The entire 'retail thing' is based on seasons - you're basically forced to go at certain times of the year to buy certain items. If you go into the store (to buy patio chairs or whatever) in a season when the new LSW items come out, and you or your kids are a LEGO fan, you might buy a LSW item when you go to that store. The next season, when there are no new LSW items, you're probably more likely to buy a different LEGO themed item - regardless of what's on the shelves - since you would have already bought the LSW items you were interested in. This isn't necessarily the case with TRU and other specialty stores, but it's definitely true for the big boxes.natelite wrote:doesn't matter how they sprinkle the themes. when families go to the store to buy, you can be sure there are LSW sets to choose from at any point during the year. families don't go to store as soon as a theme is out, so the point about when the sets are released is moot.
It wasn't always this way - I remember when I was a kid not having to worry about release dates and case assortments - G.I. Joes were almost perpetually available. Maybe there were a few new items released at a certain time, with older products phasing out of the assortment, but for the most part older figures were still mixed into the assortments. Not so anymore - a case assortment generally doesn't contain anything but brand-new products, thereby 'forcing' you to buy all of them at once, feeding that 'collector mentality'. We have the big boxes to thank for this, as LEGO had to pattern their release schedule based on that seasonal drive.
I don't know if the bubble is being fed by LEGO so much as the bubble is forcing LEGO's hand, in regards to the 'collector mentality' issue I describe above. It's also quite possible that LEGO is trying to artificially decrease demand for their SW line through increased prices in order to make people migrate to other, either lower-cost licenses or non-licensed original themes. It could also be a business move in order to renegotiate the contract in 2011, as was the initial topic this was split from.by increasing the price of the LSW sets, TLC is effectively feeding the bubble frenzy. i.e. if consumers expect price in the future to increase, they will consume now or buy now for resale later. at some point, fatigue is going to set in....at which point the bubble pop creating excess supply (both from TLC and from the resellers) and virtually no demand because demand (i.e. end consumer) is bankrupted by the frenzy bubble. the marginal consumer will require massive price cut in order to have any incentive to consume further.
I'm not sure if reselling is as huge an influence on LEGO as you think. There's really no incentive for them to care one way or the other, aside from the fact that it's profit made on their product that they're not seeing. It goes against their business sense to feed into the bubble the way you describe, which makes me believe they are trying to drive consumers to their other products.
This all makes a lot of sense, though I'd say cap it to 10 sets a year (two waves of 5 sets, a summer and winter push) which seems in line with the way they do their new-theme pushes (10 SP3 sets throghout 2009, 6 main sets +2 promo sets for the initial push of World Racers in 2010).i think TLC should really cut down on the number of LSW sets per year from like 11-15+ to only 6 or fewer. keep introducing magnet sets to drive out resellers, at least for LSW minifigures. when you have consumers who buy sets to consume (instead of resell or scalp) you have less problem with a bubble forming. selling magnet sets drive out most scalpers since the most valuable components of a LSW set are the minifigs. fewer sets = fewer set collectors = more money to spend on other themes. more magnet sets and fewer sets = more sales based on merit of the set and lower resale value for the sets vs original msrp.
I'm not trying to argue your reason for buying an impulse set, but I'd wager I'm right from LEGO's standpoint in terms of why they put out a 'set' that basically amounts to a minifigure + some free bricks. They probably make little to no money on impulse sets, with the hope that you'll buy more from the series. Also, take into account the core demographic (kids) who get one small thing (say, Atlantis Sea Jet), think it's the coolest thing ever, then bug their parents to get the other ones to go with it (Typhoon Turbo Sub, Seabed Scavenger, Neptune Carrier, etc...)legitimatealex wrote:I bought the Wizard and Jester set because I wanted the Wizard and the Jester. I got the two Atlantis Impulse sets because I wanted another diving suit and a manta guy. I got the Traveler because I wanted his camera. I got the policeman impulse set because I wanted the dog. I also wanted that street cleaner but I couldn't find it anywhere anymore. I wanted him because he had a nice accessory.
This one might be hard to argue but from my shopping perspective the impulse sets are fluff with little bits of accessories that usually don't end up elsewhere in some sets.
I think they're reusing molds and thinking about reuse of pieces a lot more these days. In the heyday of LSW, when it single-handedly brought them back from the brink of bankruptcy, they invested a lot of money into new pieces which amounted to near one-offs (pieces only made for specific sets, etc) which was a bit gluttonous. Since then, the economy has forced LEGO to be more cognizant of cost versus profit. Where slight redesigns of sets only a couple years old (Slave I, AT-AT, Clone Turbo Tank, Grievous' Starfighter, etc) fall into play here, I don't know. All I DO know is that I missed out on the first editions of some of these, and the timing is right for me. Perhaps I'm not alone, as it appears the LEGO community is growing by leaps and bounds all the time these days.slacker wrote:One thing I want to ask is how many new pieces are made every year? Molds are pretty inexpensive. The recovery for R&D is usually paid off after the first run of the product. Designers don't work on just one product a year. if they did, they would be out of business. Now this is based on how we function at work. I'm sure Lego is more efficient than we are.