Guest Columnists

Industry figures share their views on the latest issues. If you have an idea for a guest column, email

27 March 2013 - 3:18pm | posted by | 5 comments

Not for girls? Lego's lucrative but troubled relationship with females

The Lego Friends range has proved controversial - but lucrativeThe Lego Friends range has proved controversial - but lucrative

Continuing our series of brand profiles that began with Heinz, The Brand Union's head of strategy, Veb Anand, looks at Lego's controversial attempts to market a range specifically aimed at girls. The miniature brick brand also recently ended its giveaway partnership with the 
Sun, reportedly over the backlash against Page 3.

Lego claims its mission is to ‘inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow.’ Its ultimate purpose is ‘to inspire and develop children to think creatively, reason systematically and release their potential to shape their own future – experiencing the endless human possibility.’

Powerful words. But contrast that with the new line-up of Lego Friends, targeted at girls. Against the backdrop of ‘Heartlake City’, it features new, pastel-coloured, blocks that allow Britney-like ‘ladyfig’ characters to craft themselves a beauty salon or café, or decorate their home before going ‘out with the girls’. The curvy characters are more reminiscent of Geordie Shore than they are of the legendary but square Lego ‘minifig’ character.

Now I would hardly expect a mass-market toymaker to manufacture toys that represent positive images of empowered ‘womyn’, but does it really need to depict its characters as vacuous bimbettes? Maybe that’s narrow minded – after all, women can be both empowered and in touch with their femininity. But in a toy for a five-year-old, the nuance appears sadly lost. Unfortunately, Lego isn’t just any brand. With an iconic reputation and strong vision, it is the self-proclaimed standard in inspirational and developmental toys. Accompanying that is an implicit responsibility, which subjectively simply does not apply 
to the likes of Hasbro or Mattel.

Lego has been through some 
hard times in the past few decades, but has bounced back. In the advent of the digital age the company struggled to find its place in the world. But it has fought hard to remain relevant – giving birth to several sub-brands targeted at different age groups, incorporated new technologies and licensed deals with some of the world’s most successful entertainment franchises.

Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, chief executive, told the Financial Times: “A child needs physical activity. They can’t sit still – 
their physiology forces them 
to move. We think that physical toys such as Lego will be around for a long time.”

Lego’s key differentiator is precision; the tolerance of its branded studs is 1/50th of a millimetre, 10 times finer than 
a hair. This ‘click-fit’ has its own name at Lego – clutch power. According to Bloomberg Business Week, clutch power engineering is as closely guarded as the Coke recipe.

While Lego has been popular with girls in the past, the company has struggled to match the relevance it has with boys. Lego Friends was the outcome of extensive ethnographic research, where product designers, sales strategists and external consultants were dispatched in teams to shadow girls and interview their families. The findings? Girls like role-play, but they also love to build—just not in the same way as boys do. Whereas boys tend to be more linear and systematic – they build to finish a kit so it looks just like what’s on the box, girls prefer storytelling and rearranging.

The problem with Lego’s market research is, well, market research. For those who work with brands day in and day out, you understand that research can be a double-edged sword in innovation and product development. Done in advance, it might give you a limited understanding of the prevailing context. But it doesn’t necessarily help you change the game. Lego has looked at what is going to sell to girls rather than what Lego could make for girls. By the time girls are the age for Lego Friends, they’ve already learned to appreciate pink, wear princess clothing and don a tiara. What research will find is merely the by-product of what girls have already been marketed their entire lives.

Did Lego not have the confidence to realise that perhaps it could create a step-change in the category by creating new role models and ways of playing for girls? It claimed to be armed with the understanding that the sexes play differently, but in the end compromised its ethos and toed the line in the interest of short-term gains. It’s one thing to understand that girls, unlike boys, like to play together and tell stories. But it’s a whole other thing to create a world of beauty salons and missing puppies, while your male counterparts are being challenged by more complex spatial and mathematical endeavours during playtime.

Having said all that, I’m not sure the Lego situation 
is worthy of the outrage it’s been greeted with in the press. But I do believe the Lego brand has taken a 
small but significant step in diminishing its differentiation and superior position from fellow toy manufacturers. 
While it may claim to be becoming more adaptable 
and innovative, decisions like these are likely to damage its reputation as a revered and respected brand. This is evidenced by the talk surrounding the company’s announcement about the end of its two-year promotional partnership with the Sun, amid speculation whether it was over the backlash against Page 3. It’s probably just an unhappy coincidence. But it’s starting to appear as though Lego might have ignited an uneasy relationship with the female gender.

Next to Lego’s mission on its website is its vision: ‘Inventing the future of play.’ It wants to ‘pioneer 
new ways of playing, play materials and the business models of play… it is not just about products, it is 
about realising the human possibility.’ Does that mean that the possibilities for girls are somewhat different 
than those for boys? It’s unfortunate that Lego doesn’t have faith in the potential of its new target, but even doubly unfortunate that it doesn’t have faith in itself.


27 Mar 2013 - 21:42
graou23522's picture

I think that the article fails to raise a number of important points:

LEGO has been reasonably successful with girls in the past but had to focus on boys in the last 15 years in order to save their business . This change of directions inevitably alienated girls resulting in sales of under 10% for them. Over the last 10 years they've tried a number of times to win them back but without any luck (LEGO Belville was one of the worst examples of trying to imitate all the pink cliches of Mattel and failed into spectacularly) My main disagreement with the author is in regards with the compromise that he believes to have happened . Firstly and most importantly the building experience is equally challenging as for the boys sets. Secondly the creation of the girls characters carries all the politically correct connotations. None of them is a singer or a model or a princess. They've chosen aspiring role models such as a vet, businesswoman etc and talk about the importance of friendship. The minifigure could be argued to be foreign to the LEGO look and feel however if this is what it takes to get girls building with LEGO I don't mind it at all. Could they have used less pink? perhaps yes but it would probably have not been as successful.And here we need remember that LEGO is a loved brand but is also a business not a charity or NGO. They have great products that help kids developmental skills but their mission is not to change the world gender stereotypes...whether they should is a completely different conversation I guess.

28 Mar 2013 - 23:37
wynns99940's picture

I can't believe TheDrum published this. Talk about NOT being creative. There's no value in simply regurgitating the same lame criticisms that all the other liberal publishers publish. If you really don't like girl oriented Lego sets, why don't you encourage girls to buy the sets that have been available for decades, which as you point out, develop spatial skills and helped countless young people toward a career in engineering, architecture, and science? Do you really believe you are helping girls by criticizing the one truly new gateway that invites them into such a world? Or maybe you're afraid such a product will help a new group of people develop more linear, logical thinking skills and thus escape a level of susceptibility to liberal doctrine.

29 Mar 2013 - 11:01
kmwaters019188's picture

@wynns99940 You are missing the point somewhat to criticise the piece for failing to "encourage girls to buy the sets that have been available for decades".

The point I think the piece is making is that Lego has been a gender-neutral toy for decades. It didn't need a special pink range to appeal to girls. What's disappointing is that Lego felt the need to create a range reinforcing tired gender stereotypes, complete with a pastel colour scheme and sexualised body shapes. It's patronising and Lego is supposed to be smarter than that.

Lego's brilliant 80s ad of a dungaree-clad girl proudly displaying her build epitomised the brand as inspiring future generations of thinkers and creators. This could not contrast more with the brand's current portrayal of what girls today want and need – fluffy friendships and 'aspirations' to become 'businesswomen'. How degrading.

2 Apr 2013 - 12:04
seedi11029's picture

I am a mother of 2 girls -- 6 & 8, the target age I assume of the new pastel-ified Lego kits. I am one of those mothers who when I first saw them, threw up her hands and asked why oh why did Lego go down this path? My daughters have subsequently received as gifts a number of the kits, and yes, they do enjoy and play with them. BUT...and this is where I hope Lego is listening, they also enjoy the Lego Creator kits-the non-gender specific Log Cabin, Lighthouse, Apple Tree house...and shock horror some of the more boy-oriented ones such as the Lego City kits (Space Shuttle, Fire Station, Museum Break In). It would be great to see more intelligent kits aimed at BOTH genders. Who says all boys want dump trucks, and garbage trucks or prisons? Why is there always an assumption that boys want violence?

The thing is, if anyone actually watched kids play with Lego for a long time--kids will build the exact model maybe a handful of times, then they will do exactly what they want, mixing and matching the bits together, creating their own little worlds and this is where kids actually prove themselves smarter than the toy companies.

15 Apr 2013 - 11:22
dayje12713's picture

graou23522 Yes, they are quite stereotyped. The only kit my daughter has been given is 'Andrea the nightclub singer', complete with stage, piano, microphone and wineglass. There was almost nothing to build. I agree with the article that Lego have missed a chance to lead and instead have just repeated the same old stereotypical guff. Actually, my son and my daughter are both quite alienated by the recent, very aggressive, 'boy' themed sets of recent years. And if they wanted to appeal to girls, all they needed to do was to create more (gender neutral) non-war themed sets, and include more female minifigures. Both my kids would have been very happy with that.


Please sign in or register to comment on this article.

Have your say

Opinion, blogs and columnists - call them what you like - this is the section where people have something to say. You might agree or you might not - whatever opinion you have make your views known in comments. Views of writers are not necessarily those of The Drum. If you would like to contribute a comment piece, email your idea to