Why Are Lego Sets Expensive?
wired.com
wired.com
Some of the lego my kids are playing with went through this route: my uncle, me, my brother, my son, my brothers kids. The oldest pieces I've got are from the early 60's, they have a different formulation and didn't keep their shape as good, but anything produced after roughly 1965 is as good as new today.
This summer I bought a set I grew up playing with (#6345 Aerial Acrobats). It sits on my shelf for now but I'm sure I'll play with it with my future children.
Anyway: what is the best way to clean LEGO? I've been wondering about that for a while :-)
There seem to be some pro tips on the Lego StackExchange.
http://drj11.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/bosch-the-constructor/
I suspect that duplo is made to be a lot less grippy as it's designed for younger children with much less dexterity. I'd imagine that this means that its deterioration is quicker. Also it gets chewed more.
Just creating a new track layout each time was huge fun. Teaching him planning and problem solving.
We'd play "keep away", where you try to use the switches to divert the locomotive to crash his each other's push train while avoiding getting hit. Huge fun.
We'd play "farm riot" where the farm animals break out of the zoo and eat every one. Kind of like a zombie apocalypse.
We'd play "ValuJet!" where the plane would fall out of the sky. Not very complicated. You hold the jet up, swoosh around a bit, yell "ValuJet!" and then crash the plane into the people, trains and buildings below.
We'd play "Amtrak!". That's when the train approaches a crossing gate. Also pretty simple. You stuff a lot of people onto a train, yell "Amtrak!" and then hit the car stuck in the crossing gate, derail the train, everyone dies.
Duplo trains are superior to those crappy wooden Brio in every way.
Our Duplos got more play time than any Legos since, even the Star Wars sets. I just passed them down; it was super hard to let go.
I can't find it at the moment, unfortunately...
* A Lego compatible case, that can accept an Arduino board.
* A range of Lego compatible sensors and actuators
* Other components following the theme of integrating open-source with Lego.
* and so on...
---
Edit: formatting
I started the Bitbeam project because I was prototyping some things in LEGO, but when it came time to figure out how to make many of them, I wasn't too excited about the cost of LEGO... but I was happy with my LEGO design. So I decided to port LEGO dimensions to materials that are easier and cheapier to source myself.
Some that are blessed by Lego: http://www.hitechnic.com/products
... and some that are not: http://www.mindsensors.com/ http://www.techno-stuff.com/
Also, this exists, targeted at the education market: http://www.vernier.com/products/interfaces/bta-nxt/
They did, and this was actually pretty hypocritical of lego because lego started out copying a UK design, the "Kiddicraft Self-Locking Building Bricks".
On another note, the lego brand is usually explained as 'play well' in Danish, but this is much more along the lines of 'goods to play with' (like in the German spielzeug or the Dutch speelgoed). Of course that doesn't isn't nearly as good marketingwise hence the 'play well' myth.
It's "legetøj" in Danish though, so I'm not sure how that becomes Leg go'. I've never heard "godt" in danish used for "goods".
Source?
While I don't speak Dutch, speelgoed literally translates to "toys". Several google searches on the etymology of leg godt didn't turn up any alternative definitions or connotations.
IOW, the parent is correct that "speelgoed" pretty much means "goods to play with". I have no knowledge about the Danish leg godt story, though.
Source: Native Dutch speaker
Tool die design for injection modeling is an art, a craft.
Lego's die tools are smaller, meaning they hold many fewer parts. They had more supply channels. So the parts would be formed more uniformly. I forget what they did to ensure the parts cooled more uniformly.
At the time, Mega Blocks were far inferior. The were using larger dies, more parts per die. So their bricks weren't as uniform. We used to bring in lots of other toys for inspection and play testing. I once assembled a Mega Block tank set. It just wouldn't stay together, with ill fitted pieces fighting against each other. The differences weren't even visible to the eye. Lego bricks just had better heft and fit.
Also at the time, and I imagine is still the case, Lego and Playmobile were the gold standards for plastic molding toys.
I'm just saying that you can't claim a price differential is justified by a cost differential without actually doing the math and providing X% cost differential ~+ X% price differential.
Because absent those being equal, we have to consider that there are more factors and without context we can't even determine the relevance of the cost factor.
In my view, the price differential exists simply because it can. People will pay $10, $20, $50 or more for a box of Legos. They grumble, sure. But they still buy them. I buy them because they work well, they're partnered with brands and properties that people also really like and they execute well in the tone and context of those brands.
But I'm of the mind that prices for all non-commodities are set by willingness to pay and costs are a function of how much profit corporations needs to justify their investment.
Ergo, that Lego spends more to make the pieces well is a consideration toward their profit margin. Not the price.
However I find the post title to be misleading as surely there's a whole lot more that goes into the actual market valuation of a Lego kit. What about the type and quality of plastic used, the rest of the manufacturing process, quality control, the overhead of having to design new kits regularly, etc? Building Lego kits is more than just shipping cheap generic plastic widgets from China straight to store shelves.
For what it's worth, I've found Lego designs to be consistently excellent, with well thought-out part selection, part placement, structural integrity, and so on, in everything from the small $10 kid sets to the $300 Mindstorms NXT kits, so the price has never really bothered me.
But that's how the economy works, there's a profit margin at every step. If there wasn't people wouldn't sell things or do things.
The same is true for most toys. Kids don't ask for "dolls" they ask for "Barbies" or "American Girls." These companies use the resulting pricing power to set prices to maximize profits, which is a point higher than it would be if they were competing to supply fungible "dolls."
Low manufacturing costs but very high user acquisition costs. Toy companies rank in the top 10 on advertising dollars spent (after automotive, food, pharma, department stores, fast food, telephony, alcohol). Mattel has $0.7B of net income on $6.2B of revenue. But if you took the Barie and Hot Wheels businesses on their own, the margins there may be 40%+, but subsidiaries like The Learning Company are losing hundreds of millions per year.
The Lego Group[0] has 0.55B euro net income on $2.5B euro of revenue. A better margin than Mattel, but a smaller business. Lego also has new release lines that they depend on to continue growth. For eg. the Star Wars tie-up, Lord of the Rings, etc. some of these work, some don't. They need to keep giving buyers a reason to come back and purchase more - which is why Lego has gone from generic buckets of bricks to specific sets with instructions that you assemble once and don't disassemble.
Not mentioned in OP is that until a year ago Lego had a strong world-wide patent. It has only been the last 12 months that competitors have released similar sets of bricks which are forcing more competition on the company. Lego would be happy to hear that when I took my 3 year old niece shopping she only wanted the Lego brand Lego, and in that case only the sets that were cross-branded with characters she recognized (I think it was Dora the Explorer).
If you want to find out more, the largest toy co's are Mattel, Hasbro, Bandai, Lego, Tiger. They are all large co's and the other 4 besides Lego have suites of brand names and subsidiaries.
[0] Lego Group 2012 financials - http://cache.lego.com/r/aboutus/-/media/About%20Us/Annual%20...
My experience of the Lego knockoff products has been that they use inferior plastic that isn't quite as stiff as the Lego formulation and they don't get the internal moulding right either, so the parts don't lock together in quite the right way: they don't have that secure 'click together' feeling that Lego proper has.
http://bo-ne.ws/forum/read.php?7,32149,32149
https://plus.google.com/+ChrisPirillo/posts/Df3JbGjdNe4
Apparently they prolonged their IP protection with a trademark, which was dissolved in court last year:
LEGOs, however, have always fit perfectly, in my experience.
K'Nex and Lego are different and my kids play wth both about equally I'd say. They get used to build different stuff and they're both awesome :)
It was awesome. My mates and I still build it occasionally.
My observations on the quality of my old pieces is that they are generally excellent and certainly still usable, but:
- Some of the white pieces have discoloured quite noticably
- Some of the white plates (but interestingly no other colours) have deteriorated noticably
- The fit between pieces seems to be a lot tighter, so that prising pieces apart can be a challenge.
But really it would be churlish to overstate these issues - for this stuff to still be usable after 40 years is a testament to the quality of engineering that has gone into it. We have acquired bits of the various "knock off" Lego-esque brands and the inferior quality of these is immediately apparent.
"Every single lego brick made has to fit together perfectly with every other lego brick EVER MADE. So the piece you get in your new super star destroyer has to snap together perfectly with a piece from a model house made in 1970. To achieve this, they run size tolerances on the order of .0005" "
The megablocks kits was cheap, but the instructions were truly terrible. There was even a small addendum sheet thrown in with corrections one of the corrections was wrong itself!!
Add to this the blocks were not of great quality and the colours weren't consistent.
I almost never pay full price for Lego as there are always offers to be had, but the extra is well worth paying. I have kits from the 80's mixed in with todays stuff and it all fits perfectly.
Not to mention that Lego's support is great.
This is the location of their headquarter http://goo.gl/maps/9EOIk http://www.engelglobal.com/
The tolerence is the key thing though - we've got a reasonable selection of lego here as well as a few sets of Mega Blocks, Kreo and the odd chinese brand, and there's a huge difference in fit between brands with none coming close to Lego. Try watching your kid build something only to be unable to play with it because it keeps falling apart because the brick fit is sloppy
You can melt a Lego, use it as a paste, and form something else. If you know the right way to cook it, of course .. and Lego do.
So, there's that.
Looks like the 6-year old you is going to get a robot, finally, to do all the assembly. ;)
If there are less well-known brands, with possibly lower quality, that sell for lower prices, Lego's continued success would argue that these competing products aren't perfect substitutes. In other words, Lego extracts a premium for its unique attributes: Quality, the prestige of the brand name, exclusive licenses for movie-themed sets, or patented brick designs might be some of the fences that could be protecting their market share.
Economics 101: If it's easy to build businesses that replicate your goods and services, then competitors will enter the market and bid each other down until prices reach levels that make profits disappear. (If someone's making a profit, then someone else can and will bid a little lower and gain market share in exchange for a smaller per-unit profit.)
If Lego has a unique success formula that other companies can't duplicate for whatever reason, then they can act as a monopoly and charge a price that maximizes unit profit times volume.
As a consolation prize, I offer: http://gizmodo.com/5019797/everything-you-always-wanted-to-k... Also light on analysis, but full of fun trivia.
Not that it matters, it just always feels just out of reach.
Your non-programmer background is most likely an asset on HN, simply because you can offer a point of view that most others here can't.
This might also be why they keep coming up with new shapes for blocks.
ps.: longevity assumes one doesn't use ones teeth to pry apart blocks.
Average Brick Price
Australia:18.3c
UK: 14.9c
USA: 10.8c
So yes, the price is almost double in Australia what it is in the US.Average Licenced Brick Price
Australia: 22.0c
UK: 17.5c
US: 11.5c
If the link works, you can see all my numbers on my Facebook page: http://rick.ph/lego_price_analysisAt least there's the pseudo-excuse for the increased price of actually shipping physical goods, as opposed to the argument for digital downloads which is "Hey, look over there! scamper"