2023 press release poll analysis
Posted by Huw,
We've been adding polls to the bottom of press releases to gauge interest in new sets for a while and, now that all of this year's large sets have been revealed and released, it's a good time to analyse the data to find out which sets released during 2023 made the best first impression and which ones were considered to be duds.
As has been the case in previous years, I'd like to be able to tell you that the results are surprising to encourage you to continue reading, but actually they are very predictable, on the whole!
Methodology
We didn't put a poll at the end of every press release and not all significant 18+ sets were issued with one, so some are missing from this analysis.
The polls asked: Will you be buying this set?
- Yes, as soon as it's released
- Yes, eventually
- Maybe, I haven't made up my mind yet
- No, it doesn't interest me
- No, it's too expensive
- No, but I like it
I've totalled the positive responses and the negative ones, discarded the maybes, then subtracted the negatives from the positives as you would when calculating a net promoter score. I guess we could call it the 'anticipation score'.
For good measure, I've also included the number of people that own and want the set and added them together. The raw data can be found towards the end of the article.
Sets with the highest anticipation score
As was the case last year when 10497 Galaxy Explorer took the crown, the most anticipated set revisits nostalgic subject matter.
6276 Eldorado Fortress is one of the most beloved Pirates sets, so it's no surprise that the reworked version, 10320, tops our table with an anticipation score of 33.
The annual modular building and Winter Village releases are a highlight of the year for many, and this is borne out in our survey, where 10326 Natural History Museum (30) and 10325 Alpine Lodge (27) take second and third place. Although 10326 is a 2024 set, according to the (c) date on the box, we've included it here, given its early release.
In fourth place is another set that taps into nostalgia, 21343 Viking Village (23). The surveys certainly prove that nostalgia sells!
Sets with the lowest anticipation score
It's no surprise to see 21339 BTS Dynamite at the bottom of the list with a score of -78 given its limited appeal to established AFOLs, but some of the others near the bottom are perhaps more so.
42146 Liebherr Crawler Crane LR 13000 (-73) is an awesome set, but comes at a price which is hard to stomach.
I am guessing that 43222 Disney Castle (-50) is near the bottom because it was released so soon after the last version and many of you have that already.
10323 PAC-MAN Arcade and 76252 Batcave – Shadow Box received surprisingly low scores, and I suppose it's because of their relatively high price rather than unappealing subject matter.
Sets with the highest 'Yes, as soon as its released' responses
27% of respondents suggested that they intended to buy 10325 Alpine Lodge as soon as it was released, which is a relatively low percentage compared to last year, when 42% said they'd be rushing out to buy 10497 Galaxy Explorer straight away. Looking at the number that own the Winter Village set, it looks like many of you followed through.
10320 Eldorado Fortress and 10326 Natural History Museum also achieved high scores, with 24% and 19% respectively.
Most of the polls attracted between 3,000 and 4,000 responses, but 10316 The Lord of the Rings: Rivendell stands out for receiving almost 7,000, with 'as soon as it's released' achieving 18% of the votes.
Most and least owned sets
Although 21338 A-Frame Cabin did not top the anticipation table, it's the set that most of you own, at 5,000.
Despite its high price, 10316 The Lord of the Rings: Rivendell is in second place with 4,470, and because of its high price, it's also the most wanted. I would not be surprised to see its ownership rise quickly after Christmas.
75355 X-wing Starfighter scored a very low anticipation rating of -33, but nevertheless, it's the third most owned set in the table: I guess that's due to the allure of Star Wars! The other Star Wars set in scope this year, 75367 Venator-class Republic Attack Cruiser, also received relatively modest scores in most categories, so I think we have longer to wait to see whether Prequel Trilogy subjects can sustain such expensive sets.
Other than 21344 The Orient Express Train which has only just hit the shelves, the least owned set is 42146 Liebherr Crawler Crane LR 13000 which is also the most expensive one released this year. It's awesome, but vastly over-priced and has to compete for your money with awesome-r sets like 10316 The Lord of the Rings: Rivendell.
The raw data
We included polls for 26 of the 18+ releases year and here is the raw data:
| Set | Yes | No | Yes-No | Total owned | Total wanted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10320 Eldorado Fortress | 58% | 25% | 33 | 2899 | 3287 |
| 10326 Natural History Museum | 59% | 28% | 30 | 1202 | 3137 |
| 10325 Alpine Lodge | 55% | 28% | 27 | 3642 | 1876 |
| 21343 Viking Village | 51% | 27% | 23 | 2761 | 3068 |
| 71799 NINJAGO City Markets | 52% | 38% | 14 | 1837 | 2803 |
| 21338 A-Frame Cabin | 45% | 32% | 13 | 5000 | 3932 |
| 21342 The Insect Collection | 44% | 35% | 9 | 1302 | 1850 |
| 10316 The Lord of the Rings: Rivendell | 46% | 39% | 7 | 4470 | 5184 |
| 21340 Tales of the Space Age | 42% | 37% | 5 | 2723 | 2003 |
| 21344 The Orient Express Train | 40% | 40% | 0 | 368 | 2009 |
| 10315 Tranquil Garden | 37% | 38% | -1 | 2630 | 2386 |
| 10318 Concorde | 37% | 45% | -8 | 1348 | 1977 |
| 10321 Corvette | 36% | 45% | -8 | 1486 | 2026 |
| 10317 Land Rover Classic Defender 90 | 37% | 47% | -9 | 1952 | 2307 |
| 76269 Avengers Tower | 30% | 56% | -27 | 1068 | 1697 |
| 75367 Venator-class Republic Attack Cruiser | 30% | 59% | -29 | 1202 | 2804 |
| 76417 Gringotts Wizarding Bank | 29% | 58% | -29 | 1673 | 2651 |
| 75355 X-wing Starfighter | 25% | 57% | -33 | 3850 | 2319 |
| 21341 The Sanderson Sisters' Cottage | 24% | 60% | -35 | 2222 | 1988 |
| 42156 PEUGEOT Le Mans Hybrid Hypercar | 23% | 62% | -38 | 1401 | 985 |
| 10323 PAC-MAN Arcade | 20% | 62% | -42 | 1771 | 1763 |
| 76252 Batcave – Shadow Box | 19% | 65% | -46 | 929 | 1884 |
| 43222 Disney Castle | 16% | 66% | -50 | 869 | 1866 |
| 42146 Liebherr Crawler Crane LR 13000 | 10% | 83% | -73 | 505 | 1069 |
| 21339 BTS Dynamite | 8% | 86% | -78 | 938 | 497 |
Conclusion
As is always the case when conducting this analysis, the only real conclusion we can draw from it is that sets that are likely to appeal to readers of Brickset are going to be more anticipated than those that do not! Nevertheless, I think it makes for interesting reading.
The top of the table is predictable, with perennial favourites and nostalgic sets gaining the highest scores. Perhaps the bottom is too, with many of you suggesting you'll shun high-priced and perceived low value sets, and those that are re-releases of recent ones.
What conclusions do you draw from the data?
182 likes
59 comments on this article
Not surprised by the lack of anticipation with the x wing. You can't convince me it was exciting
I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year.
I didn't really have any sets this year that I bought as soon as possible. Sure, I want the concorde and the land rover, but they're expensive, so I delay buying them until they're nearing retirement age.
@Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year.
I didn't really have any sets this year that I bought as soon as possible. Sure, I want the concorde and the land rover, but they're expensive, so I delay buying them until they're nearing retirement age."
Artificial scarcity
I'm not sure I buy the Land Rover being a better liked set than the Venator.
I'd almost rather see three separate questions: do you like this, will you buy this, and what do you think of the price? The questions as they stand miss the 'I love this but hate the price' group, which I'd wager accounts for a lot of us.
Mostly predictible socres. Suprised 77015 isn't up there.
@beige2 said:
" @Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year.
I didn't really have any sets this year that I bought as soon as possible. Sure, I want the concorde and the land rover, but they're expensive, so I delay buying them until they're nearing retirement age."
Artificial scarcity "
There's also the space that a set takes up in warehouses, the production capacity it takes up in the factories, demand from retailers for something new to refresh the shelves instead of "hey weren't they selling that spaceship last year too"...lots of reasons not to keep a product around forever, even if it's popular and making money -- it's an opportunity cost that will eventually hold up something else.
Walmart had them on practically fire-sale prices from time to time (could be as low as $50 depending on when and where -- this for a set that was already a good price at $100), so I'm not feeling particularly pinched by scarcity, although of course your mileage may vary based on region.
A couple times they've released a popular set under another part number, like 21309 becoming 92716, so there might be a chance for another 'cycle'...10928 is taken, but 20928 is available! Especially with another classic space set rumored to come out next year.
A lot of the new sets I would love to buy, if I had the spare money and the space to display them :)
It's nice to see the original LEGO themes are still on top.
@Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year.
I didn't really have any sets this year that I bought as soon as possible. Sure, I want the concorde and the land rover, but they're expensive, so I delay buying them until they're nearing retirement age."
My best guess is: as to not cannibalise the sales of the 'Space range' coming in 2024.
Another weird withdrawal is the Viking ship 31132. I have no tentative explanation for this one.
In my whole life, I only bought one set - as soon as released - it was 21309. After I got my copy, the set was unavailable for several months until Lego did another production run. Nowadays, I always wait either for a GWP I like/want or double points.
What would be interesting to know is how different Bricksetters are from the population in general. Unless Lego open up their books to Brickset, we will never really be able to know that.
One thing we can probably infer (this data should probably be tracked) is the discount levels at the Lego shop. In Canada, discounts are very rare, not high and far in between. So when you see 40% off on 76215, 21337 or 10291 you know with reasonable certainty, that they were not popular.
Dr. Kate Pulaski:
Dah-ta, look at this.
Lt. Commander Data:
[looking slightly confused] 'Day-ta'.
Dr. Kate Pulaski:
What?
Lt. Commander Data:
My name. It is pronounced 'Day-ta'.
Dr. Kate Pulaski:
Oh?
Lt. Commander Data:
You called me "Dah-ta".
Dr. Kate Pulaski:
[laughing] What's the difference?
Lt. Commander Data:
One is my name. The other is not.
@HAL_9001 said:
" @beige2 said:
" @Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year.
I didn't really have any sets this year that I bought as soon as possible. Sure, I want the concorde and the land rover, but they're expensive, so I delay buying them until they're nearing retirement age."
Artificial scarcity "
There's also the space that a set takes up in warehouses, the production capacity it takes up in the factories, demand from retailers for something new to refresh the shelves instead of "hey weren't they selling that spaceship last year too"...lots of reasons not to keep a product around forever, even if it's popular and making money -- it's an opportunity cost that will eventually hold up something else.
Walmart had them on practically fire-sale prices from time to time (could be as low as $50 depending on when and where -- this for a set that was already a good price at $100), so I'm not feeling particularly pinched by scarcity, although of course your mileage may vary based on region.
A couple times they've released a popular set under another part number, like 21309 becoming 92716, so there might be a chance for another 'cycle'...10928 is taken, but 20928 is available! Especially with another classic space set rumored to come out next year."
10497 was $50 during Black Friday last year and $75 afterwards for Christmas.
@Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year."
I would imagine nostalgia based sets (especially good value ones like the Galaxy Explorer) sell almost instantly to everyone who's interested, then fall back to a trickle of people coming out of their dark age. Other sets probably sell slower but steadier.
How does the Eldorado Fort hold up, for those who own it? After the high anticipation I recall a lot of the reviews were a little lukewarm. Maybe because Barracuda Bay was just so good.
My biggest observation is the relatively high ranking of in-house themes. Only a couple of external IPs making it into the top half. And I guess that speaks to the value for money that Bricksetters are looking for: licensed sets are generally much poorer value.
@HAL_9001 said:
" @beige2 said:
" @Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year.
I didn't really have any sets this year that I bought as soon as possible. Sure, I want the concorde and the land rover, but they're expensive, so I delay buying them until they're nearing retirement age."
Artificial scarcity "
There's also the space that a set takes up in warehouses, the production capacity it takes up in the factories, demand from retailers for something new to refresh the shelves instead of "hey weren't they selling that spaceship last year too"...lots of reasons not to keep a product around forever, even if it's popular and making money -- it's an opportunity cost that will eventually hold up something else.
Walmart had them on practically fire-sale prices from time to time (could be as low as $50 depending on when and where -- this for a set that was already a good price at $100), so I'm not feeling particularly pinched by scarcity, although of course your mileage may vary based on region.
A couple times they've released a popular set under another part number, like 21309 becoming 92716, so there might be a chance for another 'cycle'...10928 is taken, but 20928 is available! Especially with another classic space set rumored to come out next year."
Just saying, with "throwback", "nostalgic" etc products, they usually have short release schedules so you think "Oh, I need to buy this". Think Super Mario 3D All Stars.
It would be nice to see the votes for each option. "No, but I like it" is a much more... "positive" negative than "No, it doesn't interest me, for example. It's strange that the top sets with "Yes, as soon as it's released" were pointed out, but no further data was given. I love seeing these statistics, and don't want to come across as negative, I just think the yearly analysis could be improved. Keep the binary scale for generalization purposes, just add a separate table or something with each response.
How many units does a particular set sell – do LEGO ever publish sales figures?
@HAL_9001 said:
" @beige2 said:
" @Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year.
I didn't really have any sets this year that I bought as soon as possible. Sure, I want the concorde and the land rover, but they're expensive, so I delay buying them until they're nearing retirement age."
Artificial scarcity "
There's also the space that a set takes up in warehouses, the production capacity it takes up in the factories, demand from retailers for something new to refresh the shelves instead of "hey weren't they selling that spaceship last year too"...lots of reasons not to keep a product around forever, even if it's popular and making money -- it's an opportunity cost that will eventually hold up something else.
Walmart had them on practically fire-sale prices from time to time (could be as low as $50 depending on when and where -- this for a set that was already a good price at $100), so I'm not feeling particularly pinched by scarcity, although of course your mileage may vary based on region.
A couple times they've released a popular set under another part number, like 21309 becoming 92716 , so there might be a chance for another 'cycle'... 10928 is taken, but 20928 is available! Especially with another classic space set rumored to come out next year."
I see a pattern of retiring a special classic throwback set every time another one is about to be released that would pair well with it. This ruins the synergy effect the sets could have if offered at the same time. Why would anyone buy the soldiers fort if there are no decent pirate ships available? They addressed this by including the small ship but just imagine the sales if Barracuda Bay had been available with the fort or even with an Armada ship like Imperial Flagship. Galaxy Explorer does the very same thing, disappearing just before the release of what appears to be a Blacktron cruiser.
@Anonym said:
" @HAL_9001 said:
" @beige2 said:
" @Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year.
I didn't really have any sets this year that I bought as soon as possible. Sure, I want the concorde and the land rover, but they're expensive, so I delay buying them until they're nearing retirement age."
Artificial scarcity "
There's also the space that a set takes up in warehouses, the production capacity it takes up in the factories, demand from retailers for something new to refresh the shelves instead of "hey weren't they selling that spaceship last year too"...lots of reasons not to keep a product around forever, even if it's popular and making money -- it's an opportunity cost that will eventually hold up something else.
Walmart had them on practically fire-sale prices from time to time (could be as low as $50 depending on when and where -- this for a set that was already a good price at $100), so I'm not feeling particularly pinched by scarcity, although of course your mileage may vary based on region.
A couple times they've released a popular set under another part number, like 21309 becoming 92716 , so there might be a chance for another 'cycle'... 10928 is taken, but 20928 is available! Especially with another classic space set rumored to come out next year."
I see a pattern of retiring a special classic throwback set every time another one is about to be released that would pair well with it. This ruins the synergy effect the sets could have if offered at the same time. Why would anyone buy the soldiers fort if there are no decent pirate ships available? They addressed this by including the small ship but just imagine the sales if Barracuda Bay had been available with the fort or even with an Armada ship like Imperial Flagship. Galaxy Explorer does the very same thing, disappearing just before the release of what appears to be a Blacktron cruiser."
The 31109 Pirate Ship is still available and very decent imo. It might not be quite as magnificent as Barracuda Bay, but it's more than sufficient to pair with Eldorado Fortress.
Also, in general, the reason the Galaxy Explorer is retiring is that:
1. it has a surfeit of exclusive, limited-reusable prints, which all take up space and production.
2. It's exclusive to Walmart in the US and they *massively* overordered (hence the sales as low as $40 last year), and it was probably only made in large part due to Walmart wanting an exclusive set.
3. Limited appeal to the broader market which doesn't care about Lego nostalgia as much. And those who do care most likely already own at least one of the set.
I’d imagine the reason the Galaxy Explorer is retiring is there’s lots of new Space product about to drop
Surprised to see I don't own any of the sets in the table. Usually I'll just wait till the price comes down, or there is something really tempting at Lego online.
How do the numbers for the 10326 compare to those for this year's modular 10312?
I'm also a little surprised about the impending retirement of 10497, it's a brilliant set and a comparative bargain, which is rare with Lego these days. I'd have to assume it's to avoid cannibalising sales of the 'space range' which is coming out next year.
The Liebherr crane would I'm sure have done better amongst Bricksetters were it not so ridiculously overpriced. IMHO it still wouldn't be good value at 40% off, but there we are.
A very interesting read, as always!
The contrast on the raw data table on dark mode is unreadably low. The text is the standard white/grey seen across the site but the backgrounds are much lighter than the dark grey behind everything else
@Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year."
That's easy. It scored really high with a select group of AFOLs, who mostly bought copies really early after release, or stocked up when Walmart had it marked down 50%. Now that it's back up to full price, and has been around this long, the AFOL crowd is pretty sated. It's not tied to any IP that will drive kids to ask to get it for Christmas, so sales just aren't going to support keeping it in production forever.
@beige2 said:
"Artificial scarcity "
Not really. Lego used to have sets like this available for really long time, but its product range has grown considerably in the last 20 years and sets have a shorter shelf life to accommodate.
I’d say that overall product churn has increased for Lego, although you still get some long-term sets, such as the Creator dinosaurs and the most expensive UCS sets like the Millennium Falcon.
@Anonym said:
" @HAL_9001 said:
" @beige2 said:
" @Tuzi said:
"I still don't understand why Galaxy Explorer is retiring in two weeks when it scored so well last year.
I didn't really have any sets this year that I bought as soon as possible. Sure, I want the concorde and the land rover, but they're expensive, so I delay buying them until they're nearing retirement age."
Artificial scarcity "
There's also the space that a set takes up in warehouses, the production capacity it takes up in the factories, demand from retailers for something new to refresh the shelves instead of "hey weren't they selling that spaceship last year too"...lots of reasons not to keep a product around forever, even if it's popular and making money -- it's an opportunity cost that will eventually hold up something else.
Walmart had them on practically fire-sale prices from time to time (could be as low as $50 depending on when and where -- this for a set that was already a good price at $100), so I'm not feeling particularly pinched by scarcity, although of course your mileage may vary based on region.
A couple times they've released a popular set under another part number, like 21309 becoming 92716 , so there might be a chance for another 'cycle'... 10928 is taken, but 20928 is available! Especially with another classic space set rumored to come out next year."
I see a pattern of retiring a special classic throwback set every time another one is about to be released that would pair well with it. This ruins the synergy effect the sets could have if offered at the same time. Why would anyone buy the soldiers fort if there are no decent pirate ships available? They addressed this by including the small ship but just imagine the sales if Barracuda Bay had been available with the fort or even with an Armada ship like Imperial Flagship. Galaxy Explorer does the very same thing, disappearing just before the release of what appears to be a Blacktron cruiser."
Synergy effect vs cannibalization of sales. IF multiple big-ticket Pirates items are available only at the same time, people would have to choose. However, I 100% would've gotten BB at the time, had I known Eldorado was coming out :(
I'd strike "no, it's too expensive" from the results. While "yes, eventually" could include those that anticipate buying at a discount later, it could just imply something like, "yes, when I've saved enough for it", and price isn't an issue at all, just more immediately. Would be better, to me, to exclude "no, it's too expensive" going forward or to include a "yes, when discounted". Saying you don't want a thing for it being too expensive means there's a point at which that thing is not too expensive. Not all these sets stay at the same price, some authorized retailers will discount some of them, likely in accordance with guidelines from LEGO, well before the end of their production runs. Look at Walmart in this US having discounted 10497 numerous times during its production run.
All that said, I have to concur with the provided rationalization in the conclusion.
After 18 months over 11 thousand Brickset members own 10497, so that suggests it has been very popular with Brickset members. Many of us who are classic space fans bought multiple copies, I got 3. If I’d been in the US for those Walmart discounts I’d probably own a few more.
@Huw is it possible to see how many of a given set are owned vs. how many of us own it? If 5000 of us own 10,000 of a set, then we have an average of two each. I'm guessing 10497 probably has the highest number owned per person, at least of larger sets- things like polybags and battle packs being even higher.
I like the ‘only when on sale’ option. I’ve changed my mind and bought plenty of sets I probably wouldn’t never consider at full price. Alpine Lodge, Land Rover and Rivendell are some examples.
@Maxbricks14 said:
"Mostly predictible socres. Suprised 77015 isn't up there."
BrickFanatics rated it as the best set of the year.
@TeriXeri said:
"It's nice to see the original LEGO themes are still on top."
Year after year, I'm more fed up with licensed. Onwards, I'll try to come back to roots. City, Space, Pirates, Castle.
There's no way to track this, but I wonder how many people who choose "Yes, as soon as it's released" follow through on that. I'm pretty sure that's what I chose when 10320 was announced, but ended up deciding to wait a while for double VIP/Insiders points. I didn't even get it the first time they had double points; I bought it when they had that and 40597 were both available.
@StyleCounselor said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"Mostly predictible socres. Suprised 77015 isn't up there."
BrickFanatics rated it as the best set of the year."
These are only sets they did polls on. 77015 and 41757 I'm sure will be strong competitors for set of the year.
@Banners said:
"How many units does a particular set sell – do LEGO ever publish sales figures?"
No. They never have published sale figures, and likely never will. We do get tiny hints from time to time on things not selling well enough, but that's it. Anything explicit is not given out, because the competition might use it.
@Darth_Dee said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"Mostly predictible socres. Suprised 77015 isn't up there."
BrickFanatics rated it as the best set of the year."
These are only sets they did polls on. 77015 and 41757 I'm sure will be strong competitors for set of the year."
I'm surprised that Indy didn't get a poll and BTS did. But, I suppose that's down to Brickset trying to jump on that Purple Army clickbait.
My take is that interest fades quickly above EUR 300. Rivendell is a worthy exception, granted, but perhaps that has to do with a relative scarcity of Castle sets (so hardcore castleheads have little in the way of competition for their money).
I was somewhat surprised to see some beautiful sets like the Concorde fail to excite much interest, but after some reflexion I wonder if it has to do with their relative "glorified paperwight" status: do they retain enough playability?
@El_gordo:
Some of us understand that the Concorde was a fatally flawed design, and that it's only the fact that the crash investigation was carried out by the two governments that were financially tied up in its inception that blame got shifted elsewhere to save face.
@PurpleDave said:
" @El_gordo:
Some of us understand that the Concorde was a fatally flawed design, and that it's only the fact that the crash investigation was carried out by the two governments that were financially tied up in its inception that blame got shifted elsewhere to save face."
But that doesn't have anything to do with the Lego set.
Rivendells numbers are really impressive considering the price point on that one.
@iwybs:
It has everything to do with the LEGO set. Why do people want to own that set? They're enamored of the Concorde. If someone doesn't care for the plane because it was a flying safety hazard, then why would they want to own the set?
For me it was the 80049 Dragon of the East Palace- It's the most expensive set I got ever, and one I actually felt its worth the price they asked. I havent got immidiately, but it was still one of not many this years most impresive sets.
And no wonder People loved Rivendell and own it so much. Its also great playset that are actually well priced, and feels like a loveletter for any LOTR fan.
@PurpleDave said:
" @iwybs:
It has everything to do with the LEGO set. Why do people want to own that set? They're enamored of the Concorde. If someone doesn't care for the plane because it was a flying safety hazard, then why would they want to own the set?"
It's possible to want or like a Lego set purely for its merit as a Lego build without being interested in whatever intellectual property it's based on, if licensed, or whatever idea it's inspired by, if unlicensed.
I’d like to see the stats on honesty. How many people said no in the poll and then wound up buying it? How many people said yes but didn’t? I know that @Huw has stated ownership data can’t be relied on, but I would think the vast majority of people, especially those who respond to polls, would be truthful when it comes to their collection.
I can tell you that the only set I own on this list is Pac Man which I said I wouldn’t buy. How can I spend more on a Lego set when I could just buy an Arcade 1up and actually play the game? Well I did first buy an Arcade 1up, and the. I decided I could justify buying the set. I hope that Arcade 1up sent Lego a thank you card.
LEGO Icons 10332 Medieval Town Square on top of the list next year!
You heard it here first folks ;P
10497 was easily the best set I've ever built. Way better than the 21322 I built for my cousins, and at the same time much more affordable. I will definitely be buying more Space sets, be it City, Icons, or hopefully something new entirely (Life on Mars/Mars Mission successor please?).
Thanks @huw for the great data and analysis!
I always love these end of year analysis features. Thank-you @Huw ! I have to say, I'm surprised that Concorde isn't higher up the list in terms of ownership. I'm just hoping that some of the "higher-ups" from TLG read this and realise that "retro" sets are what interest the majority of AFOLs.
oh dear, I own 11 of them. Only a couple I've not got yet that I want....
X-wing was discounted by 30% at Argos recently so that could add to the high ownership numbers.
It would probably be interesting to do further time-series analysis on this. If I'm understanding correctly, the responses are taken when the set is announced, but the "number owned" is taken all at the same time (probably roughly when this article was written?) It would probably be interesting to see something like "number owned one month after release date" and "number owned one year after release date".
Similarly, it'd probably be neat to see how the number of respondents correlated to number owned. That is, you might get a 50% response rate saying "I'll buy it immediately" for a LEGO Ideas set, and a 25% response rate for a Star Wars UCS set-- but I'm guessing the volume of responders may correlate better if there were 1000 people responding for the UCS set versus only 200 responding for the LEGO Ideas set?
I guess at the end of the day, the interesting parts might be:
* How good of a predictor are the survey responses?
* Which sets ramped up the most quickly in ownership following their release dates?
* Which sets hit highest percentage owned in "active" set lists?
But then again, I'm a data nerd, so I think everything's interesting with slicing and dicing raw data!
My conclusion? I wish I had more money.
what is most interesting to me as that the sets that get a high "no" and low "yes" are not always the sets with the lowest ownership, wich seems very wierd to me...
@BelgianBricker said:
"what is most interesting to me as that the sets that get a high "no" and low "yes" are not always the sets with the lowest ownership, wich seems very wierd to me..."
It's a bit hard to tell, but it could be due to the overall popularity of the theme. For instance, there are (I think) FAR more Star Wars set collectors than Winter Village collectors (say). So if you have a 55% response rate for the Alpine Lodge with 1,000 responses, then that (in theory) relates to 550 sets owned. By contrast, you might have a 25% response rate to the UCS X-Wing, but (because it's Star Wars), there might be 5,000 responses, which translates to 1,250 sets owned.
But there could easily be other factors at play as well, like people not being good at guessing how likely they are to buy it, or (say) having it bought for them as a gift, or maybe getting it because they speculate it'll go up in value, but aren't buying it for themselves. And it's also possible that it depends on how long the set's been available for, since some people might only update their BrickSet data annually (say), so sets that came out earlier are more likely to be in sync with their actual purchases. Hard to say for sure!
DaveE
@8lackmagic said:
"I'm just hoping that some of the "higher-ups" from TLG read this and realise that "retro" sets are what interest the majority of AFOLs."
That would first need to be true, and I’m not convinced it is. I mean, I would say most AFOLs would be interested in owning reissues or reimagined versions of their favorite sets from childhood, sure. But poor performance with the Legends line suggests that, given the choice, AFOLs are more likely to buy completely new sets rather than nostalgia-bait.
@blogzilly said:
"My conclusion? I wish I had more money."
And mine? I wish I had more space!
@BelgianBricker said:
"what is most interesting to me as that the sets that get a high "no" and low "yes" are not always the sets with the lowest ownership, wich seems very wierd to me..."
I think the polls are probably swayed by the fact that a significant number people come to the news section just to moan endlessly (and often irrationally) about the sets and the company, so clicking on 'it doesn't interest me' or 'it's too expensive' probably gives them an illusion of empowerment.
The database, on the other hand, is likely to be used by people who actually like Lego and use Brickset mainly as an excellent tool for cataloguing their collections and, as such, is ultimately a much better gauge of a set's popularity.
I'm late to comment, but it's interesting how orthogonal this data is to sales momentum anecdotes I've heard from LEGO Store employees in the US as well as what deals & retirements suggest. The vaunted Galaxy Explorer, for example, has been strongly discounted many times and for one day was even 50% off at Walmart, indicating it has *not* sold well. Pac-Man is rated terribly in this data (and yes, more expensive than a real mid-sized working arcade unit), yet I've heard of two stores that had to bring out fresh stock from the back continually even a couple months after its release. I suppose some of this is due to regional differences.
@PurpleDave said:
" @iwybs:
It has everything to do with the LEGO set. Why do people want to own that set? They're enamored of the Concorde. If someone doesn't care for the plane because it was a flying safety hazard, then why would they want to own the set?"
Or maybe people just find the design of the plane itself interesting? I don’t think the real life ramifications have much to do with the Lego build.