Just to be a little more clear: I’m doing my best to update y’all on everything that I can 100% confirm as accurate. This is mostly because I’m being asked pretty regularly, both on here in Discord, via PM and in this topic, if I have any new info. It might not be super salient info - I’m not claiming that it is. However, it’s still new information nonetheless.
Additionally, I have plenty of things that I’m 75-80% sure about via my research and the folks with whom I’m holding these discussions; that said, it won’t make its way here unless I’m entirely certain.
I’m not saying it was a good strategy. I’m just saying that they looked at G1, and made a decision based on that. [quote=“Ghidora131, post:361, topic:40794”]
start making deals to attract attention.
[/quote]
But if no one wants it, it really doesn’t matter how much attention you attract, does it? [quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
I don’t think that it’s a “good” sample size, as it could definitely stand to be larger
[/quote]
Depends on the experiment, and what you want your confidence interval to be. For one person collecting data, I would argue that n = 100 is impressive. I usually stick to n = 30 so I can apply the Central Limit Theorem. [quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
Quite honestly, this is just a silly debate to be having
[/quote]
Are we debating whether Bionicle sold poorly or if stores still have them in stock? (These may not be mutually exclusive). Designing an experiment to find the probability that a store still carries Bionicle isn’t that hard. (It’s doing the experiment that is). I suppose that is related to whether or not it sold well, the higher the probability a store carries Bionicle still, the poorer it sold. But that in itself would need to be proven. [quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
TLG has hundreds of experts employed to do just that; I’ll trust them instead, thanks.
[/quote]
I’ll trust their experts too, but I’m not convinced that the Twitter account consults them, and neither are some others on this board. For the record, I do believe that Bionicle sold okay, but not because Lego said so. [quote=“Azani, post:362, topic:40794”]
This is consistent with the “leakers” claims
[/quote]
For summer 2015, there was a rumor that we were getting “ghost” sets. The “leaker” correctly called 2/3 new CCBS armor pieces (showed up in SW) and the spring fire launcher (also in SW). The ghost sets, however, never happened. Simply because a “leaker” is right about some things, doesn’t mean they’re 100% accurate. [quote=“ColdGoldLazarus, post:370, topic:40794, full:true”]
I don’t even know who’s arguing for what at this point
[/quote]
I am arguing that there will not be a new CCBS/constraction theme come 2018, and that Bionicle G2 did okay.
And yeah, I’d change my earlier stance and say that you’re pretty dead on there, assuming that it’s random - I mean, considering the number of consumers involved, it might benefit from being slightly larger, but it would likely be fine anyway.
I’m pretty sure that we’re debating whether or not it sold poorly. Sure, an experiment could be designed, but it would be really tough to execute properly, and likely not the best use of resources when one considers what we’d, y’know, do with the conclusions. That said, anyone is welcome to try it.
Well, I’ve never argued that G2 sold well, as a matter of distinction. That’s definitely not the crux of my argument; rather, I’m making the case that none of us on the MBs have the requisite data to appropriately and effectively judge the situation. You’re making a very good point about the Twitter account, and I’m certainly not blindly accepting what TLG says. I’d agree that they probably don’t know the whole truth as well. However, I do think that it may be telling that the only information on it that comes “straight from the horse’s mouth”, so to speak, claims that sales were alright. (Not great, but alright.)
Yes, I know that. I think that I’ve made it very, very abundantly clear that I do not think that this is proof. Not sure why everyone seems to think that that’s what I’m saying.
As a side note, the fellow that you’re referring to later came out and publically admitted that any “intel” that he had on the sets was a guess. However, this is totally irrelevant to my point here, as I’ve stated 3 or 4 times now that I’m simply offering updates, as I’m constantly getting asked for more info.
In a nutshell, you’ve literally reversed the one or two statements I’ve made about how you’re not paying attention to what I’m pointing out, barely acknowledging it to begin with.
I get it that this is a tricky subject, but if the evidence I’ve pointed out here can’t convince you, then… I’m sorry. Until you change your mind on your own or do the work I’ve done on your own, or listen to anyone else in the LEGO field that I’ve spoken with who’s run the numbers for themselves… You’re going to continue to think LEGO Bionicle G2 did well, maybe even great. In the meantime, I’m not going to be discussing this further, at least not here.
One more thing before I go:
Cough
And you’re probably right. However, let’s run over the possible circumstances with a New CCBS theme:
That’s about it. There’s more financial statistics in that, but I won’t bore you with the mathematics behind it.
LEGO hasn’t made as much money from the Star Wars constraction as they probably hoped, probably only as much recently as the first wave of G2. Which might be a contributor to the massive sales decline in 2017, but there’s multiple factors to that.
Seeing this, LEGO would probably advertise a new gimmick in any potential lines, which would go (in layman’s terms) like this:
-Lego releases NewCCBS
-Star Wars Constraction suffers
-LEGO Includes special gimmick to increase sales
Now there’s two possibilities to the special gimmick:
-The special gimmick works, sales increase
-Given the theme, Star Wars Constaction either
suffers mildly or slowly increases income
Or:
-The special gimmick fails, sales plummet
-LEGO recalls G2 and decides individual
Constraction themes are doomed, cans the line
Nobody wants to see it end like this, so my suggestion so it doesn’t end like our Bionicle dreams (twice :'c RIP) is love it even if you don’t.
Tell all your friends about it, buy it whenever you can afford, etc. Don’t trash talk it much at all! we need a Constraction theme that will show LEGO we actually still like Constraction, even if it’s CCBS.
Y’know, that brings up an interesting question: What would a 2018 Galidor be like? (i.e. LEGO bought the liscense entirely and rebooted it for some dumb reason)
I’ve seen no logic to back up that G2 sold well. So let’s look at the stuff we already know.
Bionicle G2 was planned for three years and then cancelled a year early.
Sets were almost immediately being taken off shelves after the line was cancelled. Almost everyone across this website and other websites confirmed this, and it happened with all the the big retailer stores that are in my area, and nearby as well.
There was hardly any advertising besides the NYCC Panel and the occasional commercial. For the first year this would’ve been an ok start, but after a whole year the occasional commercial does not give a lot of attention to people.
All in all. These are very clear signs that Bionicle G2 did not sell particularly well. Yes, we don’t know exactly how much it sold, but these aren’t good things for a franchise. If a toy line does not get enough attention and cut a year short then it is clearly not profitable.
To be honest, I don’t have time right now to respond to all of this fairly, but I’ll stop by for a second to say that these are all very valid and reasonable points. Apologies for the initial harsh response. I’ll see if I can get back to this tomorrow.
And really quick, the logic that supports the idea that G2 sold alright (not necessarily well) was that:
A. TLG is likely the only reliable source for sales data.
B. Official TLG social media stated that the line “was successful”.
It’s debatable if that’s evidence enough, obviously; however, just for the record, that is the logic that exists. I’ve been making the case that none of us know enough to extrapolate in any meaningful way, and I’m unlikely to switch that up.
For specific statistics this is likely true. But that doesn’t change the fact that if something is clearly not performing up to expectations, then it’s not doing well. I’m not saying it sold horrendously (nearly two years means it was still making some sort of profit), but if it was a cut more than a year early, than sales were definitely getting worse.
Social media doesn’t always tell the truth. Lego has been known to have an odd history online, especially on their twitter.
You absolutely did, and I missed it. By bad. [quote=“Ghidora131, post:375, topic:40794”]
I won’t bore you with the mathematics behind it
[/quote]
I’m a Stats major. Go for it. [quote=“Ghidora131, post:375, topic:40794”]
massive sales decline in 2017
[/quote]
I’m going to go ahead and open up the worm can and ask how you know this. [quote=“Azani, post:384, topic:40794”]
A. and B. together are a logical conclusion based on evidence
[/quote]
Yes. To all the people who believe G2 did badly, there is as much testimony saying it sold great as there is saying it did not. Anecdotal evidence can be very misleading. It has been scientifically documented that towns which believed themselves to have an outbreak of a disease actually did not, but the anecdotal evidence caused them to convince themselves of it. Our best evidence is that Lego said it did okay. And if @Azani is right (I’m not saying he is) it would be further evidence to support Lego’s official G2 stance. [quote=“PeppyBricks, post:383, topic:40794”]
Whoever wrote this may not have had sufficient data, and/or decided to say this to calm down some fans.
[/quote]
Not having sufficient data is one thing. Outright making a policy decision to “calm down” the fans can be a fire-able offense at some companies. I think it’s more the former and less the latter.
Yeah, sorry if I sounded rude, man; I really didn’t mean to come off that way, if I did. I’ve just found myself repeating things a lot lately, both here and elsewhere on the 'net. No worries.
I want to reiterate that I might be wrong, and I’m totally opne to that; heck, I usually love having these discussions. I haven’t seen a lot of hard, provable evidence yet, but I’d like to see some.
Apparently I live under a rock. Thanks, I missed this. Is this all themes, or just SW constraction, of a combination do you know? It’s fine if you don’t just wondering. [quote=“Ghidora131, post:388, topic:40794”]
edit that from G3 to G2
[/quote]
Ahhhh. Interesting. That might be relevant to this discussion then. If @Azani is right, perhaps Lego is looking for their next Bionicle to dig themselves out of their perceived hole.
