Lego worst failures by Lego Designer Mark Stafford

[Ondra]

I found this article on Business insider, I dont know if this was posted before but I dont found any hint.

It seems, that management went on crazy way by some bad "how to do" book..Lego was one step from end, thank god fom situation nowaday.

http://www.businessi...graphic/cf8vdl3 http://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1x6ldp/lego_franchise_infographic/cf8vdl3

Edited January 28, 2015 by Ondra

[TheLegGodt]

Interesting article, thanks for sharing!

[DuckBricks]

Interesting, Galidor was obvious but I wonder how the fiber optics set ever got to market with such an obvious loss of profit...

[XAxles]

So, one of the world's greatest LEGO Technic sets, the Space Shuttle, was part of a failure? That's neat, in a bad sort of way.

Edited January 28, 2015 by XAxles

[LegoPanda]

not to forget that Mark Staffort was in the Exo-Force design team, there where fiber optics in everyonee of those sets. And he made the fail to retire teal as a colour

[Ondra]

not to forget that Mark Staffort was in the Exo-Force design team, there where fiber optics in everyonee of those sets. And he made the fail to retire teal as a colour

Maybe cost to make fiber optic in early 00 was smaller than in past 90.But still, they retired fiber optics.

[DrJB]

I can accept the fact that some product lines were not 'popular', such as Scala and Galidor, but the statement that the plastic tubes (fiber optics) were more expensive to produce than the set sold for seems rather stretched. As for Znap, I think what did not help it was the fact that the box art was ugly. Let's face it, we're attracted to toys first and foremost by the pictures on the box, and unfortunately Znap did not have that benefit. It's interesting that, if you look closely, some of the current technic liftarms have 'evolved' from znap parts.

Maybe cost to make fiber optic in early 00 was smaller than in past 90.But still, they retired fiber optics.

They brought them back with the spybotics series. Here is a simple comparison:

Lego 8456 Fiber-Optic Multiset MSRP - $74

Lego 3806 Gigamesh G60 - $60

I find it very hard to believe that 8456 cost more to produce than 3806. 8456 is put together with primarily plastic parts only. 3806 included a brick that for sure cost a lot to assemble.

Were the fiber optics more expensive than the electronic bricks? Anyone else sees the 'apparent/failed' argument?

Edited January 28, 2015 by DrJB

[Ondra]

More info, but same article

http://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1x6ldp/lego_franchise_infographic/cf8vdl3

[kungpo]

There is a "related" book called Brick By Brick - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brick-Rewrote-Innovation-Conquered-Industry/dp/1847941176

It looks quite deeply at what went wrong, and then what they did to save the day. Very interesting reading and highly recommended.

[Electro]

They brought them back with the spybotics series. Here is a simple comparison:

Lego 8456 Fiber-Optic Multiset MSRP - $74

Lego 3806 Gigamesh G60 - $60

Spybotics series still fall under the time frame (pre 2003) that they were not tracking cost very well and were only produced for one year.

I find it very hard to believe that 8456 cost more to produce than 3806. 8456 is put together with primarily plastic parts only. 3806 included a brick that for sure cost a lot to assemble.

Were the fiber optics more expensive than the electronic bricks? Anyone else sees the 'apparent/failed' argument?

The cost of the fiber elements may have a lot to do with the material they used and the machines and process needed to get the final product. Keep in mind TLG had to have new molds an possible a entire new machine or machines produced to manufacture these elements. Cost of the parts need to include the cost of the investment to make them.

Making a circuit board is cheap by comparison of setting up injection molding. China has dozens of plants that could have produced them by the thousands in no time.

[zux]

There is a "related" book called Brick By Brick - http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/1847941176

It looks quite deeply at what went wrong, and then what they did to save the day. Very interesting reading and highly recommended.

I can recommend this book as well. It is hard to believe now, that TLG was so deep in trouble - so many mistakes have been made those days.

[Blakbird]

I call BS on the notion that the fiber optic elements cost more than the whole set. There is just no way. It's not like they are real glass fiber; they are just flexible acrylic. The fiber optic module was just an incandescent light bulb. No way it cost $60-$100 to produce, at least not in recurring cost. It could be that the non-recurring cost to set up the tooling and production facilities was amortized over too small a number of sets to make their money back. In that case, the solution would be to use them in more sets!

[dr_spock]

Should research and development costs of the optic elements be factored into the equation?

[notaromantic]

Should research and development costs of the optic elements be factored into the equation?

This. Exactly.

None of you seem to have considered this very important factor before comparing one apple to another apple - the effort taken to procure each apple.

Point being: Become informed, before you unholster that weapon of opinion. It seems he, versus us, would be more in the know. We only have the apples to look at. He's seen the trees...

[bonox]

Should research and development costs of the optic elements be factored into the equation?

of course they should - you can't make a profit/loss comparison without all of the embedded costs.

Regarding the micromotors, I've a feeling that half of the total production run ended up in 1974's parts bin

Edited January 28, 2015 by bonox

[Blakbird]

None of you seem to have considered this very important factor before comparing one apple to another apple - the effort taken to procure each apple.

Point being: Become informed, before you unholster that weapon of opinion. It seems he, versus us, would be more in the know. We only have the apples to look at. He's seen the trees...

But I already said that:

....It could be that the non-recurring cost to set up the tooling and production facilities was amortized over too small a number of sets to make their money back. In that case, the solution would be to use them in more sets!

I stand by my statement. High development costs mean that you need to use them in a large number of sets or in sets which sell at high volume to recoup your money. This should certainly have been considered before the development effort was undertaken and it is likely this is the source of the loss.

In any case, just because someone says something doesn't make it true, even if it is in an interview. He could have been misquoted, or the information he was presented could have been misleading. In any case, questioning the statements made by others that don't add up is a good thing in my opinion.

Were Technic fiber optics unprofitable? Almost certainly. But "it cost LEGO more to source these parts then the whole set was being sold for" does not pass my engineering sanity test. It is my guess that this is a bad quote. It is more likely that the procurement cost of the fiber optic elements exceeded the cost of all the other parts of the set put together. That's believable. But the retail price includes a whole lot of other stuff rolled in. It is therefore likely that he was referring to LEGO's cost, not the retail price. The cost of parts in a $60 set is probably only a few dollars.

[DrJB]

... It could be that the non-recurring cost to set up the tooling and production facilities was amortized over too small a number of sets to make their money back. In that case, the solution would be to use them in more sets! ...

That's a good point. Though TLG is notorious for releasing sets with unique parts: 8448 had multiple parts not seen anywhere else. Most of the Bionicle sets had unique parts. Did they sell more per set in the Bionicle series than they did under other themes? Hard to believe that 'poseable' figures have a higher 'appeal' than the basic brick (i.e., build anything you want).

[CP5670]

Interesting article. I agree that the statement about the fiber optics is absurd. Today, TLG would just outsource something like that and not manufacture it themselves in the first place. The fiber optics only appeared in 4 sets,

That particular set (8456) might not have sold well though. It was $75 (and wasn't really worth it for that price), but I got it for $40 on clearance several years later. One of the very few in-store deep discounts I have ever found.

[Jared]

Hehe, thanks for a great share!

[Faefrost]

There is a "related" book called Brick By Brick - http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/1847941176

It looks quite deeply at what went wrong, and then what they did to save the day. Very interesting reading and highly recommended.

It's a great book if you are interested in the business side of Lego or similar industries. Professor Robinson also did a great lecture on the subject that has been floating around the interwebz on video.

or another version

This is also an interview with Prof Robinson at the Wharton School about Lego

http://knowledge.wha...side-the-brick/

Oh and BTW, in a shocking example of how fortunes change, in 2003 Lego had pursued Mattel as a potential suitor/buyer. As of last Friday Mattel's CEO has been kicked to the curb on the news of just how badly Mattel is struggling. Loss of 6% sales overall. Traditional lines like Barbie declining badly. Losing their highest profit license, Disney Princesses and Frozen, to Hasbro, and stunningly loss of the #1 toymaker slot to Lego. In short Mattel is sitting in the same place that Lego was in 2003.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Faefrost

[Faefrost]

I call BS on the notion that the fiber optic elements cost more than the whole set. There is just no way. It's not like they are real glass fiber; they are just flexible acrylic. The fiber optic module was just an incandescent light bulb. No way it cost $60-$100 to produce, at least not in recurring cost. It could be that the non-recurring cost to set up the tooling and production facilities was amortized over too small a number of sets to make their money back. In that case, the solution would be to use them in more sets!

From what I have read the big problem was not the "fiber optics" so much as it was the micro motors that drove them and required third party sourcing. Any of the sets with micro motors lost money. It just happens that they were typically related to the fiber optics. And the sum cost of all was enough to exceed the MSRP selling price.

[JohnnyBrix]

There is a "related" book called Brick By Brick - http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/1847941176

It looks quite deeply at what went wrong, and then what they did to save the day. Very interesting reading and highly recommended.

Agreed, this book is quite interesting

[Bornin1980something]

From what I have read the big problem was not the "fiber optics" so much as it was the micro motors that drove them and required third party sourcing. Any of the sets with micro motors lost money. It just happens that they were typically related to the fiber optics. And the sum cost of all was enough to exceed the MSRP selling price.

What was the purpose of the micromotors in the fibre optic sets? Can any owners enlighten me?

[bonox]

What was the purpose of the micromotors in the fibre optic sets? Can any owners enlighten me?

the one in the 8480 had nothing to do with the fibre optics. It was just a small form factor motor to spread the solar panels of the satellite.

I also believe from the instructions of others like the 8082 (http://lego.brickins...00/8082/039.jpg) that the motor wasn't actually used to drive the fibreoptics. The fibre really just interfaced with a light box with a rotating aperture and it was the light box you could make rotate if you wanted a sequence of flashing tubes.

The coastal patrol boat had a micro, but no optics and a few others fit that category as well from what I can see on peeron.

A few sets had the micromotor, but I can only see two that had the fibre optics as well - the 8480 and the 6979, but i'm sure someone will be in to correct me shortly :D

Edited February 3, 2015 by bonox

[Artanis I]

I have the UFO set, here is a video (not mine) to demonstrate what it does. The comments explain what the motor actually does.