Lego and Disney Are Lazy
Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 4:53PM 11 Comments By Michele Yulo
Right on the heels of Disney's controversial introduction of their pre-k princess, Sofia, comes another disappointing piece of news on the gender front from Lego Land. Posted in Bloomberg Businessweek online, the article "Lego Is For Girls" announced the addition of a new set called "Lego Friends" which will be specifically marketed to girls. Based on the title, you would immediately think that this was going to be positive news addressing Lego's lack of marketing related to what should be half of its consumer base. I say "should be" because Lego has, for the most part, completely ignored girls as part of their market with no question that "the Lego Group deliberately [has] focused on boys" (so much so that it has resulted in the actual developmental term "Lego phase" to describe an actual phase in boys lives) to the tune of over $1 billion dollars in sales in 2010.
Recognizing that girls have essentially been told "no girls allowed" when it comes to entering a virtual boys club of colorful plastic pieces, figures, model sets, and video games (for which Lego received criticism based on the fact that girls names were left out of the options for their avatars), Lego conducted heavy anthropological and sociological research to determine how exactly they could increase profits by appealing to the other sex. Their findings? That the current state of Lego, from an aesthetic standpoint, wasn't winning with girls whose "'greatest concern...really was beauty."
Based on this very narrow version of what little girls say they want, Lego decided that the status quo is what will be offered to girls come the New Year because, as Rosario Costa (a Lego design director) put it: "'The girls needed a figure they could identify with, that looks like them.'" (I have to tell you, my daughter does not look like this piece, which is a highly stereotyped version of a girl, and would have nothing to do with her.)
Current mini-figure, "Olivia"
To further point out the sheer ignorance of such a plan, I'd like to provide an ad from 1981 when Lego and girls actually seemed to have a symbiotic relationship. I have blogged about and posted this picture before, and probably will continue to do so, since it perfectly illustrates the tragic game that has been played with girls over the last thirty years. Based on the ad from 1981, Lego seemed to recognize then that girls didn't need to "have a figure they could identify with," or "six new Lego colors--including Easter-egg-like shades of azure and lavender." Way back then, it seems that girls were perfectly fine with the basic Lego set and primary color offerings. Of course, who doesn't remember playing with these? My brothers and I played with them often-- and there was no need for two distinct sets based on gender. Can you imagine? We actually played together! Using the same set of Legos. And, isn't it ironic that the 1981 ad reads, "What it is is beautiful"-- but now "beautiful" is being used, in its most superficial sense, as the psychological basis for how to appeal to girls. Looking at these two images now and seeing the distinct difference makes my stomach turn. It's obvious that the definition of what it means to be a girl, from a marketing standpoint, has changed drastically.
Lego ad from 1981
I found it also interesting that another article was released yesterday from the British publication, Daily Mail, related to girls and stereotypes called "Girls are no worse than boys at maths: Study in 86 countries shows differences caused by attitudes to women." The article is based on the latest scientific research that proves girls supposed lack of mathematical agility stems from gender inequality and cultural stereotypes versus any actual biological determination. The research concludes that, "The differences in performance seemed to be caused by social factors--i.e., each society's attitude to women."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest Lego marketing scheme, along with Disney's princess pushing methods, are inherently part of how we view girls here in the United States, with limited versions of femininity continuing to be perpetuated. As we continue to debate why so few girls end up with careers based in math and science, isn't it obvious? Isn't the definition of crazy often said to be doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? We will never get different results by adhering to stereotypes that we ourselves have created and continue to allow others to perpetuate.
Sadly, Legos even admits to what the Bloomberg piece calls the "paradox," which is that "break[ing] down old stereotypes about how girls play...risks reinforcing others." An actual neuroscientist and author of Pink Brain Blue Brain, Lise Eliot, admits that "'there is no reason to think Lego is more intrinsically appealing to boys," and yet says, "'if it takes color-coding or ponies and hairdressers to get girls playing with Lego, I'll put up with it, at least for now, becasue it's just so good for little girls brains.'" Huh? What is good for girls' brains? Reinforcing a limiting stereotype that has girls actually believing that they need a plastic building block to be beautiful? And this came from a neuroscientist?
But this is the new lay of the land in which companies, like mad scientists, have created and produced a monster that continues to benefit them in terms of their profit margin. It has become such a no-brainer that nobody wants to think about what it all actually means for girls. In a recent NPR piece that focused on how some companies were responding to outcries for better messaging to girls, one designer put it bluntly, "'I guess it's just so ingrained in our culture that it's an easy sale. It's going to be easier to sell a shirt that says, you know, 'My Little Princess' than 'My A Student.'" The key word is"easy."
So, what could Lego have done differently? They could have simply given girls a plain, primary colored set of Legos and observed. (Or they could put girls in their commercials, ads, etc.--included them in their marketing to begin with.) Instead, they actually fed them what they knew they would like, while somehow expecting that girls would tell them something different. It's like feeding a kid candy everyday for a year and then introducing a piece of broccoli. The Disneys and Legos of the world just keep feeding kids candy by deferring to these stereotypes--making it more difficult to offer something healthy. Because it's just plain easier that way. You know what I call all of this inability to do the right thing and see girls as intelligent, multi-faceted beings who are more than capable of handling any set of Legos produced? Laziness. And I'm sick of it.
Reader Comments (11)
Fantastic post! I'd add to "laziness," "greed." Money, money, money. Research designs and outcomes are predetermined to be whatever supports the bottom line.
You have so eloquently hit on a HUGE frustration of mine as a parent. Where in the scheme of LEGO marketing did the concept become gender segregated. I adored playing with Legos as a child and find I always preferred bulk simple colorful Legos to sets anyway as they allowed more creativity, so that's what I've set out to get for my daughter. I was the girl in that picture. I worry so much about the current cultural messages girls are receiving. Do you have any suggestions about what to DO about it?
Thanks for your comment, Nicole. I think what we can do about it is to continue to (1), recognize, publicly, that we do not accept Lego's marketing scheme to girls--or any marketing scheme that so clearly demarcates girls from boys using blatant, harmful stereotypes. Don't buy the product. And, (2), you can contact the company via email or call. While it is difficult to get a response you want to hear--the more people they hear from, the more apt they are to listen or do anything about it. The last thing is that we need to make sure our kids know that they are not obligated to fall into these nice, neat packages. While I always agree that there are girls who like these kinds of designs and may want them more than others, we need to offer our kids choice by giving them greater options. We can at least start with these and continue to speak up.
Thanks for writing this blog-- I love reading it and I love how you say everything so up-front and clearly. I always played with Legos as a kid. I'm also in Calculus as a high-school junior and a straight-A student. Thank you for standing up for the girls of America.
I'm in my mid-20s, and I wrote a letter to Lego when I was in 5th grade because of the gender stereotyping in their product line. I wanted to be an architect or engineer (neither career am I in now), but I was sick of the fact that my lego were pink, purple, and came in large segments already built (think Malibou Lego House). I was not happy, and actually turned to Kinects--it was more complicated and more gender neutral. And I was proud of what I built because I had to do it all by myself.
And we wonder why girls don't have better Spacial sense knowledge. Bravo on your article!
This post is from Amy Jussel of Shaping Youth:
Agree it's laziness and primarily greed at Lego and Disney...but also branding gaffes galore. They are making a grave marketing error by going tactical over strategic.
They're trying to leverage the 'current culture' (which is manufactured/created by toy industry pink think to begin with) and then focus group testing on kids who have already been narrowcast into this pocket to observe (e.g. 'how they play' in a gendered culture) rather than the long term strategy of power and potential for 'what could be' ...
From a sheer biz perspective, they could broaden horizons (and dollar driven value, extended shelf life beyond early years, good will among parents and creatives, etc) by getting back to their roots of building imaginations as you've indicated in your 80s photo.
Visionaries like Steve Jobs (and STEM/fem counterparts) build with 'what ifs' not with presets...By selling out kids for the short haul for quick bucks, Lego and Disney are sending our culture into 'robo-assemble' versus start-up entrepreneur...a degradation of an economic recovery if ever I've seen one, with 'old' thinking of industrialism vs 'new' thinking of possibility.
Both companies need an overhaul to toss out their staid stereotypes and toxic ledger-based short sightedness in exchange for the global 21st century evolution of youthful minds that we need to carry us into the future building solutions to complex problems.
And nope, those solutions don't come pre-assembled and dumbed down. Thanks for this eloquent post and here's to making change!!!
Point well illustrated! -Sarah-
This is a copy of a letter that I have sent to Lego:
Dear Lego,
My name is Ann Garth, I am 14 years old, and I love Legos. Some of my fondest memories of preschool are of the giant "Lego pit," which was basically a container the size of a small table completely filled with Legos. Whenever we had free time I would rush over to the table and start constructing something, usually a spaceship or some sort of vessel, because you had all those little ladders and hoods and flippy things that I didn't quite know what to do with but could make into windows, doors, and windshields. I would carefully construct walls, making sure to stagger the edges like real bricks so they wouldn’t fall apart, and when I was done I would set my creation carefully aside, making sure that no one else touched the masterpiece. Legos inspired me, helped me become more creative, and gave me something fun to do on countless long afternoons.
This is why I was so disappointed when I recently heard of Lego’s horrible, totally misguided decision to make and market a line of (very pink) Legos for girls, complete with a girl brushing her hair in the mirror, a bottle of perfume, and more. This is problematic for only two or three MILLION reasons, but let me pick the first, broadest, and most obvious: the idea that if you want to market a line to girls, it cannot involve any movement, adventure, or activity.
Quite honestly, I don't have that much of a problem with you painting your new Legos pink. Lots of girls like pink, and while that fact is an inditement of our popular culture in itself, it's not your fault. In addition, adding pink might encourage some girls to try Legos. My problem is with the theme of the collection, and the ideas it enshrines. You are telling girls that they can do, or should do, nothing more than sit and prink. You are telling girls that the boys get to have all the fun, while they have to stay home and be bored. You are saying that all girls care about is makeup and how they look, when in reality there is so much more.
I promise you, girls are do more. Girls ARE more. As a kid, my favorite things to do were read and write (incidentally, I'm not seeing any library Lego sets coming out lately), but what I loved almost as much were building forts and climbing trees. There is nothing as nice as sitting in the crook of a big green tree with your book and listening as the leaves flutter in the passing breeze on a quieter day, or scaling the heights and climbing out far past what your parents would be okay with on an an adventurous one. And, of course, there is always the fun of piling up the pillows for a fort, figuring out a way to hold the sheets up (I devised a complicated system involving three of my dad's spring clips, our yard stick, and the space between the headboard and the wall, which worked fantastically), and then settling down with a book, bowl of popcorn, or even a set of Legos to relax after my labors.
And I am not the only one. Ask your daughter(s), Mr. Knudstorp. Or, if you’ve raised her (them) to play with only girly toys, as any one of the girls subscribing to New Moon Girls magazine. Ask those affiliated with Pigtail Pals or Reel Girl, be they parents or kids. Ask Lise Elliot, whose research has shown almost no differential in the play styles of boys and girls when they are young, but a substantial difference as they get older- a result of your company and others playing up stereotypes. Ask Peggy Orenstein, who wrote an incredible book about the “girly-girl culture,” Cinderella Ate My Daughter. Ask Jennifer Shewmaker, Amy Siskind, or any of the other incredible mothers, fathers, scientists, and doctors who are helping shape the movement to take back our girls.
I am sure that by now others have shown you your own company’s 1981 ad, the one with the adorable little girl in the overalls with the red braids holding up something she has made all herself, no pre-fab mirrors and perfume bottles needed, with the slogan “What it is is beautiful.” I am sure that someone (likely millions of someones) have brought your attention to the sick, horrible irony of what you gave that girl back then- the same as the boys, the same as everyone- and what you are giving her today- six new shades of lavender and pink; dolls who do nothing but sit by the pool; bottles of perfume and beauty parlors. More telling to me, though, is what you are not giving her today- tools, weapons, trees to climb, or spaceships, boats, and houses to make. Back when your first ad was made all of those things had to be made with blocks; there were endless opportunities. Now, there is nothing to do except climb in the pre-made tree house, shop in the store that is already there, and drive around in the car built by machine.
Please, Mr. Knudstorp. Please bring back real Legos. If you want to appeal to girls, create more sets. Expand your horizons. But instead of expanding into stereotypical girl territory, try hooking a bunch of boys as well by creating a library set, a computer room set, or a boat set. What about one with a soccer field, or a pool? Or- and I know that this may be shocking- what about simply giving kids the same old blocks in the same old colors and letting us make beautiful?
I think you might be surprised at the results.
Sincerely,
Ann Garth
P.S. If you take your current sexist set off the market, or even just market your new sets to boys and girls, I promise I will go buy some of your regular Legos.
That's a pretty nice post, i was reading something related on another web page not too long ago that essentially said the same thing although yours is better,plus its good to have some validation on seeing two sources agree.Litozin
wow... I miss playing with Legos I remember when I was younger I cooked some for my mommy ... My nieces and nephews play with them (the original colorful big and small kind). My eldest niece and I both HATE the stupid color pink we can't stand it because it's too dam girly girl ish. It makes us a bit upset how Lego is trying to market their toys that way ... I never once thought Lego would give in to such greed.. How shameful ...tsk, tsk, tsk...
I'm just amazed how people feed their child a stereotype from birth and the child gets immersed in it from the parents and the family, from the TV, from toy catalogs, from teachers, neighbors, etc. etc. and then they think they can ask that child to give an answer different than the one she's been programmed to give.