WHAT'S WRONG WITH PLAYMOBIL

[Sylvia]

Very interesting discussion!

I'm undecided as to whether Playmobil should be classed as a construction toy, although I can see very valid points for both sides of the debate.

What's wrong with Playmobil? As someone who is very penny-conscious and on a tight budget, my main gripe concerns the cost of some sets. We seem to pay much higher prices in the UK than the rest of the European countries.

A small example: Specials cost 2.19 Euro on the official German website and £2.00 (GBP) on the UK one and in most toyshops. This is quite a considerable mark-up since the converted cost should only be around £1.75. It might not seem like a lot to most people, but the larger the set, the larger the difference in the cost.

I understand that transportation and the differences in currency probably contribute to the higher costs, but that doesn't make it any easier to accept or afford.

While I'm on the topic of the official websites, I find the £6.00 flat rate P&P fee very harsh. If I wanted to purchase a £4.00 set, it would end up costing me £10.00 once the postage is added! This is one reason why I rarely buy anything from the DS catalogue.

I would prefer to see free postage offered for small orders (instead of forcing buyers to spend over £50.00 ) or at least some kind of reduced rate.

[playmofire]

Playmobil presented set 3446 both as the "City Walls" and a "Small Castle."

Same set ... TWO different ways of building this castle construction set ...

please see attachments

Next question, old friend? ...

All the best,
Richard

I don't think renaming and repackaging an item and presenting the contents ordered in a different way makes Playmobil a construction toy.  Purpose and intent is what decides the nature of something, not how people may use that something or how it may be presented. This is something I tried to bring out in my definition of a construction toy, which you felt was a good one - "A rough definition of a construction toy is a toy consisting of a number of loose but related parts which can be assembled in one or more ways the main purpose of play use being the assembling of the loose parts together in order to produce a finished article."  An example from real life will illustrate what I mean about purpose and intent.

My first job after university was on the legal and admin side with a company which at the time was the largest food manufacturing and catering business in the UK.  About the time I started working for them, a new line in dried, ground coffee had just been introduced.  This was sold in tins and opening these required the removal of the whole top of the tin, and in order that the tin could be resealed and the unused coffee kept fresh a plastic lid came with each tin.  At that time there was no VAT which applied to everything bought and sold but a tax called Purchase Tax which was applied selectively to different products.  Items which were classed as commercial packaging and came under the Tin Cans, Pails and Packaging Orders carried no Purchase Tax because they were used by manufacturing for packing goods (pails doesn't mean buckets by the way) as part of the process of production and selling.  However, containers for other purposes which were used by consumers for storage, e.g. in the kitchen, did carry Purchase Tax.  H.M. Customs argued that because once the coffee tins were empty they could be used as containers to store kitchen goods such as flour or another maker's coffee, they should carry purchase tax.  I was sent along to counsel for a legal opinion and he said that it was the intent behind the production of the container which mattered, not how people might use it at a later date.  (His actual words were, "Abuse does not constitute use," the words stuck in my mind even after 43 years.)  This view prevailed in court.

How does that story apply to Playmobil?  Well, I remembered today that I have some material from Geobra dating back to PM's 25th anniversary so I read through it again and I think the following is worth quoting from an article "Hans Beck, the "Father" of the Playmobil figures"

"The company was blessed with a magical combination: The idea of Hans Beck, the production capacity required, the uncompromising readiness to take risks on the part of the company owner, and the need of the young consumers for a system toy which, for the first time ever, focuses not on a technical building element but on figures."

So people may use Playmobil as a construction toy, but that doesn't make it a construction toy.

[Sir Gareth]

Hi all,

What an interesting thread this is.

I consider certain systems within the Playmobil system as a construction toy which are System X, Rockies, Steck and Western forts and buildings.

These systems allow you lots of alternative buildings and structures from the original plan by using parts in a constructive way. We all only have to look at the many custom built projects using and mixing parts form these systems to produce, Paddle steamers, Roman towns, Towers of might, Huge palaces and of course many large medieval towns and Castles.

The first Playmobil fort "Fort Union" was a construction set you didn't get any plan with this you just assembled it how you liked or copied the assembled fort on the box.

 

[Richard]

Hello, Gordon ... 

I don't think renaming and repackaging an item and presenting the contents ordered in a different way makes Playmobil a construction toy.

Showing the different building possibilties of set 3446 was in response to this statement from Michael MacGayver:

Lego adds in there construction plans several possibilities on wot to build with wot's inside the box

I dunnot recall Playmobil doing this

And, in response to your coffee tin example:

So people may use Playmobil as a construction toy, but that doesn't make it a construction toy.

Even though motor vehicles kill people, a motor vehicle is not necessarily a weapon. However, if the motor vehicle happens to be a Churchill tank, it is a weapon! ...

All the best,
Richard

[Richard]

Hello, Garry ... 

Hi all,

What an interesting thread this is.

I consider certain systems within the Playmobil system as a construction toy which are System X, Rockies, Steck and Western forts and buildings.

These systems allow you lots of alternative buildings and structures from the original plan by using parts in a constructive way. We all only have to look at the many custom built projects using and mixing parts form these systems to produce, Paddle steamers, Roman towns, Towers of might, Huge palaces and of course many large medieval towns and Castles.

The first Playmobil fort "Fort Union" was a construction set you didn't get any plan with this you just assembled it how you liked or copied the assembled fort on the box.

EXCELLENT POINTS !!!

Thank you for your "spot on" comments, Garry ...

All the best,
Richard

[playmofire]

Hello, Gordon
And, in response to your coffee tin example:

Even though motor vehicles kill people, a motor vehicle is not necessarily a weapon. However, if the motor vehicle happens to be a Churchill tank, it is a weapon! ...

All the best,
Richard

You miss the point, Richard, but I'll just repeat the views of Playmobil on their product:

"The company was blessed with a magical combination: The idea of Hans Beck, the production capacity required, the uncompromising readiness to take risks on the part of the company owner, and the need of the young consumers for a system toy which, for the first time ever, focuses not on a technical building element but on figures."

[Tim_w]

Sorry but i feel i must stick my oar in here Richard, because i have quite a strong opinion on this matter and it seems as though this thread is going around in circles . I had considered coming back into the fold recently but overly dramatised nonsense like this makes me reconsider my decisions .

I agree with what Gordon has written, not because he is my friend but because what he is says makes sense. Its just ashame that what he has written falls mostly on deaf ears. For me Playmobil has never been a construction toy. When i was a child i had Lego if i wanted to build something and Playmobil if i wanted to play out any story i wished. All i knew was that some where in Germany there was and still is a wonderfull company that produced these fantastic 'toys' in little blue boxes. They came with anything and everything i needed to act out stories using my own imagination. I didn't need pieces of plastic wall or bricks to 'construct' my first fire station. Making buildings was not my main concern, racing my fire engine and ambulance through the house and into the back garden to reach some distant accident was and those are the things Playmobil provided me with. A small table in the living room was more than up to the fire station job, all it needed was an old brass bell on a piece of string to sound the alarm.
I am going to be brutally honest here but i think this 'is Playmobil a construction toy or not' debate is pointless and full of sour grapes. The only people i see who are going to be affected by the changes trotted out in this thread are the adult collectors. The same adult collectors who like to collect Castles, who horde hundreds of pieces of wall so they can build vast expanses of medieval village. The very same people who were up in arms when SystemX came on the scene to replace Steck. The same people who moan endlessly to this very day about Steck being better than SystemX. I wonder how many children will be bothered by these changes ? how many children will even notice ? how many will care ? Playmobil is after all a children's toy made for children. The fact that Playmobil is still alive and well is something to celebrate, because its the best toy out there to help children develop their imaginations however they choose too. Or prehaps we should hound Geobra to their death because some people think they have lost their way and have the void thats left filled with violent computer games full of murder and crime.

No offense Richard but if you are that disillusioned with Geobra and the path they are following now Hans Beck has retired perhaps you should move on as well ? I mean its better than forcing your negative views on the rest of us who are happy with Playmobil. I can see your not going to accept anyone elses opinions on the matter from what i have read so far (unless they agree with you) but i felt it only fair i hand my crack of the whip. I think most people are pleased with Playmobil and i certainly dont think we should feel ashamed of that.

Tim

[Richard]

Hello, Martin and Tim_W ... 

For anyone who may have taken this friendly banter as a serious and/or hostile discussion ... I APOLOGIZE! ... 

As several have already stated ... THIS IS FUN !!! ... 

We are simply "picking away" at insignificant things that are of little or no importance.

Both Gordon and I both agree that Playmobil is an Action Figure toy that offers a building element for those who want it ... 

Playmobil is fun. This discussion is fun and hopefully has NOT be taken seriously by anyone here at Playmofriends.

All the best my friends,
Richard

[Richard]

Hello yet again, Gordon ... 

You miss the point, Richard, but I'll just repeat the views of Playmobil on their product:

"The company was blessed with a magical combination: The idea of Hans Beck, the production capacity required, the uncompromising readiness to take risks on the part of the company owner, and the need of the young consumers for a system toy which, for the first time ever, focuses not on a technical building element but on figures."

The point that I was addressing was your "coffee tin" example ...

However, if you would like to discuss a statement made by some unknown author, translated from the German into English by some unknown translator, then lets look at (and understand) WHAT they were saying and WHY!

First of all, to mention Hans Beck by name as the "idea" person and not identify Horst Brandstätter as the "owner" and the one who provided the "production capacity required" and having "the uncompromising readiness to take risks," might suggest that this translation was NOT the "end result" of a Geobra statement ... 

However, if we were to accept that this was an extremely magnanimous and very generous tribute to Hans Beck by Horst Brandstätter, then let's ask WHY such a statement would have ever been made in the first place.

Most of would agree that LEGO is Playmobil's number one European competitor. It is LEGO (and pretty much LEGO alone) from which Playmobil continues to hide its future releases.

This "competition" between LEGO and Playmobil is probably good for the customer. And, most customers see LEGO as a Building and Construction Toy that also has Action Figures. Playmobil, in a brilliant effort to differentiate themselves from LEGO, continues to market themselves as an Action Figure toy that is also a Building and Construction Toy.
("a system toy which, for the first time ever, focuses not on a technical building element but on figures")

The danger is, that with Hans Beck's vision lost through his retirement, that Playmobil will become only an Action Figure toy and lose its wonderful Building and Construction capability! This would be, in my humble opinion, a real tragedy.

All the best,
Richard

 

[playmofire]

For anyone who may have taken this friendly banter as a serious and/or hostile discussion ... I APOLOGIZE! ... 

Apology accepted, Richard.   I'd assumed that we were having a serious discussion on the nature of Playmobil along the lines of is it a construction toy or not?

Both Gordon and I both agree that Playmobil is an Action Figure toy that offers a building element for those who want it ... 

The agreement bit had passed me by.  Words such as "obtuse" and "obdurate" were some of the more polite words that kept passing through my mind.

Playmobil is fun. This discussion is fun and hopefully has NOT be taken seriously by anyone here at Playmofriends.

Well, for three people at least you're only 50% right.