But all those are marketed as collectibles, they clearly have zero intention of revisiting (I say revisiting as that’s what they went for in the 60’s) the disposable produduct market. They are aiming at aftershaves, razors, and items known for being kept in boxes on a shelf.
Also, Is Bond really a brand needing a foothold? When you are the go to series for example of a whole genre, and the first thing said for when you want to recast a lead actor, I think it’s a safe assumption people know who you are.
Could be that’s no longer the point, getting to be known. At least not with the big brands, Marvel, Star Wars, Bond. Merchandising itself is a veritable percentage of the business, a sideline that turned into a mainline business plan and returns in its own right. Therefore it’s not a question of keeping the brand afloat and in the media; rather of balancing the number of items and choosing those with the best profit margins.
The comics are a good example, they’re not likely to ever corner the market, far from. But with the fans they seem popular enough, so much so that they branch out into spin-offs - in a shrinking market and against heavy competition. For Bond that’s quite extraordinary.
From what little we know this Lego set will likely also be of that particular nature, a collectible for die-hard fans with plenty of potential for successors.
That’s a point, Bond is in a rare situation with the books rights and the adaptation rights being held by different groups, yet having Merchandise that has a symbiotic relationship with each other so one can always be seen as promotion for the other, unlike the two you stated where all the merch is now under under the mouse eared shaped banner. I gather that this sort of relationship at Marvel with Fox was causing friction a few years ago, Marvel not wanting to be promoting what they saw as rival films.
If it’s over $100, it’s not much of a “toy.” And if it does cost that much, it’s still a Lego set, so it won’t be anything close to “screen accurate.” So either it’s a toy kids won’t be able to afford or a “high-end collectible” that looks like a toy, which you’d think would turn off adult collectors.
Then again, what do I know? My kids have a friend who, at age 11, saved up and bought a $400 “Death Star” Lego kit. Obviously there’s a lot of people out there – young and old – with more disposable income than I’ll ever have.
That’s what I mean with ‘collectible’ - the Lego market is an odd kettle of fish where items are priced beyond what we would normally expect to be toys, where models have their very own look and style - and can yet end up as presentation pieces on the desk of an architect or engineer. Or in the sandbox next to some battered Matchbox models.
Thing is, merchandise today turns up in every price segment of the market, there is nothing really exclusive any more, just varying degrees of walking as an add. The trick is to work all segments of the market, to offer something for everybody. That’s why comic figures and game characters come in ridiculously priced limited edition models these days. Articles whose worth is solely defined by what their customers want to shell out for them.
I hope so. I don’t now nor have I ever had a problem with EON marketing kid-friendly Bond merchandise. My complaint has been that when they have done so, they’ve granted the license to some truly crappy, third-rate companies (like “Exclusive Premiere”). If they exercised a little quality control, we could see some awesome stuff that doesn’t break the bank.
At the very least, it’d be fun to have some product to look forward to in the long, long waits between movies.
I think more people would have been disappointed if it DIDN’T have any of the gadgets built in. LEGO had to compromise between form and function and they put more emphasis on the fun. Which when you have an ejector seat and built in machine guns is completely understandable.