8 ms·

Sounds as if she started from the premise that corporations that earn millions (or billions? don't know) can never be good, then scrambled for evidence througho

Sounds as if she started from the premise that corporations that earn millions (or billions? don't know) can never be good, then scrambled for evidence throughout the piece. Is there any reason to assume that LEGO is really evil? I for one am thankful for it's existence, because my kid is having a lot of fun with it. Also, apparently LEGO is being held responsible for girls liking pink now. (Hint: pink is not the problem - girls want to signal they are girls, and by random chance pink got selected as a predominant signal).

icebraining 13y ago
The article is not a justification; it's merely an exposition of the latest manipulation technique employed by them (and others). It should be noted she never uses the word "evil" or any such synonym. The claim is that LEGO is an indifferent entity that tries to manipulate people into buying their stuff religiously, and the article demonstrates the latest form of such manipulation. Whether that's "evil" is left to you, even if the author clearly has an opinion on the subject.
- facepalm 13y ago
  She doesn't use the word "evil", but her language implies it. For example, near the top "that’s when those Danes have us in their whimsical Scandinavian clutches forever". So she evokes the image of LEGO being some entity with "clutches" - sounds pretty evil to me. Seems the author is not beyond using manipulation either. "The claim is that LEGO is an indifferent entity that tries to manipulate people into buying their stuff religiously" 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. 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. Maybe they simply like their own product, and the enthusiasm shows in the movie? I am not a LEGO expert - I am waiting for somebody to tell me why they are supposedly evil, other than them being successful? I just don't like articles that sort of imply that somebody who is successful has to be evil. It's also banking on the envy we all have in us. Yes it feels good to read such an article, makes us feel better about our own mediocrity. In fact, it being in the NYT, that is probably exactly the point of it: it's OK to be mediocre and never try to change the status quo, as long as you keep reading the NYT and click on it's ads. You're a loser, but hey, you are a better person.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    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.)
  - ap22213 13y ago
    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.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      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.
dTal 13y ago
I don't see that she stated outright or even implied that LEGO was evil, as such. Just an overpriced, indifferent corporate empire with brilliant, unnerving meta-marketing. I would say that meta-marketing is the focus of the article, with the LEGO movie merely being the centerpiece. And I'm really not sure where you got "apparently LEGO is being held responsible for girls liking pink now" - the only reference to pink was a quote from the movie in question.
- facepalm 13y ago
  She continues with references to the new LEGO girls world which has no fire fighters and so on. Admitted, she doesn't mention pink, but it has been a recent accusation that LEGO created that pink world without manly jobs in it.
  - hrktb 13y ago
    Well, the page on the "Lego friends"site: http://friends.lego.com/en-us/products/41027-mias-lemonade-stand http://friends.lego.com/en-us/products/41027-mias-lemonade-s... I don't see fire fighters or policemen or construction staff, so her statement (and other peoples argument) is valid. How to interpret this fact can be tricky, because there's still more variety than traditional 'girly' toys I think, but when contrasting this with the "City" line of toys (http://www.lego.com/en-us/city http://www.lego.com/en-us/city), the gender bias is blinding.
    - SamuelMulder 13y ago
      The Lego Friends theme doesn't have firefighters because it is focused on social relationships, not overcoming conflict. It doesn't have to be a girl vs boy thing (although it is undoubtedly targeted toward girls to compete with other non--confrontational toys that have proved popular with girls), it is just part of the theme. Ninjago doesn't have firefighters either. I think it is great that Lego has developed a theme that isn't focused on physical confrontation. I have three girls who play with Lego and they request a mix of sets. For Christmas, they requested sets from Friends, Lord of the Rings, and Ninjago. My four year old got a Chima set. They don't see it as a girl vs boy thing.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
moron4hire 13y ago
Her point was that all-encompassing devotion to a corporation was bad for your health.
DanBC 13y ago
Lego had a lego magazine. They then developed a lego girls magazine. Girls were transferred over to the girls magazine automatically. The girls magazine has much fewer build instructions for different projects. Offering two different magazines is fine - here's detailed builds and new kit information; here's a social stuff mag. But automatically offering one to girls and the other to boys is weird.
- facepalm 13y ago
  Difficult move. However, how else could they have pulled of the separation into two magazines? If they didn't subscribe anyone to the new magazines, they might have failed? I agree it could have been handled better. But what if girls actually prefer the girl's magazine? The PC assumptions seems to be to assume that girls only like what they are told to like, but what if there actually are differences in preferences, and marketing is simply reacting to it?
pradocchia 13y ago
Is there any reason to assume that LEGO is really evil? I for one am thankful for it's existence, because my kid is having a lot of fun with it. LEGO is not alone in this regard, but they do create wants out of nothing. So, you have a child, and this child is happy. Then the child sees a LEGO set, the child wants it, and now the child has an unsatisfied want. Child gets LEGO set, set satisfies synthetic want, child is happy again, and welfare returns to its original state. Now, you might argue that there is a net increase in welfare from start to finish, since the child may have learned something new or acquired new experiences. Ok, sure, but after the 4th or 5th set, you are going to see some diminishing returns. And in this regard, LEGO's interests and your interests are opposed.
- facepalm 13y ago
  If there are diminished returns, wouldn't that mean the kids interest has waned and it will move on to other toys? There will always be infinitely more things kids would like to have than you could possibly buy. So you'll have to deal with rejecting wishes anyway. I still prefer them craving for a complicated LEGO model to craving for chocolate or TV shows.
- andrewflnr 13y ago
  Have you played much with legos? If there is a point of diminishing returns, it is far after the 4th or 5th set. Every set linearly increases the number of things you can have built at one time (and yes, that matters), and generally introduces some unique pieces that increase the space of possible models. If it's true that newer models have dramatically less composable pieces, then my argument is weakened, but when I was a kid the only way my sister and I could have had too many legos was if they didn't fit in my room anymore. As for creating wants ex nihilo, well, yeah, but only to the extent that it's true of any company that advertises at all. Entertainment and creation come right after food on a child's list of priorities, sometimes before; generally this is not a synthetic want. I'd rather know about good products like lego than take whatever dreck I stumble upon.
mcv 13y ago
If the alternatives are Hasbro and Mattel, I'm actually quite happy with Lego being so big. As for the pink lego, there are balancing up and downsides there. I totally hate the gendered toy segregation, and Lego now goes along with it. But Lego didn't cause it, and by doing it too, they're probably getting more Lego in the hands of girls, which I consider a good thing. So do something bad in order to achieve something good, or refuse the bad and thereby end up reinforcing it? By not having pink Lego, they'd unintentionally make Lego a boys-only toy. By making gender specific lego, they make lego a toy for everyone again (which it was before this stupid pink rash took over the toy industry).
- facepalm 13y ago
  People can still buy whatever Lego they want. Several people in this thread mentioned buying non-pink Lego for their girls. I have also bought pink Playmobil (big Lego competitor in Germany, don't know about elsewhere) for my son. I think people actually want to differentiate themselves from other people. Pink is just one of many ways of saying "I'm different/special".

icebraining 13y ago

The article is not a justification; it's merely an exposition of the latest manipulation technique employed by them (and others). It should be noted she never uses the word "evil" or any such synonym. The claim is that LEGO is an indifferent entity that tries to manipulate people into buying their stuff religiously, and the article demonstrates the latest form of such manipulation. Whether that's "evil" is left to you, even if the author clearly has an opinion on the subject.

facepalm 13y ago
She doesn't use the word "evil", but her language implies it. For example, near the top "that’s when those Danes have us in their whimsical Scandinavian clutches forever". So she evokes the image of LEGO being some entity with "clutches" - sounds pretty evil to me. Seems the author is not beyond using manipulation either. "The claim is that LEGO is an indifferent entity that tries to manipulate people into buying their stuff religiously" 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. 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. Maybe they simply like their own product, and the enthusiasm shows in the movie? I am not a LEGO expert - I am waiting for somebody to tell me why they are supposedly evil, other than them being successful? I just don't like articles that sort of imply that somebody who is successful has to be evil. It's also banking on the envy we all have in us. Yes it feels good to read such an article, makes us feel better about our own mediocrity. In fact, it being in the NYT, that is probably exactly the point of it: it's OK to be mediocre and never try to change the status quo, as long as you keep reading the NYT and click on it's ads. You're a loser, but hey, you are a better person.
- icebraining 13y ago
  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.)
- ap22213 13y ago
  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.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    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.

dTal 13y ago

I don't see that she stated outright or even implied that LEGO was evil, as such. Just an overpriced, indifferent corporate empire with brilliant, unnerving meta-marketing. I would say that meta-marketing is the focus of the article, with the LEGO movie merely being the centerpiece. And I'm really not sure where you got "apparently LEGO is being held responsible for girls liking pink now" - the only reference to pink was a quote from the movie in question.

facepalm 13y ago
She continues with references to the new LEGO girls world which has no fire fighters and so on. Admitted, she doesn't mention pink, but it has been a recent accusation that LEGO created that pink world without manly jobs in it.
- hrktb 13y ago
  Well, the page on the "Lego friends"site: http://friends.lego.com/en-us/products/41027-mias-lemonade-stand http://friends.lego.com/en-us/products/41027-mias-lemonade-s... I don't see fire fighters or policemen or construction staff, so her statement (and other peoples argument) is valid. How to interpret this fact can be tricky, because there's still more variety than traditional 'girly' toys I think, but when contrasting this with the "City" line of toys (http://www.lego.com/en-us/city http://www.lego.com/en-us/city), the gender bias is blinding.
  - SamuelMulder 13y ago
    The Lego Friends theme doesn't have firefighters because it is focused on social relationships, not overcoming conflict. It doesn't have to be a girl vs boy thing (although it is undoubtedly targeted toward girls to compete with other non--confrontational toys that have proved popular with girls), it is just part of the theme. Ninjago doesn't have firefighters either. I think it is great that Lego has developed a theme that isn't focused on physical confrontation. I have three girls who play with Lego and they request a mix of sets. For Christmas, they requested sets from Friends, Lord of the Rings, and Ninjago. My four year old got a Chima set. They don't see it as a girl vs boy thing.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

moron4hire 13y ago

Her point was that all-encompassing devotion to a corporation was bad for your health.

DanBC 13y ago

Lego had a lego magazine. They then developed a lego girls magazine. Girls were transferred over to the girls magazine automatically. The girls magazine has much fewer build instructions for different projects. Offering two different magazines is fine - here's detailed builds and new kit information; here's a social stuff mag. But automatically offering one to girls and the other to boys is weird.

facepalm 13y ago
Difficult move. However, how else could they have pulled of the separation into two magazines? If they didn't subscribe anyone to the new magazines, they might have failed? I agree it could have been handled better. But what if girls actually prefer the girl's magazine? The PC assumptions seems to be to assume that girls only like what they are told to like, but what if there actually are differences in preferences, and marketing is simply reacting to it?

pradocchia 13y ago

Is there any reason to assume that LEGO is really evil? I for one am thankful for it's existence, because my kid is having a lot of fun with it. LEGO is not alone in this regard, but they do create wants out of nothing. So, you have a child, and this child is happy. Then the child sees a LEGO set, the child wants it, and now the child has an unsatisfied want. Child gets LEGO set, set satisfies synthetic want, child is happy again, and welfare returns to its original state. Now, you might argue that there is a net increase in welfare from start to finish, since the child may have learned something new or acquired new experiences. Ok, sure, but after the 4th or 5th set, you are going to see some diminishing returns. And in this regard, LEGO's interests and your interests are opposed.

facepalm 13y ago
If there are diminished returns, wouldn't that mean the kids interest has waned and it will move on to other toys? There will always be infinitely more things kids would like to have than you could possibly buy. So you'll have to deal with rejecting wishes anyway. I still prefer them craving for a complicated LEGO model to craving for chocolate or TV shows.
andrewflnr 13y ago
Have you played much with legos? If there is a point of diminishing returns, it is far after the 4th or 5th set. Every set linearly increases the number of things you can have built at one time (and yes, that matters), and generally introduces some unique pieces that increase the space of possible models. If it's true that newer models have dramatically less composable pieces, then my argument is weakened, but when I was a kid the only way my sister and I could have had too many legos was if they didn't fit in my room anymore. As for creating wants ex nihilo, well, yeah, but only to the extent that it's true of any company that advertises at all. Entertainment and creation come right after food on a child's list of priorities, sometimes before; generally this is not a synthetic want. I'd rather know about good products like lego than take whatever dreck I stumble upon.

mcv 13y ago

If the alternatives are Hasbro and Mattel, I'm actually quite happy with Lego being so big. As for the pink lego, there are balancing up and downsides there. I totally hate the gendered toy segregation, and Lego now goes along with it. But Lego didn't cause it, and by doing it too, they're probably getting more Lego in the hands of girls, which I consider a good thing. So do something bad in order to achieve something good, or refuse the bad and thereby end up reinforcing it? By not having pink Lego, they'd unintentionally make Lego a boys-only toy. By making gender specific lego, they make lego a toy for everyone again (which it was before this stupid pink rash took over the toy industry).

facepalm 13y ago
People can still buy whatever Lego they want. Several people in this thread mentioned buying non-pink Lego for their girls. I have also bought pink Playmobil (big Lego competitor in Germany, don't know about elsewhere) for my son. I think people actually want to differentiate themselves from other people. Pink is just one of many ways of saying "I'm different/special".