Obviously paid cause she said the story was “quite complex”, or she is a very simple minded person and/or has a very low view of kids intelligence to even say such things. I mean cmon guys.
“All the kids at his school are sneaking them into their backpacks to battle at playtime.”…wut, G2, nope (heck I dont recall any kid doing this in rescent times with any toy, much less G2 Bionicle).
PS: They are pretty much late with this positive fake marketing, since the line is dead as it can be (but how if all the kids are sneaking them to school to play with, its imposibruu, “Bionicle sold well”).
Yeah, that was weird. Especially for the simplicity of G2’s story. It’s just odd because I’ve never heard of Lego paying people to do stuff like this, but than again she goes and lists like all the Toa’s personalities. Was Lego that desperate that they’d pay people’s off to promote the line?
XD, I wasn’t looking for it. I was just googling BIONICLE and then found an image that said something about it being a craze and was like wha-? I know there isn’t any journalistic integrity but it’s interesting to get a different perspective than that of ours. But this one was probably paid off.
This is all unfounded speculation, based on half-baked assumptions. We have no bases for claiming that she was paid, let alone that it was a marketing attempt. In fact, according to LEGO, G2 did at the very least, decent.
The way I see it, her son enjoyed BIONICLE, not unlike I did in G1. Like him, I’d also bring them with me to school in elementary, and I’d play with other kids who brought theirs as well at recess. There is no reason that her story should be doubted.
That seems totally legit to me (btw we had already discussed this same article long ago, and no one thought it made no sense).
First, G2, even though it might not be super convoluted, compared to many toy lines has a story that is indeed moderately complex, especially for very young kids. Second, the fact that in that area the line was super popular is completely plausible (I mean it’s not like because bionicle underperformed it must have sold poorly everywhere. I can guarantee you that in many places, including where I live, it sold fine). Also the sneaking the toy into the backpack thing is something everyone everywhere has done in elementary school.
Overall I think it’s more of her assumptions about the toys than anything else.
Nobody believed the idea of Disney buying Marvel, everyone knows its fake except for the younger members on the Lego message boards and the person who reported on it originally for views/news/trolling.
Well you aint the rest of the people. General concensus says it wasnt anything near a complex story, nor that popular. You are entitled to believe what you want, but the “sold well” thing seems like a fat lie or an incredible flawed view from a perspective of a non fully ingadged person.
Today kids are more likely to sneak in ther tablets than toys.
If by general consensus you mean the observations of 400 ish bionicle fans on the internet, then yes the story wasn’t that complex. However, as Altair pointed out, for a young child and compared to most toy lines it was reasonably complex, we just saw it as a let down because it couldn’t hold a candle to G1’s very complex storyline.
Your point about sales is very flawed, of course there are places where bionicle sold like hotcakes; near where i live is one. You cant say someone is making up a “big lie” about sales just because said product didn’t sell as well in your area. Even if you are basing your views on sales from what you’ve seen on here, the world is a big place, we could all easily not be near places where bionicle did sell well, even though some of us undoubtedly live in areas where bionicle did sell well. There are so many shops etc which stocked bionicle, our small community can only have visited a small amount of these, so many shops our community didn’t look could have had bionicle as a top seller. Also Lego described the sales as “solid” so for intents and purposes it did “sell well”. You don’t need to be fully engaged in something to see whether it is selling well either, I’d say the fact she was the one buying the sets is a good enough view on things to make a judgement on how it appears to be selling.
You aren’t “the rest of people either” making claims based upon a small online community’s observations is just as bad, you can’t judge something worldwide based on your own very small and limited point of view. And then by extension reach the conclusion someone must be lying, claim it as fact and claim “Lego must have paid them”. The sales of a product aren’t the same everywhere and vary wildly between areas, have you visited all these areas and seen how bionicle is selling? No - well then in that case you cannot say how something is selling in someone’s own area when you haven’t seen it yourself.
Just because we are living in a digital age doesn’t mean every single kid is addicted to, or more interested, in tablets etc that other toys like action figures and the like, and therefore more interested in taking those, rather than toys, into school That is a very broad and generalised statement that isn’t necessarily true. Why do you think companies like Lego are doing so well if kids care more for technology than “traditional” toys now?
@TeslaEffect that sentence makes no sense? All I can gather is that your saying 1 kid doesn’t equal every kid, which is obviously correct?
Using your way of thinking, 1 kid given example from a Mom on the internet is not every kid.
Because they are transfering to a more digital approach towards kids through ether digital media (like movies, shows, games, internet sites). Lego toys themselves are rather versitile toys to begin with, being able to be used not just for the intended use, which is why you see older people using them as well. The quote you seem to not understands about kids not bringing lego toys to their schools stems from a rather lengthy observants of current generations I had recently. I have been working in different schools with kids of different age groups, social and economic standings. I have also had the chance to see how it was abroad in other countries. Kids today are more likely to bring their taplets than toys to school (or rather mobiles to be specific). That kind of behavior that you are talking about is few and far between. And even if they dont have mobiles or are not interested in them, LEGOs are not the toys they would bring to schools, they are far too easy to lose and expensive, if any younger kid brings something, its a cheaper toy (thats what I have done in the past when it was a larger thing). I have never seen in all my life a kid taking LEGOs to kindergarden or school, to a playground sure, the previous not really.
Take that as you will, I dont care about any further discussion over this since its a difference in perspective based on where we live and current viewpoint experiences, and it will go nowhere.
All of this is the observations of one man, you cannot take one observation you have and use it to claim it as a fact therefore that a mother is lying about her child taking bionicles to school and she must have been paid by Lego. For example:
And yet Tarvaax already said he did (along with kids at his school) I have as well.
Quite the contrary, I and others are pointing you can’t just use the perspective based on where live to say someone is lying. As I pointed out, I already found out one of your observations from your own experience (kids not taking Lego into school) isn’t representative of all kids. So you can’t say the mother is lying about her child doing that, and you can’t then say most kids would rather take in a tablet rather than toy. You say that kids preferring toys over tablets etc and taking toys into school rather than tabelts (or would like to) are “few and far between”, they might be, however you can’t claim that as fact since it is based on your own personal observations and experiences, which I’ve already proved doesn’t make it fact and true of all kids (not taking Lego into school since it is too expensive and easy to lose).
Those will be my last points since you want to leave this part of discussion
For those curious, i ended up buying Tahu (he was hidden next to the row of Skull Bashers)
Every layer of this was packed with Bionicle sets, the only exception being the top two layers which only had a single line of figures at the front to fill shelve space until the 2017 sets arrive.
I also spoke with the store explaining my confusion about the sets and why some had not gotten price drops - and was told that they are actually selling fairly well and have been a hit.
I can also vouch from my personal experience with the store, not to be treated as my view of the line as a whole, that the Bionicle section has grown from filling up one shelf, to two shelves to an entire wall now.
I doubt they would have ordered more if they are’nt selling well there - and i doubt incredibly that my occasional purchases would justify buying more stock - so they must have sold well enough at Christmas to justify ordering more stock for this specific store.
“You cannot judge the worldwide sales of Bionicle based on your own experience it has to be a worldwide viewpoint, thats why i’m judging based on my own experience throughout my life, including the last four years prior to G2 where Bionicle was innactive” - TeslaEffect
True, its nice having them around and they’ll probably remain around for a while either as Lego getting rid of the remaining stock that didnt sell well in other places or simply as a shelfwarmer until something replaces them.
Just this is eeirly similar to the predictions from some Bionicle Youtuber’s who mentioned how stores could refuse to stock CCBS in the future due to shelfwarming,