Should TLG release smaller, connecting sets instead of so many larger, expensive playsets?

chuxtoybox · July 2013

Lego seems to be coming out with bigger and bigger sets that cost more and more money. The Ewok Village costs $249.99. That's practically my paycheck for a week. (Yes I know I should have gone to college)

Why not make cheaper sets, maybe $30 or less, that all connect to make one bigger set? Besides Jabba's Palace, original retail $119.99, and the Rancor Pit, original retail $59.99, I can't think of any other Lego sets that actually connect to make a bigger playset. (The only classic toy I can remember at the moment to use as an example is micromachines.)

Isn't Lego hurting themselves buy releasing sets that are more and more expensive, or are they actually profiting more?

BoiseState · July 2013

I think you'll see more of this.. Or maybe that's my wishful thinking.

But they've done it with Helms Deep, Hogwarts, and this years Castle.

graphite · July 2013

Oh man.. Micromachines. Loved those. Still have my collection which includes 10 or so of those fold up "modules" that connect together to make a town. Was a really cool idea. All the pieces fit back inside when you took it apart and folded it up.

legomason · July 2013

Not cheaper but Helm's Deep and Uruk-hai Army walls connect.

chuxtoybox · July 2013

BoiseState said:
I think you'll see more of this.. Or maybe that's my wishful thinking.

But they've done it with Helms Deep, Hogwarts, and this years Castle.

Yes, but on a small scale. (I can't speak for this years Castle because I'm not totally familiar with it) But if you took, for example, all of the new Lone Ranger sets, they really don't combine to make "one set", know what I mean?

CCC · July 2013

Why? Because they'd have to have a much larger product line, which costs money. Also it would hurt sales, as smaller sets would compete with each other. Instead of buying them individually, save up. Ewok village is not going to disappear overnight. Start saving and not spending on smaller sets that you don't really want, so you can buy the large set you do.

graphite · July 2013

^ It wouldn't make sense for something like TLR sets to connect into one set. The mine is no where near Colby or the camp. The train technically could connect them if you wanted but there is still the stagecoach which is a vehicle and doesnt connect to anything.

An entire theme that connects would probably never work out. But something like a possible Star wars cloud city that has multiple scenes all sold separately that then connect would work. The problem there is you wouldn't be able to include all the figures for each scene in each one. So the dinner room with Vader,Boba,Han,Leia,Lando and Chewie is too many for one scene. So then you'd get people complaining that they had to buy more than one to get all the figures they wanted etc etc.

chuxtoybox · July 2013

Lone Ranger isn't the best example because obviously with the movie licenses, Lego is trying to depict different memorable scenes. I was shooting from the hip with that one.
But take an original Lego them like Monster Fighters, those sets could all have connected somehow to make one large set.

cheshirecat · July 2013

the old castle sets are the best example i suspect. the guarded inn, blacksmith, siege tower all connected. but thats very specific and wouldnt transfer well. m-tron and possibly others combined multiple sets into one big spacecraft. they never seemed that grwat to me.

given that outside of afol sets like modulars etc, most sets are vehicle based not buildings i just cant see it working, besides i suspect most kids would rather have a range of different sets tgat they could play with rather than little ones that go together to build a single complex scene. thinking back to my childhood, give me a good guys base, a bad guys base and some vehicles for each and im happy. give me a decent chunk of carpet space for them to battle over and im in a world of imagination for a good few hours. far more so than from a bunch of sets stuck togetger into one object.

graphite · July 2013

Even the MF stuff doesn't seem like it would connect well, or even should connect well. For something to connect well all the pieces need to be designed in a similar fashion. Uruk-hai army to Helms deep is just a small section of the same wall. The modulars are all designed to a similar time period. The MF stuff is all designed around the monster in that set. While the crypt and crazy scientist's lab *could* attach to the castle it wouldn't look right and to design it so it could would leave it open for the stand alone pieces to look incomplete.

I do think there are opportunities for this but I think it might put constraints on a design and make it worse in some cases than to make it better. The winter sets are a good example. There is no need for those to be connected in anyway because you can arrange them however you want and typical small villages don't have connected buildings outside of a downtown area if they even have them there.

tamamahm · July 2013

While current Lego themes are not modular, the sets of a specific theme do go together and have different price points. I was just looking at Galactic Squad today, and the sets I believe my son will want have different points...

$100, $70 and $20.

The reason for the larger sets, I believe is the exact same reason American Girl bundles. (Yes, I'm doing my comparison between the brands again, so stay with me for a moment...)

American girl used to have more smaller sets. The thing is, when you have 5 small sets in a line, people will pick and choose what they want. Instead of spending $30-$40 on 5 small sets, I might pick out two.
American girl started bundling, and creating some larger sets around the $150 -$250 price point.

While they may not always sell as many as the small sets, the reality is a consumer no longer can pick and choose parts. If they want any part of that larger set, they either have to buy the entire large set, or how to find the parts via ebay or in the case of Lego, bricklink.

Many consumers of these brands, though, (think parents), do not go out of their way to buy items beyond toy stores (Toys-r-Us, Target, Walmart, Amazon...).

What this means, then is if somebody wants party of the larger set, they buy the entire large set.

What becomes critical for Lego to do then (and what we've seen with American Girl), is creating that perfect set of higher price point with a "Can't live without set", that will cause the consumer to spend that extra money.

The right combination can really increase sales. In fact, last year sales were so good on the larger tickets American Girl Girl of the Year items (gymnast during Olympic year, where the women took gold...), that American girl hosed themselves a bit because they could not keep up with demand, and items were continually on backorder.

Anyway, long-winded response, but I think the reasoning seen with both is the same.

I do think, though, that the right 'modular' set, though, could really launch sales instead of hindering them. Friends sets are often created with a bit of modularity to them. The new high school actually has extra pins sticking out. To me it would be folly on the part of AG not to make an add-on set for that. (Gym?) Then it is the case of the there being a LARGE more expensive modular, that one really needs to buy for the add-on to make any sense.

I think a model like that 'could' work, but it has to be the correct theme.

Also, Lego does put a bit of inherent flexibility and modularity into the Friends line, where one could rearrange betwen sets... but not enough to impact sales imho.

Bumblepants · July 2013

I am not sure the logic of "Take a big set and divide it into several connectable smaller sets so people can afford it" works all that well. If you cannot afford the large set, you cannot afford to buy all of the X number of sets it was divided into. And then you have several less desirable sets that don't really stand on their own.

A product line of only smaller, inexpensive sets is a poor market strategy. Lego fills out their product range to try and reach every price point and demographic possible and are continuing to expand to new things like Architecture Studio, Friends, and CMFs and whatever Mixels are. Not everyone can afford the Corvette at the Chevy dealer, but it gets a ton of people in the showroom. Same with having an Ewok Village or a Tower of Orthanc or a Tower Bridge in the Lego Store window. Not everyone can or will by those, but they bring people in who will buy the smaller sets instead.

I spent countless hours as a kid looking at the big spaceships and castles in the Lego catalogs and trying in vain to replicate them with my bricks. But even though my pocket change didn't allow me to buy a Wolfpack Tower, I did save and save until I had enough to get the Wolfpack cart because I thought the tower was awesome.

LegoFanTexas · July 2013

chuxtoybox said:
Lego seems to be coming out with bigger and bigger sets that cost more and more money. The Ewok Village costs $249.99. That's practically my paycheck for a week. (Yes I know I should have gone to college)

Ok, I'll step in it... :)

1. LEGO didn't just start with $250 sets last week, they have been doing this for 10 years. 10030, 10143, 10189, etc. were all in that range. Many others as well. It is not their primary market, but these are flagship sets to show off what LEGO can do if you have the budget.

2. If $250 a week is your paycheck, then LEGO will be a frustrating experience for you no matter what TLG does. You simply don't have the income to do much with this hobby, it just isn't a cheap hobby to have.

As @Bumblepants pointed out, if you don't have $250 to spend, you don't have $25 to spend 10 times, so what's the difference? If you have $25 a week to spend, save it up for 10 weeks.

pillpod · July 2013

I'd love for TLG to release individual mini modulars at $15-20 each...but it just won't happen. It's not worth it to TLG.

If all you're looking for is a theme that is physically connected, I would suggest you buy some technic pins and bricks on BL and let your imagination have at it.

pharmjod · August 2013

This was actually tried back with the first Jabba's palace sets ( #4475 ,#4476, #4480 ). They weren't terrible, but not stellar either. I personally like some of the vignette type smaller sets that can be coupled with larger sets but I'm wondering if they just didn't sell well the first time. I know I found a ton of them all on steep clearance, but then those were the halcyon days of LEGO clearance :)

jtr · August 2013

i love the idea of being able to collect a bunch of sets that can be brought togeather (much like the jabba theme going on now). it allows you to construct a rich scene.

if i had already collected a bunch of the endor sets, the ewok village would be a must - and what an awesome layout you could put togeather.

i guess if lego put a bunch of smaller sets out and a larger one or two, all of a similar theme, you have a good balance and would keep everyone happy.

nkx1 · August 2013

chuxtoybox said:
Isn't Lego hurting themselves buy releasing sets that are more and more expensive, or are they actually profiting more?

Since Lego is a private company and, to my knowledge, does not release detailed financial statements to the public, an accurate answer to this may be elusive. However, Lego seems to have substantially increased in popularity since about the mid-2000s when they started producing many larger sets. Since Lego has continually produced many large (and comparatively expensive) sets since then, that would be an indication to me that the large/expensive set formula is working.

Consumer preferences vary obviously, but I prefer the large sets. Small sets, with some exceptions, are just not very impressive to me. Then again, as an adult, I'm probably not Lego's core demographic, so my preference for large sets may not mean a whole lot to them.

oldtodd33 · August 2013

^ Here you go. http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/6430/lego-profit-jumps-36-as-sales-of-building-blocks-for-girls-soar

nkx1 · August 2013

I stand corrected. Lego actually does release detailed financial statements: http://aboutus.lego.com/en-us/lego-group/annual-report/

Looks like they're doing reasonably well, with the possible exclusion of cash flow as of late. I'm not an expert accountant, though.

LegoFanTexas · August 2013

It is a very nice balance sheet, I would be proud to have my company look so nice. :)

The cashflow shows a small negative, but there can be many reasons for that, and in this case it looks like heavy investment in property, plants, and equipment.

Their net profit for the year was about $1 Billion USD. That isn't too shabby. :)

Yellowcastle · August 2013

nkx1 said:
Looks like they're doing reasonably well, with the possible exclusion of cash flow as of late. I'm not an expert accountant, though.

I think they tied it all up in FB and DS. :o)

CCC · August 2013

jtr said:

i guess if lego put a bunch of smaller sets out and a larger one or two, all of a similar theme, you have a good balance and would keep everyone happy.

I'm not so sure. There are many locations in Star Wars (Hobbit, LOTR, etc). If they did Endor Village, another larger Endor set (~$80), and a bunch of smaller Endor sets then that is probably half the SW range tied up on one location in one film. That is a very narrow focus. I'd prefer a range of sets across the series.

Polynices · August 2013

I wonder if some kids would get a set with obvious connection points to something larger and feel like they didn't get the complete item and were ripped off. There's something to be said for even a small set feeling like a complete toy experience so kids at any spending level can be happy with what they get. I wouldn't put it past LEGO to have focus tested something like this with actual kids. They're pretty compulsive about that sort of thing.

chuxtoybox · August 2013

Bumblepants said:
I am not sure the logic of "Take a big set and divide it into several connectable smaller sets so people can afford it" works all that well. If you cannot afford the large set, you cannot afford to buy all of the X number of sets it was divided into. And then you have several less desirable sets that don't really stand on their own.

So with this logic, you would have to have enough money in hand to take home a Corvette, or not buy one at all. Isn't that why they allow you to make smaller payments until it's paid for so the ability to own one would be a bit more realistic?

And LegoFanTexas, I find it ludicrous to tell someone that they should give up Lego because they can't afford it. We don't all have to have 5 Death Stars new in package sealed up in a vault somewhere to enjoy Lego. This isn't speedboat racing, you can enjoy Lego even if you can only afford one CMF a month.

From what I understand, the Ewok Village was a "special" Lego set. Like the Death Star. But with this particular set there was the potential to break down this set into 3 smaller, more affordable sets that could all be enjoyed separately or all together to make one larger set. There are 3 trees so each tree could be somehow different that the other and each set could have different minifigures and different vehicles, that would be up to the Lego engineers to figure out.

And with all due respect to the Brickset gods, why was the title of this thread changed? I didn't write anything that could be taken as offensive this time. Changing the title affects the impact of the discussion.(Is that you, George Lucas?) I do not ask this with hostility. I love Brickset! And it's FREE, so I can afford it!

graphite · August 2013

^ get used to the title changing. Titles are changed, posts moved, threads split in the name of content being relevant to the topic and easy to search. Just ends up making it harder to find something you knew was talked about because it isn't where it was.

prof1515 · August 2013

chuxtoybox said:
So with this logic, you would have to have enough money in hand to take home a Corvette, or not buy one at all. Isn't that why they allow you to make smaller payments until it's paid for so the ability to own one would be a bit more realistic?

The poor logic is on your part. Using your Corvette example, you would have to make smaller payments and be given the car piece-by-piece. Do you really want to shell out $250 and be given a car door? Where's the fun in that? Same goes for the big Lego sets.

chuxtoybox said:
And LegoFanTexas, I find it ludicrous to tell someone that they should give up Lego because they can't afford it. We don't all have to have 5 Death Stars new in package sealed up in a vault somewhere to enjoy Lego. This isn't speedboat racing, you can enjoy Lego even if you can only afford one CMF a month.

The sentiment is not that someone can't try to enjoy something if they can't afford it. The sentiment is more to the point of stop bitching if you can't enjoy something because you can't afford it. If you make the choice to collect Lego, you have to accept the cost. If you can't or won't accept the cost then it's not the available sets or their prices which are the problem.

chuxtoybox said:
From what I understand, the Ewok Village was a "special" Lego set. Like the Death Star. But with this particular set there was the potential to break down this set into 3 smaller, more affordable sets that could all be enjoyed separately or all together to make one larger set. There are 3 trees so each tree could be somehow different that the other and each set could have different minifigures and different vehicles, that would be up to the Lego engineers to figure out.

If you break the Ewok Village up, you don't get stand-alone sets. Three of the trees form a tripod for supporting the center platform. Separate trees would not allow for that. Additionally, what good is a rope bridge with only one end to connect to?

binaryeye · August 2013

chuxtoybox said:
From what I understand, the Ewok Village was a "special" Lego set. Like the Death Star. But with this particular set there was the potential to break down this set into 3 smaller, more affordable sets that could all be enjoyed separately or all together to make one larger set. There are 3 trees so each tree could be somehow different that the other and each set could have different minifigures and different vehicles, that would be up to the Lego engineers to figure out.

There are actually four trees, but let's break it into three sets and see how it looks:

Meet the Ewoks ($119.99)
- medium and small trees with log hammer trap
- part of platform that can't be fully supported by trees
- drums on platform
- speeder bike
- Chief Chirpa
- Teebo
- Wicket
- Leia
- Scout Trooper (x2)

Captured by Ewoks ($79.99)
- large tree with net trap
- part of platform that can't be fully supported by tree
- roasting spit on platform
- throne on platform
- Chewbacca
- Han
- Rebel Trooper
- C-3PO
- R2-D2
- Logray

Ewoks Join the Fight ($49.99)
- medium tree with ladder
- bridge that can't be fully supported by the tree
- catapult
- Rebel Trooper
- Stormtrooper (x2)
- Ewok Warrior
- Luke

Compared to other sets at the price points, how much appeal do these have? How much playability do they have, individually? Would you buy any of these sets?

chuxtoybox · August 2013

LegoFanTexas said:

chuxtoybox said:
Lego seems to be coming out with bigger and bigger sets that cost more and more money. The Ewok Village costs $249.99. That's practically my paycheck for a week. (Yes I know I should have gone to college)

2. If $250 a week is your paycheck, then LEGO will be a frustrating experience for you no matter what TLG does. You simply don't have the income to do much with this hobby, it just isn't a cheap hobby to have.

This is gonna alert LegoFanTexas that I commented on his comment, which I am, but I'm quoting this in response to prof1515. So if I can only afford to buy $9.99 sets I might as well not collect Lego?

And I'm not bitching about anything. I'm just trying to start a discusion, perhaps poorly, about all of the expensive sets Lego has been currently releasing. Anything over $100.00 is expensive to me personally. I'm not saying this is a new practice for them either.

I love you LegoFanTexas and you too prof1515. Your both Star Wars and Lego fans and so am I! (Although I couldn't tell you all of the pilots in the X-Wing squadron if my life depended on it!) :}

TheLoneTensor · August 2013

prof1515 said:
Additionally, what good is a rope bridge with only one end to connect to?

An exciting ending to Temple of Doom :)

CCC · August 2013

You need to remember that they have already released a lot of cheaper sets too, not just expensive ones. I would have liked Council of Elrond to be a $100 set, but there are already expensive sets in the LOTR line, and one of them has to be mid range, and one cheap.

There is also another problem splitting a big set into three smaller ones. As noted above there is the problem of incompleteness - this can be overcome by having alternate builds, but again, this costs money. They'd have to design three small sets and one large set using the sum of the parts.

The other problem is availability. If one of the three has a slightly more favourable minifig or selection of parts, then resellers may jump on it. If they clear out the stores locally and disrupt online sales then it may be difficult to get hold of one of the sets. There will be angry parents who have bought parts 1 and 2 and not able to get 3. That is not good for Lego.

prof1515 · August 2013

I can understand that anything over $100 would be expensive and I don't disagree. Lego's pricese have also gone up over the years which doesn't help. But Lego does release a lot of sets under the $100 amount. They try to cater to a wide price range with their sets. True, some figures are only available in the larger sets but the same is true of the smaller sets as well. Jango Fett is in a cheaper set and Padme's in a pricier one. Admiral Ackbar's in a cheaper set and Jabba's in a more expensive one.

chuxtoybox · August 2013

binaryeye- I'm not saying to literally break down the current Ewok village. I'm saying that if we could go magically back in time before Lego started to design an Ewok Village, the initial concept could have been to build separate sets that could make one big set. IF they then decided to proceed with such a concept, the Lego engineers would have to figure out what would be included and how they could POTENTIALLY be connected.

Back in the day there was something called VOLTRON. If you bought all of the different sets you could build one giant robot. But you could still play with the set you had even if you didn't have the other sets.

natro220 · August 2013

@chuxtoybox

No one is forcing you to buy the sets that cost more. There are TONS of sets out there at a reasonable price point...stick with those. I'm sorry that you can't afford the bigger sets, but that's life.

I for one think an Ewok Village split into 3 or 4 parts would be ridiculous. Besides, I'm sure you could find someone who's splitting the set out on Bricklink for cheaper, you could always go that route. But it would make no sense to split apart a set that makes a cohesive "whole" like the Ewok Village does...like it was explained, the rope bridges have to connect to something......

Bumblepants · August 2013

Quick browse through of current Star Wars offerings on [email protected] USA excluding gear:
Sets $0-25: 14
Sets $30-50: 11
Sets $51-100: 10
Sets $ 101-200: 6
Sets $201-400: 3

Not sure there is a need for more cheap-mid level priced sets...

chuxtoybox · August 2013

My next discussion is going to be "How Are You Planning To Display Your Series 12 CMF Collection?" (Picks up his $9.99 Friends Lego set he saved a month to buy and locks himself in his "Lego room".)

LegoFanTexas · August 2013

chuxtoybox said:
So with this logic, you would have to have enough money in hand to take home a Corvette, or not buy one at all. Isn't that why they allow you to make smaller payments until it's paid for so the ability to own one would be a bit more realistic?

That doesn't apply, a Corvette is $60,000, that is the average person's annual income.

Ewok Village is $250, the average person can afford that out of pocket money.

That is why there is financing for Corvettes but The LEGO Store expects payment in full at the time of purchase. :)

chuxtoybox said:
And LegoFanTexas, I find it ludicrous to tell someone that they should give up Lego because they can't afford it. We don't all have to have 5 Death Stars new in package sealed up in a vault somewhere to enjoy Lego. This isn't speedboat racing, you can enjoy Lego even if you can only afford one CMF a month.

That isn't what I said, I would never tell someone to give up this hobby.

What I did say is that on such a budget, you're likely to be frustrated more often than not, unless you can set your expectations very low.

Yes, you can enjoy LEGO with just one CMF a month, and if you're happy with that, more power to you. I highly suspect most people here would not be happy with that and would find something else to do if that was all they could afford.

chuxtoybox said:
From what I understand, the Ewok Village was a "special" Lego set. Like the Death Star. But with this particular set there was the potential to break down this set into 3 smaller, more affordable sets that could all be enjoyed separately or all together to make one larger set. There are 3 trees so each tree could be somehow different that the other and each set could have different minifigures and different vehicles, that would be up to the Lego engineers to figure out.

You have to understand retail product pricing and market segments. TLG isn't trying to sell all sets to all people, they are trying to have *something* to sell to everyone.

They already have $80-$120 sets, that would be Jabba's Palace, Rancor Pit, the new AT-TE walker, etc.

Ewok Village gives them a $250 price point as well to sell to those people whom have the money to pay for it.

chuxtoybox said:
And with all due respect to the Brickset gods, why was the title of this thread changed? I didn't write anything that could be taken as offensive this time. Changing the title affects the impact of the discussion.(Is that you, George Lucas?) I do not ask this with hostility. I love Brickset! And it's FREE, so I can afford it!

Most people who write or say, "with all due respect" seldom mean it. :)

You might not intend it to sound hostile, but I read your posts as hostile, they come across that way to me.

If that is not the intent, then fair enough... Peace and love for LEGO!!! :)

CCC · August 2013

^ Enjoy it. If you spent a month saving for it presumably it was one you wanted. You can get a lot of pleasure from just a few bricks.

I have a small box of about 200 parts that are all 2x2 or smaller which I take when I travel somewhere light. It is surprising how much fun you can have with a small amount of bricks.

Brinstar85 · August 2013

As others have already mentioned Lego actually release lots and lots of sets at cheaper price points and cater for a wide range of budgets. The sets released over £/$ 100 actually form only a very small minority of Lego's output. The fact that they produce these sets means there must be a market for it and people must buy them.

In theory smaller modular sets could work, but in order for it to be viable they have to work as standalone sets as well. With something like the Ewok village I'm just not sure how that would be possible. The only time I've really seen the approach you suggest actually work was with the castle line from the1980s.

I do sympathise with your position, my own Lego budget is limited. I don't think its right to suggest you can't enjoy the hobby if you are on a limited budget. I tend to restrict myself to a few of the larger sets a year, as it is those from which I derive the most enjoyment. Having said that some sets, such as the UCS Star Wars sets and the Tower of Orthanc (basically anything over £150) are out of my reach and I accept this, it doesn't effect my enjoyment of the hobby at all.

chuxtoybox · August 2013

I used the term "with all due respect" because I sometimes find it hard to communicate over the internet and know that things can be taken wrong. I was surprised when I logged on to see if anyone responded and the title was changed and so sincerely was asking why this was done. (Hah! Bet you thought I really left!)

BrickDancer · August 2013

@chuxtoybox - Of all the SW sets, I can think of 3 locations they've done as inter-related modular playsets in a way.

Endor: Ewok Village, Ewok Attack, Rebel Battlepack and Battle of Endor

Tatooine: Jabba's Palace, Rancor Pit, Desert Skiff and Jabba's Sail Barge

Hoth: Hoth Echo Base, Echo Base, Hoth Rebel Base, Hoth Wampa Cave, Battle of Hoth, Snowtrooper and/or Rebel Battle Pack. Add AT-AT #8129 as cherry on top.

All of the Hoth sets were under $100 RRP. For Endor, only the Village is over $100 RRP. For Tatooine you get squeezed a bit at $120 each for the Palace and Sail Barge (but the Palace can be regularly found for under $100 RRP).

jasor · August 2013

Do I think it would be rad if TLG design team made more sets optionally go together? Well, sure. Do I want them to break down expensive sets? no.

If there was an add-on to the Ewok Village later on (that made sense), I would be excited/surprised. That's just an example.

I have said in the Battle Packs thread somewhere that It would be nice to have an alternate build for the bricks included.

One for a swooshable, and one for the army/scene builder.

binaryeye · August 2013

LegoFanTexas said:
That doesn't apply, a Corvette is $60,000, that is the average person's annual income.

Define average. According to the 2010 US Census, more than 80% of people had an annual income less than $60,000.

The median household income in 2011 was just above $50,000.

LegoFanTexas said:
Ewok Village is $250, the average person can afford that out of pocket money.

If the "average" person can buy a $250 set with pocket money, why isn't LEGO selling more expensive sets?

pillpod · August 2013

Well the average person can buy a $250 set. But the average person doesn't buy a ton of lego....but they're capable of doing so. (I think that was LFT's point, anyway)

BrickDancer · August 2013

^Your facts lead me to a little digging which yielded the following.

2010 US Statistics of Income per Individual over the age of 15 for 244M Citizens (before income tax of 15%-25%):

<$25K annual = 48.01%
$25K-$50K annual = 27.23%
$50K-$75K annual = 12.86%
$75K-$100K annual = 5.29%
>$100K annual = 6.61%

For Individual expenditures such as Housing, Transportation, Healthcare, etc:
<$90K annual = $32,500 expenses annually
>$90K annual = $87,635 expenses annually

If we're talking about the majority of folks (75% of the nation) then they are making $50K or less. Assuming they pay the minimum 15% of taxes on that $50K and spend the average annual of $32,500, that leaves them $833 per month in discretionary spending. The Ewok Village alone would be 30% of that month's discretionary funds (not to mention 8%-10% tax). That is certainly not pocket change, at least to 3/4 of the country. But for the other 1/4 of 'Haves' its a different story.

legomatt · August 2013

The Winter Village could be looked at as a modular series, that is being released one part per year. It sells. AND new releases of the series sell more because of the 'get em all' mentality many of us have, and which is developed in the range.

If TLG had instead said 'lets make a giant winter village', and designed and released all the Winter Village stuff in a single £400 box (or whatever the current total is), they would have had far fewer sales than they currently enjoy, due to that large price point, and the lack of smaller 'entry point' sets into the series.

Similar can be said for the modular houses series. If they had released the entire street in a single £X000's+ box, there'd be barely any sales. But when released house by house, it sells well, and by having some of them, many will then want ALL of them regardless of cost (and TLg know this, and so newer houses get more and more expensive... as have the Winter sets).

So. The modular concept WORKS and is being employed right now, just over years instead of in one seasonal release. If you really think about it, every Lego series is a modular series in some way. A Polybag is a low-cost (sometimes Free) taster designed to draw customers to a wider (more money spent) collection.

There is no reason whatsoever that a range of £20-30 sets couldn't be created to work together by design as a modular series. I 100% believe they would go down a storm... especially if they created a medieval street, MosEisly space port, (the multi-layered) Minas Tirith, or whatever.

It all comes down to execution. The concept is sound.

piratemania7 · August 2013

How did this become a discussion around ewok village and it's price point? Listen if you can afford it without getting in trouble both with the significant other and in terms of putting food on the table and you really want it then get it! What this has to do with smaller sets that go together beats me. For what it's worth I'll be getting this set for two reasons. The mini figures which I think is completely dumb and I have no idea why I have fallen for this and two for the new tree builds. I think they are cool and well built.

LegoFanTexas · August 2013

pillpod said:
Well the average person can buy a $250 set. But the average person doesn't buy a ton of lego....but they're capable of doing so. (I think that was LFT's point, anyway)

Yes, that is what I meant. If the average person really wants to, they can afford a $250 set. They don't "choose" to do that, but they "can" if they wanted to.

LegoFanTexas · August 2013

piratemania7 said:
How did this become a discussion around ewok village and it's price point?

That was the OP's complaint, the Ewok Village and it's price point.

LegoFanTexas · August 2013

BrickDancer said:
^Your facts lead me to a little digging which yielded the following.

2010 US Statistics of Income per Individual over the age of 15 for 244M Citizens (before income tax of 15%-25%):

<$25K annual = 48.01%
$25K-$50K annual = 27.23%
$50K-$75K annual = 12.86%
$75K-$100K annual = 5.29%
>$100K annual = 6.61%

There are lies, damm lies, and statistics... :)

The problem with the above table is that it includes the 30+% of people who don't work at all.

So the 48% making under $25K annual actually should be closer to 15%, once you subtract out the $0 income earners.

When you then subtract out people who are classified as dependents (such as the 15-18 year olds included in that), it changes further.

The vast majority of people in the United States who actually work full time for a living and support themselves earn more than $25K a year, which isn't reflected in that table.

It is always worth doing some critical thinking when it comes to such basic numbers, because you can always look at them many different ways.

BrickDancer · August 2013

^This is excluding all zero income individuals, the jobless. Aside from statistics and census numbers, where would one get better info?

LegoFanTexas · August 2013

It can't be excluding them, 244M people is everyone over 15 years old in the US, the remaining people are 15 and under.

There are no hard and fast numbers, there are flaws in any set of data, the question is, what is the data really saying?

I think household numbers are much more useful than what any one person makes, and there are about 110M households in the US. Some have 1 income, some have 3, some are single people and some have 6 people.

The next question is, what is the average spending power of the "average person".

Well... given that 155 million iPads have been sold in 3 years, I'm guessing that it is more than you might think. That is a $500 item that many people use to surf the web from their couch, or to read books, or to play games with.

$250 for a nice quality toy like Ewok Village is not really that crazy by comparison, considering that it also can be used to build an endless number of other things as well.

Can everyone afford one? Of course not. But the upper 50% of consumers in the US sure can, and that is plenty large enough of a market for TLG.

Should TLG release smaller, connecting sets instead of so many larger, expensive playsets?

Comments

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories