[Note: This posting is a revised version of my posting from November 30st. While I did not change the body text I’ve removed the link to the YouTube video of/about the teenager who executed the school massacre described in the link below. In some way I’ve still been too much captured from the timeliness of this tragedy. Even though I still think that toy manufacturers (including computer games manufacturers) need to be challenged in their social responsibilities I think I overdraw the case of LEGO by linking to the motivations of this manic teenager. Thanks for your understanding.]
In the light of my previous posting below this BusinessWeek photo report about LEGO perfectly illustrates what it means to be a leader in ‘Design Engineering’. [Added Dec. 8th: Link to a more comprehensive BusinessWeek report}
Being a LEGO user myself for more than 36 years (I’ve started with 2–3 yrs. and I love to see my kids playing with my ‘old’ bricks these days) I wish that LEGO also gains back the lead in ‘Design’ again. –
I might suffer from a cultural bias here, but in the light of the recent discussions (not only here in Germany) about the socialization of violence amongst kids via toys and computer games I wonder which (marketing?) forces created this ‘strategic drift’ LEGO is suffering from for a while?
Being a father of two boys myself I often wonder what is cause and effect in the common stereotypes what being a ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ is about? For example LEGO has a no princess (however a lot of male counterparts) at all in neither of their product categories and (beside the products for toddlers) the clikits category (which my oldest son simply loves) is one of a few which seems to work without battles, martial imagery, over-stereotyped males, or scary faces.
So please do not misunderstand me here, I do not want to narrow down my criticism to LEGO, but I think it does take more than to distinguish between ‘Design Engineering’ and ‘Industrial Design’: What about ‘Design Leadership’ instead of ‘Marketing Leadership‘?
