[52 / 18 / 17]
I know I'm nowhere near the first person to speculate or critisize, but I've been thinking about this for quite some time...
The simple answer is obviously because money. Up until 2011, 90% of Lego's consumers were boys. This should come as no surpise to anyone who recognizes and acknowledges the inherent differences between the two genders.
The financial reasons are clear, but I'm more interested in the psychological, biological, social, and cultural impetuses; As well as their implications. So why wasn't Lego good enough for girls? Well... what is Lego?
Lego is a building toy. It's an inventive, conceptual, abstract puzzle game with miniature action figurines. Basically, Lego took the appeal of Lincoln Logs, added a dash of Playmobil, and exponentially expanded on it.
>So? Girls like Playmobil. Lincoln Logs? Girls love dollhouses. Miniature figurines? Girls play with those too! Look at the profits of toy lines like Polly Pocket and Littlest Pet Shop. What's the difference?
The simple answer is obviously because money. Up until 2011, 90% of Lego's consumers were boys. This should come as no surpise to anyone who recognizes and acknowledges the inherent differences between the two genders.
The financial reasons are clear, but I'm more interested in the psychological, biological, social, and cultural impetuses; As well as their implications. So why wasn't Lego good enough for girls? Well... what is Lego?
Lego is a building toy. It's an inventive, conceptual, abstract puzzle game with miniature action figurines. Basically, Lego took the appeal of Lincoln Logs, added a dash of Playmobil, and exponentially expanded on it.
>So? Girls like Playmobil. Lincoln Logs? Girls love dollhouses. Miniature figurines? Girls play with those too! Look at the profits of toy lines like Polly Pocket and Littlest Pet Shop. What's the difference?
