I agree with the less profitability of some classic theme categories, especially space, but I feel like as long as Lego follows more or less their typical story formula a new Constraction line should do fine.
The typical story:
Two brothers one good, one fallen and evil: Mata Nui/Makuta, Wu/Garmadon
Formation of an unlikely team: Toa Mata, original 4 ninjas, (with distinct voices)
Quest for something gold and shiny: Masks, Spinjitzu weapons
Power upgrade: Toa Nuva, elemental blades/temple of light
Rise of a golden warrior to defeat evil brother: Takanuva, Green Ninja
Do marketing via comics, TV show, movie etc. (not 1 minute clips)
Do you know something we don’t? What vehicle set? [quote=“Ghidora131, post:354, topic:40794”]
the stores giving sets away for free, or how most stores still have Bionicle sets in large stock even now
[/quote]
Some stores have caught on to the fact there is a fandom, and purposefully overbuy so that they can sell the sets later, because the internet hikes up the prices after Lego quits making the sets. As for a giveaway, you generally don’t giveaway things that no one wants. Think of it this way: You walk into a store planning to buy $40 dollars worth of Lego. You find out there’s a giveaway if you buy $50, for a free Bionicle set. If you think Bionicle sucks, you just buy your $40 worth of sets and leave. If you think, “I love Bionicle!” then you buy a ten dollar battle pack or something and get your free set. [quote=“Ghidora131, post:356, topic:40794”]
I’ve spoken to well over one hundred people
[/quote]
That’s actually a good sample size, but it’s not a random sample. Because you know them in some way, there could be a lurking variable which makes it more likely for stores in your sample to still have Bionicle.
In fact, the Bionicle community as a whole would still be a poor sample, because we all like Bionicle. That, again, might skew the results.
Maybe not to hire Payinku as their public advisor, I dunno.
Tbh I don’t see what you’re trying to prove here, possibly that my argument is invalidated because it’s too precise? otherwise it just feels like a pointless jab.[quote=“Payinku, post:357, topic:40794”]
Or, just maybe, it sold better in some areas, worse in others and, possibly, average overall.
[/quote]
And LEGO, being the geniuses that they are, realized that lesser income was a horrible mistake and killed it immediately, driving away a lot of fans and making the Bionicle community incredibly distrusting overall.
I’m not a marketing genius, but that’s probably the stupidest thing you can do.[quote=“Payinku, post:357, topic:40794”]
100 locations is a fraction of the total retailers that stocked the sets, which doesn’t even take into account online purchases,
how many of the stores that still have bionicle are toysrus?
[/quote]
A lot, but they have made specific Bionicle deals with LEGO repeatedly in the past and have been a major consumer for LEGO for several years.[quote=“Payinku, post:357, topic:40794”]
It most likely sold averagely, but couldn’t keep up sales because of the awful marketing, I don’t believe it was the train wreck you’re suggesting, but rather it simply fell short of what Lego considered necessary to continue early on (2nd wave) so they cancelled the line early to try to save the brand.
[/quote]
Off topic, why are you randomly hitting the enter key after specific commas? it requires a bit of pointless editing on my part to make your posts look better.
And I hope you can realize LEGO didn’t come close to ‘saving the brand’. I vouched heavily when G2 kicked the can, but even though it took me a while to retract my statements and views, I still had to eventually come to grips with the fact that it was a commercial bomb.
Also, I’m not the one suggesting this. I’m ‘suggesting’ what other far more established, well-credited members in the LEGO and the Bionicle community have said, and I think that one of the Bionicle set designers had a small comment or two on the flop as well. It was a horrible failure of a line, starting off bad and flying downhill at rapid speeds.
Personally I think the fans killed it, but that’s a discussion for another time.[quote=“Payinku, post:357, topic:40794”]
Regardless, we don’t know, all we know is that Lego said it was selling well, not great, not exceptionally, well, and that, from anecdotal evidence, it was selling fine in some areas and poorly in others.
[/quote]
LEGO also said they had great plans for Constraction, a while after Bionicle ended, and I’m pretty sure also after the reveal of the Star Wars figures. Guess what? We’ve had zilch. There’s been nothiing to collaborate this statement, and there’s nearly nothing to collaborate the statement that it did well aside from ‘my store is sold out, goshers’.[quote=“Payinku, post:357, topic:40794”]
which makes me believe that it sold averagely but began to decline, and Lego decided to cut it early to minimize any potential losses.
[/quote]
They made a lot of bad choices with Bionicle G2, most of which have been covered from a story-wise standpoint by TTV already. I can’t see how anyone could conceive the notion that it did well.[quote=“DinosaursUnited, post:359, topic:40794”]
Some stores have caught on to the fact there is a fandom, and purposefully overbuy so that they can sell the sets later, because the internet hikes up the prices after Lego quits making the sets.
[/quote]
So far no stores have increased any prices, only dropped, dropped, and dropped them. I’ve seen some private sellers trying to get the gullible to buy overpriced G2, and mostly failing at it.[quote=“DinosaursUnited, post:359, topic:40794”]
As for a giveaway, you generally don’t giveaway things that no one wants.
[/quote]
Well, LEGO raised the prices when it came to Bionicle - from an average buyer standpoint. Those parents remember when they bought the red fire guy set not long ago for $15, and now he’s $20. That doesn’t seem fair, so they go for a system set instead.
Inflation doesn’t cross the mind of the average buyer, all they know is the fire guy is $5 more than he was just a year or so ago, so why bother buying him? and stores, seeing that the figures don’t sell well, start making deals to attract attention. In some places, they’ve sold like hotcakes thanks to the deals making things cheaper, but most places are still stocked full because nobody wants to pay that much or flat-out doesn’t care.[quote=“DinosaursUnited, post:359, topic:40794”]
That’s actually a good sample size, but it’s not a random sample. Because you know them in some way, there could be a lurking variable which makes it more likely for stores in your sample to still have Bionicle.
[/quote]
That’s a very good point, and I’m glad you noticed that. However, only about 60% of those people care for Bionicle. I tried desperately to get to LEGO Fans who barely knew what Bionicle was to get their opinion. Most of them came from the LUG community, because people who like System LEGO tend to hang out in-person, it seems.
I get what you’re trying to prove; I legitimately do. I just don’t think that your “evidence” is valid. Usually, a fellow who’s trying to prove something won’t keep using the same old bits of evidence that have already been discredited by several people, because that’s just silly and makes this topic tough and useless to read for the average viewer.
I don’t think that it’s a “good” sample size, as it could definitely stand to be larger, but here’s the crux of this whole debate; you can have a sample size that small, as long as it’s completely random. Which you don’t have, and you frankly are probably unable to get, unless you can randomly dial a hundred landline or cell phone numbers across the country to study this.
Alternatively, if you want to come back and make this exact case after you’ve spoken to 5,000 times the number of people that you’ve currently held this conversation with, then you can do that - in that case, it won’t have to be random.
Quite honestly, this is just a silly debate to be having without that kind of data, as your ‘evidence’ thus far would not carry any statistical weight or hold up to any serious scrutiny if it were being evaluated by professionals. Funny as it is, since we’ve been debating this for so long, TLG has hundreds of experts employed to do just that; I’ll trust them instead, thanks.
…Anyway, sorry for the delay in getting back to y’all today. I have heard from a source that has been practically dead-on on these things in the past NOT Just2Good, sorry - but trustworthy that we will be getting Unikitty sets in the Summer. This is consistent with the “leakers” claims, and while one could make the case that it could have been guessed, it seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Again, please feel free to correct me.
Obviously, there’s still zero illimitable “proof”, and I’m certainly not trying to claim that it’s guaranteed; regardless, this definitely is cool.
Are you always this abrasive?
Or is it just for me?
I was pointing out that you were assuming what they meant when there was no implication of it,
Ironically you assumed that they assumed.
Not enough fans to turn a profit apparently, “the bionicle community” of what, 1000 people? G1 was dead for 5 years, most fans had moved on, and the marketing push was so bad I doubt g2 drew in many long-time fans.
Kill an under performing line so that you don’t lose money? You’re always going to upset fans when you end a theme, it’s a calculated risk, Lego is a company, the largest toy company on earth, ultimately they’re going to do what’s best for the company, even if it upsets a fringe of their fans.
I assume most kids simply moved on from g2, it’s really only afols/tfols that are salty about it, we aren’t the majority, you understand that right?
And they recently filed for bankruptcy because of a lack of sales, which is why I’m saying it’s likely to be more a fault of tru than bionicle itself,
Though the lack of tru sales would certainly add to the sales problems for the line.
To annoy you.
I don’t know, just a habit I picked up to try to better convey my intended tone and speech patterns, I find that it doesn’t like to come across in text,
I don’t know if you can tell,
I’m not a very serious person.
My point was they tried, whether they succeeded I can’t say, from what I’ve seen it wasn’t a commercial bomb, it was a commercial failure.
Right, you’re suggesting that they’re right, you share the same view, ergo you’re suggesting it, regardless of if you had the original thought or not.
I’d like to see the quote, genuinely.
Replace bad with average and I’d agree, it was a failure with declining sales, which, among other factors is why it was cancelled.
They certainly didn’t help things, but I’d still say marketing has a bigger stake in the death.
You realize what topic you’re saying that in, right?
And it’s not like sw doesn’t count towards that statement.
There’s nearly nothing to collaborate the statement that it did horribly aside from ‘my toysrus still has stock, goshers’.
Here here
Assuming, rightfully, that they’d be charitable, well translates from pr to average, when the question was asked(late 2015 early 2016 from what I remember) the sales numbers were average and declining,
it’s not like Lego hasn’t canceled for this reason before, it’s why g1 was cancelled, to not ruin the brand.
I have no doubt that affected sales as well.
I don’t disagree, it was a failure either way, I just don’t think it was the biggest flop since galidor.
We know for certain unikitty is getting a show, it’s not exactly a leap in logic to say the company financing it would want to profit from it with sets.
I’m sorry Azani, this really isn’t the solid proof you thought it was.
I’m sorry, but the main reason the same old evidence keeps coming back up in this type of discussion is because you and other people opposed to the concept ignore it almost entirely. You really haven’t covered the points I brought up either, you’ve mostly pointed how LEGO couldn’t have possibly failed and all other arguments are therefore null.[quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
I don’t think that it’s a “good” sample size, as it could definitely stand to be larger,
[/quote]
When you only have the option to speak to the most well-cemented members of the LEGO community. Yeah, I guess it could stand to be larg-[quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
Alternatively, if you want to come back and make this exact case after you’ve spoken to 5,000 times the number of people that you’ve currently held this conversation with, then you can do that
[/quote]
I really don’t think you’d consider that valid either, and I don’t think you know how many people are recognized as well-established by LEGO and the Community.[quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
Funny as it is, since we’ve been debating this for so long, TLG has hundreds of experts employed to do just that; I’ll trust them instead, thanks.
[/quote]
Very well. Go ahead and listen to what LEGO tells them to say.[quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
I have heard from a source
[/quote]
Oh no…
If it’s anything like the last one you defied as sarcasm, putting another member’s reputation on the line and making us question the majority of your statements, then we’re in for quite the info.[quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
we will be getting Unikitty sets in the Summer.
[/quote]
Gee! LEGO makes a TV Show and we’re going to be getting sets??
Sorry, but this is not new info, it’s common sense. Either you or your ‘source’ is pulling a fast one, which by the way isn’t going to work.[quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
Obviously, there’s still zero illimitable “proof”, and I’m certainly not trying to claim that it’s guaranteed; regardless, this definitely is cool.
[/quote]
I think we’re done here.
Who never specified in his original post, or returned to clarify.[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
Not enough fans to turn a profit apparently, “the bionicle community” of what, 1000 people? G1 was dead for 5 years, most fans had moved on, and the marketing push was so bad I doubt g2 drew in many long-time fans.
[/quote]
Look. ‘Lesser’ doesn’t mean ‘The theme is about to die.’ LEGO was having absolutely horrible income from this line, not slightly bad.[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
Kill an under performing line so that you don’t lose money?
[/quote]
You’re proving my point. They killed it because it was a bomb.[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
I don’t know, just a habit I picked up to try to better convey my intended tone and speech patterns, I find that it doesn’t like to come across in text, I don’t know if you can tell, I’m not a very serious person.
[/quote]
I don’t want to be brutally honest here, but all it does is make you look like you’re trying to be ‘cool’ by acting really peculiar on the internet and hoping it picks up. There was a kid on BZP who couldn’t use punctuation besides commas, and it didn’t help his status at all.[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
My point was they tried, whether they succeeded I can’t say, from what I’ve seen it wasn’t a commercial bomb, it was a commercial failure.
[/quote]
A commercial failure still tries to wrap things up in some manner. Considering LEGO shoehorned in a finale to Journey to One before it could fully start, (see TTV’s discussion on it if you have any doubts) and then just randomly put out a PSA establishing that there was no more Bionicle, I’d say it wasn’t LEGO’s standard commercial failure.[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
Right, you’re suggesting that they’re right, you share the same view, ergo you’re suggesting it, regardless of if you had the original thought or not.
[/quote]
I think you missed the part where I said I didn’t have the same views as them originally and had to be forcefully contradicted by the evidence stating otherwise.[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
I’d like to see the quote, genuinely.
[/quote]
See how I said “I think”.
I can’t say for certain because I don’t know where it was stated, so sorry, I don’t think I can provide you with it.[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
You realize what topic you’re saying that in, right?
[/quote]
You realize what we’re arguing in this topic, right?
On that note, why is this argument even continuing? we’re supposed to be discussing a possible 2018 CCBS Standalone Constraction Theme-
Ohh, that’s right. My quote right there shows LEGO promised this a while ago. Well, maybe we should get back on that?[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
There’s nearly nothing to collaborate the statement that it did horribly aside from ‘my toysrus still has stock, goshers’.
[/quote]
‘And my KMart, and my Fred Meyer’s, and my Walmart…’
No, I don’t live anywhere near a Fred Meyer’s, but the people I’ve spoken to often do. And guess what, there’s still Bionicle.[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
Assuming, rightfully, that they’d be charitable, well translates from pr to average, when the question was asked(late 2015 early 2016 from what I remember) the sales numbers were average and declining, it’s not like Lego hasn’t canceled for this reason before, it’s why g1 was cancelled, to not ruin the brand.
[/quote]
Right. LEGO cancelled because they had no choice - which fits in with it being an absolute bomb in most every aspect except concept art. Sometimes, LEGO just doesn’t have a choice, like with:[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
galidor.
[/quote]
However nothing could be worse of a nuclear bomb from shelves to the trash can than Galidor.[quote=“Payinku, post:363, topic:40794”]
We know for certain unikitty is getting a show, it’s not exactly a leap in logic to say the company financing it would want to profit from it with sets.
I’m sorry Azani, this really isn’t the solid proof you thought it was.
[/quote]
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ [1]
Of course it doesn’t provide proof… just thought I’d mention it since I’m constantly getting asked about news.
[/quote]
Who’s asking?
I’m sorry, but when did you become a news source, much less a reliable one?
First of all, you’re really beginning to get on a few people’s nerves, man. In Payinku’s words, your “abrasiveness” doesn’t really seem to be necessary. Chill out, dude.
You’re not listening to anyone else who’s trying to tell you that, frankly, none of your points make any sense. Neither I nor anyone else has anything against you; rather, your argument just doesn’t hold up. It doesn’t fit, it doesn’t even reinforce your points, and your attitude toward it and the opinions of others is really inflammatory.
And if you’re so convinced that I’m not a reliable news source, I’d invite you to check out my post history in the SWC topic. Plus, if you don’t believe me, why listen?
Just to be a little more clear: I’m doing my best to update y’all on everything that I can 100% confirm as accurate. This is mostly because I’m being asked pretty regularly, both on here in Discord, via PM and in this topic, if I have any new info. It might not be super salient info - I’m not claiming that it is. However, it’s still new information nonetheless.
Additionally, I have plenty of things that I’m 75-80% sure about via my research and the folks with whom I’m holding these discussions; that said, it won’t make its way here unless I’m entirely certain.
I’m not saying it was a good strategy. I’m just saying that they looked at G1, and made a decision based on that. [quote=“Ghidora131, post:361, topic:40794”]
start making deals to attract attention.
[/quote]
But if no one wants it, it really doesn’t matter how much attention you attract, does it? [quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
I don’t think that it’s a “good” sample size, as it could definitely stand to be larger
[/quote]
Depends on the experiment, and what you want your confidence interval to be. For one person collecting data, I would argue that n = 100 is impressive. I usually stick to n = 30 so I can apply the Central Limit Theorem. [quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
Quite honestly, this is just a silly debate to be having
[/quote]
Are we debating whether Bionicle sold poorly or if stores still have them in stock? (These may not be mutually exclusive). Designing an experiment to find the probability that a store still carries Bionicle isn’t that hard. (It’s doing the experiment that is). I suppose that is related to whether or not it sold well, the higher the probability a store carries Bionicle still, the poorer it sold. But that in itself would need to be proven. [quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
TLG has hundreds of experts employed to do just that; I’ll trust them instead, thanks.
[/quote]
I’ll trust their experts too, but I’m not convinced that the Twitter account consults them, and neither are some others on this board. For the record, I do believe that Bionicle sold okay, but not because Lego said so. [quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
This is consistent with the “leakers” claims
[/quote]
For summer 2015, there was a rumor that we were getting “ghost” sets. The “leaker” correctly called 2/3 new CCBS armor pieces (showed up in SW) and the spring fire launcher (also in SW). The ghost sets, however, never happened. Simply because a “leaker” is right about some things, doesn’t mean they’re 100% accurate. [quote=“ColdGoldLazarus, post:370, topic:40794, full:true”]
I don’t even know who’s arguing for what at this point
[/quote]
I am arguing that there will not be a new CCBS/constraction theme come 2018, and that Bionicle G2 did okay.
And yeah, I’d change my earlier stance and say that you’re pretty dead on there, assuming that it’s random - I mean, considering the number of consumers involved, it might benefit from being slightly larger, but it would likely be fine anyway.
I’m pretty sure that we’re debating whether or not it sold poorly. Sure, an experiment could be designed, but it would be really tough to execute properly, and likely not the best use of resources when one considers what we’d, y’know, do with the conclusions. That said, anyone is welcome to try it.
Well, I’ve never argued that G2 sold well, as a matter of distinction. That’s definitely not the crux of my argument; rather, I’m making the case that none of us on the MBs have the requisite data to appropriately and effectively judge the situation. You’re making a very good point about the Twitter account, and I’m certainly not blindly accepting what TLG says. I’d agree that they probably don’t know the whole truth as well. However, I do think that it may be telling that the only information on it that comes “straight from the horse’s mouth”, so to speak, claims that sales were alright. (Not great, but alright.)
Yes, I know that. I think that I’ve made it very, very abundantly clear that I do not think that this is proof. Not sure why everyone seems to think that that’s what I’m saying.
As a side note, the fellow that you’re referring to later came out and publically admitted that any “intel” that he had on the sets was a guess. However, this is totally irrelevant to my point here, as I’ve stated 3 or 4 times now that I’m simply offering updates, as I’m constantly getting asked for more info.
In a nutshell, you’ve literally reversed the one or two statements I’ve made about how you’re not paying attention to what I’m pointing out, barely acknowledging it to begin with.
I get it that this is a tricky subject, but if the evidence I’ve pointed out here can’t convince you, then… I’m sorry. Until you change your mind on your own or do the work I’ve done on your own, or listen to anyone else in the LEGO field that I’ve spoken with who’s run the numbers for themselves… You’re going to continue to think LEGO Bionicle G2 did well, maybe even great. In the meantime, I’m not going to be discussing this further, at least not here.
One more thing before I go:
Cough
And you’re probably right. However, let’s run over the possible circumstances with a New CCBS theme:
That’s about it. There’s more financial statistics in that, but I won’t bore you with the mathematics behind it.
LEGO hasn’t made as much money from the Star Wars constraction as they probably hoped, probably only as much recently as the first wave of G2. Which might be a contributor to the massive sales decline in 2017, but there’s multiple factors to that.
Seeing this, LEGO would probably advertise a new gimmick in any potential lines, which would go (in layman’s terms) like this:
-Lego releases NewCCBS
-Star Wars Constraction suffers
-LEGO Includes special gimmick to increase sales
Now there’s two possibilities to the special gimmick:
-The special gimmick works, sales increase
-Given the theme, Star Wars Constaction either
suffers mildly or slowly increases income
Or:
-The special gimmick fails, sales plummet
-LEGO recalls G2 and decides individual
Constraction themes are doomed, cans the line
Nobody wants to see it end like this, so my suggestion so it doesn’t end like our Bionicle dreams (twice :'c RIP) is love it even if you don’t.
Tell all your friends about it, buy it whenever you can afford, etc. Don’t trash talk it much at all! we need a Constraction theme that will show LEGO we actually still like Constraction, even if it’s CCBS.
Y’know, that brings up an interesting question: What would a 2018 Galidor be like? (i.e. LEGO bought the liscense entirely and rebooted it for some dumb reason)
I’ve seen no logic to back up that G2 sold well. So let’s look at the stuff we already know.
Bionicle G2 was planned for three years and then cancelled a year early.
Sets were almost immediately being taken off shelves after the line was cancelled. Almost everyone across this website and other websites confirmed this, and it happened with all the the big retailer stores that are in my area, and nearby as well.
There was hardly any advertising besides the NYCC Panel and the occasional commercial. For the first year this would’ve been an ok start, but after a whole year the occasional commercial does not give a lot of attention to people.
All in all. These are very clear signs that Bionicle G2 did not sell particularly well. Yes, we don’t know exactly how much it sold, but these aren’t good things for a franchise. If a toy line does not get enough attention and cut a year short then it is clearly not profitable.
Plus, if you don’t believe me, why listen?