Quoted By:
Well, I guess that's what I find myself asking. Why was Lego, a massively successful, seemingly quite gender-neutral toy, produced in a self-proclaimed equality/egalitarian utopia, chopped liver to the average girl?
As it turns out, Lego had been wondering the same thing for many years since it's launch in the 1930's, and in the mid-2000's began spending tons of those Bionicle bucks on marketing research to answer that very question.
In one study involving castle sets, they found that upon completion, girls were disappointed with the lack of interior details in the buildings and quickly got bored fantasizing about feasts with no flatware,
while boys spent most of their time simulating knight battles on the outside, merely using the structures as background and environmental obstacles. Perhaps unsurpisingly, many boys also destroyed their casltes as well.
The rigorous research only reaffirmed Lego's concerns that something about their toys just wasn't connecting with the female market. Girls simply weren't into bricks like boys were. Not to mention the minifig issue...
For some reason, girls had a hard time identifying with the minifigs despite numerous trials with figures of different genders, themes, outfits and accessories. They were "too blocky", with unrealistic proportions.
After a decade of failed attempts, Lego appears to have finally found the solution to their gender problem; Making their sets more like dollhouses, and completely doing away with minifigs, instead introducing "mini-dolls".
The numbers don't lie. Despite initial controversy surrounding Lego Friends involving gender stereotypes, and criticisms like "too much pink", Friends now consistently outsells every other theme, second only to Star Wars.
With the passing of the 10 year anniversary, I'm curious what /toy/ thinks about this theme. Is Lego wrong for changing to reach a wider audience? Is this even Lego, or is it some weird Barbie/Polly Pocket hybrid?
Share your thoughts and opinions below.
