Thread: Nokia Watch?
View Single Post
Posts: 1,038 | Thanked: 3,980 times | Joined on Nov 2010 @ USA
#9
Originally Posted by nonsuch View Post
Controling who?


Ah well, the basic idea was good, but obviously they always had to invent ever-new ways of selling their stuff, right from the start.
Forcing it into the cloud certainly was a bad move, but there've been many such moves, now and in the past.
Collaboration with Star Wars.
Being such a great unisex toy, they still had to introduce a completely separate line "for girls", implying that other lines are "for boys".
Computer games.
NinjaGo.
Etc.

Some might even argue that the very introduction of LEGO Technic was such a move, trying to get into a market segment dominated by FischerTechnik until then. Not me, I loved it.

When I was a child I visited the one and only LEGOLand, and it was all made from square bricks, nothing else. That was LEGO back then.

Enough nostalgia, I'm not complaining.
But I see kids playing with it every day, and sometimes I wish they were reduced to LEGO of the seventies. Just bricks (well, mostly). Challenges the imagination much better.
These are super-interesting points, and much more, uh, pointed, when I finally had to face them head on . . .

The "Friends" line (ostensibly for girls) really did increase Lego sales to/for girls. It's not just the pink boxes, either. The sets focus more on the insides of the buildings and what goes on there, whereas the "boy" sets are more about exteriors.

Some interesting articles about the series:

Lego's 'sexist' Friends range for girls spurs 35% profit rise

Lego revenues in girls' construction toys triples in three years -- Fortune

Lego's sales soared 25 percent last year thanks in part to its new series of building blocks designed for girls.

The above article points out this isn't the first time a toymaker has made a big move to appeal to the other gender: 'Nearly half a century ago, toymaker Hasbro found a way to sell dolls to boys: call them something else. “G.I. Joe” and Star Wars dolls were dubbed “action figures.”'

Another article from the Wall Street Journal:

The company found that—unlike what it had long thought—girls enjoy building as much as bonowys. The nuance is that they enjoy building different things, Ms. Costa said. Lego also tried gender-neutral packaging but found that girls, as well as parents, would more often pick sets for girls when they came in pink or purple.

And the most fascinating one from The Atlantic: For toymakers like Lego, where is the line between making products children love and telling kids how they should play?


To see how boys and girls play, you just have to watch them do their thing. That’s what Lego did over the course of its research in past decade. For one project, Lego gathered a group of boys and asked them to build a Lego castle together. Separately, they gave the same task to the group of girls. Both groups worked together to build the castle, but once it was assembled, there were stark differences in how the two groups proceeded.

“The boys immediately grabbed the figures and the horses and the catapults and they started having a battle,” McNally said. “The facilitator said, ‘What about the castle?’ And they said, ‘Well, that’s just the backdrop for the battle.’”

The girls, on the other hand, were more focused on the structure—and not too impressed with what they found. “They all looked around inside the castle and they said, ‘Well, there’s nothing inside,’” McNally said. “This idea of interior versus exterior in the orientation of how they would then play with what they built was really interesting. If you think about most of the Lego models that people consider to be meant for boys, there’s not a whole lot going on in there. But [the girls had] this idea of, ‘There’s nothing inside to do.’”

“Both girls and boys were saying they liked building, but there were nuances in what they were looking for,” he added. “We heard girls overwhelming saying we would much rather build environments than single structures. They were really just looking for a lot more detail than we were offering.”
So, obviously I was really curious/worried about this issue since I had a young daughter and was concerned that if I gave her "girl legos" that I would be just perpetuating (flawed/unhelpful/harmful/???) gender stereotypes. Do I give my little girl, who was just then old enough for building blocks that would choke a smaller child, these construction sets?

I ended up deciding it was okay. (I got a little criticism from friends that I figured both left and right of me). And she's been much more interested in the "Friends" line than the generic Duplo and Junior sets she was exposed to before. Furthermore, her little brother is actually enthusiastic to help her build the giant Friends stable and equestrian training set, even though he's the super-stereotypical boy, "counting weapons" on each page of his Lego Star Wars books he reserves at the library every week.

But it's probably the end of the line for this narrative. Daughter is well into the tweenage years, and interest in toys like Legos -- even Lego Friends -- is waning for books about dragons and the potentials of temporary hair dyes.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to robthebold For This Useful Post: