn V fiasco since it repeated with the Millennium Falcon.  They also need to fix the website to where it does not crash every single time there are new releases.  I have said this before, but they really need to allow pre order.  It would help establish where the demand is and would eliminate the mad rush at the Lego stores and online when the new releases come out.  

In the case of ideas sets like Saturn V and hugely expensive sets like the new Millennium Falcon, LEGO is in a particularly tricky situation, as these are risky sets, and it's very tough to balance minimizing that risk without shortchanging customers. There was no doubt that a Millennium Falcon set would be popular, but there was probably a lot of doubt about how many people would not only willingly shell out $800 to get one, but do so right away instead of taking time to save up for it. The Saturn V's price point was not as unprecedentedly high LEGO sets in general, but it was unprecedentedly high for Ideas sets specifically. It had a slower climb to 10,000 supporters (about 15 months) than many past Ideas projects. And there hadn't been a lot of sets like it in the past to use as a measuring stick for its prospective demand.

Another big question is that even if LEGO is able to fulfill all the demand for AFOL/TFOL-targeted sets like these… is it worth potentially shortchanging fans of their more KFOL-targeted staple themes like City and Friends? As I think I already mentioned in this thread, Friends has been huge lately, even if it doesn't get the kind of press that Ideas sets or big D2C sets tend to generate. LEGO has been trying to expand their production capacity lately, which is a big part of why they'd been hiring so many people, but if sales are flagging that kind of expansion isn't as viable an option, and forces LEGO to make some hard choices about where their resources are best used.

12 minutes ago, bagalux said:

There's a difference between short-term profit and long-term interest and brand building. I'm sure it makes a lot of sense profit wise for Apple to keep pushing out iPhone iterations. However, where will that take them in a 5-year perspective? Guess we'll see, if all they do is stick to the "why change what's working" approach.

What is your analysis of why LEGO is losing revenue and 1400 people (almost 10 % of LEGO employees) are laid off?

Why LEGO is laying so many people off is clear and well-documented — because they had previously been on a hiring binge in anticipation of future growth (probably expecting that continued growth to offset the cost of all those new hires). With the company's growth stalling they have to dial things back again. Notably, the number of people they're laying off this year is not nearly as the number of new hires they took on between mid-2015 and mid-2016.

And yeah, it's profoundly ignorant to assume themes like Star Wars and Ninjago are a long-term liability just because you don't like them and lump each new wave of sets together as "more of the same". Even moreso to assume that the solution is to revert to 80s themes that haven't proven themselves anywhere NEAR as beloved or reliable since the turn of the millennium. LEGO already HAD plans to end Ninjago four years ago, and went back on those plans when it became obvious how much more popular it was than they'd given it credit for and what a mistake it would be to end it.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Aanchir

[Lyichir]

Just now, bagalux said:

There's a difference between short-term profit and long-term interest and brand building. I'm sure it makes a lot of sense profit wise for Apple to keep pushing out iPhone iterations. However, where will that take them in a 5-year perspective? Guess we'll see, if all they do is stick to the "why change what's working" approach.

What is your analysis of why LEGO is losing revenue and 1400 people are laid off?

My analysis of that would consider two factors the most likely to blame: the downturn in the entire toy industry (which has been going on for a while but until now had not caught up to Lego), and to the fluctuation of currency exchanges (I saw a very good analysis by another member pointing out that the highest losses in the latest report were in the category of financial operations, not sales, and could very well be connected to the plummeting value of the British pound). As for the layoffs, those are dwarfed by the number of hires in the most recent years—clearly, Lego had been hiring based on projections of continued or even accelerating growth that didn't materialize.

Conversely, there's hardly any evidence that strong IPs like Star Wars and Ninjago were to blame. Both brands are still exhibiting strong sales, which are pretty much certain to skyrocket in the second half of the year when both brands have major movie releases. The only basis for the argument that Lego should deprioritize those in favor of less historically successful themes like Castle or Space is wishful thinking on the part of people who prefer those more classic themes.

[bagalux]

The only basis for the argument that Lego should keep pushing out Star Wars and Ninjago sets the dozens is wishful thinking on the part of people who have a personal preference for those themes ;) Or perhaps with a heavy financial investment in them, worried to see them tremble, hehe

[Aanchir]

14 minutes ago, bagalux said:

The only basis for the argument that Lego should keep pushing out Star Wars and Ninjago sets the dozens is wishful thinking on the part of people who have a personal preference for those themes ;) Or perhaps with a heavy financial investment in them, worried to see them tremble, hehe

How is wishful thinking the only basis for that argument, when Star Wars and Ninjago have been bestselling themes for the past two years? That's a quantitative fact, not just a subjective feeling like all the wishy-washy notions that LEGO is doomed at the only thing that can save them is diverting all their attention to themes that were popular in the 80s. Your charts are good information but beyond those all you've been able to offer to defend your argument is some baffling assertion that buyers are no longer interested in some of the current most popular LEGO themes. LEGO is and will always be entirely free to reduce their emphasis on these themes when buyers genuinely lose interest. So far, it hasn't.

And lol, I don't buy Ninjago sets as a financial investment. I buy them because they're some of my favorite sets with some of my favorite characters. And I've bought probably less than a dozen Star Wars sets in the past decade. Your idea of why my brother and I continue to acknowledge these themes' importance is just as ignorant as your idea of how popular and important they really are. Do you know what one of my ACTUAL favorite themes is? Bionicle, a theme that literally saved LEGO from bankruptcy 15 years ago. And you don't see me spouting any malarkey about how retiring Star Wars and bringing back Bionicle will solve all of LEGO's problems. Because I'm the kind of person who thinks facts speak louder than nostalgia, that the stuff I loved as a kid isn't necessarily what kids today want to see, and that a slight dip in sales isn't a sign that everything LEGO has to do away with all their biggest success stories of the past ten years.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Aanchir

[Lyichir]

12 minutes ago, bagalux said:

The only basis for the argument that Lego should keep pushing out Star Wars and Ninjago sets the dozens is wishful thinking on the part of people who have a personal preference for those themes ;) Or perhaps with a heavy financial investment in them, worried to see them tremble, hehe

Not really? There's a much more universal basis for that argument, which is that Lego fans in general benefit from the Lego Group's success, and those sorts of themes are hugely successful for them. The last Star Wars set I bought was over five years ago, but I don't want them to end that theme because I gain nothing from Lego sabotaging its own success.

[bagalux]

"but I don't want them to end that theme because I gain nothing from Lego sabotaging its own success."

Like I said, that's exactly what they will do, if they keep puking out those SW sets ;) We'll see!

[Lyichir]

Just now, bagalux said:

"but I don't want them to end that theme because I gain nothing from Lego sabotaging its own success."

Like I said, that's exactly what they will do, if they keep puking out those SW sets ;) We'll see!

I fail to see how keeping a successful theme going is "sabotaging its own success". Maybe Star Wars will become less successful someday! And if that happens, they can end it THEN—not when it's still making thousands of fans happy and making Lego boatloads of money.

It's clear, though, that your argument isn't based on any real interest in Lego's success, but rather in pure self-interest and dissatisfaction with Lego's current offerings. So I'm probably not going to get anywhere by using facts and logic to try and convince you.

[bagalux]

Just now, Lyichir said:

It's clear, though, that your argument isn't based on any real interest in Lego's success, but rather in pure self-interest and dissatisfaction with Lego's current offerings. So I'm probably not going to get anywhere by using facts and logic to try and convince you.

Hahahaha, so many fallacies I can't even ... nice try though! =)

I think 2017 has been a great year, so many awesome sets (including Star Wars ones!) However, I believe LEGO's success onwards from this point will be dependent on the below ideas:

1. "Kill your darlings"
2. Don't try to run a restaurant with 75 different courses on the menu

You might certainly think otherwise, but neither of us have access to any sales figures for the sets, so meh. Like I said, we'll see ;)

[Aanchir]

4 minutes ago, bagalux said:

You might certainly think otherwise, but neither of us have access to any sales figures for the sets, so meh. Like I said, we'll see ;)

I mean, we don't have exact numbers for individual sets, but we know the overall sales figures each year and what the most popular sets and themes have been for several of those years: Star Wars, City, Friends, Ninjago, and Duplo. If you think LEGO cancelling popular, long-running themes is the solution to their problems, why is it that you suggest cancelling Ninjago and Star Wars instead of, say, City and Duplo? Certainly City and Duplo are no less huge or repetitive than the themes you're so certain LEGO would be better off without. For that matter, why are the themes you suggest they SHOULD focus on ones like Castle, Space and Pirates rather than more recent mega-hits like Friends or Bionicle? Besides, of course, naive feelings of nostalgia telling you that LEGO should be more like what it was when you were a kid.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Aanchir

[Leonardo da Bricki]

Probably going to stir the pot with this... But I will add my two cents.

I am (barely) old enough to remember the good old days, when creator sets where exactly that. A mess of parts that allowed you to do what you wanted. My very first Lego set was set 4026/4027. Quite small, only 100 basic elements. And it was my favorite. This was followed by sets 4096 and 4098 for Christmas. And I played with nothing else for the next four months. And then, on my 6th birthday, I received Designer Sets 4888 Ocean Odyssey and 4506 Deep Sea Predators. I got in trouble on many occasions for being put to bed, and, 15 minutes later, turning on the light to keep playing and building and having fights between submarines and sea monsters. And that is what Lego has forgotten. They have forgotten to include inspiration. The instructions of these sets have PAGES, yes, PAGES!!! that show other creations specifically to inspire you! That crucial element, inspiration, the cornerstone of Lego, has been buried, washed away, and left out of the equation in the sets of today.

And thus the house will fall.

Now that I am older, Technic has become my favorite theme, and from growing up building anything I could imagine, I will be going to college next year looking to earn dual degrees in aeronautical and mechanical engineering. And as I try to build my Lego collection, I am disappointed. There is too much being produced, and in poor quality. The sets I mentioned above? They have instructions for at least 5 models! Usually more! And photos of another 5 models that don't have instructions!!! Why is that still not done?! Today, I look at the Technic line on the store shelf... And I sigh, and I turn away, and I leave the store empty-handed. I want the old sets. The sets that were one color, usually red, and had three stickers maximum. The sets that were affordable and fun. Today, I shop for used Lego on ebay. I cannot afford to drop $200+ on one set. I usually don't have more than $250 a year to spend on whatever I want, not just Lego. And if there no good sets under $75.... Then I won't buy them.

@The LEGO Company: You need to return to your roots. Walk the halls of your museum and your Lego House and find what you have lost. And then CHANGE YOUR WAYS.

Just the way I see it as a young guy, who is not quite yet a jaded, bill-paying adult. Feel free to differ in opinion. And I apologize for opening the Technic can-o-worms...

Edited September 17, 2017 by Leonardo da Bricki
Curse of Misspelling was cast

[Aanchir]

The reason LEGO no longer includes "inspiration models" on boxes or in instructions for most sets is that they always got loads and loads of calls to LEGO Customer Service asking for instructions, and the callers were inevitably disappointed to learn that instructions not only weren't available, but didn't exist. Not only did the cost of answering all these calls add up, but it forced LEGO into a situation where they could not satisfy the customers' wishes. A lot of "inspiration models" also weren't up to the same design standards as the models that instructions were provided for, so if a person did go to the effort to recreate them they'd often find that they were fragile or not very playable. Putting the inspiration models through all the same rigorous design testing and restrictions as other sets would have driven up the cost of these sets considerably.

Another note: rather than "the good old days", the year 2003 (when the first batch of Designer Sets came out) was when the LEGO Group hit their lowest point financially and nearly went bankrupt. According to the book Brick by Brick (which I recommend to anyone who's interested in LEGO history and why they do things the way they do today), "In early 2004, an internal survey of the company's entire product portfolio revealed that 94 percent of LEGO sets were unprofitable. Only Star Wars and Bionicle kits were making money. Not only had LEGO sustained the largest losses, on a percentage basis, among toy makers, but it was by far the industry's least profitable brand." (p98) So it is not entirely surprising that they have not sought to imitate that business model. The Creator 3-in-1 line has generally been a lot more successful than the Designer Sets were.

I agree the loss of these inspiration models is unfortunate, but that said, I understand why they went away. They're beginning to make a comeback in the Classic theme, though those sets are generally a lot simpler than the Designer Sets were.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Aanchir

[Artanis I]

I'm sliding into a dark age this year. This sums up a lot of it for me:

On 17/09/2017 at 10:35 AM, Faefrost said:

Right now there are too many Lego sets being brought to market at far too many and too high price points.
...
Look at a traditional Lego wave for an annual or seasonal theme. 5-6 sets, perfectly spaced along a cost curve starting with an impulse buy, up through a $20 ish set, going up a few price tiers to the theme anchor set. The big fortress etc. that tops out around $90-120. It was an environment where a kid or parent could reasonably menlly and financially invest in a theme and gather the full set. Which made it feel complete, and good and special.
...
No kid is going to collect them all. At that point ... why get any of them? To much choice leads to a negative decision loop where the consumer walks away. A sure thing purchase becomes "do I really need or want this?" And in the past two years Lego has grossly over saturated their offerings.

This is all about me at the moment, especially since I can't collect a cohesive wave of my favourite themes Space OR Castle (5-7 different sets in a year or MAYBE more) when those don't exist. The other things I get into are similar licences, like LOTR (dead) and SW (already too big, and just keeps getting bigger). I don't want to touch a theme that has billions of sets, it's too overwhelming. Usually I only pick up a bunch of SW sets (12 or so), but lately we are getting extra waves and more larger than average sets, so I've found myself not getting anything this year despite all of the stuff I'm interested in. And even if I did get all of the stuff I like, where am I going to put it all...

Only sets I've bought myself this year have been Guardians of the Galaxy. There were THREE sets - that's a number that's manageable! I'm sure some people wanted more, but I'd much rather TLG release 3 sets than release 0, 10 or 20 sets (which sadly seem to be the trend)

 

All this from someone who is reading Lego sites (including EB) nearly every day. I'm not disinterested in the Lego product, I'm bewildered by the size & range of products currently available (which only adds to the disappointment regarding ongoing lack of supply of my major interests - yes I'm aware they may never return). Too many sets available in the "slightly interested" category (like the sci-fi stuff in Ninjago, Elves, Batmans, fantasy NK villains et al) leads me to just ignore all of them and buy another guitar pedal or cymbal instead.

[Captain Pirate Man]

I agree that Lego has oversaturated the market. As other posters have said, "no kid will be able to collect an entire theme on star wars, city, super hero's, etc." I had EVERY classic pirates set when I was a kid. It's just not possible anymore.

I would also add that IMO, Lego "works" better when making a building, vehicle, etc. Not pieces and parts of the inside of a larger structure. That's one thing that always turns me off when looking at newer sets. Take The Lonely Mountain set for example. The real appeal in that set was Smaug, that's it. The rest was a lackluster attempt at creating Erebor. I see SO MANY sets that suffer from this (Hoth, classic Batcave, etc). The classic sets like Lagoon Lock up were complete as is, because they were an actual building. I understand that releasing an actual complete Erebor or Batcave set would be HUGE and unrealistic. So my point is, don't even try. Or release something that has the front facade of a building (Arkham Asylum), so at least from the front angle it looks complete. "Inside" sets are just a waste imo.

[bagalux]

6 minutes ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

 I had EVERY classic pirates set when I was a kid. It's just not possible anymore.

Same here, for my favourite theme.

For me, it was a thing to look in shops and catalogues, thinking "These sets I can get if I save enough money, that one I can put on my bday list and perhaps that really big one can go on my Christmas list" etc

Perhaps kids nowadays are different in that aspect and don't care about (or even enjoy) having 50 different sets (of which 10 are really big) to decide between. I guess we'll see :)

Interesting to read people's thoughts on this over the last bunch of posts!

[Lyichir]

Really interesting perspectives. I know that when I was a kid, I only rarely felt that sort of "completionist" instinct where I felt I needed everything. Especially when I was younger, I'd get smaller sets here and there and put bigger sets on my wishlist for birthdays and Christmas, but I was never too focused getting everything from Adventurers or Aquazone or Pirates or Spyrius, and never too broken up if I missed out on some. I think the first time when I did feel any sort of drive to completionism was for the main canister sets in the Bionicle theme, and even then I was perfectly fine with passing on larger sets that interested me less, and split the canister sets between me and my two siblings in such a way that the large number of sets was less of a burden. For regular Lego, that sort of completionist instinct really only set in as a TFOL and AFOL—at the age of 15 or so, when I started making more of my own purchases and had to figure out how best to budget for the sets and figs I wanted. And even (then and today), if a set doesn't interest me, even if it's a set from a theme I collect, I won't hesitate to pass it up.

So that's probably part of why I don't understand the concept of a person being paralyzed by choice with the number of products available. When I was younger I just put whatever sets that interested me on my wish list but never with any expectation of getting all of them, and as I grew up I became more capable of actually making choices between what to buy and what not to buy. I can't really think of any instance where wanting a huge number of sets led me to walk out of a store with nothing, unless it was with the intention of deferring the gratification of getting them for a better sale or offer.

[Faefrost]

I think you guys are missing my point. It isn't that they are doing large adult targeted sets or huge $120+ sets. It's the shear volume of them at similar and competing price points. Once you cross a certain threshold of the number of similar sets per price point on your shelves, you start competing with yourself rather than just other manufacturers. This is true across all price points but is particularly acute in the high end stuff. With the traditional and highly effective Lego release Wave model you would get one or more impulse sets, a $20 set a $30 set a $50 set a $70 set and a $100 set. (Or some slight variations thereof) This made full capture of a customers spending budget possible and likely. Any additional $100 sets in that target interest are just going to force a decision point on the consumer. A or B. But either way Lego loses as they have increased production costs with multiple sets at that point, without a commensurate increase in consumer budget or spending habits. This was one of the problems in the late 90's and early 2000's. Not the only problem, but one of the core ones. When Professor Robinson talks about Lego losing control of Product Management and not understanding how much sets were costing to produce, this is a big part of it. 

And it all is a case by case thing. It requires some context. City has thrived with a touch of oversaturation at the $20 price point. The long running great vehicles line. Similarly the Speed Champions line thrives at a just above impulse price point for many sets. But overall the lines feel a bit oversaturated and conflicting to my not inexpert eye. They aren't at a critical stage. Certainly not to 2003 levels. But it is something they need to keep an eye on. The Batman movie sets sold well for Lego, but to my eye an awesome number of them were being blown out at discount prices at retail. I suspect that everybodies numbers would have been better with a smaller more focused selection of sets. 

I'm not one of those calling for an end to Star Wars or Ninjago. The lines do well. I think Star Wars could do with a bit more or better set selection to leave better differentiation between sets. But they always suffer somewhat at that for movie years, which generally seem to be grey slab after grey slab. Love or hate Clone Wars, at least it forced some color into Star Wars. 

I would agree that a large part of Lego's financial downturn is likely tied to fluctuating international exchange rates. Plus mixed with areas where they are seeing high sales growth, China, they are not necessarily seeing similar high returns or margin growth. Sales in China of almost anything foreign notoriously give a much lower return to the producer than an equivalent sale in North America Europe or other parts of Asia. 

Lego's not going anywhere. Knudstorp is a savvy and experienced businessman with a keen eye towards the financials and the direction of them. He's not going to let Padda get too far afield of market trends in their core business. But they are facing some headwinds that they had not seen for a few years. The adult retro pop culture collector boom may be fading a bit or moving onto the next baby boomer big thing. Their retail channels are growing stressed from modern era disrupters. Exchange rates are not as favorable in some of their largest markets. And their only growth direction lies in China. A direction fraught with business peril. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out. 

[Lyichir]

I don't think the expensive sets "cannibalizing" one another's sales is as big an issue as you allege, simply because I'm skeptical of Lego even expecting the vast majority of their audience to buy more than one or two. The largest sets are produced in much smaller quantities than the smaller ones, and generally have a much longer shelf life than the more "entry level" sets that are rotated from year to year. And I get the impression that the latter are where most of the money is made. Beyond that, more and more themes are being represented by those sorts of sets—I don't think Lego is necessarily expecting most buyers of the UCS Millennium Falcon to be interested in the Minecraft Mountain Cave. It may be the case that mega-fans who want both will have to choose between the two, but I'm pretty sure Lego is just as happy with expanding the audience of the people who want one or the other, not to mention having people who continue to want more and may eventually buy accordingly instead of waiting around for "the next big thing".

I think if we were getting to a point where large D2C sets were failing to sell at acceptable levels, we'd start to see more clearance sales on those big expensive sets, and Lego scaling back their production, but so far, I haven't seen either as being the case. I think a lot of the people here don't seem to have much faith in the safeguards Lego implemented after their brush with bankruptcy. They keep a much, much closer eye on what works and what doesn't these days, and don't hesitate to reevaluate individual themes from year to year based on the latest results. If the UCS Falcon had sold more poorly than expected, you would probably be safe to assume they wouldn't attempt another model that large for another decade... but even that doesn't seem to be the case, based on its first-day sales.

[PicnicBasketSam]

I never really bought into the "Star Wars sets are all overpriced grey wedges made of plates and technic, that people only buy because of the minifigures" argument, because of how many different things you end up with when there are more than 40 Star Wars sets per year, and have been for the past five years. However, the new First Order Star Destroyer does exactly fit that description, which I found kind of amusing.

On-topic to this discussion, though, I don't think this is analogous to what happened in 2003 at all. The 'problem' currently being discussed here is that every set that comes out is of an exceptionally high quality, and there are hundreds released every year, making LEGO gobs and gobs of money. Look, I understand that a lot of what comes out isn't to everybody's liking, but with more than 600 sets released in the year 2017, something that comes out is going to appeal to you.

[Digger of Bricks]

On 9/17/2017 at 5:40 PM, Aanchir said:

The reason LEGO no longer includes "inspiration models" on boxes or in instructions for most sets is that they always got loads and loads of calls to LEGO Customer Service asking for instructions, and the callers were inevitably disappointed to learn that instructions not only weren't available, but didn't exist. Not only did the cost of answering all these calls add up, but it forced LEGO into a situation where they could not satisfy the customers' wishes. A lot of "inspiration models" also weren't up to the same design standards as the models that instructions were provided for, so if a person did go to the effort to recreate them they'd often find that they were fragile or not very playable. Putting the inspiration models through all the same rigorous design testing and restrictions as other sets would have driven up the cost of these sets considerably.

Wow, where did you learn or hear this? For me, that is very interesting to know! 

I've always been a heavy proponent of the return to the Creator/Designer multiple build model for many current themes other than Creator, and the "back of the instructions" inspiration model for that matter too.

But if that's the case, then I guess all my clamoring for that might just not be viable for TLG even now. Maybe? 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Digger of Bricks

[Vindicare]

Star Wars aside, and using Superheroes as the stand in "Action" theme, Marvel is pretty close to Action themes of the past, although it does kinda feel like they don't have that "big" set. Looking at this years Marvel sets(excluding Mighty Micros), we have dollar amounts of $20(X 3), $30(X 2), $40, $50(X 2), $60(X 2). DC is worse for dollar range and amount of sets. 

Using Monster Fighters & Pharoah's Quest to compare, MF had $7, $12, $20, $35, $40, $50, $80, and $100(excluding the S@H exclusive). Then PQ is similar at, $5, $10, $20, $30, $50, and $100.

Both of those themes felt complete & had that one big ticket set that brought it all together. I did feel the 3 GotG sets had that this year, and the prices were on point. But overall, it would be nice to see a return to that price scale. *Thinking more, perhaps Nexo Knights and/or Ninjago fit the bill better, but I used Superheroes because I collect those and therefore pay more attention to them*

Edited September 19, 2017 by Vindicare

[x105Black]

I think Nexo Knights, Ninjago, Friends, City, and Star Wars all have the best distributions of sets across price ranges.

Star Wars is the best, from Micro Fighters to the Millennium Falcon.  If only they could make a CMF series, it would be even better.  That's one angle that Ninjago has them beat on, and Ninjago is coming up on the higher end with the Ninjago City.

Nexo Knights does well, with the small individual Ultimate sets and the large fortresses, and everything in between.

Most of these also do really well with complexity of builds.

What I think would help is a broader spread across price ranges in each product line, and strong build design.  For some themes, complexity is desired, and it should be there.

But I don't think LEGO is entering a Dark Age.  I think I am on the fringes of a Dark Age because of a lack of Classic themes like Castle, Space, and Pirates that fit the above description of broad price range distribution and higher complexity.

[Faefrost]

One slightly related thing to keep in mind. As somebody pointed out a few pages back, much of Lego's losses were reported from the "financial" side of things, not the product sales etc. We have been assuming that would likely be currency exchange rates working against them. But something else just reared its ugly head yesterday. How much exposure do you think Lego has to the North American ToysRus stores? How much credit for merchandise have they been extended? ToysRUs is reportedly carrying a $5 Billion (usd) Debt load. How much of that is owed to Lego? Mattel? Hasbro? etc. TRU may survive Bankruptcy via court restructuring etc, but what they owe the manufacturers the manufacturers will end up eating. Unless TRU was arranging financing through a third party bank or entity to purchase merchandise, these vendors are completely and utterly screwed. If you think this recent Lego report is bad, just wait until we see the next one, where they have to right down everything TRU owes them. Every piece of inventory sitting in TRU stores or warehouses (they don't get to repo that. The Judge considers that assets of the bankrupt corp.) yeah that is going to be an UGLY financial report. Although I think Hasbro's will be much worse. 

[Vindicare]

5 hours ago, Faefrost said:

One slightly related thing to keep in mind. As somebody pointed out a few pages back, much of Lego's losses were reported from the "financial" side of things, not the product sales etc. We have been assuming that would likely be currency exchange rates working against them. But something else just reared its ugly head yesterday. How much exposure do you think Lego has to the North American ToysRus stores? How much credit for merchandise have they been extended? ToysRUs is reportedly carrying a $5 Billion (usd) Debt load. How much of that is owed to Lego? Mattel? Hasbro? etc. TRU may survive Bankruptcy via court restructuring etc, but what they owe the manufacturers the manufacturers will end up eating. Unless TRU was arranging financing through a third party bank or entity to purchase merchandise, these vendors are completely and utterly screwed. If you think this recent Lego report is bad, just wait until we see the next one, where they have to right down everything TRU owes them. Every piece of inventory sitting in TRU stores or warehouses (they don't get to repo that. The Judge considers that assets of the bankrupt corp.) yeah that is going to be an UGLY financial report. Although I think Hasbro's will be much worse. 

That's a good point. The LEGO aisles at my TRU are huge. Star Wars stuff is the only section to rival it. And that's everything SW, of which partly contains LEGO sets.