source: http://images.moneymanager.com.au/2012/03/06/3102244/1623105-420×0.jpg

In  Avivah Wittenberg-Cox’s blog post, “LEGO’s Girl Problem Starts With Management“, Avivah states that the mostly-male management team at LEGO is not putting enough effort into the LEGO products that target young girls. Avivah argues that the girls’ LEGO products should, at the very least, be able to perform all the basic functions that are performed by the boys’ toys. I respond by supporting this argument. Would it not make operational sense to have the toys be more similar? This design would mean more overlap in production, which would lead to less equipment that needs to be purchased, reducing costs.

I argue that Avivah is correct in pointing out that it would be strategically advantageous for LEGO to differentiate themselves from doll companies such as Barbie, who have already established themselves at the top of that market. I would add that not putting effort into the girls’ products will severely damage their brand image in the future as this shows LEGO is not promoting gender equality in the same way its competitors may be. LEGO could even produce more gender neutral products as they had several years ago, as this would not force them to lose money on sales and new operational costs. Creating gender-specific toys is not a mistake, but creating a poor quality “LEGO for girls” product line will not only mortify many people in the future, it will increase their operation costs as well.

Source:

http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/09/legos-girl-problem-starts-with-management/