The prices, Steve, the prices

[ThinkingImpaired]

I'm... not sure I understand your point. You think I was implying that they would try to pay their Danish workers $4/hour or something?

You said Lego's salary gap is much smaller than other companies like this...if that's true then any reasons why it would be smaller would be due to the market and laws in Denmark, not due to Lego's "kind heart".

If, by your logic, every company in the world is trying as hard as they can to maximize profits, and is stupid not to do so, the why wouldn't LEGO outsource more (or all!) of its plastics molding out of Denmark, which is probably one of the MOST expensive places to do the molding?

There are many possible reasons.....just think how expensive it would be to move factories to different continents. Plus if there is a noticable difference in quality, then Lego suddenly doesn't have a huge advantage over Megabloks...there are many outside variables to consider.

Others are more motivated by doing the right thing.

I don't want to go off on a tangent here (we can continue this in PM if you want) but first off, "right thing" is by opinion and second, outsourcing is just using an open market. It's just like trading. Choosing not to outsource just to help your local workers is like imposing tariffs/quotas on imports. Tariffs/quotas hurt your consumers MUCH more than they help your manufacturers (again, take economics....or PM for facts to back it up) not to mention you're also hurting the country you could be trading with. So, the "right thing", eventhough an opinion, would be regarded by most to outsource if it's cheaper. (when looking at the stats)

Unfortunately, people that are motivated by money are often more successful, and the companies that they run do better and get bigger than those with a more ethical focus. LEGO was one of the exceptions to that rule until around 2006 when they started changing their philosophy.

I totally disagree and I don't think you can keep making these assumptions without a single source to back any of it up. I think it's pretty safe to assume Lego has been a profit-maximizing business just like everyone else.

I don't mind people claiming that LEGO has capitalist practices. Of course they do. However, to call them "just as capitalist" I believe is inaccurate, and in my opinion, it makes LEGO out to be some sort of greedy bad guy-- or at least, just as much of a greedy bad guy as Walmart or Hasbro or McDonalds or what-have-you.

I don't know which news source gave you the idea that capitalism = "greedy bad guy" but again, you can believe Lego is run by Santa's Elves, but without any sources or data to back anything up, I don't see how those opinions have any merit in a debate.

[legodavee123]

You said Lego's salary gap is much smaller than other companies like this...if that's true then any reasons why it would be smaller would be due to the market and laws in Denmark, not due to Lego's "kind heart".

Either way you slice it, the income inequality is more balanced in Denmark. You can claim that they're forced into paying their employees more, or that it's more profitable to do so thanks to Danish tax law or what-have-you. But IMHO the best information we have is that LEGO started outsourcing to China in the last couple years, at the same time that they started taking a more money-focused approach to business. Hence, the conclusion I'm forced to draw is that keeping jobs in Denmark was not cheaper pre-2006 and then suddenly more effective post-2006-- LEGO began changing its focus from what was "best" to what was "more profitable".

There are many possible reasons.....just think how expensive it would be to move factories to different continents. Plus if there is a noticable difference in quality, then Lego suddenly doesn't have a huge advantage over Megabloks...there are many outside variables to consider.

Now who's over-complicating things But honestly, this is correct-- and LEGO has started doing precisely this within the last couple years, and their profit margins have gone up. Again, did something magical happen in 2006 that suddenly made it cost-effective to relocate? Not from what I've heard. There was a paradigm shift in management towards being profitable.

I totally disagree and I don't think you can keep making these assumptions without a single source to back any of it up. I think it's pretty safe to assume Lego has been a profit-maximizing business just like everyone else.

Ok, I have to ask at this point-- how informed are you, personally, about the LEGO company and its history? AFAIK, the two best quasi-widely available documented sources for the older company history are:

- 50 Years of Play (1982, compiled and published internally)
- The World of LEGO Toys (1987, Henry Wiencek)

If you haven't read them, they're quite informative. More so than the "Ultimate LEGO Book" or the new "LEGO Book". For more recent history, a number of articles have been released following Jørgen's arrival as the CEO in 2006 and detailing what he's been doing involving the corporate mindset at LEGO. A quick Google search should get you quite a bit of information.

Further, I've personally been close to quite a few people at LEGO since around 2003. My wife was co-founder of LUGNET, former employee of the company, and has had "ins" with the company for quite a long time. I worked with Jake McKee back when he was running the show at LEGO Direct, I've been a LEGO Ambassador, I've got a good friend that I've known since 2000 who's now working in Billund (as well as other AFOLs that I know mostly virtually who are also inside LEGO at Billund or elsewhere), and I've worked with various people in Enfield (mostly Shows & Events) since around 2004, since I'm relatively local to them. I've also been generally involved in the online community since 1999, and have heard quite a bit regarding the company, its history, its practices, and how it's changed over the years.

If you want me to dig up quotes and cite particular sources, I suppose I could, although most of what we're talking about here are generalizations about business motives which aren't documented and can be over-scrutinized to a ridiculous degree.

I'm sorry for sounding all pissy, but when you call me out for not citing sources, and then in the next sentence make a statement like "I think it's pretty safe to assume", I'm going to have to call you on it.

In the end, we're both assuming what LEGO's motives are. As I just stated, we're not talking about publicly available and documented things here. LEGO doesn't have a business log that says "here is the evidence that we've been ethical", or "here is the evidence that we're saving as much money as possible". And it's not cut-and-dry, either. I'm not claiming that it's some Rainbow-Brite fantasy world at LEGO, and neither do I think you're claiming that LEGO is made out of 100% greedy bastards. I'm saying that certainly LEGO's track record pre-2006 was of a less profit-oriented company, and I don't believe that LEGO in its current "post-2006" incarnation is as profit-oriented as "most" other companies are (again, a fantastical generalization dealing mostly in public opinion of a stereotype).

DaveE

[ThinkingImpaired]

True, we're simply disagreeing on whether they're a profit-maximizing company or one that doesn't really care about profits. Because they've changed things in the last few years, you assume that they're changing their focus as a company and only now striving for that profit, while I assume they've always strived for that maximum profit but have recently found out a better way to reach it. (same reason for any company to change prices, quantity supplied, etc....I just don't see how Lego is any different)

(damnnn, you have me beat on that Lego experience/interactions haha, touché)

[fredjh]

You guys are going around in circles now. LEGO is a for-profit company; nobody disputes that. They even DID try to move production elsewhere, it just failed miserably. The bottom line is you can consider LEGO to be one of the "nice" companies (I know I do), but the problem is that MOST large companies are "nice," contrary to how they've been portrayed in the media (especially this past year).

Take the Earthquake today, for example... like previous natural disasters, my mega-giant-well-hated company is donating a million dollars and matching employee donations to the tune of another million. It's not the first time. It's hardly a way to maximize profits. Many companies are active in the communities, even ones that lay off people the month before Christmas.

I think it's not so much as we're trying to paint LEGO as bad, it's that MOST companies are not "bad."

[theJudeAbides]

Alright, let me state something for the record: I am not necessarily accusing of LEGO of being an "evil" corporation. I'm not even necessarily accusing LEGO's president or any other LEGO employee of being "evil."

Of course, "evil" is a bit subjective, so let me clarify. Now, there are many forms of evil, but the one most applicable to the discussion would be greed. In my opinion, someone who chooses money over a more ethical option is evil.

Now, because we don't know LEGO's motives for the price hikes, we cannot truly judge the "evilness" (or lack thereof) of these decisions. Perhaps these hikes represent a cost-of-living raise for all employees across the company. Perhaps, as others have suggested, some change in the manufacturing process has made things more expensive. There are undoubtably numerous things which could (ethically) cause these price hikes, some which have been suggested and other which haven't.

Or, it could just be that LEGO felt that they could charge more per set because they good and well felt like it.

But until Steve (or some other LEGO representative) provides us with an answer, it's nothing but pure speculation. I posted this question in the "Ask LEGO" section because I was looking for an answer from LEGO. It's been well over a week now and still no Steve. To be honest, I find that to be the most telling thing of all. If there was a reasonable, ethical explanation for these price increases, you can bet your sweet patootie that Steve would be all over this topic. But he isn't, and thus I think my original hypothesis stands.

If I'm wrong, Steve, please feel free to set me straight. Don't worry, though, I'll understand if you're too busy swimming in your vault-o-cash, Scrooge McDuck-style.

[fredjh]

Or, it could just be that LEGO felt that they could charge more per set because they good and well felt like it.

I think that's it; they don't need a reason, and...

But until Steve (or some other LEGO representative) provides us with an answer, it's nothing but pure speculation.

... I doubt this will happen, as they don't owe us an answer (I realize you weren't saying they did).

The sets are popular; they sold out in many locations (and online). The higher the demand, the more LEGO can charge... it doesn't make them evil or greedy or anything else, and however we decide to react is entirely up to us.

[Solo]

Jude, do you honestly expect an answer from Steve with the tone of this thread, or are you satisfied with just ranting?

[legodavee123]

Given that Steve hasn't replied to anything in this forum for going on 5 months now, I expect there won't be an answer. But regardless, LEGO has been asked this question in many different ways, shapes, and forms, and the answer has pretty much always been: "It's complicated", sometimes followed by a quick re-hash of various factors.

I've taken that to mean some or all of the following:

1) It's too complicated to be worth taking the time to explain it, since it differs in so many places
2) It changes so frequently and so subtly, that this year will be different than next year, so it'll never stay accurate
3) Steve doesn't have the time to chase and follow up with the 50+ people that he'd need to in order to give you an accurate answer
4) The reasons don't follow a particular formula, there are simply considerations
5) There are certain reasons that LEGO doesn't want to advertise, like the fact that the US market is simply more competitive (IE, US customers will NOT buy things that are expensive as readily)
6) Steve isn't authorized legally to explain the pricing schemes publicly in detail

DaveE

[onions]

thinkingimpaired, i dont know why you keep insisting on taking things to PM. what's the point of having a discussion in a thread if you just want to privately stand your ground. are you afraid that you'll be proven wrong if more eyes are deconstructing your proof that you so readily offer in private?

[Draykov]

It's been well over a week now and still no Steve. To be honest, I find that to be the most telling thing of all. If there was a reasonable, ethical explanation for these price increases, you can bet your sweet patootie that Steve would be all over this topic. But he isn't, and thus I think my original hypothesis stands.

Given that Steve hasn't replied to anything in this forum for going on 5 months now, I expect there won't be an answer.

Yeah...I'm guessing he's a busy guy and is probably not even aware that this topic is here.

[ThinkingImpaired]

thinkingimpaired, i dont know why you keep insisting on taking things to PM. what's the point of having a discussion in a thread if you just want to privately stand your ground. are you afraid that you'll be proven wrong if more eyes are deconstructing your proof that you so readily offer in private?

I only mentioned taking a conversation to PM once (an off-topic convo)...and I've been told to take things to PM whenever it goes off-topic.....so I was just following rules.

I can go into detail in this thread of why tariffs and quotas are horrible for the economy, but again....that's not what this thread is about. I've had posts deleted and threads locked before because I DIDN'T take things to PM....so not sure why you're suddenly calling me out for doing what you told me to do?

[Solo]

That sounds like it's perfectly on topic... "What's up with the price hikes?!" "Well, [your thoughts here]" Right?

[ThinkingImpaired]

That sounds like it's perfectly on topic... "What's up with the price hikes?!" "Well, [your thoughts here]" Right?

I don't want to go off on a tangent here (we can continue this in PM if you want) but first off, "right thing" is by opinion and second, outsourcing is just using an open market. It's just like trading. Choosing not to outsource just to help your local workers is like imposing tariffs/quotas on imports. Tariffs/quotas hurt your consumers MUCH more than they help your manufacturers (again, take economics....or PM for facts to back it up) not to mention you're also hurting the country you could be trading with. So, the "right thing", eventhough an opinion, would be regarded by most to outsource if it's cheaper. (when looking at the stats)

If you guys give me your word you'll never delete a post of mine again because it's off-topic, I will give you my word I'll never again give the option of taking things to PM.

[Solo]

You see, now you're going off topic.

[Draykov]

If you guys give me your word you'll never delete a post of mine again because...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Talk like that is only going to get your next post deleted regardless. I think it was Sun Tzu who said "he who bargains had better bring chips." Saying you'll follow the rules that you're supposed to follow anyway if the staff agree to wear kryptonite underpants...well...that's just not going to fly.

[ThinkingImpaired]

Obviously a joke when you see the smiley you deleted out of the quote. Just used the other mods' logic against them which is why it's funny and hence your haha's.

[theJudeAbides]

Jude, do you honestly expect an answer from Steve...

No, Don, I expect him TO DIE!!!

Given that Steve hasn't replied to anything in this forum for going on 5 months now, I expect there won't be an answer. But regardless, LEGO has been asked this question in many different ways, shapes, and forms, and the answer has pretty much always been: "It's complicated", sometimes followed by a quick re-hash of various factors.

Isn't he supposedly a MOD on this board? Talk about sleeping on the job. Also, I'm pretty sure that it's his job to act as a sort of "PR rep" to forums such as this (and undoubtably others), answering questions we have and maintaining a healthy relationship between the LEGO company and it's customers. Afterall, happy customers buy more. Unless LEGO layed him off (which they may do now due to poor job performance), he really doesn't have an excuse.

And even if his answer is "It's complicated," it's still an answer, and even a generic, not-that-informative answer is still better than no answer at all. He doesn't have to get into every minute detail of the decision, but offering a broad overview of the most important factors would be nice.

Now, I know you're thinking, "but I just did that: copy and past arguements from above here." I'm sorry, but with all due respect to legodavee and his "contacts on the inside," it's still just speculation. You're answers are undoubtably more informed than some of the other answers being tossed around here, but the fact is, YOU don't work for LEGO and therefore you don't really know. The only people who really know are Steve and other LEGO employees.

...or are you satisfied with just ranting?

Normally I would be, but I think we as a community deserve answers. This is clearly a relevant discussion, or this wouldn't be the second thread about it and it wouldn't have already reached the third page. I really don't see how this is any less of an issue than the grey/bley switch or the inconsistant color issues of yesteryear. And if you look at those issues, the only reason we got answers is because the various communities spoke up and remained vocal until LEGO was forced to make a statement. I'm trying to give Steve (and LEGO) the option to explain themselves before the issue gets even more heated. It's up to them how far we're going to have to take this.

[legodavee123]

Also, I'm pretty sure that it's his job to act as a sort of "PR rep" to forums such as this (and undoubtably others), answering questions we have and maintaining a healthy relationship between the LEGO company and it's customers.

I guess I'm not really sure what Steve's job description is in that capacity. Back when LUGNET was pretty much the one-stop-shop for LEGO discussion online, it was pretty easy for a LEGO representative (Brad or Jake at the time) to keep up with most of the goings-on and comment. Now there are probably a good 20+ forum sites out there to keep track of, let alone chatrooms and blogs and so forth. So part of the function of the Ambassadors is to do that communication on Steve's behalf-- filter out the repetitive questions (IE answer them on your own as an Ambassador), and anything else that comes up, ask Steve/Jan/Tormod and forward the answers back to your local "sphere of influence".

I recall that when Steve started at LEGO, he was very much a part of FBTB, and probably posted weekly, if not daily. But I think as time has gone on, focusing on FBTB has been less of a priority. But hey, THERE's a good question for Steve: how does your publicly visible online participation in online forums relate to your job function? Is LEGO expected to have at least a minor, yet constant presence on fan forums addressing questions like this, or is it merely a bonus?

... it's still just speculation. You're answers are undoubtably more informed than some of the other answers being tossed around here, but the fact is, YOU don't work for LEGO and therefore you don't really know. The only people who really know are Steve and other LEGO employees.

There's a question arguably for Steve and arguably for FBTB admins:

1) To LEGO: If a question has been repeatedly asked and answered, should LEGO attempt to repeat the answers? Is there significant gain to be had by presenting an image of participation, even if it's repetitive, simply to maintain contact with your fans? Or is it logistically unmanageable, and therefore up to Ambassadors or others who have gotten the answers from LEGO in the past directly (or even indirectly)?

2) To FBTB: If a question gets asked repeatedly, to what extent should those questions be shut down and locked? Does an active forum full of people who are freely encouraged to participate have value? Or should topics which have been discussed ad nauseum in the past be culled so that the content is easier to read?

To be honest, I'm unclear on the standpoint of the administration. Based on precedent, I would've expected this thread to be locked instantly because it's essentially asking what we're 99% sure LEGO won't answer in a more useful fashion than they've already stated before. Perhaps it's been allowed to linger because some of the discussion is more in-depth, or perhaps because posts are being made by more long-standing members than noobs, I'm not sure.

From a personal standpoint, I hate locked threads, because I think open threads encourage more activity on the part of members, and make members feel more free to discuss things. In essence, I believe it makes the environment a lot more inviting to users, and encourages them to come back and talk about things more often-- regardless of whether what they're curious about has been discussed in 500 threads in the past. But I understand that a lot of people (particularly more old-timers) find that type of discussion to be noise that they want filtered out. Anyway, suffice to say I'm not quite sure I understand where the line is currently drawn by FBTB staff.

DaveE

[Draykov]

But I understand that a lot of people (particularly more old-timers) find that type of discussion to be noise that they want filtered out. Anyway, suffice to say I'm not quite sure I understand where the line is currently drawn by FBTB staff.

DaveE

If it strays too far from this or this, it gets the hose. From a personal standpoint, I do not care what set you are thinking about buying or what sets you think are "cool" and I don't think a solitary masturbatory thread dedicated to the topic is necessary. Threads that generate interesting and intelligent discussion get a lot more slack than others.

[theJudeAbides]

1) To LEGO: If a question has been repeatedly asked and answered, should LEGO attempt to repeat the answers? Is there significant gain to be had by presenting an image of participation, even if it's repetitive, simply to maintain contact with your fans? Or is it logistically unmanageable, and therefore up to Ambassadors or others who have gotten the answers from LEGO in the past directly (or even indirectly)?

2) To FBTB: If a question gets asked repeatedly, to what extent should those questions be shut down and locked? Does an active forum full of people who are freely encouraged to participate have value? Or should topics which have been discussed ad nauseum in the past be culled so that the content is easier to read?

OK, I think this right here is the contributing factor to my frustration. Everyone keeps acting like this is "old news" and that "this has happened before." While the second part may be true, this is still it's own separate, unique issue. I'm not asking for the reasons for every price hike that has ever occurred. I'm asking for the reasons for this specific price hike, yet some of you don't seem to comprehend that.

Sure, we can look at past reasons and speculate that they may apply here, but there is no guarantee that this is the case. Companies make different decisions and different times for different reasons. So to say, especially with the certainty and convction some seem to have, that these past reasons apply here is at best misleading and at worst out-and-out wrong.

As for my anger/frustration with Steve, there's no way he didn't know about these price changes, undoubtably long before we did (say, 5 months ago?). His behavior is more remeniscent of a child whos broken his mother's favorite lamp and has opted to go find a safe hidey-hole in which to hide. That behavior may be ok for a child, but as a man, it's embarrassing. Part of becoming a man is learning to take responsibility for you actions. He had to know, as a member of this community, that we wouldn't take this very well and would demand answers. Now, I understand that, both as a person and as a company representative, he "owes" us nothing. However, as a friend and trusted boardmember, I expected better. I know this is the internet, but I had higher expectations.

Bear in mind, too, that I'm NOT saying that Steve is responsible for the price hikes or even had any part in them. But as a LEGO representative, he had to find out about them sooner or later. And once he did, he had a choice: he could either seek out answers and raise hell on our behalf, or he could be a corporate shill, ask nothing, and let the suits get away with it. Honestly, I never thought it would be the latter, I really didn't. I guess I'm just dissappointed in who Steve turned out to be.