timemail

We pay $15 AU (9.60 Euro) for delivery, or else $149 AU (95.37 Euro) for free delivery. Kind of expensive to do multiple small orders, but kind of expensive to do one big order. One of the downsides of living on the big behind end of the world.

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.

I hadn't heard of these - this is the sort of thing that I like much better. It works towards the goal but feels less like co-opting others to be your advertising campaign (again it could just be me not understanding social media but those campaigns feel so forced). My daughter will love the pirate book - with any luck there will be a train one in the line for my son - I can't see any other information on the line besides those two (which likely were announced first for the extra press). Hopefully they will be widely available.

From a commercial point of view "This view became more pronounced 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." 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? Likely it is somewhere in between. Lego have "developed a fun 10-step guide and invite parents to share photos of their child’s LEGO creations against a pre-defined AR backdrop featuring the words ‘Get the World Ready for Me’." In other words they are using parents and children to advertise their brand on social media. Note: I have not seen the backdrop (I tried to find it but couldn't - I am not a social media person) but I would be surprised if there was not something on it to advertise Lego. The campaign is also not about using other STEM type activities but using Lego creations. At the end of the day any company who runs a campaign where people advertise their product for them looks suspicious to me. I would note that I buy Lego for my daughter and try to teach her she can play what she wants and be who she wants to be. My son also gets all the hand-me-down dolls, cars, and dress-ups from my daughter. But not being a social media user this campaign would not be aimed at me and not something I would see anyway. I am probably too old to understand how the younger generation's use of social media works so that may also be part of the disconnect.

I just finished building the Vader I got for 55% off. At that price I think it was good value, and it does look good mounted on the wall. The process was not an enjoyable one for me though which I am glad of. Will probably pick up the rumoured Batman one if there is a good special on it, but I certainly won't be getting it for the build process.

Just noticed that a price change (a few decreases, but no increases) has gone through on some parts on the Australian site (since I placed an order last 3 days ago). Lots of these are just small amounts around $0.10 or so but I did specifically notice: 6296946 - green and white angler fish dropped by $0.95 (about 20% decrease). 6329619 - red-brown dog dropped by $0.44 (about 13% decrease). 6307440 - Stingray dropped by a few cents. Since these were all older animals (although the sets are still around) I thought they may be clearing them out, but in any case it may be a good time for a school of angler fish (if they even hang about in schools).

I would argue it is quite different. Sets like tha NASA ones, and the White House, are political in the more traditional sense of the word. While there are arguments for their benefit they still represent the government of one country. In the case of a set like this it is a cause which does not represent any one government or set of people, but rather something which Lego are appearing to support (conservation/environment which is their prerogative). I would argue that is a better political set, but I'm sure others would argue against that. I am happy with any political sets to be honest. A set is a set. I can either buy it or not. I would love to see Lego release more sets of any kind. Either way, fingers crossed for Chimps.

Looking at weight of the set (going by bricklink): $33 - 370g Camper $36 - 342g Hut $50 - 543g Helicopter Similar to what MaximillianRebo mentioned this can illustrate that not all pieces are created equal some may have larger or smaller pieces leading to increased or decreased costs. Licensing factors would likely be in place for the hut as well. Note that I have used Aussie prices above which has the camper and the hut much closer in terms of price. I imagine having sets at specific price points may have something to do with it also. Looking at City sets on the US site (ignoring under $9.99) all the price points end in $9.99 e.g. $9.99, $19.99, $29.99, $39.99 and so on. I note on the Aussie site that this does not happen until $49.99 so there seems to be more room to fit a set to a price point. E.g. a set may be worth $22 however Lego have to decide whether it goes in the $19.99 or $29.99 price point. This could create disparity if one was put in the smaller price point and the other was put in the larger.

My second thought after "I hope we get actual chimps rather than just monkeys or god forbid a minifigure in an ape suit" was that this was a political set being made by Lego. (Definition of political being "Influenced by, based on, or stemming from partisan interests or political ideology" - partisan interests being that which is shown toward a particular cause). Note that I do like chimps and hope to get more of them in Lego sets, especially since I currently have none. It ties in well with Lego's current trends toward sustainability and the like (Vesta set, bricks from plants, trialing paper bags etc). Looking forward to seeing what this one is (in the hope I will be able to get a new animal from Bricks and Pieces).

Probably didn't explain it too well but yes the gambling aspect is the chance. The fact that for blind bags buying multiples you are likely to get doubles, or if you only want one particular item it is a low chance you will get it. The blind bags increase the cost to get them all (without trading or buying from third parties - not everyone kids especially can feel for what they want). It is designed to suck money from people. Yes they will pay but many would rather just get what they want without having to buy the extras due to chance (there would also be many I'm sure where the thrill of the hunt is the purpose though). I don't have an issue with collecting them all except for the exclusivity of it. I would rather people be able to get what they want at a reasonable price. When it comes to something like (for example) a Joker minifigure - all the small sets have the same figure and the UCS will have an exclusive. This doesn't help a consumer (especially children) but does help the company - I expect companies to do this but I don't like it. Making the exclusive figure available in a cheap set also would do this, but would lessen the value of the UCS. I see this as profit over people. Yep - I do feel the same way about all companies doing this including trading cards, con-exclusives etc. Not expecting it to change, if I ran a company I would do the same as it makes money. The big difference with Lego is that it seems quite hypocritical from a company that tries to appear to be socially responsible and I see this as a disconnect.

I had to put no. I like the products, the quality is ok, the service is certainly good (although with the price I pay I expect that). Every time I have received damaged pieces, damaged stickers etc. I have no trouble with getting replacements although I would prefer not to get damaged items. I have never had missing items. The no for me came down to me deciding whether I would be friends with Lego if they were a person. I think that they try to show that they are socially responsible however many of their marketing decisions are certainly not socially responsible in my opinion. E.g. The use of blind bags/blind boxes to encourage gambling / gotta get them all mentality in children, and taking advantage of those who are completeists. This is similar to the inclusion of unique mini-figures in expensive sets. The release of limited edition, reduced number collector style sets. VIP sets either in numbers that don't allow those that want them to get them - I understand not having these available for a long time, but mere hours or minutes is not acceptable. This sort of behaviour seems really hypocritical to me. They really are focused on the bottom line, and exclusivity at the expense of fans. I have no issues with them doing that as a company - if I was the company I would likely be doing the same as the purpose of a company is to make money, regardless of how they choose to market themselves. It does make me think that all of their social responsibility is there to garner favour and appear to be doing good to ultimately bolster their profits. I don't doubt there are many socially responsible people working at Lego, however in the end they are a company and there for profit not to be our friends.

I feel like Lego don't need sets for Pixar movies to come through ideas. They must have enough of a relationship with Disney for them to know which of their properties would be good or poor sellers. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the house from Up is the most iconic thing to make into a set (if they thought it was a good seller). If they wanted an Up set they could make it themselves so they must have some reason for not doing it (yet). I would prefer that they just put Up (or Pixar) in as a non-accepted license rather than leaving people to put sets in themselves, or else refuse repeat submissions if they have rejected a set for a specific period of time. On a personal note I would like to see a Pixar release each year - they could do a set for either the new film, or a classic. Since Lego aren't doing this already though they must think it doesn't make good business sense (either due to sales or licensing or any other reason). I say that I would like to see the sets, yet I have only bought Wall-E of the previous ones so that maybe I just want to see them but not actually buy them. Given this is an ideas thread you could make this as a modular version and put it on ideas yourself (assuming that hasn't been done before). 10-20 floors would be a tad big for a Lego set, but you could always design a set that multiple copies could be purchased to make it increasingly taller.

Winnie the Pooh only came out in April so it is probably a bit early to assume that will be the last ideas Disney set. Edit: Forgot that Home Alone is owned by Disney also and that hasn't been released yet.

There are some items in the Build a Minifigure which you can get from Bricks and Pieces, however that is because there are items from sets in the BaM. The exclusive BaM items however I have not seen on BaP.

Yeah. I think I will need to look at a day one purchase on that one. I never even saw the '66 Batmobile on sale here. As far as I have seen it has been temporarily out of stock since release. Still hoping that they actually produce that in quantities that mean I can get one. I assume some Australians got one but wouldn't bet on it. The UCS Tumbler I will wait for 20% off at a retailer. If it does that I will get one, if not I won't. Have the old one so not overly concerned about it.

In Australia some of the BnP and PaB orders I receive come by courier, and some come by regular mail. When they are by courier I never receive notification by email, however I can go into order status and see the tracking number on the site there. I would note that I have only seen one tracking number there so if there are two parcels being tracked (e.g. one for sets and one for PaB) then you can't see both. You may also be able to see the tracking numbers that way sometimes.

The domain was only registered on 22 July 2021 which doesn't leave much time for people to know if they are any good. They have items marked as Lego in the description which are not Lego, they have images from multiple other sites so likely just grabbed at random from the web. A cursory glance would be enough to tell anyone that you would be taking a risk buying from them.

Region restrictions may have changed as safe is available in Australia again.

Recent CMF Shipwreck Survivor is a good Robinson Crusoe.

I struggle with it. The standard bricks are cheaper so I just order them at times (sometimes foliage). Normally it is just to get free shipping though. Our Bricklink prices are quite large as well so standard pieces are often cheaper direct from Lego than from Bricklink sellers which is different to Europe from what I can see. I don't have a big collection currently so I still order 1x2 bricks and other simple bricks quite often.

Considering we have $150 (about 94 euro) to qualify for free shipping it will be easy enough for me I guess as orders have to be big anyway. But I won't be overjoyed if they bring it here too. Often my big order is BaP with a much smaller PaB order due to parts limitations you mentioned.

A trial or similar was mentioned in this thread a few months back which was happening in the UK of a minimum order for Pick a Brick. Could be that extended or being rolled out. In Australia I ordered a small amount on Pick a Brick last month (less than $10) which went through and qualified me for free shipping on my Bricks and Pieces order. Edit: It just let me get to the checkout phase with a single $0.06 piece from PaB. So it looks like there is still no limit here.

Not necessarily. It shows one of the stacks is not Lego (or contains non-Lego). Some have called the entire article into question, and since the logos on the bricks can't be seen it may not be fake Lego, but simply another construction block.

I'd certainly seen it in a couple of places so there was a rumour. Thing with rumours is there needs to be no truth to them. If people suggest it is happening whether it is completely made up by the person spreading it or not it is still a rumour. Some rumors come from more reputable sources giving them a higher level of believability or higher chance of being true, but rumours without substance are still rumours.

I have a pending payment showing on my credit card which is normal in cases like this. No charge though it does "reserve" the money on the credit card. The pending payment will likely drop off at some point and they will formally charge the card when the set is released.