Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

No, that proves it didn't work in the 70s.

[Neonivek]

No, that proves it didn't work in the 70s.

But do you have evidence it would work any other time?

Though from Anita's perspective making it gender neutral is a fix. Yet evidence is contrary to that and to assume that making it gender neutral would fix it, would be asking them to take a genuine risk with nothing to suggest an actual reward.

It isn't like videogames where their evidence that "games about women don't sell is mostly based off of those gawd awful games that gamers know are terrible and thus won't buy.

My personal gripe with "Lego for girls" is more of an emotional one in that... What the heck lego!

[Rolepgeek]

I'm not suggesting they cease making a variety of games. But if their sales go down by putting girls in the commercials?... That would be odd, for one thing.

The risk, in this case, is non-existent; I'm not talking about them changing anything but their marketing methods. Well, it would be nice if they produced a larger variety of toys that would be 'oriented for girls' based on games and/or shows girls like, too, rather than just ones boys like, but nonetheless.

Yes, not being sexist can be a risk. Sometimes it even actually screws you over. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary.

[Neonivek]

The risk, in this case, is non-existent; I'm not talking about them changing anything but their marketing methods.

And how is that without risk?

[penguinofhonor]

No, that proves it didn't work in the 70s.

But do you have evidence it would work any other time?

Yeah, I guess I don't have hard evidence for that. I would like to point out that there's a lot of marketing now that wouldn't work at all 40 years ago because of the social change that's happened since then. Look at all the gay-inclusive ads nowadays, for example.

Also, does Anita argue that the non-gender-segregated Lego commercials sold more Legos? Or just that they're better because they're not sexist?

[Neonivek]

I didn't see it, I assume it is the regular "Non-sexism sells better" stuff and that because they barred girls from playing legos they lost out on all those extra girls.

But lets have the person who did watch it fill us in.

[Reelya]

From what I recall she doesn't really address the sales figures / market aspect at all. Just says unisex Lego is better for ideological reasons rather than market reasons.

If you look over articles however, Lego has been trying to create diverse unisex sets and pro-female sets, all at the same time as they were making space lego and whatnot. So Anita's "they only target boys" argument really just ignores all the different lines they put out which were meant to capture a broad market segment.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-13/business/fi-23521_1_building-blocks

[Neonivek]

Odd...

Because that idea she has completely doesn't work then in a real life context... period.

You have to justify it in some way with capitalism.

So Anita's "they only target boys" argument really just ignores all the different lines they put out which were meant to capture a broad market segment.

Ehhh it is Anita. Pretty standard for her at this point.

[Rolepgeek]

The risk, in this case, is non-existent; I'm not talking about them changing anything but their marketing methods.

And how is that without risk?

Alright, so you believe that them making about half the kids in their commercials girls instead of boys will lead to less Lego sales?

Why do you have to justify not being sexist? Like, ever? Because that idea she has does work insme real life contexts...period.

[Neonivek]

The risk, in this case, is non-existent; I'm not talking about them changing anything but their marketing methods.

And how is that without risk?

Alright, so you believe that them making about half the kids in their commercials girls instead of boys will lead to less Lego sales?

Why do you have to justify not being sexist? Like, ever? Because that idea she has does work insme real life contexts...period.

I believe that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that Anita's solution would solve anything.

And by not justifying it in a capitalist way she is simply complaining for the sake of complaining... because she doesn't give a real world solution even implied.

"Being murdered is bad"... "Ok, well how do we avoid this?"... "Well you see being murdered is bad, so people should stop murdering eachother"... "Genius!"

But instead we have... "Gendered Legos is bad"... "Ok how do we make them more inclusive?"... "We will just stop using gendered legos"... "Genius!"

The reason why it needs a justification is because unless there is a justification there is no solution. If there is no idea of some improvement in the private stakes of the company other then "Anita and her fans will be cross" then they won't change their actions when their current course is working perfectly.

Or rather Anita is looking at Gendered Legos as a problem... But the companies see gendered legos as a solution to another problem.

[Reelya]

If just putting more girls in the ads would double the sales, I'd expect someone would have picked up on that by now. It's too simplistic.

Oh, Lego spends millions of dollars researching designs for Lego sets that will appeal more to girls - but all they had to do was simply show more girls in the TV ads. Aren't they just dummies!

[Neonivek]

Don't get me wrong I hate "Legos for girls" (note: this isn't me disliking... like... Princess sets or anything stereotypically "girly")... But just saying I hate them and I wish they would go away when clearly it is working for Hasbro... Won't make them go away.

I can ride my high horse all across town but it doesn't mean anything.

[Rolepgeek]

If they spent millions of dollars researching designs for girls, why are there so many more for boys?

I'm saying I can see no way in which trying to appeal to girls with their ads as well can harm them, saleswise, but the burden is not entirely on them. A great deal lies with parents and their manner of raising their kids, the toys they buy them, the gender roles they end up ingraining into their children's heads, etc.

[Neonivek]

If they spent millions of dollars researching designs for girls, why are there so many more for boys?

I'm saying I can see no way in which trying to appeal to girls with their ads as well can harm them, saleswise, but the burden is not entirely on them. A great deal lies with parents and their manner of raising their kids, the toys they buy them, the gender roles they end up ingraining into their children's heads, etc.

More stable market, higher market share, prime demographics, less competition, More "guyish" tie ins.

Just kind of realized how stable boy culture is in terms of products.

[Rolepgeek]

What makes boys a prime demographic? Girls are 51% of the population, after all; one would think you'd try to appeal to the greater number. And how many 'build-it-yourself/build-anything' toysets are there out there designed for girls? So I don't see how there's 'less competition'. Not sure how it's a more stable market, and if boys are a higher market share, then Lego could do well by supporting gender equality in toys, since they would have a larger demographic buying their product.