|
|
Post by lokisveil on Mar 24, 2022 16:39:24 GMT
I think its very clean but it needs something more. No idea what though.
|
|
|
|
Post by turricanster on Mar 24, 2022 16:59:08 GMT
I think the orange of the MegaConstrux logo pops more. The generic "tech" background is also bland to me, the action scenes of the last wave are more visually exciting. |
|
|
|
Post by lokisveil on Mar 24, 2022 17:52:05 GMT
The opinion on reddit seems to be you love it or you hate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Hegemon on Mar 25, 2022 0:07:22 GMT
I've been thinking about this, and although I'm basically neutral on the new design, it occurs to me that the rechristened brand might be problematic.
Back in the day, if you searched for "Mega Bloks," you got "Mega Bloks." If you searched for "Mega Construx," you got "Mega Construx."
But try Googling "MEGA." Will our beloved brand even appear in the first hundred hits?
What's the benefit in making the brand less easy to find? Especially when it's all but totally absent from retail shelves?
|
|
|
|
Post by lokisveil on Mar 25, 2022 2:32:06 GMT
Back in the day, if you searched for "Mega Bloks," you got "Mega Bloks." If you searched for "Mega Construx," you got "Mega Construx." But try Googling "MEGA." Will our beloved brand even appear in the first hundred hits? When they tried to branch out the micro size they created a problem. Having already established themselves as "Bloks" it's what people knew. I think creating seperate block size lines is a good idea but not unless it was done right off the bat. With the new box art I think it depends on who is buying it. The simplicity of it makes it look more like a toy offering to me. This will appeal more to those that wish to "play" I am assuming while those that want to collect will not like it for the most part. There is always a third party of course, those that throw the box away and won't care as much about what it looks like. The irony here is with the box looking "cheaper" to those who are more easily influenced they will automatically assume the pieces will be of lower quality. The brain is such a bizarre organ. I find people still assume there is only "mega bloks" or refuse to use the construx name. I find typing mega then whatever relates to whatever I am looking for is effective. Old habits die hard so I think people will still be using the old titles for at least a little bit longer. *notices he used a lot of words in this post  |
|
|
|
Post by The Hegemon on Mar 25, 2022 3:01:54 GMT
While I'm at it, it's also weird that they chose the 1x3 brick to showcase their new logo. Hardly the most iconic element from the construction toy world.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldboltyneck on Mar 25, 2022 10:20:46 GMT
Back in the day, if you searched for "Mega Bloks," you got "Mega Bloks." If you searched for "Mega Construx," you got "Mega Construx." But try Googling "MEGA." Will our beloved brand even appear in the first hundred hits? That's a good point, but there are ways to google the seemingly ungoogle-able. Anyone looking for, say, Prime (the trucking company) will have a hard time googling just that name because of too many unrelated results, but "Prime trucking" as a search term narrows it down. Other brands in a situation like that: Duck (the packaging company); A1 (let's say the steak sauce maker); and many TV and movie titles including "Director's Cut," an indie with Penn Jillette. I'm sure that Mattel didn't just capriciously shorten Mega's name brand without thinking through the SEO ramifications. Deciding on a name involves several factors, and I'm guessing that part of Mattel's calculus here was that customers could always just search the word Mega plus some other term to find them.
As for lokisveil noting that the package is missing something, it stood out to me that the "Pro Builder" stamp isn't there anymore, whereas the Halo and MOTU items had generally included that in the trade dress. I thought that was a fun callback to Mega Bloks' history with fighter jets, motorcycles, sea vessels, and such.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Hegemon on Mar 25, 2022 11:01:55 GMT
Oh yeah, good point about Pro-Builder. I guess they're thinking that streamlining the box art is worth abandoning 20+ years of brand history!
Although you're right about your "Prime" example, I still feel that it's a mistake to move to a less-Googlable brand name. Sure, customers can still find it, but they have to search for it deliberately, which creates a pointless obstacle for fans. This exacerbates MEGA's already terrible ability to spread the word about its products--their own website omits dozens upon dozens of sets, so now fans will have even a harder time finding out about cool new products.
And casual buyers or would-be customers will almost never stumble upon the brand online, so that's a whole potential fanbase that MEGA is cutting off.
Just seems like a weird choice IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldboltyneck on Mar 25, 2022 12:05:59 GMT
It is. You're not wrong. If it were up to me, I'd have them replace the Mega name entirely with the Mattel logo (or a derivation), which at least has mainstream recognizability. But they're doing what they're doing. My guess is something like this: I don't think their concern is with people googling Mega. I think their concern is with people searching for stuff like "Pokemon toys", "Halo toys" and such. Moms and gift-givers are going to search for THOSE terms and not for the term Mega, realistically, right? So, if a Mega product comes up in the results, streamlining the name must have been a desirable point. And I can understand that. "Mega Construx" calls too much attention to the name because "Construx" means nothing to most people, and then it's not helped by the word Mega in front of it. It may as well be called Super Gbigliaskeem as far as the mainstream buying public goes. I can see potential buyers skipping over those results, and then ending up buying non-construction-toy products instead. "I was looking for Pikachu toys, I wasn't looking for Mega Construx, whatever that is. Ah, here's a plush Pikachu, I'll buy that."
Whereas, shortened to just "Mega," the eye isn't drawn to the logo at all, leaving the buyer to concentrate on what the actual product is, and maybe that Pikachu buyer will give the Mega product a bit more attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Hegemon on Mar 25, 2022 23:01:45 GMT
That's a pretty solid analysis, now that you mention it, and it sounds like you could be right on the mark, alas.
I still don't like their choice, though of course it's their choice to make. It just seems like many of their decisions in recent years have had the effect (or the goal) of making MEGA a weaker brand. They changed from the decades-long recognizable "Mega Bloks" to the much-derided "Mega Construx," evoking a long-extinct unrelated brand in the process, then they steadily diminished their brick-n-mortar retail presence, then--reversing a wise decision made decades ago--they returned to foregrounding that the product "works with other brands" (just like third- and fourth-tier construction blocks) and now they've made their brand less distinctly Google-able.
The brand was solid, despite a number of big missteps, so I simply can't understand their business plan here. They really seem to be trying whatever pops into their heads in the hope that it'll work, without any serious consideration of the long-term consequences.
To that end, have you ever seen LEGO advertise itself to "work with other brands?" Of course not--they're the industry leader, and they push that fact. I would prefer that MEGA stand on its own strengths rather than advertising its weakness. Heck, if you tell your potential buyer that your toy works with other brands, you're basically encouraging them to buy other brands instead.
Time will tell, but I've been a fan for long enough to see them make a lengthy series of major blunders, and this seems like another to throw on the heap.
|
|
|
|
Post by turricanster on Mar 26, 2022 14:03:18 GMT
I didn't notice the 1x3 brick until Hegemon pointed it out. I like that, kinda like, hey look were blocks, but different, which is something I think only us "Blok Heads" would notice. As for the "works with other brands" line, I feel that's for people, read parents and grandparents, who are on the fence and know LEGO, but also remember they bought something that doesn't work with all the rest of the stuff the kids have. It sits in a box/got donated, and was a waste of time/money because it doesn't work with anything else. LEGO does not need that, because they are the 10,000lb gorilla in the room and everything works together, buy LEGO brand and be safe. I just hope this graphics design doesn't get put on the MOTU line, because losing box art that I want to display like this would suck!   |
|
|
|
Post by Gramps on Mar 26, 2022 18:16:42 GMT
I definitely like the She-Ra, Hordak and Monstroid one!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Hegemon on Mar 29, 2022 3:52:10 GMT
I think their concern is with people searching for stuff like "Pokemon toys", "Halo toys" and such. I've been thinking about this, and although I agree that you may be right, I'd really love to read the minutes of the meeting where they hashed out this strategy: "We've spent years making our brand hard to find and hard to follow, so let's really capitalize on that and instead rely on random incidental sales resulting from collateral interest in other brands." Of course that's not how you meant it, and it's my cynicism showing through, but not without some precedent. When TRU still existed, Lego occupied a whole wing of the store, filling shelves from top to bottom. Mega Bloks, in stark contrast, was afforded small sections of shelving and split among three or four or five departments, randomly tucked in wherever they could find space. So Thomas wound up near the trains aisle, and sat there untouched. Monster High was on a remote end cap in the Monster High section, while Barbie was on the bottom shelf just outside of and facing away from the Barbie section. And so on. The effect was to dilute the brand's presence and de-emphasize the interconnectivity of the toy. That last part, by the way, has also been their apparent strategy for decades; Neo-Shifters were 99% incompatible; Struxx was about 90% incompatible; Sphereon was 99.5% incompatible; Nano was 100% incompatible; and the iCoaster might as well have been a different brand altogether. Whereas Lego prides itself on its "they all fit together" mindset, Mega has seemingly gone out of its way to reduce that playability feature, and this was reflected in the way the brand was fatally compartmentalized in the one retailer where it might have held a strong presence. TRU may have had some say in this, but other brands managed to group their products together, so why did Mega get the shaft? And that brings us to today. Although they may be banking on coattailing their way into Pokemon sales et al, that truly seems like a desperate Hail Mary by a brand that sees itself as moribund. |
|
|
|
Post by oldboltyneck on Mar 29, 2022 12:13:52 GMT
The critique you're bringing up is a valid one to bring up. In a time period when Mega has a choice to make between "A" and "B", where we define A as
- go for a brand that's eye-catching, strengthening the company's identity by setting it apart because the toy-buying public will notice its distinctiveness
and we define B as
- go for a blander choice, practically a lack-of-a-name, so customers don't notice the company making the toy, they notice just the licensor's brand (e.g. Halo, Hot Wheels, et al)
... you're questioning their choice of "B" instead of "A." I get it. I'm with you, in that the company whose products I'm consuming is a company I want to feel is taking big gambles, I don't want to feel that they're intentionally blending in.
But I dunno, man -- the choice between A and B is one they made in the middle of the 2010s and they chose A. And I don't think it paid off like they wanted -- I can't find any Mega product at my B&M Walmarts in 2022 except a single Pokemon item. If I mention "Mega Construx" in everyday conversation IRL, it's like I'm speaking Martian. Mattel gave that brand a good five years to catch on with the mainstream and it hasn't done so. I can't blame them for wanting to give B a try instead now.
I don't know what the net effect for Mega and their bottom line will be by blandifying their name. I doubt anyone can know that. But I think it's instructive to remember that the days of Toys R Us are behind us, and online shopping is its replacement. And in the 2020s, devices track your online browsing. When Grandma wants to do some birthday toy-shopping for grandson Billy and she knows Billy likes Legos and Hot Wheels, Grandma's search results, ads she is shown, and ranked product listings are going to be given a little assist by the fact that Grandma has looked online for Lego and Hot Wheels. In other words, she doesn't have to search for the name Mega in order for a Mega product to show up in the items she becomes aware of online. Her online footprint, interpreted by devices that believe she has an overall interest in construction toys, guides her there. "Mega" by itself may mean nothing but at least Grandma might buy a Mega product ranked near the top of her searches because "Hot Wheels" does mean something to her. Mega knows all of this, of course.
So, my feeling is Mega is making a conscious shift to let their licensors' names drive sales by making their own Mega brand more invisible. What I see them sacrificing here are the brand-less open-ended building sets -- the tubs of 790 pieces, for instance. But those weren't selling so great anyway, were they? Likewise their attempts at structured sets without big IPs attached, such as the Train Heist or Viking Longship from some years ago, or the more recent army tank. I just don't see any online buzz about those generic items, but Pokemon fans continue to get jazzed for their Pokemon toys and MOTU fans sure enough maintain their appetite to collect their MOTU, and it makes sense to leverage those sorts of brand loyalties.
Well, in the end, if this doesn't turn out to be a winning strategy, they'll pick another one before too long.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Hegemon on Mar 30, 2022 0:53:18 GMT
You make very solid points, gosh darn you! I really can't argue against anything you've said.
I guess what I'd like to see is for Mega to really commit to something again. They're still sort of knee-deep in Halo, which is good, but MOTU seems like a bunch of fits and starts with good products yanked out of distribution before they even get to retail. If they're going to nab a license (or use a Mattel property), I think that they should lean into it. One Top Gun set? OneHellboy[/i][/b] figure? Who's going to bother collecting that, except a fan of Mega?
It also bugs me that they rely so heavily on online sales. When a formerly brick-n-mortar company goes (almost) entirely virtual, that looks like a company that's given up, even setting aside considerations of brand recognition. At present, a series of zoom-in-able pictures don't compare to actually holding a box in your hands, and such a diminished buyer interaction can't realistically translate to heightened enthusiasm. A kid can lovingly pore over 200 Lego sets at Walmart or accidentally stumble upon one or two Mega sets online while searching for something else. Which is more likely to result in a sale?
Or if they are going to go mostly online, for pity's sake they need to step up their online engagement! Every set should be featured on the official page, rather than the hit-or-miss policy that they've maintained for about 25 years so far: sometimes sets are on there, sometimes they aren't, and sometimes they're on there but nowhere in the real world. Right now they rely far too heavily on "community creations" or whatever they call it, showcasing fans' original designs at least as heavily as the actual product. What business has ever succeeded with that strategy?
Another problem with a primarily online platform, from what I've read in a few Mega groups online, is that scalpers tend to buy online in relative bulk, only to turn around and sell on eBay at a huge markup. Mega is happy, I guess, because they're moving product, but the potential fandom is losing out. That also shortchanges second tier outlets like Marshall's or Ollie's, where sets used to show up after their initial retail run. I'm sure that Mega doesn't care if Ollie's loses out on a discounted sale, but that used to be a great way for potential customers to encounter the brand.
Mega doesn't care what I think, nor should they, but as a fan of the brand for more than a quarter century, I like to think that I've seen some of what works and a lot of what doesn't, and it seems that they're betting heavily on the latter.
|
|
