Live data from Hacker News

Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

joshsummers.co.uk

41–50 of 146 posts

Re: Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

#41

"What happened with Legos, they used to be simple. Oh come on, I know you know what I'm talking about, Legos were simple. Something happened out here while I was inside. Harry Potter Legos, Star Wars Legos, complicated kits, tiny little blocks. I mean I'm not saying its bad I just wanna know what happened." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVCOAFKjaoY

I'm glad that there are complicated kits to choose from. Sadly my kids don't stay two years old forever.

Re: Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What comes first, the desire for gendered products or the gendered products?

> What comes first, the desire for gendered products or the gendered products? Apparently the desire. Toddlers pick gendered products on their own (for some forms of them). There was some studies about this behavior.

Well, if the toddlers can pick, the gendered products were there first.

But it is true that kids even make gendered toys out of practically nothing. For instance, a local kindergarten here: three-year-old boys were forbidden to have toy guns. So the kids took some flat crispbread at the midday meal and chewed edges off to make it gun-shaped, and then started playing cops and robbers. Bang bang.

Re: Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

#43

Lego is now only a 3D jigsaw puzzle, sadly. Lego Classic has just arrived in the UK but it seems a half-hearted piece of mummery to me.

There have been Lego Creative sets available for ages in UK.

I agree that other kits are just a bunch on non-general blocks and tiny pieces.

Re: Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What comes first, the desire for gendered products or the gendered products? Apparently the desire. Toddlers pick gendered products on their own (for some forms of them). There was some studies about this behavior.

Well, if the toddlers can pick, the gendered products were there first. But it is true that kids even make gendered toys out of practically nothing. For instance, a local kindergarten here: three-year-old boys were forbidden to have toy guns. So the kids took some flat crispbread at the midday meal and chewed edges off to make it gun-shaped, and then started playing cops and robbers. Bang bang.

A child-made toy gun is not a gendered toy.

A gendered toy would be a toy gun packaged in a blue box with only images of boys on the packaging.

Re: Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

#46

    recent studies have proven that praising a child’s 
    effort over the childs acheivements is the correct way   
    to raise a little person that will do well
I think this claim is mistaken. The article backs the claim up with a link which discusses something different: whether to praise effort or praise attributes of the person e.g. "you are so smart!". Praising achievement is a third category of praise where consequences are assessed and not personal qualities.

I'm confident that positive and negative feedback about achievement are incredibly important moreso than acknowledging effort. Praising the attributes of a person is clearly just flattery so I don't know why anyone would do it or need a study to point it out.

Were you to praise effort and not assess achievement, you will train people to look like they are working hard rather than actually achieving anything and not give them the feedback that will help them truly excel.

Re: Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

#47
post #2

Both the product and the ad are highly representative of '70s Nordic social ethics and aesthetics. A single product line called "Universal Building Sets" is an almost Platonic ideal of democratic creativity. Today's Lego has 33 product lines: http://www.lego.com/en-us/products When your Legos are branded as "Chima", "Bionicle", "Ninjago", "Marvel(tm) Super Heroes" or "Disney(r) Star Wars(tm)", it's expected that you…

They had no choice, the "univeral building blocks" patent ended not long ago, facing competition now, they had to find sustainable cash flow.

Given how long ago it expired and how terrible the competition is I think Lego is the poster company for showing that execution quality is crucial.

Re: Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the two boxes on the poster, they don't look that "universal" - it's a truck and the other one a house. Today's boxes I guess are just better categorized, but not that different.

These boxes only have standard pieces, which is why the truck and house look boxy. Today's boxes include too many specific pieces. Car hood, top, helicopter nose, etc. Pieces that can't be used for anything else that what they're designed for, and can't be replaced if lost. So you can't take it appart to build something different.

I actually think that the "Lego Movie" set is a perfect example of unbound creativity. Pretty much every set uses parts which do not match with their original use,and yet they are all used to build interesting things. The worst Lego bricks are the ones which have something painted/written on them, that usually does limit the applications.

Re: Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had no choice, the "univeral building blocks" patent ended not long ago, facing competition now, they had to find sustainable cash flow.

The competition is terrible though. Have you tried assembling any other "compatible" building set? The bricks aren't finished properly, some just pop off, and it all falls to bits easily. I'd say the nearest competition to Lego is probably 60% the quality of Lego.

No I'm just telling what I read from an article a few years back when new brands started to pop in stores. I wonder if parents/kids may see the quality rightaway. LEGOs were an expensive gift in my days. If I was asking for more toys, I'm sure my parents would be tempted to buy a lower priced brand.

Re: Lego’s 1981 Ad Campaign

#50

recent studies have proven that praising a child’s effort over the childs acheivements is the correct way to raise a little person that will do well I think this claim is mistaken. The article backs the claim up with a link which discusses something different: whether to praise effort or praise attributes of the person e.g. "you are so smart!". Praising achievement is a third category of praise where consequences are…

I don't have sources but I'm sure I've read studies against praising achievement. I'm sure if combined well with praising effort it can work well, but it should be a way of helping judge effort, not praised for and of itself. For example if a child constantly gets Bs in a certain subject then getting an A can be an indicator that they've put more effort in - but the A itself shouldn't be the reason for the praise.
Post reply on HN