Two examples of how companies are segmenting and balancing their product and marketing efforts between children and “eternal children”.

First: “Where the Wild Things Are”
Detailed by Saki Knafo in the NY Times in Bringing ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ to the Screen, the different approaches in bringing “Where the Wild Things Are” to the market by the studio and by the director Spike Jonze are quite telling:

“Where the Wild Things Are” seems sure to appeal to the sensibilities of a certain cohort of urban young adults — the type who read comic-book novels and wear skateboard sneakers; who might concur with a note I saw one day scrawled on a legal pad in Jonze’s office: “There is no difference between childhood and adulthood.” Finding an audience beyond that demographic, though, may well pose a challenge to Warner’s marketing department, which is trying to position the movie as a family-friendly film for kids of all ages. They have adopted a broad-based strategy to lure children into the theater, buying advertising on Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network. They’ll also be making a special effort to reach what one executive described to me as “hip, tastemaker” kids: Ugg will be selling a special “Where the Wild Things Are” kids’ boot, and Urban Outfitters has a collection of “Where the Wild Things Are” T-shirts and shadow puppets.

Jonze’s team, meanwhile, has been pursuing its own marketing strategy, one not particularly oriented toward children. Jonze directed a short documentary about Maurice Sendak [the original author] that will be shown on HBO. Eggers wrote a novelization of the movie and is publishing it (with a fur cover) through his own publishing company, McSweeney’s. There’s a line of “Wild Things” skateboards, a soundtrack album by Karen O of the art-rock group Yeah Yeah Yeahs and branded “Wild Things” jewelry for sale at a boutique near Jonze’s Lower East Side apartment.

The difference in approaches could not be more stark.

Which one will be more successful? How will the two approaches overlap, interact and conflict?

Second: Lego
Nelson D. Schwartz in the NY Times, Turning to Hollywood Tie-Ins, Lego Thinks Beyond the Brick:

“In the end, you’ve got to go where your consumer is going,” Mr. Barbour says. “And the reality is that themes and movies are what kids want. There’s no point in developing the best product in the world if you can’t put it on the shelf.”

To me, Lego’s shift from their traditional less-structured sets to Hollywood-themed sets strikes me as short-sighted and disappointingly lame.

Why? Returning to the article, note these opinions by two parents:

[Parents] like Alyson Richman Gordon of Huntington Bay, N.Y., say Lego has retained its innocence, especially when it comes to toys built around the traditional bricks. “It echoes back to a bygone era,” she said. “And I find as a parent that I’m drawn to things from my own childhood that inspired my creativity.”

Lester Munson, a father of two in Alexandria, Va., agrees, even though he sees a difference between the Legos of his own childhood and those favored by his 8-year-old son, Jonas. “The most exotic thing I could build when I was a kid was an ambulance,” he says. “Now Jonas can build the Death Star.”

“I still like Legos, and I’m 41,” he says. “Instead of watching TV or playing computer games, the kids are building something, and Jonas and I will build stuff together. The pieces and the sets are a lot cooler than they were 30 years ago, and if the price you have to pay is these tie-ins, that’s fine.”

Perhaps. But my guess is his kids won’t feel the same way, because they will have developed a very different sort of attachment to Lego. While the move to license more Hollywood content (applying EA’s playbook from the video game industry) has paid off in short-term profitability, I find it hard to believe that the strategy will create the same passion, lifelong attachment and recurring sales that has historically driven Lego’s success. Will the short-term pay off in the long-term?

Thoughts?

Besides the detailed look into the great Jonze and the history behind “Where the Wild Things Are”, the article also noted a bit I loved about how criticisms are compliments in different contexts (and vice-versa). A broken record: context matters.

UPDATED 9/12
Jason Kottke on Legos becoming just another single-use plastic toy, referencing a note by Gerrick Johnson, a toy analyst at BMO Capital Markets in the same NY Times article,

Man, when even the financial analysts are saying that you need more open-ended play toys, you’ve really gone off the rails.

Just saying…

Hello, I'm Taylor Davidson.
I'm an early-stage VC and a photographer. If you liked this post, please subscribe to this blog. For more like this, check out the archives, and follow me on Twitter @tdavidson.
  • http://summerplum.wordpress.com summerplum

    My immediate response is “ohhh Where the Wild Things Are tees at Urban Outfitters! A reason to go to South Park Mall.”

    Wonder what category that puts me in…. I adore Legos, and will but Star Wars sets, but that's it. We had sets as gift when we were kids. I don't remember ever making the intended set more the once as a child – then they all got dumped in the giant tub.

    Once, for Christmas our parents bought us plates and extras. I must have been 7 or 8. We built a castle. Daddy helped – it was awesome. We even used mom's red nail polish to create blood where someone had been shot of the parapets. That grey plate still has a red stain on it until this day – nail polish couldn't get it all off. It's an awesome “remember when” memory whenever we see it.

    That would never happen with a Hollywood set.

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

    Perhaps that puts you in the category of “fans of our childhoods, but consumers of our adulthoods”.

    Sounds familiar: all my old Lego sets ended up combined into one big box, my brother's consolidated into mine, further consolidated with hand-me-down sets from my cousins', all combining into one grand collection of possibilities.

    (without knowing that “South Park Mall” is an actual place in Charlotte, it sounds like an backhanded cultural reference to what a “South Park” mall would carry…)

  • http://www.sambr.com/ sambr

    I find it sad that Lego is stepping away from the joy of the random build. I don't know that I ever had an actual Lego set. My grandmother had a neighbor who was 10 years older than me. I think for my sixth birthday, or there about, he gave me all of his Legos. A bowling ball bag full of random Lego pieces. There were no instructions. No sets that I could discern. Just endless possibilities only limited by my imagination. It was glorious.

  • Perkdale

    I'll never forget the sound of the search for a needed piece… that trebly *whooosh* sound of hands sweeping lego pieces. Helmets and antennae and bricks and platforms, all a big soup of bits that were once bought as castle and space ship sets.
    Those sets are branded and licensed now, which is lame or cool depending on whether you're 10 or 30. But they still make the same sound and they still end up a soup of possibility.

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

    The possibility is still there, of course, but directions and guides have a way of focusing our attentions.

    I must admit I'm more of a fan than a customer (i.e. I haven't bought a Lego product in ~20 years, I don't have kids, and I'm not an adult fanatic), so what I think doesn't impact Lego's bottom-line.

    But the broader question – how businesses balance fans and customers – is a tougher and much more interesting question.

  • ericajoh

    Perkdale, I laughed when I read this “I'll never forget the sound of the search for a needed piece… that trebly *whooosh* sound of hands sweeping lego pieces.” Me neither! Reminds me of when my sister and I use to have these contests about who could build the highest tower with lego pieces. So much fun.

  • http://www.jammyrascals.com/ Nic Jones

    Very Interesting Taylor; Sorry I've only just come to this discussion!
    Having seen Lego almost go bust less than 5 years ago it is a big surprise to see them again developing a strategy that points them towards entertainment rather than a classic staple brand and product.
    This was the mistake they made before and it nearly brought them down.
    In the ensuing years they had to downsize and cut costs (like every major manufacturer) and they focussed again on being a “brick” supplier. This has worked. SO what do they do next? They go after the entertainment market again. Oh dear!!

    As for your film scenarios, it has always been the case that film marketing has been about pulling children to the product rather than developing the product with the children in mind. Often this works because the appeal of a Shrek for example, is obvious and stretches to adults, but this is also why so many “fringe” kids movies aren't as big as expected. It is hard to force children to “get” something, that's up to them

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

    Thanks for your thoughts, this is obviously a subject you know much
    more about because of your practical work in the area (learning
    through public conversations…).

    I happened to go into a Lego store in Thanks for your thoughts Nic,
    this is obviously a subject you know much more about because of your
    practical work in the area (learning through public conversations…).

    Honestly, I have to admit the licensed sets looked pretty cool,
    especially the Indiana Jones sets. And if that's enough to get people
    to buy the sets, then perhaps Perkdale is right in the comments above:
    that once you get them home, and once they get mixed in with the rest,
    it really doesn't matter. The only question then becomes if the lift
    in sales is worth the licensing costs.

    (But why Star Wars and Indiana Jones? Are those two culturally
    relevant to kids or parents? There must be a reason Lego chose those
    instead of more recent kids movies; the only available licenses? Still
    relevant to kids? Better marketing to adults buying them for their
    kids or gifts for others?)

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com/writing/ Taylor Davidson

    Thanks for your thoughts, this is obviously a subject you know muchrnmore about because of your practical work in the area (learningrnthrough public conversations…).rnrnI happened to go into a Lego store in Thanks for your thoughts Nic,rnthis is obviously a subject you know much more about because of yourrnpractical work in the area (learning through public conversations…).rnrnHonestly, I have to admit the licensed sets looked pretty cool,rnespecially the Indiana Jones sets. And if that’s enough to get peoplernto buy the sets, then perhaps Perkdale is right in the comments above:rnthat once you get them home, and once they get mixed in with the rest,rnit really doesn’t matter. The only question then becomes if the liftrnin sales is worth the licensing costs.rnrn(But why Star Wars and Indiana Jones? Are those two culturallyrnrelevant to kids or parents? There must be a reason Lego chose thoserninstead of more recent kids movies; the only available licenses? Stillrnrelevant to kids? Better marketing to adults buying them for theirrnkids or gifts for others?)

  • http://www.thecausemopolitan.com/using-your-birthday-for-good/ Using Your Birthday For Good – The Causemopolitan

    [...] campaign to start one of their own and I thought (like the good little blogger I am) that it really hit the nail to do a series of blog posts around these amazing people who donated THEIR birthday to [...]

MORE: Financial Models for Entrepreneurs