DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 20389--------------------------------------------------
Η Κομμουνισ	
64;ική Απάτη το
;υ Φεμινισμο&#
973;
By: Pinochet88 Date: January 19, 2016, 12:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Διαφωτιστι_
4;ό
άρθρο του Ryan McMaken
από την
ιστοσελίδα
του
ινστιτούτο`
5;
Μίζες για
τον τρόπο με
τον οποίο οι
επιχειρήσε_
3;ς
στην
ελεύθερη
αγορά
εξυπηρετού_
7;
τις ανάγκες
και τις
επιθυμίες
του
καταναλωτή,
ο οποίος
είναι
αυτόχρημα
κυρίαρχος,
ενώ
ταυτόχρονα
συνδέουν
την
δυνατότητα
οικονομική`
2;
επιβίωσής
τους με
αυτήν την
αύξηση της
ποιότητας
της ζωής των
καταναλωτώ_
7;.
Ο
Καπιταλισμa
2;ς
είναι το
μοναδικό
σύστημα που
θέτει τον
καταναλωτή
κυρίαρχο
και οι
φεμινιστές,
αυτά τα
κολλεκτιβι`
3;τικά
θρασίμια,
των οποίων
στόχος
είναι να
ποδηγετήσο`
5;ν
και να
εξανδραποδ^
2;σουν
τη ζωή του
καταναλωτή
μέσα στα
σκοταδιστι_
4;ά
και αφύσικα
δόγματα της
εξουσίας,
δεν μπορούν
και δεν
θέλουν να
κατανοήσου_
7;
το πως
δουλεύει η
αγορά.
Εμμονικά
κολλημένο
το
μυαλουδάκι
των
φεμινοκρατ_
3;κιστών
στη
σοσιαλιστι_
4;ή
τυραννία,
δεν είναι σε
θέση να
εκτιμήσει
το μεγαλείο
της αγοράς,
ούτε να
αποδεχτεί
την
ανθρώπινη
φύση που το
καθοδηγεί.
Ο κόσμος των
φεμινιστών,
όπως κάθε
κρατικιστή,
είναι
ριζικά
αντεστραμμ^
1;νος
και
διεστραμμέ_
7;ος.
Μέσα δεν
υπάρχουν
κυρίαρχοι
άνθρωποι
που έχουν τη
δυνατότητα
και την
ελευθερία
να
επιλέγουν,
αλλά
υπάνθρωπα
γρανάζια
που ζουν για
να
εξυπηρετού_
7;
τις
προκλητικέ`
2;
επιθυμίες
της
άρχουσας
τάξης, των
παρασίτων,
των
καταναλωτώ_
7;
φόρων και
των
κρατικών
αξιωματούχ`
9;ν.
[hr]
[center]Un-PC Lego Making Toys Girls Like
Ryan McMaken[/center]
[size=12pt][font=times new roman]Lego — the company that makes
stackable toy bricks — has become a toy powerhouse in recent
years, even surpassing Mattel in toy sales during 2014. Lego has
become so popular, in fact, that the company has problems
avoiding “[url
HTML http://bc.vc/k6oaAo]brick
shortages[/url].”
Lego’s success has been helped along by the fact that — finally
— Lego has managed to find success with girls.
With the launch of the Lego Friends line, Lego has tapped into
50 percent of the child population:
according to research firm NPD Group, the market for girls’
construction toys in the U.S. and the main European countries
tripled to $900 million in 2014 from $300 million in 2011,
largely on the back of the Lego Friends sets. And Lego says the
share of girls among Lego players, which stood below 10% in the
U.S. before the launch of Lego Friends, has increased sharply.
The Feminist Controversy
Perhaps predictably, Lego has been condemned by feminists and
culture warriors for making Lego too “girly.” Those familiar
with the Friends line already know how, instead of red and blue
bricks for making fire stations, the new line designed for girls
features purple and pink blocks (among other colors) for
constructing yachts, homes, and restaurants.
The Wall Street Journal recently examined the controversy,
noting:
After five years of work, [Lego] was enthusiastic about
launching Lego Friends. The new sets, however, immediately
unleashed a torrent of criticism from feminist groups. A U.S.
activist organization, the Spark Movement, gathered 50,000
signatures with an online petition in 2012 and requested a
meeting with Lego executives. Another group, Feminist Frequency,
also complained.
“We were so disappointed,” said Dana Edell, executive
director of the Spark Movement. “Lego was sending a message that
girls get to play with hair dryers while boys get to build
airplanes and skyscrapers.”
Ms. Edell, however, should probably aim her disappointment and
disdain at seven-year-old girls rather than at Lego. After all,
Lego’s success, or lack thereof, in marketing these products
depends on the decisions of little girls.
Profit Seekers: Make Toys Girls Like
That is, Lego can only make money from the girl demographic if
it makes toys little girls decide they want to play with.
Following years of focus groups and surveys, Lego has produced
toys that it thinks will attract their attention and demand.
Lego has said exactly this in interviews:
Our methods are simple; meet children’s needs by testing
prototypes on them and getting their opinion. We have realized
that girls like building too, so LEGO gave them the chance to
customise their world, until then their needs were not met. We
also realised that girls wanted to be able to identify with the
figures and we therefore had to develop figures closer to their
expectations: more feminine, less “square” than our standard
mini-figurines. Since friendship is a core value for little
girls, we created a universe which centred around a story of
friendship between our 5 heroines.
Anyone who has daughters — and listens to what they say — can
see this is a plausible scenario.
The Lego Friends line, which is just as rigorous in terms of
construction difficulty as any other line, was designed to
appeal to girls in ways that Legos did not before.
Lego wanted girls to buy their products, so it designed products
that appealed to them, based on market research.
How Lego Became a Boy Brand
If Lego ignored what girls really wanted, and marketed something
else, they would not make as much money. Or no money at all.
This explains how Lego became a “boy’s brand” in the first
place.
After marketing its toys for years in a unisex manner, Lego
found by the 1980s that all its best-selling sets were “boy”
sets featuring pirates and knights and spacemen.
The company then began to market more aggressively to boys,
since like most companies, it ended up focusing on the most
profitable sector of its customer base.
Lego Finally Figures Out What Girls Want
Lego still attempted to market to girls, but failed, perhaps
even due to genuine sexism. Thinking that girls did not want the
same level of rigor in construction as boys, Lego in the 1970s
and afterward marketed a variety of “simplified” types of Legos
that failed. These included Lego jewelry sets known as “Scala”
and easy-to-build sets based on mimicking doll houses.
If Lego was being sexist, it was punished by the market for it.
Lego simply failed to cater to the wants and needs of girls. And
it endured foregone profits because of it.
With Lego Friends, Lego finally found a line that girls actually
like, and the market is rewarding them accordingly. Meanwhile,
feminists attack Lego for making toys that children want to buy,
but which feminists think girls should not want to buy.
The real problem the anti-Lego feminists have then, is not with
Lego but with the fact that girls like to play with the sort of
toys found in the Friends line. The blame for this lies with the
girls themselves.
After all, Lego did not raise these girls or tell them what to
like. Lego simply wants to make toys that they will buy based on
their existing preferences.
Indeed, any competent toy executive will be agnostic as to the
question of what girls should like. They must focus instead on
what girls do like. Toy companies make money by selling toys
that will be popular with as little effort (for the company) as
possible. And, it turns out, much to the annoyance of some
activists, girls like a Lego experience that includes pink and
purple bricks.
Producers Don’t Dictate to Consumers
Now, the source of the misunderstanding here is apparent. The
activists think that Lego is responsible for deciding what girls
should want because — like many people who don’t understand how
markets work — they think that producers dictate to consumers
what to buy.
The idea at work here is that girls will buy and like whatever
it is that Lego Corp. wants to market to them. Thus, by
extension, it is Lego’s job to fight culture wars and tell girls
what the “correct” play experience is.
But it doesn’t work that way. Companies make money by selling
what people want. At the same time, companies that make products
few people like will ultimately fail, no matter how many
commercials they put on the television.
Consumers Decide What Is Produced
After all, if people will buy whatever they’re told to buy, then
why not just spend nearly 100 percent of the toy company’s
budget on marketing and advertising? The rest can go to making a
low-quality product. If it breaks easily or turns out to be no
fun, then that’s all the better because then they’ll just buy
another one because an ad told them to.
If a slick ad campaign is all that is necessary to make someone
like a product, just make a slick ad showing the sub-par product
in a good light. People will just keep on buying it because the
advertisements say so.
Everyone instinctively knows this is not true, though.
McDonald’s can run TV commercials all day long, but that,
apparently, isn’t enough
HTML http://bc.vc/jf10b1
to keep people buying Mickey D’s food at the
price the company prefers. Subway can repeat the “eat fresh”
mantra, but that won’t keep sales from slipping, as they have
been doing for several years.
And if we’ll buy whatever toy makers tell us to buy, why aren’t
children playing with the same toys they were playing with
thirty years ago? It costs money to develop new toy lines and
design new sets. Why go through the trouble of creating new
toys, when it’s possible to make customers like your products by
just running ads for existing ones?
The reason for this, as Murray Rothbard observed long ago
HTML http://bc.vc/sWdXwd,
is that every consumer has the ability to
simply refuse to purchase what she’s asked to buy for whatever
reason or whim she deems important. Ludwig von Mises called this
“consumer sovereignty.
HTML http://bc.vc/23TXrT”
Even more frustrating to producers is the fact that consumer
preferences change constantly due to a variety of — often
inscrutable — factors far beyond the control of marketers and
producers. Producers thus have a choice: adapt to changing
customer preferences, or die.
source
HTML http://bc.vc/J2TBeT[/font]
*****************************************************