|
|
|
|
|
by amirmc
5144 days ago
|
|
I don't understand what we should be 'pissed' at. From a previous article when 'girl Lego' was announced:
"The company embedded researchers with families around the world, to shadow girls and boys and watch how they play. Based on this research, it came up with Lego Friends, a line that features five characters with back stories similar to those of the wildly popular American Girl dolls."[1] Lego did some actual research and is making something that fits the market as it is today. Who should we be pissed at and why? [1] http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143724644/ith-new-toys-lego-ho... |
|
But then just because it's researched doesn't mean it's good. Why do girls now prefer the narrative form of a previously creative toy? Why do lego blocks need a back story? Is that something that girls have always wanted; is it something that's created by changes in society; is it beneficial to girls? Is it possible harmful to boys to not have the narrative toys? (Although, with all the ROBOT BATTLE IN SPACE stuff hat lego has done for years I suppose they're just re-balancing an existing skew).
There's a lot of research about the "princess phase" which is why most toys for girls are boxed in that disgusting pink - purple combination.
This book is quite good. The biases are clear.
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Real-Toy-Story-Consumers/dp/0552...)