The cost of Lego
Apr. 27th, 2020 01:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
psipsyThis year, 2020, will mark the 40th year I've been into Lego. Early on, I noticed the per-piece cost of Lego has been surprisingly consistent over this time, seemingly ignoring inflation, maybe defying it. That is, it's typically been about 10 cents per piece, on average. Sets with Power Functions and large tires will tend to be more expensive, however the rest of the non-powered sets stay closer to that average.
But, it's important to look closer.
I recently built Lego's "Galaxy Explorer" set out of spare bricks from my own collection and picked up the rest from Bricklink. The original set came out in 1979, and featured a total piece count of about 300, of which about 250 went into the spaceship itself. Given that the design is from 40 years ago, the bricks that were used are much larger overall than what gets put into sets today. Very few small plates/tiles were used, while there were many large plates and bricks. A set with a similar piece count today will result in a much smaller model. Modern sets also have a much higher level of detail and articulation.
The "Bucket Excavator" set I built a few years ago has a piece count of almost 4000, weighs almost 6kg, and retailed for less than $300, meaning the price-per-piece count is lower than average. On closer examination, about 1400 of those parts are Technic pins. If I wanted to buy 1400 of them on Bricklink, I'd expect to pay as much as $2 total.
How about inflation itself? Alright, let's take a look. $30 back in 1980 would be the same as $96 now, so a little over 3x. A 1981 to 2020 conversion yields $86, so I figure 3x would be a good average and it's an easy number to work with. It's not rocket surgery or brain science so we can fudge it to what's convenient.
Suppose Lego were to do a re-release of the Galaxy Explorer, using as many original pieces as possible. Most of them are still in production so I imagine it would be somewhat easy to do. But again, the bricks are much larger in that set, so for them to hold to a $.10/piece price point would be almost impossible. The whole set would end up costing much more than the original MSRP, and they'd either have to replace the larger bricks with smaller ones to boost the piece count, or just accept the fact that the only people who would buy it are adult fans (like me).
So, it's not that Lego has been magically beating inflation, it's more like they've been exploiting a loophole by using smaller pieces. I'm sure that improving production efficiencies play a large role, but so does using less raw material.
I can't complain, though. I make enough money that when Lego puts out a set I really want, there's not much to stop me from getting it. Well, except for the whole "Lego stores currently closed" thing going on now.
But, it's important to look closer.
I recently built Lego's "Galaxy Explorer" set out of spare bricks from my own collection and picked up the rest from Bricklink. The original set came out in 1979, and featured a total piece count of about 300, of which about 250 went into the spaceship itself. Given that the design is from 40 years ago, the bricks that were used are much larger overall than what gets put into sets today. Very few small plates/tiles were used, while there were many large plates and bricks. A set with a similar piece count today will result in a much smaller model. Modern sets also have a much higher level of detail and articulation.
The "Bucket Excavator" set I built a few years ago has a piece count of almost 4000, weighs almost 6kg, and retailed for less than $300, meaning the price-per-piece count is lower than average. On closer examination, about 1400 of those parts are Technic pins. If I wanted to buy 1400 of them on Bricklink, I'd expect to pay as much as $2 total.
How about inflation itself? Alright, let's take a look. $30 back in 1980 would be the same as $96 now, so a little over 3x. A 1981 to 2020 conversion yields $86, so I figure 3x would be a good average and it's an easy number to work with. It's not rocket surgery or brain science so we can fudge it to what's convenient.
Suppose Lego were to do a re-release of the Galaxy Explorer, using as many original pieces as possible. Most of them are still in production so I imagine it would be somewhat easy to do. But again, the bricks are much larger in that set, so for them to hold to a $.10/piece price point would be almost impossible. The whole set would end up costing much more than the original MSRP, and they'd either have to replace the larger bricks with smaller ones to boost the piece count, or just accept the fact that the only people who would buy it are adult fans (like me).
So, it's not that Lego has been magically beating inflation, it's more like they've been exploiting a loophole by using smaller pieces. I'm sure that improving production efficiencies play a large role, but so does using less raw material.
I can't complain, though. I make enough money that when Lego puts out a set I really want, there's not much to stop me from getting it. Well, except for the whole "Lego stores currently closed" thing going on now.
