March 5, 2009
Some Kids Play the Old-Fashioned Way
By Bernice Hurst, Managing Partner, Fine
Food Network
The arguments for and against video games
and games consoles are still raging. But for some children (and their parents),
old-fashioned toys such as Lego are still popular. Sales in the U.K. apparently
rose 51 percent last year.
The Times said
that Lego’s chief executive, Jorgen Vig Knudstorp, believes the family-owned business has
"emerged stronger from its crisis earlier in the decade, when it faced
competition from computer gadgets, falling birth rates in the developed world
and Mega Bloks, a Canadian product that exploited
the expiry of Lego’s patent on its plastic bricks."
Marko Ilincic,
U.K. and Ireland managing director, referring to diversification into licensing,
theme parks and merchandising, said, "We had lost our way. We had
started to adapt Lego in a new and different manifestation and we had taken
our eye off our core business, which was toys."
Characters based on Star Wars still remain
popular but a period of debt, restructuring and refinancing has contributed
to Lego being one of the top performers in a Populus poll
for The Times in December 2008 in which parents expressed safety
concerns. One new approach is licensing the brand to console games. Mr. Knudstorp told The
Times, "We were concerned children would play the games and stop
using the Lego toys. But, actually, they move to the toys after the game,
so there’s a synergy there. That’s been encouraging."
The demise of Woolworths is a setback but
Mr. Knudstorp is convinced "we can find
other customers who will take up the volume. Consumers will find the product
eventually if they want it…We’re actually experiencing growth at the
moment." This year’s growth is forecast to be five to 10 percent against
a decline in the toy market generally of two percent year on year. While
other manufacturers cut back spending on new product development, Lego
changes some 60 percent of its range annually. "You have to be coming
to the market with new product every year … because children get bored."
Arguably using different skills and levels
of imagination, it looks like there is still room in the marketplace – and
the home – for both kinds of activity.
Discussion questions: How would you rate
the market opportunity for traditional toys and games in a video gaming
world? What could retailers or toy manufacturers be doing to promote
traditional toys and games?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
That’s why Wii works; it’s a cross-over. Best of both worlds (sort of).
What I find amazing about the video game market is the difference between boys and girls (not that it’s not amazing period). I have 4 kids, 3 girls. The girls couldn’t care less about video games and play much more traditional games. But my boy and his friends would say they could not live without them. They have built an entire world and culture around video games. And honestly, observing the two worlds at play, the girls are interacting with each other more; negotiating, talking, working things out, actually being human. Whereas the boys are yelling at a screen and living in a fantasy world. The difference is amazing.
Has anyone seen a study along these lines? Looking at the ethnographic example in front of my own eyes, is it any wonder that young girls do so much better in school and on the playground (and in business now)??? I know it sounds old school, but what are we creating by ignoring traditional games for boys and letting them stare at a tiny screen for hours? (My son would not talk to me for a week if he knew I wrote this!)
As the world turns…. When the video gaming and toy world gets over saturated with techy games and devices–assuming that would ever happen–then the traditional games and toys revolve back into favor since they then represent the new frontier (of sorts) to kids and parents. But then they eventually lose their luster and a new toy frontier will be sought…and that will be???
There is definitely an opportunity here. If we assume that parents are driving the toy buying decision, we can tailor the marketing message to them. Retailers and manufacturers should stress the benefits of ‘creativity toys’ since there is a such a backlash going on in regards to violent video games. Let’s start talking to the people actually spending the money and make them more informed about what they are actually buying their kids.
Personally, I think parents use video games as a quick fix babysitter and should really focus more on products like Lego, LeapFrog, MegaBloks or anything from the Imaginaruim department at TRU. Even brain related games for Nintendo DS are considered beneficial (Brain Age is probably the most addicting game I have ever played). Kid’s brains are like sponges and we need to be mindful what they soak up.
As a parent with two kids in the prime demographic for toys–4 and 7–and especially the 7-year-old really starting to get into the electronic games–I have two thoughts on this. One is a point raised in the article: the video games and the toys themselves feed off of each other. Whether they come at it from the toys to the games or from the games to the toys, it’s a positive feedback loop that only reinforces kids’ enjoyment of “the brand.” Lego, Hot Wheels, Barbie, and Littlest Pet Shop are all brands that do a pretty good job of that, as my wallet can testify!
The second is just more generally about toys. Classic toys are classic because they have the right combination of fun and challenge. My son is just as likely to sit down with the game Operation as he is with his Nintendo DS. It’s not the video or the whizbang gizmos–it’s something we all worry about in consumer industries. Engagement.
The market for traditional toys and games is still strong. Not every toy purchase is going to be a video game. The first RetailWire article today discussed in-store demonstrations and displays that allow consumers to touch the product. Traditional, non-electronic toys can benefit from offering these types of packaging and demonstrations in stores. Allowing and encouraging kids to get their hands on the toy and play with it will boost sales.
These types of toys require hands, eyes, mind (imagination), and oft times engagement. Video and the like eliminate the last two. We’ve never had many electronic toys in our home and our child is now grown. We never had what I call the ‘TV’ games, ever. I don’t think that ever harmed our child.
A resurgence? Maybe, or maybe not. Nevertheless, I recall in my own childhood summers consisted of Monopoly games on the picnic table in the back yard that lasted days. Yahtzee championships, the same way, outdoors with neighbor friends. There were hours in the garage with ‘Erector Sets’ using Dad’s tools (and of course being yelled at for misplacing them!). A friend got the first ‘Atari’ with the very much archaic graphic of a dot bouncing back and forth. A few days of the amusement found us back outdoors doing the same old things. Some comments today have suggested such. Maybe the difference then was our parents insisted on the same. Biking, wiffle ball, kick ball, board games, erector sets–now that was playing.
Isolation behind a computer screen is just that. In fact, I remember the TV being shut off for us and being told to go outside and get the daylight on your face. We thought the same best for our child. Maybe that’s coming around again. Who knows. Boredom has a great way of returning good sense to many things.
This might be the right time for traditional toys. So many retail trends–more time at home, simplicity, nostalgia–might fit this category. Traditional toys are fun and connect to other children and family in ways that video games surely can’t.
I’m happy to hear of this trend. As a parent of 3 boys under 6, I know how much joy LEGOs can bring (to the kids and to me too). In my opinion they are much more educational than both video screen entertainment and new-fangled non-video toys like LeapFrog.
As a businessperson, I wonder how much LEGO thinks about how their consumers use the toy. My 5 year-old puts together the set according to the instructions once when he gets the toy, and maybe once every month or two after that. The rest of the time, he’s creating something new out of the blocks. Now, I appreciate the fact that LEGO has moved towards more complex and specialized sets (Star Wars, City, etc.) that allow LEGO to make money by exciting kids and parents with the image of the perfectly created end product. But I wonder if there’s a way for LEGO to make money off of the other part too–the unstructured play. I could imagine community-based ideas (LEGO mini-camp?), block repurposing ideas available online, items to help you integrate across sets (put the City together?), etc.
There is great opportunity for Lego and other traditional games and toys. I echo Nikki’s comments that my 3 year old ping pongs between the video games and the toys (and also the homemade Lego videos on You Tube–pretty amazing!)
Lego does have some holes, I’ve observed, in their understanding of the consumer. Specifically, there is not enough variety (especially in Star Wars, other licensed themes) in the Duplo line to make it compelling to the younger set. And the Lego stores do not showcase the products well nor adequately reflect creativity, social interaction, or the other elements of the Lego experience. The brand can and should be communicating much more at retail, whether in other toy retailers or in their own stores.
Of course, it’s up to the parents. As a quick reference, today’s parents are those who refer to themselves in the third person (“Daddy loves you”), try to reason with children who’ve no capacity to do so, and end all of their child-directed sentences with “okaaaay?” Most of them are idiots, incapable of making any type of meaningful decisions, including the best toys for their kids.
Still, I’d rather take a barefooted step on an electronic control wire than a Lego block. Ouch!, those suckers hurt and my wife and I have the scars to prove it!
I love the recent ESPN commercial featuring Shaquille O’Neal playing Scrabble and possessing an inordinate number of high-score Q tiles. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Wii for our kids. But, what about games that influence their fast-twitch synapses along with their fast-twitch muscle fibers? Not Barbie or Bratz-licious? Apologies for being disconnected from the plastic world.
This is a stupid exercise in that it addresses children as adults. They’re not adults with the capacity for reason or with the rights of individuals. They’re children, in the care of the adults who produced them. Children are not adults, and any idiot or psychopath who thinks and acts otherwise is guilty of child abuse.
Here’s the end game: Children will go where you lead them, and that’s your responsibility. Kids play chess. Who knew? Responsible parents knew. How about you?
I have a very young niece. The entire family tree has bought her countless toys…stuffed animals, dolls, those fancy plastic kitchen set-ups you name it, etch a sketch things, Dora, etc….
She finds almost all of them boring. She might look and play with them for 5 minutes, then drop it to the ground never to be looked at again.
The few things she is very interested in is dressing up like Disney Princesses, watching some cartoon or Disney on TV or asking someone to sit her in front of the PC to check out Dora or Sesame Street’s web site to play interactive games, sing-alongs and simply just to hear the characters say goofy things.
Like most males, I always found electronic gizmos and board games by far the most entertaining when I was young. Hungry Hippos was the best! All those Legos, GI JOEs and such were great for half hour, but boring after.
I disagree with anyone saying electronic gizmos like video games being bad. Yes, they have zero physical activity to them. But so do most other toys like dolls, building blocks, train sets etc….
Basic electronic gadgets are not only pretty interactive with all sorts of sounds and functions, but also give the young child familiarity with electronics–something that’s been important for the past 20 years. Reminds me of my parents and older co-workers who didn’t grow up with gadgets, so their tech and PC skills are virtually zero now. All pen and paper, which is slow, prone to errors, and inefficient.
More advanced gadgets like video games have their pros and cons. They can be expensive with possibly little trade in value, if the game turns out to be a dud. But if the kid likes it, it’s fun, leads to problem solving and definitely improves hand/eye coordination. There is no doubt in my mind, that out of all the friends I grew up with and continue to hold today, that there is a definite correlation between high skill and hand/eye coordination with the gamers. This also seems to translate into sports. The gamers all seem to be pretty adept and quick with playing sports. The non-gamers seem to be pretty hesitant and less confident in physical activity. Maybe it’s lucky correlation, but it seems so true for me.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
That’s why Wii works; it’s a cross-over. Best of both worlds (sort of).
What I find amazing about the video game market is the difference between boys and girls (not that it’s not amazing period). I have 4 kids, 3 girls. The girls couldn’t care less about video games and play much more traditional games. But my boy and his friends would say they could not live without them. They have built an entire world and culture around video games. And honestly, observing the two worlds at play, the girls are interacting with each other more; negotiating, talking, working things out, actually being human. Whereas the boys are yelling at a screen and living in a fantasy world. The difference is amazing.
Has anyone seen a study along these lines? Looking at the ethnographic example in front of my own eyes, is it any wonder that young girls do so much better in school and on the playground (and in business now)??? I know it sounds old school, but what are we creating by ignoring traditional games for boys and letting them stare at a tiny screen for hours? (My son would not talk to me for a week if he knew I wrote this!)
As the world turns…. When the video gaming and toy world gets over saturated with techy games and devices–assuming that would ever happen–then the traditional games and toys revolve back into favor since they then represent the new frontier (of sorts) to kids and parents. But then they eventually lose their luster and a new toy frontier will be sought…and that will be???
There is definitely an opportunity here. If we assume that parents are driving the toy buying decision, we can tailor the marketing message to them. Retailers and manufacturers should stress the benefits of ‘creativity toys’ since there is a such a backlash going on in regards to violent video games. Let’s start talking to the people actually spending the money and make them more informed about what they are actually buying their kids.
Personally, I think parents use video games as a quick fix babysitter and should really focus more on products like Lego, LeapFrog, MegaBloks or anything from the Imaginaruim department at TRU. Even brain related games for Nintendo DS are considered beneficial (Brain Age is probably the most addicting game I have ever played). Kid’s brains are like sponges and we need to be mindful what they soak up.
As a parent with two kids in the prime demographic for toys–4 and 7–and especially the 7-year-old really starting to get into the electronic games–I have two thoughts on this. One is a point raised in the article: the video games and the toys themselves feed off of each other. Whether they come at it from the toys to the games or from the games to the toys, it’s a positive feedback loop that only reinforces kids’ enjoyment of “the brand.” Lego, Hot Wheels, Barbie, and Littlest Pet Shop are all brands that do a pretty good job of that, as my wallet can testify!
The second is just more generally about toys. Classic toys are classic because they have the right combination of fun and challenge. My son is just as likely to sit down with the game Operation as he is with his Nintendo DS. It’s not the video or the whizbang gizmos–it’s something we all worry about in consumer industries. Engagement.
The market for traditional toys and games is still strong. Not every toy purchase is going to be a video game. The first RetailWire article today discussed in-store demonstrations and displays that allow consumers to touch the product. Traditional, non-electronic toys can benefit from offering these types of packaging and demonstrations in stores. Allowing and encouraging kids to get their hands on the toy and play with it will boost sales.
These types of toys require hands, eyes, mind (imagination), and oft times engagement. Video and the like eliminate the last two. We’ve never had many electronic toys in our home and our child is now grown. We never had what I call the ‘TV’ games, ever. I don’t think that ever harmed our child.
A resurgence? Maybe, or maybe not. Nevertheless, I recall in my own childhood summers consisted of Monopoly games on the picnic table in the back yard that lasted days. Yahtzee championships, the same way, outdoors with neighbor friends. There were hours in the garage with ‘Erector Sets’ using Dad’s tools (and of course being yelled at for misplacing them!). A friend got the first ‘Atari’ with the very much archaic graphic of a dot bouncing back and forth. A few days of the amusement found us back outdoors doing the same old things. Some comments today have suggested such. Maybe the difference then was our parents insisted on the same. Biking, wiffle ball, kick ball, board games, erector sets–now that was playing.
Isolation behind a computer screen is just that. In fact, I remember the TV being shut off for us and being told to go outside and get the daylight on your face. We thought the same best for our child. Maybe that’s coming around again. Who knows. Boredom has a great way of returning good sense to many things.
This might be the right time for traditional toys. So many retail trends–more time at home, simplicity, nostalgia–might fit this category. Traditional toys are fun and connect to other children and family in ways that video games surely can’t.
I’m happy to hear of this trend. As a parent of 3 boys under 6, I know how much joy LEGOs can bring (to the kids and to me too). In my opinion they are much more educational than both video screen entertainment and new-fangled non-video toys like LeapFrog.
As a businessperson, I wonder how much LEGO thinks about how their consumers use the toy. My 5 year-old puts together the set according to the instructions once when he gets the toy, and maybe once every month or two after that. The rest of the time, he’s creating something new out of the blocks. Now, I appreciate the fact that LEGO has moved towards more complex and specialized sets (Star Wars, City, etc.) that allow LEGO to make money by exciting kids and parents with the image of the perfectly created end product. But I wonder if there’s a way for LEGO to make money off of the other part too–the unstructured play. I could imagine community-based ideas (LEGO mini-camp?), block repurposing ideas available online, items to help you integrate across sets (put the City together?), etc.
There is great opportunity for Lego and other traditional games and toys. I echo Nikki’s comments that my 3 year old ping pongs between the video games and the toys (and also the homemade Lego videos on You Tube–pretty amazing!)
Lego does have some holes, I’ve observed, in their understanding of the consumer. Specifically, there is not enough variety (especially in Star Wars, other licensed themes) in the Duplo line to make it compelling to the younger set. And the Lego stores do not showcase the products well nor adequately reflect creativity, social interaction, or the other elements of the Lego experience. The brand can and should be communicating much more at retail, whether in other toy retailers or in their own stores.
Of course, it’s up to the parents. As a quick reference, today’s parents are those who refer to themselves in the third person (“Daddy loves you”), try to reason with children who’ve no capacity to do so, and end all of their child-directed sentences with “okaaaay?” Most of them are idiots, incapable of making any type of meaningful decisions, including the best toys for their kids.
Still, I’d rather take a barefooted step on an electronic control wire than a Lego block. Ouch!, those suckers hurt and my wife and I have the scars to prove it!
I love the recent ESPN commercial featuring Shaquille O’Neal playing Scrabble and possessing an inordinate number of high-score Q tiles. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Wii for our kids. But, what about games that influence their fast-twitch synapses along with their fast-twitch muscle fibers? Not Barbie or Bratz-licious? Apologies for being disconnected from the plastic world.
This is a stupid exercise in that it addresses children as adults. They’re not adults with the capacity for reason or with the rights of individuals. They’re children, in the care of the adults who produced them. Children are not adults, and any idiot or psychopath who thinks and acts otherwise is guilty of child abuse.
Here’s the end game: Children will go where you lead them, and that’s your responsibility. Kids play chess. Who knew? Responsible parents knew. How about you?
I have a very young niece. The entire family tree has bought her countless toys…stuffed animals, dolls, those fancy plastic kitchen set-ups you name it, etch a sketch things, Dora, etc….
She finds almost all of them boring. She might look and play with them for 5 minutes, then drop it to the ground never to be looked at again.
The few things she is very interested in is dressing up like Disney Princesses, watching some cartoon or Disney on TV or asking someone to sit her in front of the PC to check out Dora or Sesame Street’s web site to play interactive games, sing-alongs and simply just to hear the characters say goofy things.
Like most males, I always found electronic gizmos and board games by far the most entertaining when I was young. Hungry Hippos was the best! All those Legos, GI JOEs and such were great for half hour, but boring after.
I disagree with anyone saying electronic gizmos like video games being bad. Yes, they have zero physical activity to them. But so do most other toys like dolls, building blocks, train sets etc….
Basic electronic gadgets are not only pretty interactive with all sorts of sounds and functions, but also give the young child familiarity with electronics–something that’s been important for the past 20 years. Reminds me of my parents and older co-workers who didn’t grow up with gadgets, so their tech and PC skills are virtually zero now. All pen and paper, which is slow, prone to errors, and inefficient.
More advanced gadgets like video games have their pros and cons. They can be expensive with possibly little trade in value, if the game turns out to be a dud. But if the kid likes it, it’s fun, leads to problem solving and definitely improves hand/eye coordination. There is no doubt in my mind, that out of all the friends I grew up with and continue to hold today, that there is a definite correlation between high skill and hand/eye coordination with the gamers. This also seems to translate into sports. The gamers all seem to be pretty adept and quick with playing sports. The non-gamers seem to be pretty hesitant and less confident in physical activity. Maybe it’s lucky correlation, but it seems so true for me.