| |
In lugnet.ambassadors, Kevin Heckel wrote:
| |
Given the Lego scene’s lack of any serious journalism, I am forced to merely
speculate as to the intentions of Lego and their degree of success with the
program.
|
Call me a cynic, but I always assumed that the main goal of the Lego Ambassador
program was to increase sales (read: dollars, pounds, euros, lyra, rubles,
etc.). Also, it could have been a way to quell some of the whining that takes
place when changes are made (i.e. color changes and 9V trains).
If Giant Evil Corporations (and I’m afraid that Lego may be one :gasp:) pretend
to listen to what amounts a small (but vocal) core fan base, then hopefully that
will lead to more buyers getting all warm and fuzzy inside and then stop buying
Mega Bloks.
Of course, I imagine that if you ask the average kid/mom in the toy aisle of
Wal-Mart, Toys R Us or Target about the Lego Ambassador program, you will be
looked at quite strangely. So this begs the question who was the LA program
designed for? AFOLs or the Average Lego Buyer?
I’m going with AFOLs.
|
|
| |
> Of course, I imagine that if you ask the average kid/mom in the toy aisle
> of
> Wal-Mart, Toys R Us or Target about the Lego Ambassador program, you will
> be
> looked at quite strangely. So this begs the question who was the LA
> program
> designed for? AFOLs or the Average Lego Buyer?
>
> I'm going with AFOLs.
Yes, I think the Ambassador program is aimed at AFOLs. And what is wrong
with that? For years, we complained TLC never knew about, cared about, or
listened to AFOLs. Now they put in place a means to listen (which hints at
the knowing and caring) and then we ... uh ... complain.
Be realistic. TLC can't test an idea with all of us. They can test an idea
or get "a sense of the community" from a group of individuals, aka the
ambassadors (I presume the ambassadors sign NDAs or similar to protect ideas
from premature public release).
Are TLC in the ambassador game to make $$s? Ultimately yes, because they are
a business and that's what businesses do, try to make $$s. It's what
they've been doing for 50+ years after all, but it's been an OK deal on both
sides -- we give them money, they give us little plastic bricks (which we
seem to like a lot). I'm cool with that, it's the fundamental nature of
capitalism at work. I think the question is more about whether the
ambassador programme is a genuine intention to engage with the AFOL
community or a cynical one. Given the size of the organisation, I very much
expect both points of view exist. But hey it does give us a voice. It wasn't
that many years ago that TLC didn't know they had an adult fan base, and
even when they did, the evidence suggested that they underestimated its
purchasing, and when they figured that out, they still didn't know how big
they could grow that adult market. We've come a long way, baby!
Although some people are putting a negative spin on it, it seems to me that
the long-standing-ness of a number of ambassadors is a sign that they are
doing a good job at being ambassadors (or at least nobody else is putting
themselves forward, which in turn is probably still a sign that they are
doing a good job). I can't speak for every country, but personally I think
our current long-standing Australian Ambassadors are people who are active
and respected in the AFOL community here in Oz and LUGnet (and even in the
badlands of JLUG) and I'm happy to see them represent us.
Kerry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.ambassadors, Kerry Raymond wrote:
[SNIP]
> Be realistic. TLC can't test an idea with all of us. They can test an idea
> or get "a sense of the community" from a group of individuals, aka the
> ambassadors (I presume the ambassadors sign NDAs or similar to protect ideas
> from premature public release).
LAs sign two documents.
The now famous Non Disclosure Agreement aka NDA - almost half the community
signed at least once this document for various program from UTB to MDP :-)
and a document telling that TLC may use our "suggestions" (ideas, samples,
inventions,...) without compensation.
Both of them are clearly aimed at protecting TLC (and that's fair)
Didier
|
|
| |
In lugnet.ambassadors, Bob Parker wrote:
| |
In lugnet.ambassadors, Kevin Heckel wrote:
| |
Given the Lego scene’s lack of any serious journalism, I am forced to merely
speculate as to the intentions of Lego and their degree of success with the
program.
|
Call me a cynic, but I always assumed that the main goal of the Lego
Ambassador program was to increase sales (read: dollars, pounds, euros, lyra,
rubles, etc.). Also, it could have been a way to quell some of the whining
that takes place when changes are made (i.e. color changes and 9V trains).
If Giant Evil Corporations (and I’m afraid that Lego may be one :gasp:)
pretend to listen to what amounts a small (but vocal) core fan base, then
hopefully that will lead to more buyers getting all warm and fuzzy inside and
then stop buying Mega Bloks.
Of course, I imagine that if you ask the average kid/mom in the toy aisle of
Wal-Mart, Toys R Us or Target about the Lego Ambassador program, you will be
looked at quite strangely. So this begs the question who was the LA program
designed for? AFOLs or the Average Lego Buyer?
I’m going with AFOLs.
|
**quiet coughing in the back of the chatroom, then**
I hate to be potentially contrary...
no, I don’t.
**sighs**
I cannot think of too many companies that would even deign to form a group
similar in structure (as I understand it) to the Ambassador program. Especially
a company that is dedicated to a toy--to have given even a minor nod to
adults--and especially adult fans--just isn’t done too often.
I’m not going to say that TLG is looking out for the Average LEGO buyer. (They
are, in some ways.) That they even have have a program (and, IMHO, it is
designed for the AFOL crowd) to ask for feedback from is amazing to me. They
are, at the end of the day, looking out for the bottom line period. No harm in
that. That’s what companies do, after all. But I look at what all TLG does...and
am amazed. FLL, Ambassadors, Serious Play, and some of the other work they do
with education...yeah, yeah, I know. It boosts the bottom line.
But, I don’t see other so-called brick companies doing these things. (In all
fairness, I don’t look for that, either.)
So, is it (the Ambassador program) big enough? Are there “enough”
representatives? Probably not, in either case. Should this be better explained
in better detail to the AFOL base (Through things like LUGnet, TLG’s own Press
Room, etc.)? Yes, yes, YES!!! Does TLG understand that the AFOL base is larger
than they know--and is larger than LUGnet shows? Or Brickfest? Or any other item
one can name? No, I am sure they don’t. (I’ll use myself as an example--I didn’t
even know about these things until I did a web search!) Therefore, I am
guessing that a good number of AFOL’s don’t know that there is an Ambasssdor
program--and in exchange, TLG does not have a real estimate on the AFOL base.
(Hey, that sounds like a Classic Space set--the AFOL base....)
My point: That there is a program--that has AFOL’s as a basis, if not a true
resource--is a good start. That they’ve doubled the size and length of
commitment is A Good Thing. Hopefully, this is a trend we will see continue--in
size and scope.
And maybe, in a few years...I’ll put in for a slot. (Maybe not.) But that it is
there...hey, it’s a start.
Play Well and Prosper!
Matthew
|
|
|
