Home› Collecting
Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

LEGO Trolls

13

Comments

  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    monkyby87 said:
    CCC said:
    As we don't know sales figures and we don't know what the sales targets were, it doesn't really matter whether LEGO says they did well or not. What does matter though is how well we saw them do. Angry Birds sold badly, at least locally to me, in the sense that they were on at least 50% clearance for a long time. If I had wanted them as parts packs, I could have picked them up cheaply. LEGO, either as a company or as a single employee, may claim they "did very well"* but that has no bearing on what the public saw.

    * Note that he doesn't say what they did well. There is no financial statement there. Was it reach sales targets, was it that all sets sold eventually, was it that they had good feedback from Columbia / Sony, was it that they play tested well with younger kids, or was it something else?  

    I'm confused, why would what WE think and observe matter?  Why does it matter if we think a theme did poorly if they actually did, based upon whatever criteria Lego uses for such a statement.  I just don't understand why it matters what the public saw compared to what actually happened.
    Because it is the public (us) that buys. If we think Trolls is going to be a bad seller, then we will wait for heavy discounts. This is what happened with Angry Birds. This is what is happening with Hidden Side.

    I don't care how much a theme makes for LEGO. I care about what price I should buy at (if I buy at all). LEGO can say a theme does very well if they like, but it is fairly meaningless to anyone but them as nobody knows what it means. It is also irrelevant to most of the public. What matters is what price the public can buy the sets at.

    Also a lot of the heavy discounts on Angry Birds (and current ones in HS) were from retailers rather than LEGO. It could be that it was a bad seller for retailers but that LEGO did very well with it as the retailers were the ones having to discount. And in the short term, that would be doing very well for LEGO. But in the longer term, not so good. Again, this has happened in the past - in the UK, lots of supermarkets used to take large sets. Some had to give large discounts to get stock moving. These days, few supermarkets stock the large sets. I imagine poor sales of larger sets in the past is a major reason for this.

    playwellmadforLEGOpharmjodRecce
  • playwellplaywell Member Posts: 2,309
    This is a very good point, Lego might have done ok with Angry Birds but if retailers didn't then they will be more carful next time picking up new themes like this.
    BrickByBrickgmonkey76pharmjod
  • colaycolay Member Posts: 547
    These days, few supermarkets stock the large sets. I imagine poor sales of larger sets in the past is a major reason for this.

    Also, another reason for this, as with most things, profit per inch. I'll never forget talking to a friends dad (old Boots Director) when I had lip salve. He asked if I brought it in Boots, I said yes. He said great, money on the small items.

    Supermarkets (and toy shops etc) have shelf space. Do you sell 10 Speed Champions at £13 each, taking up less shelf space, or one (for the sake of argument) Friends Ski Lodge or whatever, at £130? People shopping are looking for cheap items to keep kids quiet, or kids spending pocket money on less expensive items. Also, you stock ad shelve 10 SC, and others products where one £130 (or more if you shelve more) takes up real estate on your shelf

    I'm not sure who controls what discounts and when. HS seems to be discounted across the board. I used to sell (and still do in some instances but less of it) IT. Apple will NOT let you discount iPads or other hardware, give them away etc, without permission. Lego MAY have rules in place on what can be discounted and when. I would assume after a period of time, that gets relaxed, who knows. But I would say they have an influence.

    Take my local retro toy store. He could of brought Lego direct from Lego, new. But, in order for him to do so, Lego wanted X% of his shelf space to be new Lego. He said No as his core market was retro and (at the time) used Lego. They have tight control/rules, so I wouldn't be surprised that some elements of prices are restricted, but I am only guessing

    I'm also with the points above. IDC what profit lego makes or what they sell sells well, I want to know what the best price for me is and what I am prepared to pay for it. The cheaper the better! :)
    Toc13
  • AanchirAanchir Member Posts: 3,037
    CCC said:
    monkyby87 said:
    CCC said:
    As we don't know sales figures and we don't know what the sales targets were, it doesn't really matter whether LEGO says they did well or not. What does matter though is how well we saw them do. Angry Birds sold badly, at least locally to me, in the sense that they were on at least 50% clearance for a long time. If I had wanted them as parts packs, I could have picked them up cheaply. LEGO, either as a company or as a single employee, may claim they "did very well"* but that has no bearing on what the public saw.

    * Note that he doesn't say what they did well. There is no financial statement there. Was it reach sales targets, was it that all sets sold eventually, was it that they had good feedback from Columbia / Sony, was it that they play tested well with younger kids, or was it something else?  

    I'm confused, why would what WE think and observe matter?  Why does it matter if we think a theme did poorly if they actually did, based upon whatever criteria Lego uses for such a statement.  I just don't understand why it matters what the public saw compared to what actually happened.
    Because it is the public (us) that buys. If we think Trolls is going to be a bad seller, then we will wait for heavy discounts. This is what happened with Angry Birds. This is what is happening with Hidden Side.

    I don't care how much a theme makes for LEGO. I care about what price I should buy at (if I buy at all). LEGO can say a theme does very well if they like, but it is fairly meaningless to anyone but them as nobody knows what it means. It is also irrelevant to most of the public. What matters is what price the public can buy the sets at.

    Also a lot of the heavy discounts on Angry Birds (and current ones in HS) were from retailers rather than LEGO. It could be that it was a bad seller for retailers but that LEGO did very well with it as the retailers were the ones having to discount. And in the short term, that would be doing very well for LEGO. But in the longer term, not so good. Again, this has happened in the past - in the UK, lots of supermarkets used to take large sets. Some had to give large discounts to get stock moving. These days, few supermarkets stock the large sets. I imagine poor sales of larger sets in the past is a major reason for this.

    To clarify, the kinds of predictions that frustrate me aren't the "this will show up on clearance" type predictions. It's the ones that try to use a theme's assumed failure to argue that LEGO never should have made that theme or others like it. Because it's that kind of comment which feeds into the AFOL community's already grossly inflated sense of self-importance.
    After all, if we're so willing to assume any details about sales or popularity that we hear from anyone at LEGO are sugar-coated misrepresentations, that anecdotes about how well themes are selling are only credible if they support our arguments, and that our own personal feelings and observations are the only ones we can ever trust for certain. then it's no trouble at all for any of us to argue that the sets and themes we dislike are all failures, the sets and themes we like are all successes, and that LEGO should only bother making the sets WE like, the way WE like them.
    FizyxLyichirBaby_Yodamonkeyhangerdaewoojpeg07dvw2Toc13
  • KungFuKennyKungFuKenny Member Posts: 2,368
    edited October 2019
    SMC said:
    stlux said:
    #41340 Police Station 60141
    #41340 Friendship House
    #17101 BOOST Creative Toolbox
    #10698 LEGO® Large Creative Brick Box
    #75192 Millennium Falcon
    #42083 Bugatti Chiron
    #75954 Hogwarts Great Hall
    #75953 Hogwarts Whomping Willow
    #71022 Minifigures - Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts Series 1
    #71043 Hogwarts Castle
    I wound be shocked if this list was made using blind data, as in these are the 10 sets that sold the most units, had the highest revenue or so on.
    Most of the sets on this list make sense to me (perennial police station, large Friends set, HP and Star Wars).  The one that has me surprised is #42083 (the Bugatti)... it seems like an expensive niche set to me... but the "to me" part of that statement is the problem.  My take on the success or profitability of a certain set or theme is usually based on my own personal preferences and what I see being sold where I live-- both of which are subjective and anecdotal sources of evidence.  

    I'm still happy when sets go on massive clearance though --  the more parts I accumulate the better!
  • playwellplaywell Member Posts: 2,309
    ^ Large exclusive sets that appeal more to afol than kids but dont show up on the top 100 sets from 2019 owned by brickset members? Seems odd to me!
    KungFuKenny
  • SumoLegoSumoLego Member Posts: 15,229
    stlux said:
    Lego designers actually DO know how well their sets sell - they get regular sales updates on the sets they have created.
    Hmmm... interesting.  I wonder if they get a frownie-face card if the 18th iteration of the hospital helicopter is a sales dud...
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    Aanchir said:
    To clarify, the kinds of predictions that frustrate me aren't the "this will show up on clearance" type predictions. It's the ones that try to use a theme's assumed failure to argue that LEGO never should have made that theme or others like it. Because it's that kind of comment which feeds into the AFOL community's already grossly inflated sense of self-importance.
    After all, if we're so willing to assume any details about sales or popularity that we hear from anyone at LEGO are sugar-coated misrepresentations, that anecdotes about how well themes are selling are only credible if they support our arguments, and that our own personal feelings and observations are the only ones we can ever trust for certain. then it's no trouble at all for any of us to argue that the sets and themes we dislike are all failures, the sets and themes we like are all successes, and that LEGO should only bother making the sets WE like, the way WE like them.
    I'm glad they try things like Trolls, unikitty and all the rest. I'll add LotR, Simpsons, etc. to the list, as they were probably just as big a risk to them, if not more.

    Concerning statements from LEGO about popularity and sales, have they ever said a theme underperformed in terms of sales? I cannot recall one.

    SumoLego
  • SumoLegoSumoLego Member Posts: 15,229
    CCC said:
    Concerning statements from LEGO about popularity and sales, have they ever said a theme underperformed in terms of sales? I cannot recall one.
    And why would they?  

    Even with the abrupt cancelling/discontinuing of Bionicle, Brickheadz, Ultra Agents, etc...

    I also like that some have been reduced to trolling LEGO Trolls.  Sweet, sweet internet irony...
    Baby_Yoda
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    edited October 2019
    SumoLego said:
    CCC said:
    Concerning statements from LEGO about popularity and sales, have they ever said a theme underperformed in terms of sales? I cannot recall one.
    And why would they?  

    That is part of the problem isn't it. If everything performs well and nothing ever performs badly, then what does performing well mean?

    It reminds me of 9th place ribbons (about 24s) ...


  • SumoLegoSumoLego Member Posts: 15,229
    Oh @CCC, they got them all the way up to 10th place.
  • lowleadlowlead Member Posts: 683
    edited October 2019
    Trolls, eh?  It looks like a box of crayons puked on a bunch of mutant minifigs.  Would I consider seeing this movie?  Oh HEL...well...maybe if I were hooked up to a thorazine drip...
    But that's all irrelevant, because LEGO isn't targeting me with Trolls sets (I hope), and I wish them the best.  Looking back, I'm not sure if I have even HELD a Bionicle set, but I certainly give an approving nod to the success of the line.
    I'm perfectly content with the level of target marketing aimed at me...my second mortgage proves it!  And if things don't work out, I can always live in my Star Destroyer shipping box.  So I got that goin' for me...which is nice.
    Ayliffe
  • colaycolay Member Posts: 547
    ^Seriously, watch Trolls! :) lol
  • colaycolay Member Posts: 547
    SumoLego said:
    CCC said:
    Concerning statements from LEGO about popularity and sales, have they ever said a theme underperformed in terms of sales? I cannot recall one.
    And why would they?  

    This is the whole thing though, why would they? They wont ever admit publicly, failings, its bad for business, but someone will get a ticking off, or whatever, for things when they go wrong internally

    However. My issue is, the wider scope of never giving bad news. Yes, there is too much negativity and complaining in the world (me included) but, if we keep on being told everything is great all the time and (as pointed out in another quote) we keep on get winners medals up to last place, no one knows where they stand as 'Everything is Awesome' all of the time and it creates a false narrative and picture, Not to mention people dont then learn how to overcome a loss or failure. We need the bad news as well as the good news (metaphorically not just in Lego sales) so that we can learn, adapt, make better, improve and not make the same mistakes.
    SumoLego
  • SumoLegoSumoLego Member Posts: 15,229
    Everything is Awesome.  Everything is cool when you're part of a team.  All LEGO sells well, and no designs are bad.

    Yay!
    lowleadgmonkey76Ayliffe
  • lowleadlowlead Member Posts: 683

    Switchfoot55SumoLego
  • klintonklinton Member Posts: 1,250
    colay said:
    SumoLego said:
    CCC said:
    Concerning statements from LEGO about popularity and sales, have they ever said a theme underperformed in terms of sales? I cannot recall one.
    And why would they?  

    This is the whole thing though, why would they? They wont ever admit publicly, failings, its bad for business, but someone will get a ticking off, or whatever, for things when they go wrong internally

    However. My issue is, the wider scope of never giving bad news. Yes, there is too much negativity and complaining in the world (me included) but, if we keep on being told everything is great all the time and (as pointed out in another quote) we keep on get winners medals up to last place, no one knows where they stand as 'Everything is Awesome' all of the time and it creates a false narrative and picture, Not to mention people dont then learn how to overcome a loss or failure. We need the bad news as well as the good news (metaphorically not just in Lego sales) so that we can learn, adapt, make better, improve and not make the same mistakes.
    When it comes to sales though, it's never a good thing to publicly acknowledge failure. It just leads to negative speculation in a downward spiral.

    It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, when everyone is so sure that product X is destined for clearance, they hold off buying it, and product X fails. I used to get infuriated at people lamenting a short run on a great comic series that they'd neglected to read due to all the negative hype. If all of those people would have supported the title while it was live, it would have lasted longer.

    This is why I can't stand the 'clearace isle' set. If you really like something, freaking buy it. Let them know you like it. They'll make more like it. Granted, Lego's market is far more vast than the pocket full of fans propping up comic book sales, and there are many more factors to consider than AFOL buying habits...but online conduct and general enthusiasm or apathy does ripple out and colour the opinions and selections of the casual shopper too. They're no longer only influenced by the sales associate in the store.
    dmcc0Fizyx
  • colaycolay Member Posts: 547
    edited October 2019
    1. When it comes to sales though, it's never a good thing to publicly acknowledge failure. It just leads to negative speculation in a downward spiral.

    2. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, when everyone is so sure that product X is destined for clearance, they hold off buying it, and product X fails. I used to get infuriated at people lamenting a short run on a great comic series that they'd neglected to read due to all the negative hype. If all of those people would have supported the title while it was live, it would have lasted longer.

    3. This is why I can't stand the 'clearace isle' set. If you really like something, freaking buy it. Let them know you like it. They'll make more like it. Granted, Lego's market is far more vast than the pocket full of fans propping up comic book sales, and there are many more factors to consider than AFOL buying habits...but online conduct and general enthusiasm or apathy does ripple out and colour the opinions and selections of the casual shopper too. They're no longer only influenced by the sales associate in the store.
    1. Absolutely agree, and it's why I said and why would Lego tell us if something sells bad'

    2. agree and disagree, and the reason I say this is two-fold
    a, I have been stung (mainly in video games admittedly) by over-hype, false hype, lies, paid reviews, and my own expectations of a game, toy, device, product. Hype, both positive AND negative, must be allowed as people have their own voice and opinions. But, I get what you are saying
    b, There are Lego sets I want and like, but I will not buy unless they are on clearance or heavy sale. It's not because Im negative about it, but to me, they are not worth the price. Recent examples, Steam Boat Mickey, rip-off, Bugatti, re-freaking-diculous and some other sets priced in excess of £50/£60 when they should be £40 and I'd be buying two! :) Im negative towards HP Lego, not cause it's Lego, but I hate the hypocritical left-wing thief of an author and her unoriginal books for children. But my opinion in it, wont make it go to the clearance aisle, unfortunately, and people still buy into the crap
    3. Ive never had anyone try t sell me Lego in any store. Maybe because i go in knowing what Im after. But, if someone isnt influenced by a sales assitant, two things are at play  here. The Sales assitant isnt convincing enough, their opinionn doesnt hold any weight with the person, or, maybe the person knows what they want and wont be swayed. If I was looking for a toy or somethign for a relative, my godson or other child, Id take advice all day long (maybe not just on Lego lol) Same as buying anything I have less knowledge of, I'm going to get help from someone more knowledgeable.

    Anyway, back to Trolls.

    I'm buying them if A, they are MFs. B, there is a cloud guy :)




    klinton
  • BrainsluggedBrainslugged Member Posts: 2,249
    ^ I initially had zero interest in the Trolls movie. However, after having had it inflicted on me numerous times by my little girls, I absolutely love it now. That clip above is great - love that cloud guy. Still think the minifigs have been hit around the head with the ugly bat though.
    SumoLego
  • colaycolay Member Posts: 547
    Brainslugged said:
    Still think the minifigs have been hit around the head with the ugly bat though.
    Yeah, cos the word 'Trolls' instantly conjours up an image of beauty :)

    PS Love Cloud Guy :)
    560Heliport
  • BrainsluggedBrainslugged Member Posts: 2,249
    That scene above has been edited and misses some of the cloud guy's best lines. "Little slappy, make Daddy happy."

    https://youtu.be/En7TapBA84M
  • colaycolay Member Posts: 547
    ^thank you, i thought something was odd
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    Aanchir said:

    But regardless, the idea that LEGO doesn't loudly announce stuff that makes them look bad is not a reason to assume any positive statement coming from anyone at LEGO is false/misleading. Particularly when most AFOLs only tend to assume LEGO is lying about stuff that upholds their personal tastes.


    I don't think most people assume that any positive statement coming from LEGO is false or misleading. For me, it is often irrelevant.

    In the case of the Angry Birds statement, I take it as completely meaningless. What does it actually matter if a designer says Angry Birds did very well? And what does it actually matter if Angry Birds did very well? If it did very well, presumably that means they will continue to do other similar themes - which may be why they are doing Trolls, although of course the deal could have been arranged before Angry Birds was on the shelves. I wasn't interested in Angry Birds and I won't be interested in Trolls. But then there are loads of themes I am not interested in, so it doesn't really make any difference to me.

    I saw Angry Birds sitting at 50% and not shifting. It could have done very well but it still sat on shelves at large discounts. Even as parts packs they were not interesting. I expect to see Trolls sets doing the same. I'll wait and see if they are interesting as parts packs. If they are, I might buy. If not, I'll leave them.

    It may even be a good thing for AFOLs / MOC builders if these types of sets are seen to be performing well within LEGO but are performing poorly locally on the shelves - if, that is, they contain decent parts. I'd be happy if LEGO kept pumping out decent parts packs that were frequently slashed in price to get rid of them.

    Although even then 50% is not necessarily that good a discount. Just about all LEGO (non-exclusives) is commonly and quite frequently discounted by 30-40% these days in the UK. So a 50% discount is really only about a 20% discount in reality.

    560HeliportBrainslugged
  • jnscoelhojnscoelho Member Posts: 696
    CCC said:
    Although even then 50% is not necessarily that good a discount. Just about all LEGO (non-exclusives) is commonly and quite frequently discounted by 30-40% these days in the UK. So a 50% discount is really only about a 20% discount in reality. 
    And this is not exclusive to the UK. For me this shows that LEGO is clearly overpriced, that they know it and that they put those prices because most people don't even bother searching for a promotion or because it's impulse/necessity (for a birthday, for example) buying.
    And, again, doesn't mean that a line is a flop. Do people stare 24/365 at shelves in order to say that stock doesn't move? In some cases there is a good correlation, but correlation does not imply causality.
    560Heliport
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie Member Posts: 1,818
    Aanchir said:
    Comments from actual LEGO designers tend to be often even more candid/blunt about what sets or themes have had disappointing sales, which is part of why this sort of skepticism towards Samuel Johnson's comment is bewildering for me. For example, just look at this Eurobricks post, this Brickset Forum post and these two follow-up posts by Mark Stafford about monorail and trains.


    We'll have to wait and see what set designers have to say once these have been out of production for 16 years, like the monorail was in your examples.
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    jnscoelho said:

    And, again, doesn't mean that a line is a flop. Do people stare 24/365 at shelves in order to say that stock doesn't move? In some cases there is a good correlation, but correlation does not imply causality.
    Often you don't need to look every day. If a store has LEGO at 50% off one week, and they have the same sets 50% off the next week, and the next week, and the next month, then chances are those sets are not selling well. If the stock was full price and could have been replenished then it is difficult to tell, but discounted stock that sits is a good sign that it is not moving. Similarly, heavily discounted stock online for weeks is also a good indication.

    But of course, it doesn't mean the line is a flop. It could have met their own internal sales targets, it could have met their internal targets but not the stores' targets. We don't know. But what we do know - hold off buying similar themes if you are not desperate to own them first.
  • jnscoelhojnscoelho Member Posts: 696
    CCC said:
    jnscoelho said:

    And, again, doesn't mean that a line is a flop. Do people stare 24/365 at shelves in order to say that stock doesn't move? In some cases there is a good correlation, but correlation does not imply causality.
    Often you don't need to look every day. If a store has LEGO at 50% off one week, and they have the same sets 50% off the next week, and the next week, and the next month, then chances are those sets are not selling well. If the stock was full price and could have been replenished then it is difficult to tell, but discounted stock that sits is a good sign that it is not moving. Similarly, heavily discounted stock online for weeks is also a good indication.

    But of course, it doesn't mean the line is a flop. It could have met their own internal sales targets, it could have met their internal targets but not the stores' targets. We don't know. But what we do know - hold off buying similar themes if you are not desperate to own them first.
    Again, I don't agree. If ones looks at Amazon, sets are discounted from day 1 and it's all the time. The price may increase or decrease slightly, but it's always discounted. Not everything everything, but across many themes and sizes of sets.
    Here in Portugal, we have periodically things like 10-20% off in all LEGO. It's very rare to have only 1-2 themes discounted. TLM2 was a recent exception, but it coincided with LEGO's own reduction on the theme, and here it was seen in many stores that were selling them, and not just 1 or 2 sellers, so it looked like the "order" to discount came from "above".
  • FizyxFizyx Member Posts: 1,358
    I would also point out that often these discounts come at the tail end of the themes.  For Angry Birds in particular, this tail was well after the movie came out and interest in merchandise had peaked.  The theme may have done very well during its initial run, and then had trouble moving the last vestiges of stock after Angry Birds hype had firmly died down.  For some themes this doesn't make sense (Chima had no accompanying popular culture sportlight, of course) but for themes like Angry Birds, it would make sense that there is a limited lifetime that the sets are 'relevant' to buyers and move very well, with sales precipitously dropping off at the end of that lifetime.
    LyichirAanchir
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    jnscoelho said:
    Again, I don't agree. If ones looks at Amazon, sets are discounted from day 1 and it's all the time. The price may increase or decrease slightly, but it's always discounted. Not everything everything, but across many themes and sizes of sets.
    Here in Portugal, we have periodically things like 10-20% off in all LEGO. It's very rare to have only 1-2 themes discounted. TLM2 was a recent exception, but it coincided with LEGO's own reduction on the theme, and here it was seen in many stores that were selling them, and not just 1 or 2 sellers, so it looked like the "order" to discount came from "above".
    Many 2019 sets are discounted on amazon UK at about 5-10%. Personally, I don't consider that a discount, just something equivalent to VIP points plus a freebie through lego.com. This tends to be across everything. Then some at ~30% off, again across all themes and tend to be ones that look overpriced at RRP, and are probably not selling well.

    Then we get 27-30% off at amazon when other retailers do 3 for 2 on toys, this is quite frequent.

    Amazon tends not to do heavier discounts (50%+) very frequently, but retail stores do. I guess it is because shelf space matters to these, whereas warehouse space is not such a big issue and does not need to be cleared as quickly.

    Fizyx said:
    I would also point out that often these discounts come at the tail end of the themes. .......... but for themes like Angry Birds, it would make sense that there is a limited lifetime that the sets are 'relevant' to buyers and move very well, with sales precipitously dropping off at the end of that lifetime.
    Yes, and I expect the same to happen for Trolls. And probably with Minions too.

  • SumoLegoSumoLego Member Posts: 15,229
    edited October 2019
    I would point out that if one has to go back to 2011 for the first mention of a product line not performing well or to 'company expectation', that's some good evidence that LEGO doesn't want that information available for public consumption or scrutiny.

    LEGO Fusion has to be considered a flop by any metric.  It's gone and nobody makes reference to it.  I posit that Friends was probably a complete loser of a line initially, but LEGO was willing to take the lumps to establish and dominate that market.  It sells pretty well now - I think.  But the main point is that we don't know because LEGO is not obligated to tell anyone.

    Is anyone concerned that the Infinity War Hulkbuster set is still available?  Or that the Endgame sets fester on the shelves?  
    Baby_Yoda
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    SumoLego said:

    LEGO Fusion has to be considered a flop by any metric.  It's gone and nobody makes reference to it.
    I don't think they were even released here. That theme was probably dead from the start.
    SumoLego said:
    I posit that Friends was probably a complete loser of a line initially, but LEGO was willing to take the lumps to establish and dominate that market.
    I guess whether it was a success depends on what their targets were. I imagine they started off reasonably low and continued with it (if it was selling slowly) simply due to the investment they had in that. That said, I thought the original sets were pretty decent and set the standards for the theme quite high, and many sets similar to those original ones have been produced. I imagine the barrier there was the minidolls and the colours, and the building a new market for these, rather than the set designs.
    SumoLego said:

    Is anyone concerned that the Infinity War Hulkbuster set is still available?  Or that the Endgame sets fester on the shelves?  
    Aren't the Endgame sets 2019? So still a time to go yet. But I agree that we tend not to look negatively at sets from themes that we like when they are hanging around. They are obviously doing well so they keep them on the shelves! :-)

    (Disclaimer - I'm not into Marvel, and don't even look at them at 30% off. But if they were 50% off I'd buy for resale.) 

    The Hobbit did so badly (at least here) that wave 3 sets were heavily discounted by supermarkets to clear their shelves. 50% off for Lonely Mountain and 65% off for Battle of Five Armies. Although they did seem to sell well at 50% off!

    SumoLego
  • AanchirAanchir Member Posts: 3,037
    SumoLego said:

    LEGO Fusion has to be considered a flop by any metric.  It's gone and nobody makes reference to it.  I posit that Friends was probably a complete loser of a line initially, but LEGO was willing to take the lumps to establish and dominate that market.
    With LEGO Fusion I suspect you're right. With Friends, though, your hypothesis that it did poorly at the start is mind-bogglingly inaccurate, and a perfect example of how easy it is to default to assumptions based on gut feelings even when there's info publicly available that decisively disproves them!

    The Friends theme sold twice as well as expected for both the first half of 2012 and the year as a whole. Although LEGO substantially increased production of Friends sets in the second half of the year, they were still unable able to fully meet demands for the theme by year's end. LEGO Friends was the fourth best selling product line that year (after City, Star Wars, and Ninjago), and #3315 Olivia's House was LEGO's single best-selling product that year.
    We don't know what LEGO's "expectations" for LEGO Friends were in any quantitative terms, but according to Mads Nipper in that second link, "We entered 2012 with high expectations for LEGO Friends…." However you choose to interpret that, the sheer size of the 2012 LEGO Friends product range (23 retail sets ranging in price from $5.99 to $99.99) and the extent of the marketing and media push for the theme that year is on par with the launch waves for earlier "big bang" product lines like Atlantis and Power Miners. And LEGO rarely places that big a wager on a theme they only have modest expectations for.
    It's not like 2012 was lacking for other popular sets, either! After all, it was the year that LEGO launched themes like DC Super Heroes, Marvel Super Heroes, The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Monster Fighters (including the highly celebrated #10228 Haunted House), and their first LEGO Cuusoo set after the site expanded to a global audience (#21102 Minecraft Micro-World). Even Ninjago surpassed expectations in the first half of 2012, building on its success after breaking records for sales of a newly launched product line the year before.
    Needless to say, even from the very beginning, LEGO Friends was VERY big deal for LEGO, and its sales were indisputably successful.
    CCC said:
    Aanchir said:

    But regardless, the idea that LEGO doesn't loudly announce stuff that makes them look bad is not a reason to assume any positive statement coming from anyone at LEGO is false/misleading. Particularly when most AFOLs only tend to assume LEGO is lying about stuff that upholds their personal tastes.


    I don't think most people assume that any positive statement coming from LEGO is false or misleading. For me, it is often irrelevant.

    In the case of the Angry Birds statement, I take it as completely meaningless. What does it actually matter if a designer says Angry Birds did very well? And what does it actually matter if Angry Birds did very well? If it did very well, presumably that means they will continue to do other similar themes - which may be why they are doing Trolls, although of course the deal could have been arranged before Angry Birds was on the shelves. I wasn't interested in Angry Birds and I won't be interested in Trolls. But then there are loads of themes I am not interested in, so it doesn't really make any difference to me.

    If it's irrelevant to you then there's nothing to disagree about, is there? I shared Samuel Johnson's post because I thought a lot of people might be interested to hear a LEGO designer's perspective on how well the Angry Birds Movie sets did, especially since its it was something most of us (even me!) were either unsure of or had already assumed was not the case!
    If you don't care at all whether or not the comment was true or whether it tells us anything that matters, that's fine! That just means that you're not among the people my post was for. As such, there's no point in nitpicking all the random ways that Samuel's comment might not mean what it sounds like, unless for some reason you think that those of us who do find insights like  interesting need to be convinced that we shouldn't.

    In case it wasn't clear, my main interest in knowing which themes are or aren't successful is as a fan, not a reseller. How successful a theme was from LEGO's perspective matters to me because it helps me understand why they invest in the sets and themes they do, and to have a better sense in what sorts of sets and themes they might be willing to take a chance on going forward.
    As such, discounts only matter to me as an opportunity to save money on sets that are already on my wish list. And I try my best to wait for a discount on pretty much any non-D2C sets I want regardless of theme, so whether I'd be better off waiting to buy them at a reduced price is rarely even a question. Even as an AFOL, what price reductions might mean for the aftermarket isn't a major concern of mine unless something on my wish list gets discontinued before I have a chance to purchase it.

    I know that that the Brickset forums often have a way bigger focus on aftermarket sales and LEGO as a business or investment than a lot of other LEGO fansites and groups do (besides, of course, Brickpicker). That's why "the topic" managed to remain the central hub activity on these forums for so long. But that doesn't somehow mean that any new info that gets shared here, outside of "the topic", is a waste of time unless it can be redirected back to the question of "what does this mean for the aftermarket?"
    stluxBumblepantsLyichirToc13
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    Aanchir said:
    If it's irrelevant to you then there's nothing to disagree about, is there?

    It is mainly irrelevant because without knowing what it means, it doesn't mean anything. We didn't really hear about other themes did outside of their general report, so can we compare it to other themes? What is their definition of success?

    Aanchir said:

    In case it wasn't clear, my main interest in knowing which themes are or aren't successful is as a fan, not a reseller. How successful a theme was from LEGO's perspective matters to me because it helps me understand why they invest in the sets and themes they do, and to have a better sense in what sorts of sets and themes they might be willing to take a chance on going forward.

    I am also primarily interested as a fan but mainly as a MOC'er, so if there are sets from themes I don't necessarily like I see them as parts packs which are in competition with other sets that I view as parts packs. So we know know Angry Birds was successful. What does that mean for future sets? More similar type themes at a similar level, larger themes (in terms of sets) but just one per year, similar themes but multiple per year....? What if it was very successful rather than just successful? 

    Does knowing a theme was successful three years after the event give any more insight than knowing they have and are continuing to do sets from similar movies that are likely to be a bit of a fad, aimed at similar age kids. If I hadn't known the designer had said that it was a success, then I'd assume that LEGO did well enough out of Angry Birds to continue doing similar themes at roughly the same level, as they have continued to do similar themes at roughly the same level.


  • SumoLegoSumoLego Member Posts: 15,229
    edited November 2019
    Aanchir said:
    With Friends, though, your hypothesis that it did poorly at the start is mind-bogglingly inaccurate, and a perfect example of how easy it is to default to assumptions based on gut feelings even when there's info publicly available that decisively disproves them!

    And LEGO rarely places that big a wager on a theme they only have modest expectations for.
    I think that re-emphasizes my point.  A theme making LEGO's expectations doesn't mean it sold well or was profitable.  Their expectations could have been for the theme to be a loss-leader.  It is also important to point out that LEGO very much wanted Friends to be successful.  I'm sure their strategic marketing folks wanted to dominate a previously under-served market.

    Given LEGO's history of producing 'girl' themed products, I think conservative expectations would have been reasonable until the theme had time to build up some popularity.

    Nonetheless, we don't have the sales and production figures, so we're all batting at windmills.  It's obviously clear now that the theme is successful and a powerhouse for sales.  (Many of us look at how LEGO builds their brands - and we apply that rationale to other themes.)
  • ShibShib Member Posts: 5,469
    edited November 2019
    Images on the front page... Hmmm... 


    Cloud guy is included but naffy made using a Unikitty cloud plate for the body.... 

    Was hoping for a Catterbus... Which they've included but doesn't live up to what I'd hoped for. 
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    There sure are some interesting parts in those sets. Not interesting enough to buy them at RRP, but if they ever hit 75% off then I'll bite.
    Fizyxgmonkey76
  • 560Heliport560Heliport Member Posts: 3,901
    ^ I don't think there's a set I wouldn't buy at 75% off! 
    Snizzlebuttsmsanders
  • BrainsluggedBrainslugged Member Posts: 2,249
    560Heliport said:
    ^ I don't think there's a set I wouldn't buy at 75% off! 
    #75201
    gmonkey76
  • SumoLegoSumoLego Member Posts: 15,229
    Brainslugged said:
    560Heliport said:
    ^ I don't think there's a set I wouldn't buy at 75% off! 
    #75201
    There's 50% of an AT-AT, so by my math, it'd only be 25% off.
    Fizyxgmonkey76KungFuKenny
  • 560Heliport560Heliport Member Posts: 3,901
    I would've bought #75201 for 75% off... but I never saw it that cheap!
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Administrator Posts: 6,755
    560Heliport said:
    I would've bought #75201 for 75% off... but I never saw it that cheap!
    Don't sweat it - I can absolutely assure you that you didn't miss anything....
    gmonkey76KungFuKennySnizzlebutts
  • klintonklinton Member Posts: 1,250
    I dunno. I think people are too quick to jump all over anything that isn't a modular, Classic Space, or a Star Wars ship. The resounding chorus in here seems to be at best "I'd buy them for parts... on clearance", with most just spitting in disgust. I'm quite taken with the theme and decided to read through this discussion. The majority of this thread has been debating the profitability of some of Lego's more obscure licenses, with no actual commentary on the sets themselves. I get it: it's really not an interesting licence at first glance.
    The builds are fully just the right kind of wonky though! I've been picking these up one by one, and each set has been a fun and interesting build. They're bright and colourful, with a decidedly unconventional æsthetic (the faces on the flowers, toadstools, critters and vehicles that invoke a very 'Crumb does a child's picture book' feel are brilliant!), and scads of interesting new pieces. As soon as I finish building one, I'm already eyeballing the next one I'll need to go with it. :p
    I'm still niether here nor there about the characters after watching a handful of episodes of the Netflix series. They seem the product of throwing Care Bears and the Smurfs into a blender, and adding a touch of toilet humor. They're amusing, but not particularly captivating (with the exception of Smidge, who's freaking hilarious... and notably absent from the line).
    People maybe need to lighten up just a little and give these a shot? I dunno. It's just wacky Lego goodness. I wasn't a Trolls fan until Lego introduced me to them. Now it seems to be my 'go to' theme for my weekly build. Each one has proved to be exponentially more interesting than the last, with sets in the theme that didn't initially appeal to me becoming more inviting in context with the ones I've already built, and a bit of knowledge of the characters involved. At the very least, I do hope the theme continues long enough for Lego to offer a Smidge minifig, hahaha. :D

    ericbfourstudTkattcatwranglerSilverLoveAyliffe
  • ShibShib Member Posts: 5,469
    The first film was really good (for a kids animated film) and the Holiday short was quite fun too - I'd recommend not basing judgement on the Netflix series, I really disliked the couple of episodes of that I watched. 

    In terms of the sets, I think they fall into the too wacky for the average AFOL bracket, but that's more down to the source material than anything else. Having just looked over the sets again I've just noticed that one set has the baby Troll.....i feel like that shouldn't make me want the set more, but kind of does! 
    klinton
  • jnscoelhojnscoelho Member Posts: 696
    As I've said it before, I think on this thread, my two girls love the Trolls movie. Yesterday they finally saw some actual sets, instead of just pictures on the internet, and none of them liked them. Which for me is good, because I don't like them either and now I'm sure I can skip them.
    I just don't think that Trolls, as minifigures, work. The colors are nice and all, but the builds are mostly uninteresting.
    klintonSnizzlebutts
  • LyichirLyichir Member Posts: 1,018
    I had an interesting thought the other day. I was thinking about how "bigfig" characters like Hulk could sometimes stand to be a bit more customizeable, when it dawned on me that their "heads" (of the ones with classic cylindrical minifig faces, at least) tend to be roughly 2x2. What if in the future Lego carried the 2x2 scale of these Trolls hairpieces over to be used on larger figures like that, instead of having hair or helmets molded to the heads (or using underscaled minifigure heads, in rare cases like Killow, Mungus, or Roadhog)?
    klintonTkatt560HeliportCymbelinepxchriscatwranglerSilverLoveAanchir
  • klintonklinton Member Posts: 1,250
    Hahaha! Yes! Hulk legit needs to sport fluffy Troll hair! I'll be kinda disappointed if this doesn't happen now. :p
    560HeliportAstrobrickspanchox1catwranglerToc13Aanchir
  • klintonklinton Member Posts: 1,250
    They did a really good job of 'world building' with this little theme. Nearly every set adds to a cohesive whole, building up their little village. The seemingly extraneous little side builds included in the sets really fill out the space with extra scenery and critters, to the point where you end up with a colourful little forest village. I can't actually recall a Lego theme that looked quite this vibrant overall, tbh. It might not fit into your Lego city (unless, of course, your city administration decide they need a Trolls theme park), but it definitely establishes it's own presence.
    I've really only two niggling complaints with the theme at this point (I've still yet to buld the country and rock sets): They really need to make a Troll salon or something to that effect, with a variety of hair pieces in various colours. Given that thier whole shtick is thier wild and crazy hair, it'd be fun to be able to give them new hairdos in thier respective colours.
    That, and having seen Cloud Guy in the animations, it's really starting to grate on me that the skeleton arms aren't available in blue. His build is rather inspired, but the fact that his arms are just white annoys me. They should have introduced the colour just for him.
    SilverLove560Heliport
  • caterham7caterham7 Member Posts: 409
    Saw them in the Lego shop yesterday, one set gave me an idea for a MOC band on stage...





    gmonkey76560Heliport
  • klintonklinton Member Posts: 1,250
    Shib said:
    The first film was really good (for a kids animated film) and the Holiday short was quite fun too - I'd recommend not basing judgement on the Netflix series, I really disliked the couple of episodes of that I watched. 

    In terms of the sets, I think they fall into the too wacky for the average AFOL bracket, but that's more down to the source material than anything else. Having just looked over the sets again I've just noticed that one set has the baby Troll.....i feel like that shouldn't make me want the set more, but kind of does! 
    I finally got around to seeing the film, and you're quite right: It was solid entertainment. I've really no idea how it completely escaped my notice when it was released. But then, I've still not seen Disney's last several animated features yet either (I think I'm literally the only person on the planet who's not seen Frozen...). I feel like I owe Lego a bit of a thank you for introducing me to the whole Trolls thing. Although, I think my interest in them will wane once I've built up all of the sets. Hopefully Lego releases more down the line. :D
    It suddenly makes sense why they introduced the felt elements for the theme. Everything in the film looked soft and felted. I thought it an odd choice initially, but I think it's rather clever given the context.
    I've almost completed the 'gauntlet' (hahaha). Just the country music string to go now:


Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon

Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.