Another interesting article. I'm surprised more mid-level priced sets aren't ranked higher in the top 25 than these expensive sets. For example, 40499 Santa's Sleigh at $37 should rank about 11th according to the community own and want numbers.

Interesting seeing the whole list at the bottom there. I think the sets on a net 0 make for an interesting data point, though. It's not that they had loads of maybes, but that they both had a really even split between yes and no.

For me, I don't like the micro scale of the Question Mark (?). Queer Eye, yeah, never saw the show, not interested. Republic Gunship, I don't really know where in the Star Wars universe it's from. I'm not a super fan of Star Wars, but I know the Falcon, Destroyer, R2-D2, AT-AT, etc. Those kinds of things you don't really need to know to know, you know? ?? The Stratocaster looks fantastic, but in reality, it's surprisingly small. However, it's an Ideas set and I'll be buying it solely based on that. World Map is blah, Camp Nou, blah. Let's see some U.S. based sports stadiums!

@LegoDad_itsforme_ said:
""And why is 75309 Republic Gunship not higher up the list given it was the winner of a fan vote?"

personally, its the Price..... had it been in the $250-$350 range it would have been an instant buy. I think that the $800-$900 range is just too limited. "

According to the Canadian LEGO.com, the gunship is $479,99 CAD. It's still a lot, but not $800+.

It might also be caused that most YouTubers (not all) are American so usually not interested in football (or soccer if you must) at all. But besides that, it is indeed quite niche.

For me the gunship was just too pricey, I may get it later, but Star Wars has had several really expensive sets, like the updated Star Destroyer and Mos Eisley that were must haves. I might have been more interested if it was in the 200$ US range. I think it's a great set but it just wasn't a 350$ set for me.

I wish we could have acess to the raw data. I'd like to know about the maybes and the No, it's too expensive.

@Salix said:
" @LegoDad_itsforme_ said:
""And why is 75309 Republic Gunship not higher up the list given it was the winner of a fan vote?"

personally, its the Price..... had it been in the $250-$350 range it would have been an instant buy. I think that the $800-$900 range is just too limited. "

According to the Canadian LEGO.com, the gunship is $479,99 CAD. It's still a lot, but not $800+."

True, it's not $800. But it's not $480 either. The 15% sales tax is not included in prices in Canada. It's actually $550 Canadian when you account for taxes.

Mario clashes with the established scale for Mario sets, bordering on unrecognizable.
Most people voting for the gunship in the fan vote were rather voting for the idea of clone wars era ships finally getting UCS sets again, and against the two ever more obscure OT vehicle choices, than for the UCS Gunship itself.
Also, apparently some thought UCS X-Wing and Y-Wing are minifigscale, so expected a smaller Gunship model than what we got here. How these people can exist right next to UCS B-Wing, A-Wing, TIE and Snowspeeder ist beyond me but it was mentioned rather often.

People care for their scale comparisons, I hope Lego finally takes this to heart and offer more highly detailed, smaller vehicles outside the UCS range. We can get nice giant scale sets like Falcon and AT-AT, and starfighters get a fair shake now and then, but AT-STs and Gunships will probably forever stay in limbo because corporate wants to emphasize their playability, thus can't let them get the details they deserve in favor of stability and playability.

@eiffel006 said:
" @Salix said:
" @LegoDad_itsforme_ said:
""And why is 75309 Republic Gunship not higher up the list given it was the winner of a fan vote?"

personally, its the Price..... had it been in the $250-$350 range it would have been an instant buy. I think that the $800-$900 range is just too limited. "

According to the Canadian LEGO.com, the gunship is $479,99 CAD. It's still a lot, but not $800+."

True, it's not $800. But it's not $480 either. The 15% sales tax is not included in prices in Canada. It's actually $550 Canadian when you account for taxes."

Overhere in the Netherlands the taxes are included. ;)

Camp Nou is an interesting one. I've bought it and I'm not a football fan. The GWP has been selling for £50 and it already has a low ppp, so I bought as a parts pack. It might be interesting to build.

I've always wanted to commend the poll options. It's not easy to accurately provide an option for all the possible opinions and edge cases, but I think these options are quite perfect. I've probably voted for each option at least once, and never felt like my opinion on a set wasn't represented by one of the options. Most polls and surveys are really bad at providing multiple options to cover all bases.

I love Mario 64, and while I think the block is an interesting build and well done, I don't actually need it. I don't know what it is, but in my mind, Mario just doesn't "need" to be Lego, other than maybe something a little more retro. I'd likely buy a diorama/display piece of something from the 8 bit era, but not 64. That's just me, but there you go.

Also, shocked, shocked I tell you to find the UCS Shoe so near the bottom. I can only assume that and the stadiums had some kind of licensing deal that allowed Lego to make them without worrying if they'd sell or not.

If only they did American football

@Huw: I would be really interested to see the results if "No, it's too expensive" was put in the maybe category.

Or in future polls, try "Maybe, if I had more money" instead of "No, it's too expensive".

Somewhat unsurprisingly sets that are generic and serve a general audience are high on the list, sets based on popular and well known IPs are in the middle of the list, an sets based on niche IPs are at the bottom.

@MainBricker said:
"Not overly surprising. For cheaper sets people are more likely to give it a go and it's unfortunate as Lego seem to be focusing on triple figure price sets much more heavily.

The dull or niche sets sit at the bottom, and it's not surprising that Lego are raising the purchase limits on those sets because they're struggling to sell them!"

I mean this as a joke, as I completely understand your point, but a $100 set and a $999 set are both triple figure sets.

@jsworpin said:
"One problem with the data is the yes and no answers and asking different things. Yes answers are grades of desire.
The nos cover like, dislike, and expense.
‘No but I like it’ is actually a positive response. ‘No it’s too expensive’ is also potentially a positive response, they like it but can’t afford it.

Like many polls, poorly worded choices make analysis slightly meaningless."

I don't think there's necessarily a problem with the poll options, depending on what the goal of the poll is. The analysis and interpretation of data just require more nuance. It should maybe be more clear that the "anticipation score" is really a measure of people actually anticipating to buy the set, and not simply the appeal of the model itself without regard for price.

I'm curious about the length of time allowed for responding in the polls. (Do they ever close, or can people respond months or even years later?) I'm sure the bulk of responses come in during the first week of a poll, but if there's a constant trickle of responses after that, then newly announced sets, such as Titanic and Home Alone, may have skewed statistics. Of course, this would only hold true if there's a difference between the way early poll responders answer compared to the way later poll responders answer.

@Huw said:
" @jsworpin said:
"One problem with the data is the yes and no answers and asking different things. Yes answers are grades of desire.
The nos cover like, dislike, and expense.
‘No but I like it’ is actually a positive response. ‘No it’s too expensive’ is also potentially a positive response, they like it but can’t afford it.

Like many polls, poorly worded choices make analysis slightly meaningless."

What would you change the choices to? Lets have that discussion now so we can change them for 2022 press releases."

I think you can collapse “No, it's too expensive” and
“No, but I like it” into “No, I like it but it’s too expensive” since “No, it’s too expensive” implies you like it but have concluded that it’s outside your budget.

“No, but I like it” votes by people who like the item but have no intention of purchasing might be better aggregated under “No, it doesn’t interest me” since the voter does not intend to purchase the item. In fact, “No, it doesn’t interest me” might be better simplified into “No, never” or “No” to make it more general.

@Huw said:
" @jsworpin said:
"One problem with the data is the yes and no answers and asking different things. Yes answers are grades of desire.
The nos cover like, dislike, and expense.
‘No but I like it’ is actually a positive response. ‘No it’s too expensive’ is also potentially a positive response, they like it but can’t afford it.

Like many polls, poorly worded choices make analysis slightly meaningless."

What would you change the choices to? Lets have that discussion now so we can change them for 2022 press releases."

Others have risen to the challenge!

What you ask depends on what analysis you want to do. If it is just intention to buy then a yes/maybe/no would suffice. If you want reasons why e.g. price then a selection of reasons would be a good idea.

@Slobrojoe said:

"As I’ve said before, there is a difference between a set being “too expensive” meaning not enough value for money and “unaffordable” meaning it is too much too splash out at once. “Unaffordable” would be in the same category as “maybe” but “too expensive” would remain as a negative."

Not sure I agree with your semantic analysis. Too expensive is vague, could mean ‘too expensive for me’, ‘too expensive for what it is’. And that is the issue with polls that are not carefully worded, they either remain ambiguous making analysis dodgy, or they lead people to certain answers biased on cognitive bias. Polling is an art as well as a science.

Is there any correlation between the number of unique page opens (how popular the announcement is) and the answers?

@Bhahouighf said:
[[ @LegoDad_itsforme_ said:
[["And why is 75309 Republic Gunship not higher up the list given it was the winner of a fan vote?"

personally, its the Price..... had it been in the $250-$350 range it would have been an instant buy. I think that the $800-$900 range is just too limited. ]]

I agree on the price, but also visually 75309 doesn't differentiate enough from the Gunships at play sets scale, it’s just bigger. I’m blaming the source material for that btw, there is just no detail to scale up. Look at the A-wing UCS (and others) in comparison to its smaller play set cousins and you’ll get what I mean

Price and size - big logistical drivers.

"Net Promoter Score" - ugh, I have to deal with that analysis every day.

@Huw said:
" @jsworpin said:
"One problem with the data is the yes and no answers and asking different things. Yes answers are grades of desire.
The nos cover like, dislike, and expense.
‘No but I like it’ is actually a positive response. ‘No it’s too expensive’ is also potentially a positive response, they like it but can’t afford it.

Like many polls, poorly worded choices make analysis slightly meaningless."

What would you change the choices to? Lets have that discussion now so we can change them for 2022 press releases."

Not really a change to the choices, I think they stand pretty good as it is.
A lot of talk about prices across the globe. An interesting stat to see would be how various countries or regions compare the Yes/ No Vote to the owned/ not owned list.

If a set is generally received positively, but has a low owned count a region could put some insight into it.

The Barcelona football stadium for example, is there a higher yes/owned ratio in Europe verses North America due to popularity in the sport?

The UCS gunship is a fan favorite, but do the yes/ owned reflect counties or regions where the price may be cheaper or perceived as cheaper. Lego sells the gunship for $479.99 CAD or $349.99 USD. However 1 USD = 1.24CAD, so the set should only be around $435 CAD. Does price inflation in some places affect the yes/ owned relationship.

@Huw, this poll was definitely a fun read, I hope regardless we see more stats in the future

@MeisterDad said:
" @Huw said:
" @jsworpin said:
"One problem with the data is the yes and no answers and asking different things. Yes answers are grades of desire.
The nos cover like, dislike, and expense.
‘No but I like it’ is actually a positive response. ‘No it’s too expensive’ is also potentially a positive response, they like it but can’t afford it.

Like many polls, poorly worded choices make analysis slightly meaningless."

What would you change the choices to? Lets have that discussion now so we can change them for 2022 press releases."

Speaking as someone who has experience in statistical analysis and questionnaire design, I think what you are looking for is a spectrum answer to the question of “will you buy this just announced set?” The answer tends to be an emotional one for most people as any advertiser will tell you so the question boils down to how strongly you feel about getting the set right after reading about it. I would suggest a 3 to 5 gradient choice along the lines of

1 - yes, nothing in the world will stop me (day 1 purchasers who camp out in front of the store, stay up to midnight, etc.).
2 - yes, under certain conditions (price reduction, GWP; I am in no hurry).
3 - ambivalent or undecided.
4 - no, and it would take a lot of convincing.
5 - no, never. Not even for free.

The three gradient answer is simpler, with a yes/maybe/no. Again as it is usually an emotional response, eventually some logic will likely supersede it.

Hope this offers some useful information."
This. Do this. I sometimes find it hard to choose from the choices we now got, so i don’t vote in that case.

I like the current poll questions, as others say, it's hard to get a simple option, and the current answers cover a reasonable spread.

I'd love to see an analysis of poll data against reported own /want data, normalized against time. I.e of those people who say they intend to buy it, how many go on to report owning after say, 6 months? Does popularity in a poll correlate against popularity of owning? Can you predict the speed of purchase based on the poll response?

Do you maintain raw logs of profile set updates? The dates people click "I own" or "I want"? You could do some really interesting analysis if you do

(For a given value of interesting, obviously!)

I think this is very interesting. Is it possible to break the data down into location? I think that would be an interesting pattern to see and also by price?

Re: the gunship - I haven't seen it hit the shops here yet, so am waiting on that (tend to wait for the discount where I can). But I would have liked it a touch smaller (mini figures don't bother me in a UCS set).

Set 40516 was also released in June, which is Pride Month, so that certainly had some impact on the number of “ASAP” responses, especially if they felt it was likely to sell out quick and not become available again until the month had concluded.

10283 also fell during the coin promo (whatever happened to them reissuing them _this_year_, as promised?), and had the Ulysses promo to boot, so a number of people were cashing in points to pick up either the Ulysses or Space coin to resell and fund their purchase of the Space Shuttle.

75309 may have won the fan poll by a hefty margin, but I thought the comments were evenly divided between the three options, which would suggest that it appeals more to a subset of AFOLs who don’t have Brickset accounts. Given the age range of people who favor the prequels over the OT, I suspect you’d see data that makes more sense if that vote had been posted on a Bionicle site.

with the ones like the gunship, titanic, and hogwarts i'd be curious to see the full data - how many of the "nos" come down to pricepoint.

once you go over a certain $$ threshhold, you really lose a good bunch of people. even ones who would buy the subject matter otherwise.

thats my theory anyway

Probably far too complicated (and possibly intrusive) but I don’t suppose there’s a way to find out what percentage of users who say yes on the poll then go on to add the set to their Brickset collection

@kkoster79:
I think you’ll find DUPLO sales are pretty anemic amongst Brickset readership, too, but we’re not the target market. A set can sell poorly to AFOLs but still have a robust market with the general public. For these monster D2C sets, maybe not robust, but certainly successful enough that there’s noise about a third stadium coming down the pipe. If Old Trafford had bombed right out of the gate, Camp Nou might have squeaked through for being that far along in development, but further entries may have either been postponed pending sales data from a second stadium set, or outright cancelled.

@Yorick:
Huge market for a small Castle selection could easily translate to small market for a huge Castle selection. Especially for Ideas, there are a ton of people who will go in on something that’s a one-off, but balk at the Idea of funding an ongoing theme (or ten).

@Chang9081:
The Reoublic Gunship is, of course, from...the Republic!

@LegoDavid:
Clearly they do sell, or they wouldn’t be expanding their 18+ lineup. We’ve seen comments from people who are struggling to keep their heads above water as they try to buy them all, from people who never really bought them until recently when stuff that interests them finally got produced, from people who have shifted their buying habits to prioritize stuff that people here claimed wouldn’t sell (and should be abandoned to focus on their favorite themes), and absolutely nothing from the casual adult buyers who don’t really know about the AFOL community (or don’t consider themselves to part of it). The only easy takeaway is that most of the vocal Brickset community are in the “if I don’t like it, clearly nobody else does either” camp.

@xprojected:
I buy stuff I don’t want all the time, this end of the year. They’re called “presents”. If someone is buying it for parts, they may also respond negatively to the “want” question because they truly don’t want the _set_, but they will buy it to part out anyways.

@Anonym:
The UCS X-Wing and Y-Wing models all come with astromechs, right? Minifig-scale astromechs? That’s where people get the idea that the entire set is minifig scale. I’ve got a Technic fig sitting in my original UCS X-Wing because the seat is for Technic figs. Until you try to seat a pilot, though, you might not realize the cockpit is like a dorm room to a minifig.

@lynels:
Queer Eye may have had a champion within the company, who swore up and down that it would sell. And who knows? Maybe it will, to fans of the show. I’m on the film selection committee at a local historic movie theatre, and one of the other guys kept pushing for Harold & Maude, swearing it would be a huge seller, even though I didn’t really see it happening. And you know what? It drew in more attendance than some of the movies I’ve suggested. Not more than BttF2 when we showed it on October 21, 2015, but well enough that there wasn’t any pushback when he suggested showing it again a few years later. This set will either fail miserably, or do very well while AFOLs huddle around to watch it fail miserably.

@Daniel8:
I’d rather see the 2022 poll analysis, right now, so we can see what’s going to be released all next year.

Not surprised by the results, though one has to wonder how do the stats from here map to LEGO's actual sales data report? In other words, how well does the active AFOL-mostly Brickset community represent the wider LEGO customer? Maybe there's a boatload of people who would buy, say the World Map, that don't really follow LEGO community websites.

The answers are logic. They are the best ones!!
I have the Medievel Blacksmith 21325 and I will buy the Santa's visit 10293 before Christmas!! The 40516 is also on my wish list!

For the poll questions, I think they're good for the purpose. Only thing I'd change is to add an option for "Yes, for parts/MoC" as suggested earlier.

@Huw said:
" @jsworpin said:
"One problem with the data is the yes and no answers and asking different things. Yes answers are grades of desire.
The nos cover like, dislike, and expense.
‘No but I like it’ is actually a positive response. ‘No it’s too expensive’ is also potentially a positive response, they like it but can’t afford it.

Like many polls, poorly worded choices make analysis slightly meaningless."

What would you change the choices to? Lets have that discussion now so we can change them for 2022 press releases."

I think the poll options are fine on a set-by-set basis for gauging interest- the fact the No options are more objective than the emotional Yes responses provides a more nuanced breakdown of the responses, but as others have pointed out it doesn’t lend itself to end of year comparisons between sets because of those nuances. The statistically accurate options actually provide a blander insight.

@audaver said:
" @LegoDad_itsforme_ said:
""And why is 75309 Republic Gunship not higher up the list given it was the winner of a fan vote?"

personally, its the Price..... had it been in the $250-$350 range it would have been an instant buy. I think that the $800-$900 range is just too limited. "

Even if I assume you're referring to Canadian dollars The Republic Gunship is well below $800 CAD - it's $480 CAD.

If we look at known prices for UCS sets across the four currencies (GBP, USD, CAD & EUR) the Gunship basically sits on the median and mean in terms of PPP. It's 1p over for GBP and 1c for CAD while it's bang on for USD. It's one of the higher priced sets but it's also one of the larger ones.

I'm more inclined to believe that either Brickset doesn't do a good job of representing the people that voted on that occasion or the voted was possibly manipulated by certain high-profile influencers using their fan base as a mob to get what they want. After all getting somebody to vote is easy if they don't have to back it up with a future £330/$350USD/$480CAD purchase."

Wow big "oops" on my part I should have double checked my numbers before opening mouth.... my point however remains the same ( it was just priced alittle too high) yes CAD $300 would have been my limit for the set, I believe it was even part of the survey questions. ??

Look how popular Medieval Blacksmith is compared to just about everything else.

But you know, "People aren't interested in Castle anymore". And for those who would argue that this is a site primarily for AFOLs which might explain why there is a demand for historical sets, well why not just release some historical sets each year for the adult market?

The key word there is SOME. I'm not saying bring back whole themes (although that would be nice). But a whole Imperial Fort and/or Naval Ship, as well as a new take on Imperial Trading Post (not a rerelease but a re-imagining rather like POBB) would be great and sell well, an Islanders based set would also be cool and allow Lego to explore some Pacific cultures since people love having different cultures in Lego.

Then Castle of course we could have a forest based set with some trees built using interesting techniques for Forestmen, perhaps a new Medieval Village set (again not a re release but a whole new idea along similar lines to the original set) so some village buildings, animals, peasents, maybe a castle wall.

It would be great to bring back another old faction like Wolfpack, Fright Knights, Black Monarch whatever it is to 'fight' the Black Falcons. We could have a new Black Falcon's castle and a new -other faction- castle another year, which would give people a chance to get a castle again, have multiple castles or simply use the parts to make a super castle.

These wouldnt be massive sets, just decent sized castles with NPU, and some interesting play features be it hot oil, doors that are made weak so that a battering ram can break them down, walls that are weak for catapults/trebuchets to break them down, secret passages or trapdoors etc.
There would be opportunities for different types of castles too, rather then just yet another square, grey, 'stereotypical' castle, one set could be inspired more by ornate French castles, another perhaps more Germanic and on a moat etc. etc.

Still trying to determine where I can place the Titanic if I purchase

I'm part of the masses! The only two I own are the two most favorite.

Join me, fellow masses!

@elangab said:
"How many kept 40516 Everyone is Awesome as a set VS just bought because they wanted to parts ? Is the set good by its own, or just because it's the only/cheaper way to acquire these bricks and ignoring the set itself ?"
Speaking for myself as a monofig collector, I bought two of this set. One for myself (which is still sealed tbh) and one for my younger daughter who just loves the colourful design. Hers is built and on display in her room.

As a parts pack, especially for monofigs, it's a steal. Funnily enough, by the time this set came out I had already managed to acquire all the parts for the monofigs that are included in the set. But I had to take several minifigs from my collection apart or buy parts on Bricklink and wipe the prints in order to do so. Therefore I will use the complete monofigs from this set in order to be able to return the parts I took from other figs in my collection. Especially as some of them came from CMFs.

One set that was low on the list but high on my want list was the Ideas Typewriter by the way. But that didn't surprise me tbh.

@Twolfboy21:
It should fit in most bathtubs. Sadly, it won’t float...

@illennium said:
"Some commenters should google and read about customer acquisition versus customer retention. It is more valuable -- and much, much more expensive -- to acquire a new customer than it is to retain an existing customer. Every brand knows this, and certainly LEGO is aggressively acting on this principle in the last few years. If new sets aren't to your liking then this is 99% the reason why (the other 1% is you might just be a crank!)."

It is actually more valuable to retain. The most valuable customer is a returning customer. An acquisition is a one off and a potential return. A customer retained is a repeat and will tend to repeat multiple times.................. this is obvious.

@MingusDew said:
" @Slobrojoe said:
" @Huw said:
" @jsworpin said:
"One problem with the data is the yes and no answers and asking different things. Yes answers are grades of desire.
The nos cover like, dislike, and expense.
‘No but I like it’ is actually a positive response. ‘No it’s too expensive’ is also potentially a positive response, they like it but can’t afford it.

Like many polls, poorly worded choices make analysis slightly meaningless."

What would you change the choices to? Lets have that discussion now so we can change them for 2022 press releases."

As I’ve said before, there is a difference between a set being “too expensive” meaning not enough value for money and “unaffordable” meaning it is too much too splash out at once. “Unaffordable” would be in the same category as “maybe” but “too expensive” would remain as a negative."

(My comment not specifically directed @Slobrojoe, but continuing the poll questions thread)

I'm not sure I understand the issue we're discussing. The poll question is "will you be buying?". It is not "do you like this set?" That would be a different poll than what this is. So it's not accurate to say that "no it's too expensive" is a "positive" response to the question being asked ("will you buy it"). It just means that this poll is not reaching the details you want it to reach. Right? (I am not a polling expert so I acknowledge I might be missing something.)

I like the poll in its current format - "will you buy this, or not". This is interesting to me. And "do you like it or not" would also be interesting!

To "get around" the issue of earlier-than-scheduled releases, or whatever else, perhaps there could be a survey article by itself, separate from the press release, that includes the current question, and also a new "do you like it" type question. Then everyone would know where to go to vote - it would be a dedicated article. Of course then you're also increasing the selection bias, but I doubt that's a huge increase of those who "select" to read the press release article because they know it will include the poll.

Anyway - this is definitely a topic of interest to me, thank you to everyone who raised it and is discussing it."

I like the idea of having the polls be separate articles. I must have missed a few myself with them being at the end of the press releases, and had not made the connection that these articles always have the polls.

I think the Barca set is very interesting. This set could not have been released at a worse time then with Messi leaving. I have to guess that FCB lost a ton of fans when that happened, and the future of the club is uncertain. Who wants to celebrate that news with a. Costly LEGO purchase? Personally, I am a Barca fan, and a Messi fan. However, I love the Gift With Purchase set about 100 times more than the stadium.

I am working on buying all the large sets that are about to retire, so I will be buying these 2021 sets in a few years…

@illennium:
Within the scope of the Brickset readership, @elangab actually asked some legitimate questions. These are the sorts of things we think about as AFOLs, so it might actually be interesting to see how purchases of 40516 split between monofigs, basic parts pack, the constructed set, or keeping it MISB. Even the general public might surprise you with their answers. Bulk brick packs are marketed as a source of loose pieces, so even the public is familiar with the idea of buying sets for the parts instead of the model.

@illennium said:
" @elangab said:
"How many kept 40516 Everyone is Awesome as a set VS just bought because they wanted to parts ? Is the set good by its own, or just because it's the only/cheaper way to acquire these bricks and ignoring the set itself ?"

The vast majority of people who bought that set did so to keep as a set.
The vast majority of people who buy LEGO sets do not buy them for parts.
The vast majority of people who buy LEGO sets do not know what a monofig is, or care.
The vast majority of people who buy LEGO sets do not look at price per piece ratio or any of that.
In almost every possible way, in almost every case, we here at this site are outliers and not representative of the broader market.

"

While I certainly don’t have any data about this set, I wouldn’t be surprised if, in this particular case, a lot of people did buy it as a parts pack, or for a specific color and didn’t really care about the rest. There really isn’t much of a build to it or a well defined structure that would draw people in. It’s the different color options that are the real draw.

Nice analysis, I would just suggest to invert the color gradient of the 'No' column: a lower % of negative responses in the poll is better (greener).

Regarding the poll options, I think the current format is very good and can be kept for 2022. One possible change is including the RRP in the question: Will you be buying this set at the recommended retail price? Currently, there is a grey area between the options 'Yes, eventually (after it's discounted)' and 'No, it's too expensive (unless it's discounted)'

I’m just amazed looking at that list of sets and really don’t want any of them.

Gunship is low, because it is rubbish. Over priced for starters, not to mention, it 'won' the vote by being influenced by a youtuber or too begging their children fans to vote for it

@monkyby87:
While 40516 might be on the large end of sets that can be accurately built from the cover art and parts list alone, don’t doubt for a minute that many people did buy it for the full model. It’s got symbolic value for a lot of people.

Another option would be to have an " I want this set" check box at the bottom of press releases and/or new set reviews so logged in users can instantly check the box without going to the set page to do it which, I must admit, I can rarely be bothered doing. This would be in addition to the polls.

@Briczk said:
"Noteworthy information but remember that it doesn't determine overall sell (result continuation of series). Here we have people which are into LEGO and read sometimes or daily about it.
For example Camp Nou can target ordinary people and sell good, because LEGO is planning next stadiums. Yet most of us know that stadium sets are boring, repeated and pricy."

As a lifelong Manchester United and LEGO fan, I can tell you that the Old Trafford stadium set was one of the most rewarding builds ever due to the amount of details that they managed to include in the model. I think LEGO knocked it out of the park with this theme because these clubs (United, Barcelona, etc.) have hundreds of millions of fans around the world, and even if a small percentage of those are LEGO fans, I still expect the models to sell well. These stadiums may not be the bread and butter for a fan of more classic LEGO sets, but I think they have their place now.

@Alienware said:
"As a lifelong Manchester United and LEGO fan, I can tell you that the Old Trafford stadium set was one of the most rewarding builds ever due to the amount of details that they managed to include in the model. "
I absolutely detest football, but I think these stadium sets are great, not for football but for concert venues. Both the sets so far have been home to some massive concerts. Come on Lego... add a stage, and a Rolling Stones GWP! (and then the original Wembley Stadium please!)

@PurpleDave said:
" @monkyby87:
While 40516 might be on the large end of sets that can be accurately built from the cover art and parts list alone, don’t doubt for a minute that many people did buy it for the full model. It’s got symbolic value for a lot of people."

Yes I know, I was just saying that this set, more so than others, lends itself to a parts pack.

@lynels said:
"Republic Gunship I remember very well that a lot of people complained the fact it wasn't minfig scale. And to make things worse Lego said it was just "a little above the minifig scale" and people was like "why not the minifig scale then??". I think many potential buyers were frustrated by this specific factor. And there's the price too...

The Super Mario 64 block, although I liked it a lot, I admit it could be A LOT better if Lego had made a set of Princess Peach's castle, and add some regular minifigs for Mario, Peach and maybe a Toad. People may not be that interested in a set that is mostly a cube if they aren't hardcore fans of Super Mario, and I understand it.

The stadium sets... Man, it feels like Lego is picking the WORST POSSIBLE CHOICES to do stadium sets. Manchester United is not even the shadow of the powerful club it once was, since 2013 they're performing just average and even got trashed by their rivals last weekend. Barcelona is almost bankrupt and much like United, is far from the glory days. What will be next? Arsenal? Milan? If they want some success with these sets they will need to focus on sucessful clubs of the moment, like PSG, Bayern, Manchester City or Real Madrid.

Queer Eye was WAY TOO niche. It looks cool and all, but I had never heard about the series before the set. It should be like a warning for the excess of sitcom sets. The Adidas shoe and the Fender are... how can I say it.... too simple for the price? (the Adidas is even more expensive than the real pair). Titanic is fantastic, but the price is scary."

I think you have a point on the current success of the clubs, but historically, Manchester United and Barcelona are very popular. Man U was the only club I could watch in the States in the 90's, thus I am a big United fan. I think Lego is selecti these historic clubs first. That being said, Bayern Munich should be made as they are both historic and VERY successful.

@Alienware:
I’m pretty sure they’d need to make a baseball stadium to “knock it out of the park”.

@sjr60:
I want a Roger Waters: The Wall: Live at the Berlin Wall concert set, complete with people who climbed up street lights so they could see over the crowd. That and The Beatles on top of the Apple Corps building.

@LegoHamlet:
Eh, they got a CMF wave already...

@Brickchap said:
"Look how popular Medieval Blacksmith is compared to just about everything else.

But you know, "People aren't interested in Castle anymore". And for those who would argue that this is a site primarily for AFOLs which might explain why there is a demand for historical sets, well why not just release some historical sets each year for the adult market?

The key word there is SOME. I'm not saying bring back whole themes (although that would be nice). But a whole Imperial Fort and/or Naval Ship, as well as a new take on Imperial Trading Post (not a rerelease but a re-imagining rather like POBB) would be great and sell well, an Islanders based set would also be cool and allow Lego to explore some Pacific cultures since people love having different cultures in Lego.

Then Castle of course we could have a forest based set with some trees built using interesting techniques for Forestmen, perhaps a new Medieval Village set (again not a re release but a whole new idea along similar lines to the original set) so some village buildings, animals, peasents, maybe a castle wall.

It would be great to bring back another old faction like Wolfpack, Fright Knights, Black Monarch whatever it is to 'fight' the Black Falcons. We could have a new Black Falcon's castle and a new -other faction- castle another year, which would give people a chance to get a castle again, have multiple castles or simply use the parts to make a super castle.

These wouldnt be massive sets, just decent sized castles with NPU, and some interesting play features be it hot oil, doors that are made weak so that a battering ram can break them down, walls that are weak for catapults/trebuchets to break them down, secret passages or trapdoors etc.
There would be opportunities for different types of castles too, rather then just yet another square, grey, 'stereotypical' castle, one set could be inspired more by ornate French castles, another perhaps more Germanic and on a moat etc. etc."

I think a lot of these themes depends on the way its done. like I agree with LEGO that a standard Castle lineup of playsets that has 5-6 sets at the full gamut of price points from $10 to $120 is probably a dud compared to others they could do.

But a 1 set per year series aimed at AFOLs where all the sets are $150 to $250 might work really really well.

To be fair, how can you make into minifig form the Super Mario characters (which don'y respect at all the minifig standard)?

what does "no, but i like it" even mean? the yes choices are fairly obvious: I'm either going to buy it immediately or later.

"no, but I like it" could have crossover with both of the other 2 no options, or it could be a whole other reason instead:

* there are plenty of sets I like from a build/creativity/art standpoint. Like the Stratocaster for example. but I have zero interest in buying it. So I could select either of those options, rather randomly, which makes the poll results muddy
* there are other sets I like but I find too expensive. Hogwarts comes to mind. Again, I could pick either no option and it becomes random where my vote gets bucketed. because it is both
* then there are sets that I like but won't buy for other reasons. R2D2 for example, because I already own the previous one.

I think if you want to stick with a single question, the suggestion above is the best approach:
1 - yes, nothing in the world will stop me (day 1 purchasers who camp out in front of the store, stay up to midnight, etc.).
2 - yes, under certain conditions (price reduction, GWP; I am in no hurry).
3 - ambivalent or undecided.
4 - no, and it would take a lot of convincing.
5 - no, never. Not even for free.

this way we aren't mixing likeability and likelihood of purchase in a single question. it's just about intent to buy.

though I also like the 2-question version suggested as well where you capture likeability of set and likelihood of purchase separately, which would allow you to plot them on a matrix too.

@LegoHamlet said:
" @lynels said:
"Republic Gunship I remember very well that a lot of people complained the fact it wasn't minfig scale. And to make things worse Lego said it was just "a little above the minifig scale" and people was like "why not the minifig scale then??". I think many potential buyers were frustrated by this specific factor. And there's the price too...

The Super Mario 64 block, although I liked it a lot, I admit it could be A LOT better if Lego had made a set of Princess Peach's castle, and add some regular minifigs for Mario, Peach and maybe a Toad. People may not be that interested in a set that is mostly a cube if they aren't hardcore fans of Super Mario, and I understand it.

The stadium sets... Man, it feels like Lego is picking the WORST POSSIBLE CHOICES to do stadium sets. Manchester United is not even the shadow of the powerful club it once was, since 2013 they're performing just average and even got trashed by their rivals last weekend. Barcelona is almost bankrupt and much like United, is far from the glory days. What will be next? Arsenal? Milan? If they want some success with these sets they will need to focus on sucessful clubs of the moment, like PSG, Bayern, Manchester City or Real Madrid.

Queer Eye was WAY TOO niche. It looks cool and all, but I had never heard about the series before the set. It should be like a warning for the excess of sitcom sets. The Adidas shoe and the Fender are... how can I say it.... too simple for the price? (the Adidas is even more expensive than the real pair). Titanic is fantastic, but the price is scary."

I think you have a point on the current success of the clubs, but historically, Manchester United and Barcelona are very popular. Man U was the only club I could watch in the States in the 90's, thus I am a big United fan. I think Lego is selecti these historic clubs first. That being said, Bayern Munich should be made as they are both historic and VERY successful."

Also, Manchester United are still in the top three supported Football/Soccer Clubs in the world. Real Madrid top the list, so it might be sensible for LEGO to make their Stadium and 2nd is Barcelona, so it makes sense for it to be made.

Man Utd also gave a large fan base in China and seeing the recent big surges in the Asian LEGO market (crazy amounts of LEGO shops and Monkie Kid for example) it seems like a good move.

I might be biased though, I’m a Utd fan

@gabri_ves:
They’ve made Buzz & Woody, Jack Skellington, Sonic the Hedgehog, and a bunch of real humans into minifigs. All they have to worry about is making sure Mario is shorter than Luigi.

@dougts & @Brickchap:
Your suggestion is already reality! In Creator 3-in-1: last year the pirate ship, tavern & skull island 31109 and this year medieval castle, tower with catapult & small market 31120. For next year, there are strong rumours about a Viking ship...

I do think that the Blacksmith is a great set, but I'm personally not very interested in it. The old Castle them passed me buy, and I don't own any castle sets.
The Shuttle is on top of my wish list, also, with Daily Bugle and Home Alone.
The Titanic and RGS are kinda expensive and massive, but I'm very surprised to see the World Map (it's a truly underestimated set) and Super Mario 64 in the NO section.

With the current poll, I would simply apply a straight numerical representation to each answer and then divide the aggregate score by the number of respondents.

10 - Yes, as soon as it's released
8 - Yes, eventually
6 - Maybe, I haven't made up my mind yet
4 - No, but I like it
2 - No, it's too expensive
0 - No, it doesn't interest me

The problem, though, is that No, but I like it and No, it’s too expensive are basically saying the same thing with one of them just specifically calling out a reason for the No.

So, it’s both finding the clearest questions as well as the right type of analysis.

You could try out the Oscars methodology for analysis that circumnavigates the middle votes and more heavily weights the top choices.

@illennium said:
" @elangab said:
"How many kept 40516 Everyone is Awesome as a set VS just bought because they wanted to parts ? Is the set good by its own, or just because it's the only/cheaper way to acquire these bricks and ignoring the set itself ?"

The vast majority of people who bought that set did so to keep as a set.
The vast majority of people who buy LEGO sets do not buy them for parts.
The vast majority of people who buy LEGO sets do not know what a monofig is, or care.
The vast majority of people who buy LEGO sets do not look at price per piece ratio or any of that.
In almost every possible way, in almost every case, we here at this site are outliers and not representative of the broader market.

"

The vast majority of people who bought that set are not even aware that "Brickset" is a site. You know that I was referring to the survey in the context of the site's users.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Alienware:
I’m pretty sure they’d need to make a baseball stadium to “knock it out of the park”."
That's a great one. Why didn't I think of that?
:-)

@Zoerbrick said:
" @dougts & @Brickchap :
Your suggestion is already reality! In Creator 3-in-1: last year the pirate ship, tavern & skull island 31109 and this year medieval castle, tower with catapult & small market 31120 . For next year, there are strong rumours about a Viking ship..."

The problem is these aren’t AFOL centric designs. Their kid-targeted play sets. There is no comparison to the the blacksmith or pirate ideas sets, which are much more adult oriented

@Huw said:
" @jsworpin said:
"One problem with the data is the yes and no answers and asking different things. Yes answers are grades of desire.
The nos cover like, dislike, and expense.
‘No but I like it’ is actually a positive response. ‘No it’s too expensive’ is also potentially a positive response, they like it but can’t afford it.

Like many polls, poorly worded choices make analysis slightly meaningless."

What would you change the choices to? Lets have that discussion now so we can change them for 2022 press releases."

I would add a “yes, if it goes on sale” option.

Also I’d be interested to see how many people read each article. If something is totally uninteresting to me (like Harry Potter or a Christmas set, I don’t even bother reading about it). I think article views would be very significant in determining a “winner”.

@LegoDavid said:
"What we can learn from this, is that LEGO puts out way too many expensive D2C sets, and most of them aren't going to sell. They need to slow down a little bit with all those sets, in order to avoid oversaturating the market. "

Too late. I suspect this past year everyone's wishlists got longer what with new set announcements coming monthly, if not bi-weekly. And with the price of some of these sets and how niche they are it certainly feels that way. I sometimes go into a store and walk out empty-handed because of, frankly, being numbed. Bugle or Diagon Alley...$400+. But next month is...

I miss when themes usually only had 5-6 sets per release 2x per year with a good spread in prices...certainly made it easier to budget/acquire. Now there seems to be 8-10 if one also includes the cross-overs to other themes, mostly the "adult-oriented sets" (modular buildings/helmets/art,etc), that command $300+.

It may help to know why a person would buy or not buy the set, and what type of value they put in different sets. Some people are primarily one-time builders for display, some are investors and some like me are primarily MOC builders:
- Buy for the set to display as a single set e.g. statue or LEGO Ideas model.
- Buy for the set to become part of a theme or layout e.g. train, wagon, car or building, or SW ship.
- Buy for parts - this is a major reason for me, whether I like the set model or not, to get the value from the parts after I've built one example of the set (for those I buy in multiple).
- Buy as an investment (not me; this is a different type of value to assess).

I tend to rate sets as:
- Buy one soon, perhaps in a LEGO shop on AFOL day, and maybe others later on discount once I've evaluated it. (I avoid trying to be the first to get a new set as it's a rip off anyway and failure only leads to disappointment)
- Buy one or more on discount only, for the parts or the theme.
- Don't buy as it's not a relevant model i.e. not enough good for parts and not useful as the model it is.

So I think the poll options are good, but I would add another "Yes" category as
- "Yes, I will probably buy and build with more than one example of the set".
That would indicate which sets are even more popular for building, either as the set model or the parts (i.e. its design and content), as opposed to "one to build and another as an investment" (its financial value or popularity later on). Some sets are good in multiple and those should be encouraged more. You can see the "shape" of an AFOL from the "I own more than one of this set" data. I often build the first of a multiple, sort the rest and then sort the first one because I don't have enough room to keep all the sets built!

Benny's Space Squad 70841 is probably my most numerous multiple set apart from railway tracks. The Exo Suit 21109 is my most numerous LEGO Ideas set. Sometimes it is difficult to understand why TLG does not do more in the classic themes that we would pounce on, either Classic Space, Pirates or Castle. The only reason for me not buying more Pirates of Barracuda Bay 21322 was that I don't have a spare room to fill with that theme!

I often buy multiples of Technic sets, focusing on ones that have the colours of panels I will re-use for MOCs because the panels cost an average of £1 each and make up a significant proportion of most sets now; I don't want too many to be filling boxes. Many 42025, 42040 and 42044 for white panels for a MOC. Same goes for pneumatics; 8455 was great on discount but others since then have revived the sub-theme.

I guess the Gunship is so low because of the controversy surrounding its marketing, ('Set from the Original Trilogy', no clone pilot etc.). I'd say the Mario 64 block was as a result of the lack of minifigures.

It shouldn't be surprising that sets that:
a) Are based on beloved IPs (Friends, Winnie the Pooh etc.)
and/or
b) contain minifigures
came out on the top spot.