Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.
You must be 16 or over to participate in the Brickset Forum. Please read the announcements and rules before you join.

Lego to cut 1,400 staff

DadsAFOLDadsAFOL USAMember Posts: 559
Sad to hear this news this morning.   Lego does a lot for the fan community so I hope those programs don't get cut.  

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lego-results/lego-to-cut-1400-staff-as-decade-long-sales-boom-ends-idUSKCN1BG0WK 

Comments

  • akunthitaakunthita USAMember Posts: 964
    edited September 5

    The announcement is also at the front page of Brickset, with some good discussion going on in the comment section: https://brickset.com/article/30409/lego-group-s-profits-take-a-plunge

    Someone suggested that it would be a good idea to trim some of the AFOL programs. Too many LUGs accepted that are located close to each other and don't do that much, and too many review sets sent out to low quality YouTube channels were some of the reasons given. I don't think LEGO will cut AFOL support completely, as it is beneficial to them as well, but a little pruning and tightening probably would be a good idea to focus on the relationships and events that are the most impactful and mutually beneficial.

    drdavewatfordsnowhitie
  • TheFewTheFew EnglandMember Posts: 789
    TLG should also consider cutting some of their RRPs. Prices seems to have become a little unreasonable for some sets and may be a reason why sales have dropped off. How many kids will really get enough pocket money to even buy small Lego sets?
    CommanderRaabWookie2Jackad7BoomstickJern92snowhitieBumblepantsRecceC0chise
  • DaraghDaragh IrelandMember Posts: 352
    Reducing the number of review sets or AFOL support programs would not make a dent in the savings they are trying to achieve - they'd only account for a drop in the ocean. Savings of staff will be the biggest, I just hope that they do not try to make savings on production costs by letting quality suffer. Trimming back on the number of new parts, new colours, new themes would also help. A decent, functioning website would be a good investment too! 
    catwranglerJackad7sid3windr
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,313
    Daragh said:
    Reducing the number of review sets or AFOL support programs would not make a dent in the savings they are trying to achieve - they'd only account for a drop in the ocean. Savings of staff will be the biggest, I just hope that they do not try to make savings on production costs by letting quality suffer. Trimming back on the number of new parts, new colours, new themes would also help. A decent, functioning website would be a good investment too! 
    The number of new themes has not really been growing a lot lately. Only new ones this year are Boost, Pirates of the Caribbean, BrickHeadz, Super Hero Girls, and the two movie themes. Of those, Boost and PotC are single products (the latter of which is a revival of a previous theme), and the other four are primarily spin-offs of existing themes. Furthermore, we only just got our first new color in about five years (Copper Metallic), so I don't see that being much of an issue. I don't think those types of unrestrained growth are as great a factor as they were in the early 2000s.
    stluxcatwranglerLyichir
  • xwingpilotxwingpilot UKMember Posts: 726
    akunthita said:

    The announcement is also at the front page of Brickset, with some good discussion going on in the comment section: https://brickset.com/article/30409/lego-group-s-profits-take-a-plunge

    "I am sure we all have our theories as to why this has happened, which are likely to include The LEGO Batman Movie not performing as well as had been anticipated, a bloated product range, and pricing its products out of the market, particularly in Europe. What's your view?"

    Well I haven't bought any LEGO this year, and I was trying to work out why that was. I think in the main it's due to uninspiring Star Wars sets (although that's not TLG's fault, it's the ST and spin-off film source material). I would agree though that TLBM wasn't anywhere near as good at TLM. Of course I'm not TLG's target market...
    SirBrickalotOfLegoJackad7
  • BrikingBriking Dorset, UKMember Posts: 697
    Perhaps they have discovered that price elasticity of demand applies to toys...
    Jern92
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,102
    I'm not that surprised given the growth that they have achieved recently. The Lego Movie seemed to cause significant growth, but has not been followed up so well.

    I think a major concern is now saturation. I get now bored when I see this depicted in LEGO, that depicted in LEGO, such and such depicted in LEGO, ... When they were one offs, they were interesting. Now it seems LEGO appears everywhere and becomes a bit boring.

    Plus saturation for kids. Strange to say, but I think my kids have enough LEGO. They haven't had many sets at all this year. Much of it (especially smaller sets) is uninspiring compared to previous years. And for bulk parts, they have plenty from previous years bought during the boom.

    And pricing of course. I rarely buy anything at RRP. If I don't get a discount, I tend to pass.
    dougtsroxiosidersdd77ncaachampssnowhitieBumblepants
  • floridabrickfloridabrick Central FLMember Posts: 107

    TLG has been screwing some things up, we all knew that.  They have to restructure and to some extent simplify everything.  Lower profit is a good excuse to justify eliminating a whole bunch of employees.  Those positions aren’t the essential ones, they’re the “upswing” positions that were supposed to help with further growth and expansion.  They were there simply because profit was pouring in and TLG were doing what they could to make the most of it. 

    I could take this opportunity to focus on TLG’s high prices and decreasing quality (color consistency, hello!).  But here it is IMO:

    1.  Over the last 12-24 months they’ve went from short supply and not meeting demand to over production.  They had the most ideal of situations, which they could have maintained by just easing production up.  How many new factories have they recently opened???

    2.  The result of that over production is most retail outlets (need to) consistently sell at 20-30% off.  Instead of trying to compete, S@H seems to have even less sales and promotions, which means they’re progressively losing more of their share of direct sales. 

    3.  Rehashing old sets is a big one.  Prior to 2015 Lego sets for the most part just weren’t redone.  So the value of your stuff used, new, MISB, whatever, was something significant to consider, when and if you every felt like messing with the secondary market.  But TLG pretty much killed the prospect of “investing in Lego” by proving over and over that they will go after the easy money by reproducing retired sets.  This directly reduced the value of whatever we already own, and also shows us that anything we might purchase in the future will no longer have the same type of increased value due to exclusivity (instead will suffer from over production, see #1).  So long term gains have been sacrificed, but apparently there weren’t even any short term gains!  Major mistake here that would take a long time to correct.

    4.  Market cannibalization – more sets does not equal more profit.  I can’t tell you how many times in the forum I’ve read how people have stopped buying everything, just so they can afford the UCS MF.  The same is true for those of us just trying to budget for Ninjago City, Old Fishing Store, Assembly Square and Saturn V, etc. 

    catwranglerakunthitaprevereecmo47
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,097
    pricing is ridiculous.  Here are some comparisons from 2017 to 2012 at the same price points:

    $60
    2017: #60160
    2012: #4429

    $70
    2017: #31069
    2012: #79003

    $80
    2017: #60169
    2012: #4440

    $100
    2017: #70617
    2012: #9468

    $120
    2017: #60161
    2012: #10223

    $130
    2017: #70357
    2012: #9474

    $150
    2017: #21310
    2011: #10218
    TheFewmadforLEGOBumblepants
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,097


    4.  Market cannibalization – more sets does not equal more profit.  I can’t tell you how many times in the forum I’ve read how people have stopped buying everything, just so they can afford the UCS MF.  The same is true for those of us just trying to budget for Ninjago City, Old Fishing Store, Assembly Square and Saturn V, etc. 

    this is a big one.  They produce too many sets in my mind. I think there is a fine line between "produce enough variety to appeal to as many people as possible" and "produce so many different sets so that any given person is choosing set A over set B."

    Put another way, let's say LEGO only produce set/theme A, and not B, and they would sell 100 units of that. By adding set/theme B, they sell 40 units of that, but set/theme A now only sells 80.  Are they better off selling 100 of A or 80 of A and 40 of B?

    From an R&D, inventory, supply chain, storage, and logistics standpoint you are going to be more efficient going deeper on fewer total SKUs than you are in going shallow on many more of them.  

    Their market is saturated. Too much stuff, most of it is uninspired too.  I understand the need/desire to have sets at all price points on the shelf at all times, but do we really need 100 new <$20 sets per year, which are quite often just a slight variant of the previous' year's version. 
    LostInTranslationWolfpackBanditmadforLEGOsnowhitiesid3windr
  • HanzoHanzo VAMember Posts: 366
    Too many skus, high retail prices and exorbitant licensing fees is pretty much a recipe to lose money.  Sure, I understand Lego is a premium toy brand, but at the end of the day their average customer sees a box full of plastic on the shelf for $159.99 at Walmart.
  • DB361DB361 UKMember Posts: 90
    I think licensing must play a big part. So many mistakes have been made here IMO.
    Ones such as DC Girls and The Angry Birds Movie should never have been chased by Lego.
    Idea has ones such as Doctor Who that could have been utilised so much better, and others such as Big Bang Theory where again was it really worth the time, effort and money chasing the license?
    And some like the Simpsons and Adventure Time have just too late for TLG to make the most of them, though I think some smaller Simpsons sets could have still done really well.

    Jackad7
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,313
    dougts said:
    pricing is ridiculous.  Here are some comparisons from 2017 to 2012 at the same price points:

    $60
    2017: #60160
    2012: #4429

    $70
    2017: #31069
    2012: #79003

    $80
    2017: #60169
    2012: #4440

    $100
    2017: #70617
    2012: #9468

    $120
    2017: #60161
    2012: #10223

    $130
    2017: #70357
    2012: #9474

    $150
    2017: #21310
    2011: #10218
    Not only are these examples extremely cherry-picked (comparing a City playset to a D2C, lolwut?), they're not even cherry-picked well. Your 2017 examples at the $70, $100, and $130 price points are bigger by both weight and piece count than their 2012 counterparts, proving the opposite of the point you were trying to make! And it's not too hard to find other price point comparisons between 2012 and 2017 where the same is true.

    dougts said:

    Their market is saturated. Too much stuff, most of it is uninspired too.  I understand the need/desire to have sets at all price points on the shelf at all times, but do we really need 100 new <$20 sets per year, which are quite often just a slight variant of the previous' year's version. 
    To be honest, I've seen a lot of comments on Brickset and Facebook with the OPPOSITE complaint: that there are too many high-priced sets and not enough low-priced ones. Plus, which of this year's $20 sets are you so certain LEGO would be better off without? Because while I agree that, say, City Police sets can be extremely repetitive, they're also some of the most popular sets year after year. LEGO doesn't revisit those sets for lack of better ideas, they revisit them because they're what kids and retailers want.
    omniumdatsunrobbieLyichirBumblepantslentil
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,330
    That the ideas sets are the most interesting, inspiring and desirable sets of the last few years says it all about the state of lego's product line. I'm sure the professional designers could do equally well but clearly they're being stopped somewhere along the chain.

    I suspect though that most problems stem from a bloated company that internally appears to be incredibly dysfunctional with wrong people in key roles. 


  • akunthitaakunthita USAMember Posts: 964
    edited September 5
    1400 people losing their job is awful. I hope each of them is able to quickly find work. 


    I heard Mega Bloks (now Mega Construx) actively pursues ex-LEGO employees. ;)

    On a more serious note, yes, that is absolutely awful...

      

  • tamamahmtamamahm Member Posts: 1,770
    I think as many have said there are multiple issues.

    1) It used to be that We could look forward to a new theme or two every year, so if there was not something out, there would be. Now so much is Star Wars, Super Hero, Ninjago, Minecraft. The lack of variation is a huge issue in this household. 
    From this entire year, he has request the latest large Minecraft set and one Ninjago set. BB-8, I have not shown him, but that is one he will want. That is it. On the flip, I will be buying Friends ski related sets. That is really the only line we will be buying more than one set from. 

    2) The large sets are amazing. I pen the last year, I had more large sets now on my personal want list than ever before.... carousel, fishing hut, Saturn, Parisian, holiday train station, Ninjago City, Disney Castle. I only have so much room, so at some point I have to stop, but at the same time the super Large sets and the CMFs are the main thing I am buying. 

    3) There has been a price increase

    4)I feel in the product ranges targeted at kids, the most innovative lines continue to be Friends, Elves, and with the Jungle theme, City. I am not sure what others feel, but when your best innovation is coming from internal lines, but licensing is a huge part of what you offer, there is an issue.

    5) With Lego being so big the past few years, it is not a surprise to see it slide back. That level, is just not possible to maintain indefinitely.
    MattDawsonsnowhitieLostInTranslation
  • davee123davee123 USAMember Posts: 794
    edited September 5
    dougts said:
    pricing is ridiculous.  Here are some comparisons from 2017 to 2012 at the same price points:
    Interestingly, I just checked at the $50 price point (all "minifig-ish-sets") and the average price per piece is better in 2017 (413 vs 468), and you get more minifigs (3.5 vs 3.6).  And that's even with more Friends/Elves sets in 2017, AND the presence of a dreaded Juniors set! (Average of 16 sets from 2012 versus 19 from 2017).

    But with that said, I do admittedly notice that the bulk of the sets in 2017 are repetitive-seeming.  Possibly because the stuff in 2017 has Ninjago, Star Wars, Superheros, City, Minecraft, and Racers, which, to an AFOL, seem kind of like constant repeats (though I expect the kids still like them!).  By contrast, 2012 had The Hobbit, Monster Fighters, and Dino (in addition to the repetitive Superheros, Star Wars, Ninjago, and City), which were a little more "fresh" or different.  At least to an AFOL like me.

    Could that have something to do with people's annoyance?  IE, that the Star Wars, Superhero and maybe Ninjago themes have gone on long enough that AFOLs feel that they've been exhausted, and are no longer interesting?

    DaveE
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,097
    I only own 19 2017 sets, and my current want list has 23 more, and half of those I will only buy if the price gets low enough.  That's a max of 42 this year, more likely in the low 30s. compared to recent years:
    2016  50
    2015  71
    2014  92
    2013  95
    2012  98 (first full year out of DA)

  • PapaBearPapaBear East CoastMember Posts: 170
    I remember I sent LEGO a letter when I was a kid saying how much I loved LEGO and that I wanted to work with LEGO bricks when I grew up.

    They replied saying that if I did well in school I could join the company when I got older.

    Sad to hear sales are declining, but it is hard to grow anything forever without some turbulence.
  • BoomstickBoomstick IndianaMember Posts: 117
    It's set pricing. I'm from the Midwest me and my wife bring 200k a year but still when I saw the new AT-AT at $160 it was like no way was I paying that. I bought Rens fighter and rebel bomber but even Jose prices are off by about 25-40 bucks. I know everyone is happy about the new UCS falcon but $800 for it. In any other hobby you would be saying you got to be kidding me. They need to lower prices streamline there website and be more competitive with retail. I always buy from a store as I want it now instead of online but them and tru are are not the cheapest in town. The other thing I notice I can just wait a few months and get sets on sale somewhere. If they were cheaper to begin with I would buy them all just a little cheaper.

    probably doesn't help with counterfeit companies making money either. 

    This is just my opnion. 
  • HanzoHanzo VAMember Posts: 366
    Boomstick said:
     I know everyone is happy about the new UCS falcon but $800 for it. In any other hobby you would be saying you got to be kidding me. 
    Humblebrag aside, I am not sure this is accurate, there are a lot of hobbies where $800 is nothing.
    77ncaachampssid3windrmustang69
  • beabea Member Posts: 222
    I do wish lego would stop sending out free review sets, not because of the cost savings but because I simply don't trust paid reviews. This is not relegated to just lego. I follow some other communities and I'm really fed up with various "influencers" praising stuff they got for free just so they can get more stuff for free. The flooding of thinly veiled bought and sold marketing is really disappointing. It is almost impossible to get a honest opinion these days.
    dougtsCasper_vd_Korf
  • BoomstickBoomstick IndianaMember Posts: 117
    Hanzo said:
    Boomstick said:
     I know everyone is happy about the new UCS falcon but $800 for it. In any other hobby you would be saying you got to be kidding me. 
    Humblebrag aside, I am not sure this is accurate, there are a lot of hobbies where $800 is nothing.

    Not taking up a whole isle at Walmart or target or toysrus unless your talking electronics.
  • ryjayryjay Member Posts: 861
    edited September 6
    What I took away from it all....is cash flow is way up!

    You can have greater sales and lose money or less sales and make money, all depending on how you do things. The Groups cash is up... they are making money
  • FauchFauch FranceMember Posts: 1,776
    Aanchir said:
    That the ideas sets are the most interesting, inspiring and desirable sets of the last few years says it all about the state of lego's product line. I'm sure the professional designers could do equally well but clearly they're being stopped somewhere along the chain.

    Ideas sets are fun, but for me the most interesting, fun, and inspiring sets for the past few years are easily Ninjago and Elves sets. Colorful, badass, impeccably complex elemental dragons? Stunning ships and vehicles? Amazingly distinctive buildings? Rich fantasy worlds? Beautifully designed, evolving characters with diverse personalities? The fact that more AFOLs can't bring themselves to enjoy these themes says more about AFOLs in my eyes than about the themes themselves. Saturn V is a creative build, stark and colorless as it may be, but it's no Queen Dragon, Goblin King's Fortress, Dragon's Forge, or Destiny's Bounty.
    I actually think the Saturn V looks a bit bland, but I've never seen it for real, guess it must be impressive. but on picture, compared to destiny's bounty, temple of airjitzu or temple of ultimate weapon, it looks a bit boring.
  • Jackad7Jackad7 Wisconsin Member Posts: 482
    Since lego isn't publicly traded they don't have to publicize their financial reports. I'm not seeing it on their website, does anyone know if they have publicized any reports at all? I'm not optimistic but ininterested in seeing their numbers.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,313
    Fauch said:
    Aanchir said:
    That the ideas sets are the most interesting, inspiring and desirable sets of the last few years says it all about the state of lego's product line. I'm sure the professional designers could do equally well but clearly they're being stopped somewhere along the chain.

    Ideas sets are fun, but for me the most interesting, fun, and inspiring sets for the past few years are easily Ninjago and Elves sets. Colorful, badass, impeccably complex elemental dragons? Stunning ships and vehicles? Amazingly distinctive buildings? Rich fantasy worlds? Beautifully designed, evolving characters with diverse personalities? The fact that more AFOLs can't bring themselves to enjoy these themes says more about AFOLs in my eyes than about the themes themselves. Saturn V is a creative build, stark and colorless as it may be, but it's no Queen Dragon, Goblin King's Fortress, Dragon's Forge, or Destiny's Bounty.
    I actually think the Saturn V looks a bit bland, but I've never seen it for real, guess it must be impressive. but on picture, compared to destiny's bounty, temple of airjitzu or temple of ultimate weapon, it looks a bit boring.
    The Saturn V excites me more as a builder than anything else, because as a builder who primarily enjoys working with curves, I know how hard it can be to build them, and the Saturn V uses some downright BRILLIANT techniques to match the different radii of the rocket's fuselage. Science/history-wise it's also cool how effectively it demonstrates the splitting of the rocket stages. From a display point of view I think its sheer size is the main thing it has to offer; otherwise you're right that doesn't have a lot of detail.
  • 77ncaachamps77ncaachamps Aspiring Time Traveler Stuck in the WestMember Posts: 1,949
    SumoLego said:
    Um, I think we are overlooking that the first two quarters' revenue in 2017 was $2.38 BILLION.  

    I think people lose sight that financial analysts always focus on growth, growth, growth - but overlook how many widgets are actually being sold.  There has been 'only' six percent growth this year after twenty five percent growth in 2015.

    I am highly suspect of the essence of this story - as there is no mention of the $1.9 Billion in profit that the family (and company) retained on the revenue.
    I think that is the key: prospective growth for the company looks like paltry to negative.
    TLG's perspective is probably the same as the analysts.

    Laying off 1400 now helps put them in a better financial state to deal with the future changes in market.
    SumoLego
  • CircleKCircleK U.S. - Columbus, OhioMember Posts: 1,053
    Legoboy said:
    I can raise my hand as one whose interest is dwindling and spending less as a result.  Too much variety, too little for your money, too tight on Exclusive bargins.  I can't keep up and have stalled as a result.  Literally.

    It was once important for me to have all of the big sets as well as all those within an attractive theme of interest.  Now, I simply don't know which way to turn and my wallet has been kept tightly closed as a result.  Yes, I'll get the next Modular come New Year and of course the Falcon and Winter Village release, but even with that £1,000 spend, this year they've possibly only had a fifth of what they've had from me in previous years.

    I no longer have (or NEED) all of the UCS or Exclusive sets that got me started a decade ago, not just because their perceived value for money to me has plummeted, nor just because there's too much variety and keep up with, but also for the case of LEGO's apparent greed to dominate every corner of every market on Planet Earth.  It's everywhere.  I havent just slowed a little, but almost altogether because as a completist I can no longer be satisfied.  It's got to the point where the amount of money the hobby demands from me is having negative impact on my family's life, my kids lives.

    They've over-milked the cow in my mind.
    I could have written this. Fatigued is the way I describe it. It's been way too much lately and I have just grown tired of seeing it EVERYWHERE. I can't remember the last time I bought a set and have sold off sets I thought I would never part with - like my beloved CMFs. It didn't bother me a bit to see them go. 

    A few days ago I saw some sets in Target that I had no idea were even coming. That's how far out of the loop I am now. I pretty much knew then that my hobby was no longer that. Lego has become little more than a  passing interest now. Too much of a good thing killed it for me I guess. Maybe it was the "The Lego Movie Effect"... Idk. Too much. Too expensive. Too many. Too often. Too tired of it to keep up. 

    I will still buy the occasional set here and there, like the upcoming Winter Village set and the Ideas Voltron most likely. My purchases and involvement are a mere fraction of what it once was though. I would have never guessed that having MORE to choose from would ultimately be the reason for me wanting LESS of all of it, but here I am. 

    Boomsticktomahawkerbrickventures
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 7,941
    edited September 6
    I think that is the key: prospective growth for the company looks like paltry to negative.
    TLG's perspective is probably the same as the analysts.

    Laying off 1400 now helps put them in a better financial state to deal with the future changes in market.
    I completely agree - but it's not going to precipitate the end of LEGO because there isn't 25% annual growth.  It's not quite the end of the world.  I noted in a different thread that this section of their workforce mau have been necessary to ramp up for the growth demand, and are not expendible.

    (Some of the criticism and worry in this thread is completely unrelated to earnings and the workforce structure.)
    77ncaachamps
  • PapaBearPapaBear East CoastMember Posts: 170
    They seem expendable if TLG is laying off 1,400.  They may have to cut down on stores too.

    Cutting costs early will help them remain the #1 toymaker.  However, their market does seem a over-saturated.  Lots of good sets being pumped out, but everyone has finite amount of space and that is the number one concern of LEGO collectors (excluding $$$).
    SumoLego
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 7,941
    edited September 6
    (now expendible)

    And I definitely doubt there'll be Retail Store closures.  That's part of the operation that prints money.
  • richoricho Member Posts: 3,782
    edited September 6
    The writing in terms of sales falling was firmly on the wall with the unusual deep discounts of licenced products like SW in January. 

    The major job cuts will damage the brand, which trades on its family and fun image, which is a real shame.
  • stluxstlux LuxembourgMember Posts: 1,428
    Whilst this is terrible news for those 1400 employees, it's easy to overstate the impact. This will bring TLG back down to 16800 employees, their average number of full-time employees in 2016 (16,836).
    Seems they really had been hiring for continued double-digit growth which now didn't materialize.

    As we don't know which departments are getting downsized or what the impact will be to the future product pipeline, it's difficult to predict how this will impact us AFOL's. There's the possibility AFOL programs get cut or we see less D2C sets, but that's not guaranteed.
    A potential positive: with the factories having to focus less on growing production volumes, they'll be able to pay more attention to things like colour accuracy? But again that will depend on where exactly the cuts are being made.

    But yes, as somebody who gets a warm fuzzy feeling from everything Lego, I would have preferred reading about a hiring freeze and natural attrition instead. I of course don't have access to their H2 2017 or 2018 forecasts.
    SumoLegoAanchirLyichirakunthitaomnium
  • AustinPowersAustinPowers GermanyMember Posts: 252
    edited September 6

    Of the 900+ sets we own in the family, almost two thirds were purchased in the last four years. The other third was purchased over the course of almost four decades!

    I agree with the notion that over-saturation plays a big part. Speaking for myself, I just don't get the same "thrill" by the announcement of new sets any more like I used to. Same with our older daughter. By now she has so many Friends sets that she isn't interested in new ones any longer. There is just too much of it available, and too many new sets each year. Trying to be a completionist has been out of the question for quite some time, but even for the casual buyer too many sets on offer isn't a plus.

    That and many for my and our kids' taste unnecessary themes that were introduced in recent times (Brickheadz, Super Hero Girls, TLBM, Angry Birds etc.) plus way too many new Superhero and Star Wars sets. Too much quantity, not enough quality (uninspired sets, rehashes, quality isssues like with colour consistency etc.)

    Last but not least the massive price increases, i.e. you get far less for your money than you used to. Not necessarily on the largest and D2C sets, but there as well. Sets with price per part ratios of 5 to 10 cents used to be the norm, now it is between 10 and 20 cents, with quite a few sets even over 20 cents per part. That's just ridiculous, even considering certain licences. One reason why I hardly ever buy a set at RRP anymore, unless it is tied to some interesting promotion.

    I have learned to wait for a good deal, which eventually can be had for almost any set. If many others do the same, it is clear that growth won't be endless.

    catwrangler
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 917
    Looking at my collection, nearly all of it was purchased used or at on clearance. Why rush out to buy a new set at MSRP when I can wait 6 months and get it for at least 30% off, especially when there are sets piled up waiting to be built and tubs of loose parts waiting to be sorted?
    catwranglerSumoLego
  • shaaseshaase Member Posts: 14

    I'm just surprised Lego is taking this drastic measure after only one quarter with a drop and it's only a drop of 3% at that.

    Unfortunately for any company the biggest factor that contributes to cost is always staff...and of course is the easiest to cut and thus the first to go.

    Let's just hope Lego doesn't hand out bonuses to management for a job well done after these job's are cut.

    catwrangler
  • davee123davee123 USAMember Posts: 794
    edited September 6
    One thing that's interested me is AFOL burnout.  When I joined the online community in 1999, I started going crazy-go-nuts-insane buying LEGO.  But by 2003 or so, I started slowing down.  I was realizing that I definitely shouldn't aim to be "complete" in various themes, and I didn't really have a strong desire to buy multiple copies of the same set like I had before (I had 7 copies of Pharoah's Forbidden Ruins, 12 copies of the Snowspeeder, 8 copies of the re-released Guarded Inn, etc).  After 5 years of rabid buying, I just wasn't freshly passionate about LEGO anymore.  Not that I lost my passion-- it just didn't have that "new-passion-smell".

    But that seems to happen to a lot of AFOLs.  They start out active, but then start to lose interest after a few years.  In fact, that seemed to be the demise of a lot of LUGs in the US, where the "core" member (who managed the website or organized train shows, etc) ended up falling out of the hobby for one reason or another.

    So how do you tell the difference between your own mellowing-out and a change in direction from LEGO?  Especially when LEGO's changing all the time?  Did LEGO make a misstep, or were you destined to start getting bored with the hobby of your own accord?  Or maybe some of both?

    Legoboy said:
    ...  I havent just slowed a little, but almost altogether because as a completist I can no longer be satisfied.
    Here's another interesting tidbit.  I used to want to collect everything, but after calming down, I've stopped.  I'm content not to own everything, and I've sort of accepted that.  But then again, I'm also interested in building MOCs as well, and doing things in the community.  So I've got energy for the hobby along other avenues apart from collecting.  But if people are driven primarily by being collectors and completing their collections, then vast product expansions from LEGO really do threaten those hobbyists.

    I wonder if there's any sort of correlation between AFOLs who feel exhausted buying LEGO with those who are more primarily collectors versus MOC builders?

    DaveE
    bandit778BoomstickstluxcatwranglerpharmjodSalamalexLostInTranslation
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,097
    ^ I can relate to this.  I used to buy complete waves of multiple themes: City, Friends, most one-offs (AC, GS, Scooby, LOTR, Hobbit, LR, etc). Now I'm basically down to two things:  Creator Expert sets and SW ships.  And many of the latter are rehashes, so I often don't buy those either.  I might still buy the occasional city set, but only if it is something relative new/different.  I used to religiously buy the Creator houses too, but that's dropped off the last couple years as I have found them to be either rehashes, too small, or poor value.

    I have a large parts collection that I hope to use for future MOCs. But I never have time to actually build MOCs, so even collecting parts has slowed down quite a bit

  • catwranglercatwrangler Northern IrelandMember Posts: 1,566
    @davee123, I've wondered about the collectors-vs-MOCers thing too. When I was younger I was much more into MOCing. Since getting back into buying Lego, I've primarily been building sets. It's partly because I have a backlog of Lego to sort/the space I'd have used to MOC in has been taken over by DIY projects, but also a confidence thing - as an adult there's less time for Lego and therefore I think I look for the easiest way to enjoy it - MOCing satisfyingly involves lots of time for trial and error and experimenting. So I build the set in the instructions, and usually that's where it ends.

    For various reasons, I think a lot of people do it this way, but that does mean that whatever hits the choosing/buying of sets, be it too high a cost or too much choice for choosing to be enjoyable, has the potential to cool people's interest. I'm still enthusiastic, and I'm hoping that as the home situation gets less complicated I'll spend more time MOCing, but it's possible that if I were buying more sets, more often, I'd be feeling burnt out on it too... 
  • RecceRecce 10,171km away from BillundMember Posts: 639
    edited September 7
    Most of my Lego (like >90%) were bought between 2011 to 2015. Since Jan 2016 till now I've only bought a handful of sets, mostly due to lack of fund and space. 

    I think TLG released way too many sets on a per year basis, too difficult to catch up especially for collectors that wanted to complete a theme. I used to want to complete the ideas theme, but already missed the last 3 or so releases. 
  • Zacharywathen97Zacharywathen97 Lenexa, KansasMember Posts: 41
    dougts said:
    I only own 19 2017 sets, and my current want list has 23 more, and half of those I will only buy if the price gets low enough.  That's a max of 42 this year, more likely in the low 30s. compared to recent years:
    2016  50
    2015  71
    2014  92
    2013  95
    2012  98 (first full year out of DA)

    Wait... you buy 50 sets each year? Idk about you, but not many can afford that. Certainly not me. I'm happy with like 5 a year, if that.
  • Zacharywathen97Zacharywathen97 Lenexa, KansasMember Posts: 41
    Lol, I don't have very much LEGO compared to you guys. I only have a total of 173 from 5 years. I'm not very picky when it comes to LEGO, so I only buy them if they are on sale for at least 40% off or more. Taking in if they are full price, this is a breakdown of my sets:
    $120- 2
    $100-  3
    $90-  2
    $80-  2
    $70-  2
    $60-  2 
    $50-  4
    $40-  5
    $35-  2
    $30-  8
    $25-  2
    $20-  12
    $15-  22
    $13-  10
    $12-  4 
    $10-  28
    $7- 7
    $5 or less- 58

Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy