The big news in the toy world at the moment is the fact that Lego has become the #1 toy company in the world. And while Im sure thats done a fine job of upsetting Mattel and Hasbro, who have been wrestling around that top spot for decades, Im really not entirely sure how I feel about it. To be sure, I have nothing against Lego. I had a ton of the stuff when I was a kid, and that was before Lego specialized in in-house themed products and licensed concepts. Basically, you got a box of multi-colored bricks -- of a far more limited spectrum than today -- and you were pretty much on your own. If you were really lucky, you could get this big flat platform onto which you could build various Lego environments of your own imagining. Or you might own a set of wheels and axles, to make objects that rolled along the floor. Or you might even own a set of gears, to design items that could turn and perform limited functions. The coolest Lego item I had as a kid was a Lego motor. This was a little battery-operated motor housed inside a box that you could attach bricks to. It was designed to have wheels attached to it, and you could make vehicles that rolled along on their own. Suffice to say that while it was cool, there wasnt a lot of point in trying to build a race car around it. As for Lego being the #1 toymaker in the world -- I think thats something of a commentary on toys in general, on the priorities of kids these days, and Im not sure its an entirely positive one. Ill admit I dont entirely understand WHY Lego is so successful. Now, Im not sorry it is. Theres nothing wrong with a kid exercising his imagination and learning to build things with his own two hands. Those are very positive things. I have no problem with that whatsoever. But certainly, its not because Lego is an inexpensive toy. If I have one thing against Lego, its the price tags. You want some sticker-shock in the toy aisle? Visit the Lego section. Its not often that anything in the toy department gets into the three-digit price tag range anymore, but Lego manages this fairly often. I surveyed the Lego section of my local Walmart this morning. A Guardians of the Galaxy Milano spaceship will run you $75.00. A Ghost starship from the new Star Wars Rebels line will set you back $90.00. Want a Star Wars AT-AT? Say good-bye to $110.00. A Fire Temple from Legos in-house Chima line will cost $120.00. A Star Wars Star Destroyer comes with a price tag of $130.00. And if you want to ride the rails of the Train set in the Lego City line, your ticket to ride will be $200.00. Thats pre-sales tax on all of those, by the way. And that two hundred dollar price tag is hardly unique. The Batman Lego line had an Arkham Asylum set that carried that same price tag. Thats a lotta loot to lock up a bunch of Batman-based Lego loonies. Obviously, though, the stuff sells. While I saw the price tags for some of this expensive stuff, like the AT-AT, the Star Destroyer, and so forth, there were no samples on hand of some of them. Certainly, volume of merchandise available, and variety, is a factor. I did a bit of a space analysis at my local Walmart. Lego has an ENTIRE AISLE, both sides, all to itself. Another half-aisle is devoted to Lego-like product from Legos closest competitors, who probably arent exactly hurting for sales these days. Most of this was Mega Bloks, but there was also some Kre-O, and a few other lines with some representation. The closest other toy genre, space-wise, was Barbie, which had most of an aisle, with another half-aisle devoted to other fashion dolls, particularly the bizarre Monster High. As these are both Mattel products, I doubt that Mattel is hurting too much here. Anything else? Forget it. Action figures -- ALL action figures, had barely half an aisle. Now, to be fair, my nearest Walmart has severely limited its action figures recently for whatever asinine reason. Other Walmarts have the better part of an aisle dedicated to action figures, and Targets have nearly an aisle and a half after a recent overhaul. But thats still for ALL action figures from ALL manufacturers -- Transformers, DC, Marvel, Star Wars, Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, WWE, and whatever else. One wonders to what degree availability is a factor, but here I think we enter something of a vicious circle. While I recently encountered a decently stocked action figure section at another Walmart, that was something of an exception. Space notwithstanding, most of the action figure aisles I encounter tend to be rather minimally supplied. Lego, on the other hand, tends to be fairly readily available. At least you can typically get SOMEthing in all of its various concepts. Now, that gets a little circular, if you start to think that if action figures would sell better, stores would carry more of them. But would they sell better if stores would carry more of them in the first place? You cant buy whats not there. Legos there, so it sells. Admittedly, department stores have gotten burned on some action figure concepts in recent times. Ask anybody at Walmart, or Toys R Us, or Target, if they want to see Iron Man anytime soon. The original Iron Man movie was a much bigger hit than anyone expected, so the toys were in short supply. That resulted in Iron Man 2 toys being horribly overproduced. While Iron Man 3 was a more limited line, some of it looked rather cheap, it was poorly articulated, so it didnt sell. And Iron Man 2 toys were still lingering in some places. Apart from being an inevitable part of an Avengers line, none of the stores really want to put up with Tony Starks alter ego anymore. That sort of thing is going to put buyers for stores off. Die-cast cars, including Hot Wheels, Matchbox, and whatever else might exist, have maybe half an aisle in most stores. I think its worth noting that both action figures and die-cast cars are traditionally regarded as boys toys, and I think there might be a connection to a partial explanation. Then, theres variety. Lego has plenty of it. Among licensed concepts, theyve got Star Wars, Ninja Turtles, both DC and Marvel Super-Heroes, and more. Throw in Mega Bloks and you get Halo, Call of Duty, and Power Rangers. Both companies have started up girl-specific lines in recent times. Lego also has no shortage of in-house concepts, including the basic but impressive City line, as well as current concepts such as Ninjago, Chima, and Ultra Agents. The number of in-house concepts that have come and gone in recent years is considerable. So, why are other toy genres not faring as well these days? Ive discussed this with several learned friends, and I think it comes down to several factors. One is -- theres not as many kids around as there have been in previous generational cycles. Were not exactly in a baby boom these days. But I think the far greater factor is the prevalence of electronic gadgetry, and I think this might also explain why boys toys are more adversely affected than girls toys, but thats purely speculation on my part. I got a classic example of this today while I was making my survey of Walmarts toy department. A parent with a small boy, maybe 6 years old at a guess, came along. The boy was sitting in a shopping cart (and was a little too big to be doing so in my opinion). The mother was taking him through the toy section, and the kids attention was entirely on whatever he was doing with his iPod or cell phone or whatever the heck it was. He never so much as looked up from it. One almost wonders if the parent put him in the cart because he couldnt be trusted to pay enough attention to walk and keep up. Now, I happen to think that this is a horribly sad commentary that goes way beyond which toy company is #1 these days. Kids need to experience the real world. They need to think. They need to DO things beyond twiddling their thumbs on some stupid gadget. This, at least, is something Lego can help with. But so could action figures. So could Hot Wheels cars. Thats the part I dont get. Why Lego? It is media support? That could be a factor. The only time a new action figure line seems to come along is if it has a movie backing it up. Its probably no great surprise that most of the action figure lines available today have some sort of media support, if not being based on some sort of media-concept in the first place -- WWE, Power Rangers, Star Wars, Ninja Turtles -- none of these started out AS toys. They HAVE toys because of their popularity. The lone exception to this formula is Transformers. But whens the last time you saw a commercial for action figures? Bottom line -- on the one hand, Im happy for Lego. Im glad its popular. Its an impressive, imaginative, creative toy that all kids of all ages can enjoy. Its something to get them away from all the electronic junk that they otherwise seem to want to fill their time with -- including the two basically immobile kids sitting here in the computer room at the apartment office who ought to be outside playing, since its a rather nice day, but theyre too busy staring at an iPhone screen. So on that basis, congratulations to Lego. But, on the other hand, I would like to hope for a day when action figures make a comeback. I know well never see the like of the 1980s again. But I think theres a lot of cool fun and imagination still to be had, if only it would get the chance.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 19:41:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015