Removing gender bias

[astral brick]

11 hours ago, timemail said:

That is a large market segment that is being missed by Lego as parents are not recommending it for their daughters and likely not buying it for them. By "overcoming gender bias" they are potentially increasing their profits significantly. Is the motivation from Lego to remove gender bias or to increase profits?

Exactly. Their intent is both to increase profits - aiming at female customers - and to improve brand image. However, not only it is undeniable that promoting gender equality is admirable but the fact that an important company is involved can be very helpful to the cause.    

Therefore there is a moral dilemma: can a private company promote social politics without giving the impression of only caring about business? Do we need to ignore the facts for the sake of a greater good? Isn't it a primary government task to support affirmative actions? What if a company steps in achieving better results thanks to better resources?

 

The answers reside in personal political beliefs.

[Vindicare]

This is a meaningless move. It’s parents that are affecting children’s toy choices. If a parent doesn’t want a boy buying a Friends set, having it grouped together with other LEGO(which they have been in Target & Walmart) for years or having no label...isn’t going to change that. 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, astral brick said:

Therefore there is a moral dilemma: can a private company promote social politics without giving the impression of only caring about business? 

If they wanted to take a risk, they could decide that the next wave of Ninjago is based on a majority of female characters, or do some female only minifigure sets in City. Risking alienating their core demographic to promote social change would not give the impression of caring only about business. 

[Vindicare]

10 hours ago, Mylenium said:

The old gag of a bunch of LGBRQI+ themed sets not representing diversity or at best that "corporate pride" thing?! Unless LEGO show true commitment to their words, I remain skeptical. And let's face it - they are and long have been part of the problem and even exacerbated it with in particular the overboarding "teenage girl fantasy" stereotypes in Friends and some other stuff. I guess that is the point on some level - it wouldn't have taken an expensive study to see what's problematic with some LEGO themes and series.

Well said! The mechanics work both ways.

Mylenium

Isn’t saying “teenage girl fantasy” in that fashion cherry picking? I’m  familiar with Friends, I give it a look every once in awhile, but they have those girls doing damn neat everything under the sun. Of course there’s going to also be stereotypical girl stuff....because girls like that stuff. 

6 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

 

Minidolls kind of evoke the "girls play with dolls" type of mindset more then minifigures ever have, Paradisa had the color scheme but still was a part of Town.

Aren’t minidolls a thing because their girl focus groups asked for them? I don’t think they would’ve changed from minifigs for Friends had it not been a plus. 

 

The big question is, how do you change the minds of those parents? Do they release a big new action theme that TLG knows will be a hit with girls, but give us the reverse when it comes to minifigs-3 to 4 females & 1 male? Or all females? I wonder how the average parent would see that? A “boys” toy full of female heroes, would they buy it for their son/daughter or avoid it altogether? Would either kid even want it? 

[TeriXeri]

1 hour ago, Vindicare said:

Aren’t minidolls a thing because their girl focus groups asked for them? I don’t think they would’ve changed from minifigs for Friends had it not been a plus. 

They are a thing because of girl theme focus yes, but its still somewhat a stereotype, and also plays in the 71% of boys don't want to admit they play with a girl focused LEGO set. (in the article)

And not just the dolls, colors, but also the cuter style of animals and such are part of the stereotyping.

And this LEGO article goes both ways, encouraging boys to play with themes like Friends / Princess etc, and then more representation on girl things in other themes (which in terms of City/Creator, LEGO is almost 50/50 in terms of minifig gender nowadays) but other themes could work on the stereotyping if they truly want to reduce it as noted in article.

 

LEGO clearly is already trying to reduce stereotyping way before 2022, in the last 5 years or so LEGO had Go Karts in Friends, female Stuntz bikers, female cops, fire brigade, construction workers in City, knights, pirates, astronauts etc.

And of course the LEGO Movie having Lucy/Wildstyle , and Sweet Mayhem + Queen Whatevra as antagonists, and also mixing minidolls, minifigs, and brick build characters together in 1 world.

And before people say "i want to delete minidolls, pink colors and puppies with anime eyes" , I'm not advocating for that , my posts here mostly are out of interest of what MIGHT happen, not what MUST happen in my view. I just think if LEGO truly wants to take steps to less stereotyping, it has to go both ways, that includes like others have noted, product promotion/photos with just boys playing with a Friends set for example.

 

1 hour ago, Vindicare said:

The big question is, how do you change the minds of those parents? Do they release a big new action theme that TLG knows will be a hit with girls, but give us the reverse when it comes to minifigs-3 to 4 females & 1 male? Or all females? I wonder how the average parent would see that? A “boys” toy full of female heroes, would they buy it for their son/daughter or avoid it altogether? Would either kid even want it? 

Ulimately your right, parents or other adults certainly buy the majority of LEGO sets for people at younger ages.

Box color/art is probably the first thing those buyers see (in physical stores at least), and right now Friends does have stereotype magenta boxes with 5 girls on it, and City has the blue boxes for a long time now.

I'm not saying that changing box art would be a big solution, i'm not a marketing expert and don't know what LEGO's exact goals are here, ultimately I don't think stereotypes will be completely removed from society just by changing things like that.

Elves wasn't a typical action theme but it did have 4 female 1 male in the main lineup.

 

Again, overall, I don't think what LEGO's exact goals are, it's going to be a tough balance.

I don't really expect any massive changes within current succesful themes, maybe some more female figures within ninjago, and some more boy things in Friends, but that's about all I expect.

Bigger changes would perhaps come from some entirely new, unique in-house theme, as Elves showed it was unique like nothing had done in LEGO before it.

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by TeriXeri

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Vindicare said:

The big question is, how do you change the minds of those parents? Do they release a big new action theme that TLG knows will be a hit with girls, but give us the reverse when it comes to minifigs-3 to 4 females & 1 male? Or all females? I wonder how the average parent would see that? A “boys” toy full of female heroes, would they buy it for their son/daughter or avoid it altogether? Would either kid even want it? 

I think the really big question is why do they need to change the mind of those parents? I think most parents will not buy a girls' toy for a boy, when there are perfectly good boys' toys in a similar style. They don't want their child to be picked on or made fun of because they are playing with girls' toys. Adults and most kids know the toys in pink boxes with five girls on the box are girls' toys no matter what LEGO says. I cannot see LEGO saying that it is OK for boys to play with this toy that we designed with girls in mind will change anything. If LEGO want it to be OK for boys to play with their more nurturing type toys, then put some houses, or a cup cake store, or vets,  or farms, or another hospital, etc into City. Then it is in the "acceptable for boys" range and the boy won't be made fun of for playing with a girls' toy.

[Vindicare]

1 hour ago, TeriXeri said:

They are a thing because of girl theme focus yes, but its still somewhat a stereotype, and also plays in the 71% of boys don't want to admit they play with a girl focused LEGO set. (in the article)

And not just the dolls, colors, but also the cuter style of animals and such are part of the stereotyping.

And this LEGO article goes both ways, encouraging boys to play with themes like Friends / Princess etc, and then more representation on girl things in other themes (which in terms of City/Creator, LEGO is almost 50/50 in terms of minifig gender nowadays) but other themes could work on the stereotyping if they truly want to reduce it as noted in article.

 

LEGO clearly is already trying to reduce stereotyping way before 2022, in the last 5 years or so LEGO had Go Karts in Friends, female Stuntz bikers, female cops, fire brigade, construction workers in City, knights, pirates, astronauts etc.

And of course the LEGO Movie having Lucy/Wildstyle , and Sweet Mayhem + Queen Whatevra as antagonists, and also mixing minidolls, minifigs, and brick build characters together in 1 world.

And before people say "i want to delete minidolls, pink colors and puppies with anime eyes" , I'm not advocating for that , my posts here mostly are out of interest of what MIGHT happen, not what MUST happen in my view. I just think if LEGO truly wants to take steps to less stereotyping, it has to go both ways, that includes like others have noted, product promotion/photos with just boys playing with a Friends set for example.

 

Ulimately your right, parents or other adults certainly buy the majority of LEGO sets for people at younger ages.

Box color/art is probably the first thing those buyers see (in physical stores at least), and right now Friends does have stereotype magenta boxes with 5 girls on it, and City has the blue boxes for a long time now.

I'm not saying that changing box art would be a big solution, i'm not a marketing expert and don't know what LEGO's exact goals are here, ultimately I don't think stereotypes will be completely removed from society just by changing things like that.

Elves wasn't a typical action theme but it did have 4 female 1 male in the main lineup.

 

Again, overall, I don't think what LEGO's exact goals are, it's going to be a tough balance.

I don't really expect any massive changes within current succesful themes, maybe some more female figures within ninjago, and some more boy things in Friends, but that's about all I expect.

Bigger changes would perhaps come from some entirely new, unique in-house theme, as Elves showed it was unique like nothing had done in LEGO before it.

 

Black boxes for all!  

I never did make it to anything Elves(because other stuff was priority), but it was a great theme. It would be interest to hear first hand how target age boys feel about that. I don’t really have a big opinion on mindolls, despite clearly not being the demo they we’re after. I have a few thanks to the LEGO Movie 2 sets & I like them just fine. I do really like Sweet Mayhem though. 

I was surprised by this article as well as I thought they did away with gender bias stuff years ago by integrating more females in stereotypical boy roles throughout themes. 

37 minutes ago, MAB said:

I think the really big question is why do they need to change the mind of those parents? I think most parents will not buy a girls' toy for a boy, when there are perfectly good boys' toys in a similar style. They don't want their child to be picked on or made fun of because they are playing with girls' toys. Adults and most kids know the toys in pink boxes with five girls on the box are girls' toys no matter what LEGO says. I cannot see LEGO saying that it is OK for boys to play with this toy that we designed with girls in mind will change anything. If LEGO want it to be OK for boys to play with their more nurturing type toys, then put some houses, or a cup cake store, or vets,  or farms, or another hospital, etc into City. Then it is in the "acceptable for boys" range and the boy won't be made fun of for playing with a girls' toy.

Yeah, I’m failing to see the point to this announcement. I’m not sure how much sway this will have on parents who aren’t interested in buying their kids the “other side” toys. Advertising is powerful so the previous suggestion of having boys playing with Friends set, perhaps with some sort of caption identifying it has his LEGO would be the best bet for the outcome they are looking for. 

[The Brick Boss]

@TeriXeri I don't even consider City and Friends to be rivals. Friends seems to be strictly towards girls while City seems to be geared towards both boys and girls as, like you said, there are both male and female characters. City is pretty much what you want it to be. 

[timemail]

10 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

They are a thing because of girl theme focus yes, but its still somewhat a stereotype, and also plays in the 71% of boys don't want to admit they play with a girl focused LEGO set. (in the article)

I couldn't find that in the article, but think you may be referring to this: "71% of boys vs. 42% of girls say they worry about being made fun of if they play with a toy typically associated for the other gender."

One thing that I found interesting around that point is that it seems at that age that it is boys that are actually limited by themselves/their peers, but girls are limited by their parents/adults (from quote "when parents were asked to complete an implicit bias assessment and 76% said they would encourage LEGO play to a son vs. 24% who would recommend it to a daughter.").

Seems to me, as others have mentioned, that the problem lies squarely with the parents/adults, and it would be interesting to see how this sort of campaign actually affects them. If Lego are looking to influence children it seems to me that they should be aiming their campaigns at the boys and not the girls, as in reality it is more boys who are limited.

The thing that this campaign may really be targeting is how kids sell their desires to their parents. If a kid wants a particular toy etc. then they can be pretty persuasive around Christmas, birthdays etc. By targeting children (specifically girls) they may actually be able to sway the parents through the power of pester. Again this does go back to the business decisions around the campaign being to target children to increase their market.

[Mylenium]

11 hours ago, Vindicare said:

Isn’t saying “teenage girl fantasy” in that fashion cherry picking?

Yes, of course, but I feel that this topic is simply too broad to efficiently discuss it in every detail. For what it's worth, my point specifically is that LEGO rather consciously have only picked what I would consider negative stereotypes in Friends and even so, somehow they are kind of at least ten years late realizing it needs to change.

Mylenium

[MAB]

10 minutes ago, timemail said:

Seems to me, as others have mentioned, that the problem lies squarely with the parents/adults, and it would be interesting to see how this sort of campaign actually affects them. If Lego are looking to influence children it seems to me that they should be aiming their campaigns at the boys and not the girls, as in reality it is more boys who are limited.

It depends what they try to do to change boys' views (and wider society views). It is seen as much more OK for girls to play with traditional "boys" toys such as City since they have made it more gender neutral over time. Clearly they still have some work and time to go to get some parents to notice it. Yet they have done little to make Friends gender neutral. It is still clearly a girls' toy. If they started including a lot more boy focussed elements (such as parity in minidolls) and change the theme, then it might start to be seen as more acceptable for boys to play with it. However, if they just say it is OK for boys to play with it then they are not going to change attitudes. Those boys will be made fun of.

Take a look at what they have done with the adult sets. They didn't just say "It is OK for adults to play with LEGO" and just keep producing the same old sets. They have done their "Adults welcome" campaign alongside massive changes in the products that they produce. I think it is working, but not because they say something, it is because they have done something. They have started producing sets that are clearly for adults. Kids are not interested in bonsai trees or The Beatles, they are clearly new adult products. Then there are those weird decisions like Sesame Street. Lots of people have said it is a strange decision to label that as an 18+ set when a child can build it and it is of interest to children. What if their whole adult range had been only things like Sesame Street and Winnie the Pooh. I doubt views would have changed that it is OK for adults to play with LEGO. It would have just been seen as a cynical marketing ploy without any substance, slapping an 18+ label on what is still aimed at kids, LEGO saying these are for adults when clearly they are not. It is only making clearly adult targeted sets that has backed up the "Adults welcome" view.

They could slap "Boys welcome" on the Friends page at lego.com. Would that make it more acceptable for boys to play with it? I doubt it when it is still clearly a girls' toy. Boys playing with it would be made fun of, no matter what LEGO says. Not that there is anything wrong with it being a girls' toy, and that doesn't mean that all girls have to like it either. If some girls prefer City or Technic, it doesn't mean Friends shouldn't exist. It exists to fulfill those people that don't like the other products but do like the Friends style.

[TeriXeri]

13 hours ago, Poodabricks said:

@TeriXeri I don't even consider City and Friends to be rivals. Friends seems to be strictly towards girls while City seems to be geared towards both boys and girls as, like you said, there are both male and female characters. City is pretty much what you want it to be. 

I don't think they are direct rivals either. Friends and City do have similar subjects and followup subthemes like hospitals (2017/2018 , 2020/2022), School (2021/2022) , Horses (2021/2022) , which might be part of this campaign to have some more Friends things in City, and then the big one was the return to some houses/shops in City (outside of just the big townplans)

If 3-in-1 minifig sets can be seen as an extension of City , I think there was quite a lot of coverage of activities / houses as well, as far as tree houses / beach houses / swimming pools etc go.

As an AFOL I prefer most 3-in-1 houses/shops over the Friends/Citybut that's mainly from a Parts perspective, 3-in-1 being more brick built walls instead of large panels, but I don't expect City / Friends to suddenly add 100+ parts to their walls at the same prince points, still I'm very interested in the 2022 Big "Friends Appartments" set to fit in a City/3-in-1 scale display.

 

I think an example of how City is trying to balance more female figures : 

• 60110: Fire Station (2016) 1 female figure out of 5 firemen
• 7944: Fire Station Headquarters (2021, basicly experimental re-release of 60110),  6 firefighters 3 are female including the chief.
• before 2010 pretty much 0 female Fire / Police figures in City , 2013-2016 was about 20%-33% female figure, and 2019/2021 , much closer to 50%.(in sets with 2+ figures) , and 2015 added female Construction workers.

As for Friends, I think balancing sets with 2+ minidolls might probably get more male minidolls.

Edited October 13, 2021 by TeriXeri

[MAB]

37 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

• 7944: Fire Station Headquarters (2021, basicly experimental re-release of 60110),  6 firemen, 3 are female including the chief.

(set 77944) to remove gender bias, it should of course be 6 fire fighters, 3 are female.

 

 

 

[Peppermint_M]

3 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Yes, of course, but I feel that this topic is simply too broad to efficiently discuss it in every detail. For what it's worth, my point specifically is that LEGO rather consciously have only picked what I would consider negative stereotypes in Friends and even so, somehow they are kind of at least ten years late realizing it needs to change.

Mylenium

Is Negative here synonymous with "girly" passtimes?

Shopping, spending a day by the pool, going to the Spa? Horses? Childcare focused?

Because that is also a gender bias and the foundation problem. 

Sorry if I have missed something.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Peppermint_M said:

Is Negative here synonymous with "girly" passtimes?

Shopping, spending a day by the pool, going to the Spa? Horses? Childcare focused?

Because that is also a gender bias and the foundation problem. 

Sorry if I have missed something.

That is an issue with Friends. They use stereotypical scenarios and some people don't like it. But then a lot of little girls want horses and stables, and shops and bakeries, vets, popstars on stages (just thinking of some of my daughters Friends sets!). They also balance it quite well though, in that that do vehicles, planes, boats, environmental sets, some sporty sets, science sets, adventure sets, and so on. I think Friends covers a range of activities way better than City does. They cater for all tastes. I guess the bias here is that the horses and spas and so on are only in the (girly) Friends theme and not in City. If they get rid of the stereotypical scenarios in Friends, they will lose fans that like those scenarios.

 

 

[Peppermint_M]

Yup. Nothing wrong with spa days and shopping trips. Nothing wrong with Friends.

Now I would like more civilian City sets, with shops and spa hotels etc.

I will never say anything against minidolls either. It was a case of myself and sister playing LEGO on "my turn to choose the game." When we were children, to her buying her own sets and asking for building advice now we are adults. 

[The Brick Boss]

11 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

I don't think they are direct rivals either. Friends and City do have similar subjects and followup subthemes like hospitals (2017/2018 , 2020/2022), School (2021/2022) , Horses (2021/2022) , which might be part of this campaign to have some more Friends things in City, and then the big one was the return to some houses/shops in City (outside of just the big townplans)

If 3-in-1 minifig sets can be seen as an extension of City , I think there was quite a lot of coverage of activities / houses as well, as far as tree houses / beach houses / swimming pools etc go.

As an AFOL I prefer most 3-in-1 houses/shops over the Friends/Citybut that's mainly from a Parts perspective, 3-in-1 being more brick built walls instead of large panels, but I don't expect City / Friends to suddenly add 100+ parts to their walls at the same prince points, still I'm very interested in the 2022 Big "Friends Appartments" set to fit in a City/3-in-1 scale display.

Yeah! It seems like City has been leaning more and more towards civilian sets. Police and Fire seem to have taken a back seat. I guess they just don't sell like that anymore. Same with wild outdooezy stuff. I know AFOLs who are teachers would be excited that they are getting some semblance of respect in Lego City. I'm glad they also broke the 6 year apart plan with the new hospital. It's not a 4+ set either. Bonus for us. Amazingly enough, along with the school, hospital, park and lifeguard tower, I am also looking at the new police and fire stations. If they are good builds, they are all definitely on my buy list with the school being the first. 

I like the 3 in 1 restaurants from Creator too. But I prefer the food trucks from City. I hope they make that a thing for the theme. I still think they should do a salad truck. 🥗 

11 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

 

I think an example of how City is trying to balance more female figures : 

• 60110: Fire Station (2016) 1 female figure out of 5 firemen
• 7944: Fire Station Headquarters (2021, basicly experimental re-release of 60110),  6 firefighters 3 are female including the chief.
• before 2010 pretty much 0 female Fire / Police figures in City , 2013-2016 was about 20%-33% female figure, and 2019/2021 , much closer to 50%.(in sets with 2+ figures) , and 2015 added female Construction workers.

Don't forget about the female Fire chief from the 2019 fire station 60215. I can tell she may have been a nod to Freya as she is also wearing glasses. 

11 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

As for Friends, I think balancing sets with 2+ minidolls might probably get more male minidolls.

Yeah true 

7 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

Now I would like more civilian City sets, with shops and spa hotels etc.

Now if City were to have a spa or a barber shop or a beauty salon in one of their sets, I will officially see more hope for the theme than I do now that I'm hearing of a school set with a school bus. 

Edited October 13, 2021 by Poodabricks

[Mylenium]

3 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

Is Negative here synonymous with "girly" passtimes?

More a case of how this is presented rather than the actual activities themselves. It simply feels extremely clichéed. You know, when the girls go riding in the woods, even the horses wear makeup, in a manner of speaking. It's all a bit too artificial and heightened for my taste and that makes it feel dated and just wrong. It has this aura of old ads as in "A lady never goes out without perfect hair.", selling more of an illusion than actual reality. And sure, we all probably miss that girl with an oily. grimy face actually repairing all those bicycles in Heartlake City, which would also help to transport a more diverse image of girls instead of them being relegated to mostly "passive" activities.

Mylenium

[Pato Sentado]

A lot of sets, such as Creator animals or City sets are really neutral. The most basic boxes are that, basic.

I understand Speed Champions or Technic could be more "male oriented", but you can get Michele Mouton on the Audi S1 or Erica Enders in the dragster.

[metalgeekzy]

Looking at this strictly from a AFOL consumer of Lego sets. 

First, minifigs. I do have a few female features painted minifigs. Currently i am building a space themed MOC. Because of the space themed city sets i have bought i have 9 minifigs that i have selected from those sets that are the same uniforms and what not. Some are female featured painted. Are they going to be excluded? No. Am i going to swap out the faces? No. I really dont care one way or another

But. but but but. The minifigs that comes in these friends sets are not standard traditional minifigs. Basically no matter the setting or theme of any MOC i would build would these have a place. I feel much the same way about the minifigs that come in the minecraft sets. I dont really care one way or another what gender is on a minifig. But lets maybe make the minifigs look like....minifigs? 

Second. The parts. Sometimes when im at walmart i will look over the sets and see if the parts in them would fit into MOCs. I mean, one time i bought set 60283, a camper van. It came with mostly white parts that are great for building out my main space base. It also came with a lot of kitchen/food related parts that i will be using to decorate my kitchen. I liked the set so much i went back and got a second one. 

But. but but but. I am not going to buy a set that comes with a lot of pink/purple pieces. I am not going to build a pink spaceship. I am not saying you cant build a pink spaceship, it can be any color you want. 
So when i comes down to the individual pieces, limited usability from the friends sets. Again, i feel much the same way about the Minecraft sets. 

So, as a consumer. I have little reason to buy these sets over other sets. If the goal here was to have people buy sets, in my opinion, these sets have failed. But i also think, in my personal opinion, the Minecraft sets have failed for much of the same reasons. 

Some people have brought up racecars. What, females cannot be into racecars? Sure they can. Why not? Females can be into anything a male is. And it goes the other way. If TLG was aiming for inclusion, i think they have missed there mark.

[MAB]

9 hours ago, metalgeekzy said:

So, as a consumer. I have little reason to buy these sets over other sets. If the goal here was to have people buy sets, in my opinion, these sets have failed. But i also think, in my personal opinion, the Minecraft sets have failed for much of the same reasons. 
 

That's fine, of course people will buy what they can use. But to say Friends and other minidoll themes and Minecraft has failed because you don't use them is incredibly short sighted. Why do you think these themes still exist? It is not because they fail when it comes to sales.

Personally, I find Minecraft sets a good way to get 2x4 and 2x2 bricks in greens, greys, browns and so on. 

[koalayummies]

8 hours ago, MAB said:

But to say Friends and other minidoll themes and Minecraft has failed because you don't use them is incredibly short sighted. Why do you think these themes still exist? It is not because they fail when it comes to sales.

Hey don't bring facts into this! Both of those failed themes are just months away from their 10-year anniversaries. Total failures!

[Alexandrina]

21 hours ago, metalgeekzy said:

But. but but but. I am not going to buy a set that comes with a lot of pink/purple pieces. I am not going to build a pink spaceship. I am not saying you cant build a pink spaceship, it can be any color you want. 
So when i comes down to the individual pieces, limited usability from the friends sets. Again, i feel much the same way about the Minecraft sets. 

So, as a consumer. I have little reason to buy these sets over other sets. If the goal here was to have people buy sets, in my opinion, these sets have failed. But i also think, in my personal opinion, the Minecraft sets have failed for much of the same reasons. 

Why should Lego only cater to people who want to make primarily-white spaceship MOCs? I grew up in an age where varied colours were starting to become a thing, but you still never got many of them. Specifically, Dark Red, Dark Tan and Dark Blue were introduced to the colour range during my childhood collection - but I never built much in these colours because the parts weren't there for it! In fact, I can look at the old stop-motion films I made and it becomes obvious that almost every one was in the same setting: a base-under-siege with white walls and blue accents. Not very exciting, but I had an abundance of white and not much of other colours (indeed, I once bought a Recycle Truck set I had no real interest in simply because it had orange bricks and panels and orange was impossible to come by in any substantial quantity).

Nowadays, both basic buckets and the common themes include a far wider variety of colours. It means that you can buy the sets with colours you want to use, but so can people who want to use a lot of pink and not much white. (This would include me. I have, according to my collection spreadsheet, 101 Bright Pink 1 x 2 bricks and 79 Bright Pink 1 x 4 bricks, most of them bought specifically off Bricklink, because I wanted to make MOCs using the colour). Really, for maximum audience, Lego should be including the full spectrum of colours in its basic/City/Friends lines - including Dark Yellow, which for some reason they've never done - and the most appropriate colour for specialist/Licensed sets, so that it's easy to get bricks in whatever colour you want. Then we can all choose.

21 hours ago, metalgeekzy said:

Some people have brought up racecars. What, females cannot be into racecars? Sure they can. Why not? Females can be into anything a male is. And it goes the other way. If TLG was aiming for inclusion, i think they have missed there mark.

As a consumer, I have zero interest in cars and thus little reason to buy these sets over other sets. And yet it's not all about me, and it would be churlish to call them a failure just because they're not tailored to my personal tastes. I'll keep buying the sets I am interested in and letting other people buy the sets they're interested in.

[Terrasher]

3 hours ago, koalayummies said:

Hey don't bring facts into this! Both of those failed themes are just months away from their 10-year anniversaries. Total failures!

LEGO Minecraft is almost 10 years old???

---

I'm usually indifferent to minidolls, but I guess it would be nice for TLG to phase them out and just put minifigures in Friends sets, just to make the sets more universally cohesive with the rest of the LEGO City and City-like themes. I do love the brighter colours of the Friends sets, though, since they bring some variety to what one can include in a town.

[Robert8]

Wait are they actually getting rid of minidolls?

Are they really this stupid?