Hacker News Reader

In the world of toys Lego is considerably less evil than many other companies.

Since HN is interested in companies and product development they might be interested in the book "The Real Toy Story". It's a cut throat industry.

I'm a bit sad about the rise of themed tie in kits. I'm a bit worried about the development of "girls kits" and "boys kits" - I don't mind them having different kits but they are undeniably gendering the kits rather than just offering choice.

It's great to see Lego doing well after a really rough time.

So she evokes the image of LEGO being some entity with "clutches" - sounds pretty evil to me. Seems the author is not beyond using marketing ploys either.

Yes, the language is shaped by her opinion of LEGO, or more likely, of corporations in general. But she isn't making an y real effort to convince you; it's an assumed context. If you think that corporations are great, you're not really the intended reader.

Really - are they not just a company trying to sell it's products? It seems to me the way you or the author words it is simply reframing that as something negative.

It's not reframing unless one considers that in general, a company selling their products is a good thing. But even if one does, there's still an argument to be made about LEGO's (and other corporations') way of doing so.

If the brand is "creativity is good, and you can actually build whatever you want with LEGO, not just the Star Wars model the evil empire suggests", where exactly is the problem? I'm pretty fine with such a brand.

Well, for one, there's the question of whether LEGO's actions are coherent with that brand. If the Star Wars model is the product of an evil empire, why are they selling it? Her point is that such incoherent is not some marketing failure, but actually a deliberate way to fake credibility by attacking the company that it's promoting.

(Of course, even the core part "you can actually build whatever you want with LEGO" suggests that you need to buy their products to be creative. But that's what every company would claim, so that goes back to the issue of how you view the whole system.)

"whimsical Scandinavian clutches" does not sound very evil to me. It would have sounded more evil if she'd just said "clutches". A lot of the wording to me makes it sound light-hearted, rather than as any real criticism of LEGO. The kind of complaint lots of parents will make of them while still going to the LEGO store and getting just as excited as their kids about some new set or finding just the right bricks for some project.

Again, who said that they're evil?

Maybe your politics are getting the best of you? Can't someone be against advertising and still enjoy the fruits of capitalism?

Personally, I hate ads. I hate being manipulated. And, I hate that corporations spend an insane amount of money every year just to get me to buy their stuff that I don't want - it just increases the price of the products that I do want.

I think facepalm is correct when saying the author implies something more than just hating ads, when she says "I should be taking them on a long hike or handing out aprons and baking cookies. But we aren’t doing those things; instead we spend our weekends hunched over expensive plastic bricks".

If the issue was just the ads, playing with the bricks themselves wouldn't necessarily be bad, but that's what she implies.

You left out a lot of context for that quote. Here's the full paragraph:

> No wonder I feel guilty as I’m driving my children to see “The Lego Movie.” I should be taking them on a long hike or handing out aprons and baking cookies. But we aren’t doing those things; instead we spend our weekends hunched over expensive plastic bricks, and now we’re going to watch them on the big screen. I have filled my daughters’ empty minds with a blind devotion to an indifferent commercial empire.

The issue isn't just the ads, or just the expensive bricks, it's how the two come together to form a feedback loop. The kids enjoy playing with legos, so they want to see the movie. They see the movie, which makes them want to buy more bricks. Lego Movie 2 comes out and the process repeats. The main thing the author seems to dislike is manipulation.

Thing is, a lot of people eventually graduate from legos. The step from buildable toys to making your own furniture is just a garage corner away.

Ads are as likely to decrease the price of the product as increase it. Advertising leads to new customers which may lead to economies of scale that reduce the unit price enough to offset the ad outlay. In fact, if the company in question has to increase their prices to cover advertising, it's probably an irrational investment, unless the alternative is to go out of business, or they manage to drum up enough demand that the market bears a higher price. In the last case, competition is likely to bring the price to a reasonable level.

To a certain extent, I used to feel that way too. But now I have to ask 'why waste your time hateingthe ads?'

Sure they could be better or more entertaining. But most ads are easily recognizable and easily ignored. As much as I get a similar reaction to being manipulated once I recognize the manipulation I can use the info for my advantage or to move on.

Maybe this is naive but without advertising how robust would the worlds economy be?