| |
It’s past time to get beyond debating the “why” of the color change (and
especially haranguing Jake about it). I don’t see any reason not to take Jake
and the TLC at their word that the new colors work better with the core market
at point of sale: at the toy store.
We have to accept that for every 10,000 bricks one of us LUGNET types buy (and
to tell you the truth, I don’t think there are anywhere near 1000 of us who buy
10,000s of bricks each year), that TLC sells 10,000,000 to kids who don’t know a
stud from a tube. That’s just the way it is. The core LEGO market
is/was/always-will-be kids. We don’t buy as much LEGO per year as parents of
kids who buy the
one-set-of-a-lifetime-that-lives-in-the-closet-until-the-kid-leaves-home.
What I think TLC did wrong was to retire parts of a 30 year old system. That’s
the bad idea. Jake’s announcement of a limited rebirth really mitigates that.
How much depends on how accessible the new parts are.
Everyone mentions New Coke. Nobody mentions that when after 6 months the Coca
Cola company relented and announced they were bringing back Classic Coke that
they kept New Coke. Within 12 months, you couldn’t find a New Coke to save your
life.
I’d like to think that we too could vote with our purchases here, but the
problem is that there will be a ton of new product and a limited supply of old
and that as a group we have about zip purchasing power. A whole lot of LEGO is
sold to people who don’t have any to match or who don’t know enough to care or
who, knowing, simply don’t care. Indeed, there are members in my LTC who don’t
see what the fuss is about (an LTC with $10,000 worth of old dark gray track).
But I say thanks, Jake, you did good!
-Ted Michon
President
SCLTC
|
|
| |
"Ted Michon" <ted@scltc.org> wrote in message news:Hx9DrH.JCy@lugnet.com...
> It's past time to get beyond debating the "why" of the color change (and
> especially haranguing Jake about it). I don't see any reason not to take • Jake
> and the TLC at their word that the new colors work better with the core • market
> at point of sale: at the toy store.
>
> We have to accept that for every 10,000 bricks one of us LUGNET types buy • (and
> to tell you the truth, I don't think there are anywhere near 1000 of us • who buy
> 10,000s of bricks each year), that TLC sells 10,000,000 to kids who don't • know a
> stud from a tube. That's just the way it is. The core LEGO market
> is/was/always-will-be kids. We don't buy as much LEGO per year as parents • of
> kids who buy the
> one-set-of-a-lifetime-that-lives-in-the-closet-until-the-kid-leaves-home.
>
> What I think TLC did wrong was to retire parts of a 30 year old system. • That's
> the bad idea. Jake's announcement of a limited rebirth really mitigates • that.
> How much depends on how accessible the new parts are.
>
> Everyone mentions New Coke. Nobody mentions that when after 6 months the • Coca
> Cola company relented and announced they were bringing back Classic Coke • that
> they kept New Coke. Within 12 months, you couldn't find a New Coke to save • your
> life.
>
> I'd like to think that we too could vote with our purchases here, but the
> problem is that there will be a ton of new product and a limited supply of • old
> and that as a group we have about zip purchasing power. A whole lot of • LEGO is
> sold to people who don't have any to match or who don't know enough to • care or
> who, knowing, simply don't care. Indeed, there are members in my LTC who • don't
> see what the fuss is about (an LTC with $10,000 worth of old dark gray • track).
>
> But I say thanks, Jake, you did good!
>
> -Ted Michon
>
> President
>
> SCLTC
Here here!
Richard
|
|
| |
lugnet.general, Richard Morton wrote:
> "Ted Michon" <ted@scltc.org> wrote in message news:Hx9DrH.JCy@lugnet.com...
> > It's past time to get beyond debating the "why" of the color change (and
> > especially haranguing Jake about it). I don't see any reason not to take Jake
> > and the TLC at their word that the new colors work better with the core market
> > at point of sale: at the toy store.
> >
> > We have to accept that for every 10,000 bricks one of us LUGNET types buy (and
> > to tell you the truth, I don't think there are anywhere near 1000 of us who buy
> > 10,000s of bricks each year), that TLC sells 10,000,000 to kids who don't know a
> > stud from a tube. That's just the way it is. The core LEGO market
> > is/was/always-will-be kids. We don't buy as much LEGO per year as parents of
> > kids who buy the
> > one-set-of-a-lifetime-that-lives-in-the-closet-until-the-kid-leaves-home.
> >
> > What I think TLC did wrong was to retire parts of a 30 year old system. That's
> > the bad idea. Jake's announcement of a limited rebirth really mitigates that.
> > How much depends on how accessible the new parts are.
> >
> > Everyone mentions New Coke. Nobody mentions that when after 6 months the Coca
> > Cola company relented and announced they were bringing back Classic Coke that
> > they kept New Coke. Within 12 months, you couldn't find a New Coke to save your
> > life.
> >
> > I'd like to think that we too could vote with our purchases here, but the
> > problem is that there will be a ton of new product and a limited supply of old
> > and that as a group we have about zip purchasing power. A whole lot of LEGO is
> > sold to people who don't have any to match or who don't know enough to care or
> > who, knowing, simply don't care. Indeed, there are members in my LTC who don't
> > see what the fuss is about (an LTC with $10,000 worth of old dark gray track).
> >
> > But I say thanks, Jake, you did good!
> >
> > -Ted Michon
> >
> > President
> >
> > SCLTC
>
>
> Here here!
>
> Richard
I have to agree with nearly all the sentiments expressed here.
Jake is not personally at fault here and (note: my own unsubstantiated opinion)
probably none too impressed by it all himself as he a is an AFOL as well as an
employee. Thus going over the same things again are pointless, lets try to be
constructive and help Jake.
Tim
|
|
| |
Jake did well, not good. :)
"Ted Michon" <ted@scltc.org> wrote in message news:Hx9DrH.JCy@lugnet.com...
> It's past time to get beyond debating the "why" of the color change (and
> especially haranguing Jake about it). I don't see any reason not to take • Jake
> and the TLC at their word that the new colors work better with the core • market
> at point of sale: at the toy store.
>
> We have to accept that for every 10,000 bricks one of us LUGNET types buy • (and
> to tell you the truth, I don't think there are anywhere near 1000 of us • who buy
> 10,000s of bricks each year), that TLC sells 10,000,000 to kids who don't • know a
> stud from a tube. That's just the way it is. The core LEGO market
> is/was/always-will-be kids. We don't buy as much LEGO per year as parents • of
> kids who buy the
> one-set-of-a-lifetime-that-lives-in-the-closet-until-the-kid-leaves-home.
>
> What I think TLC did wrong was to retire parts of a 30 year old system. • That's
> the bad idea. Jake's announcement of a limited rebirth really mitigates • that.
> How much depends on how accessible the new parts are.
>
> Everyone mentions New Coke. Nobody mentions that when after 6 months the • Coca
> Cola company relented and announced they were bringing back Classic Coke • that
> they kept New Coke. Within 12 months, you couldn't find a New Coke to save • your
> life.
>
> I'd like to think that we too could vote with our purchases here, but the
> problem is that there will be a ton of new product and a limited supply of • old
> and that as a group we have about zip purchasing power. A whole lot of • LEGO is
> sold to people who don't have any to match or who don't know enough to • care or
> who, knowing, simply don't care. Indeed, there are members in my LTC who • don't
> see what the fuss is about (an LTC with $10,000 worth of old dark gray • track).
>
> But I say thanks, Jake, you did good!
>
> -Ted Michon
>
> President
>
> SCLTC
|
|
| |
> I have to agree with nearly all the sentiments expressed here.
> Jake is not personally at fault here and (note: my own unsubstantiated opinion)
> probably none too impressed by it all himself as he a is an AFOL as well as an
> employee. Thus going over the same things again are pointless, lets try to be
> constructive and help Jake.
>
> Tim
Absolutely, we have to help, not hinder!
--member 1893
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Aaron Muhl wrote:
> Jake did well, not good. :)
I think the grammatical/linguistic error was done on purpose, as in 'the boy
done good'!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
It’s past time to get beyond debating the “why” of the color change (and
especially haranguing Jake about it). I don’t see any reason not to take Jake
and the TLC at their word that the new colors work better with the core
market at point of sale: at the toy store.
|
There’s an excellent reason - this
statement by Jake himself:
Keep in mind that the non-AFOL consumer (especially the kids on the
boards) probably hasn’t realized there IS a color change. Many of this
year’s products aren’t out yet (Harry Potter for instance, isn’t out
until the movie time around May). If they have the products, it may
take them a while to notice a difference. If they notice a difference,
I’m not sure a large percentage will care. Think about what the
creations kids build typically... many many of them are multi-, mixed-
color. Browse the galleries in the online LEGO Club, and you’ll not
see much color consistency.
If kids aren’t going to notice the color change, why not change it back, since
they won’t notice that either? The only people who have noticed the color change
are, by and large, not happy about it.
TLC has given us no evidence that there will be any increase in sales from kids
to offset the loss in sales from even one AFOL, let alone thousands.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
| |
If kids aren’t going to notice the color change, why not change it back,
since they won’t notice that either? The only people who have noticed the
color change are, by and large, not happy about it.
|
Why do kids have to actually note a color change between versions A & B for it
to be a worthwhile product enhancement? Do most kids buy multiple copies of the
same set and compare them? So what if the gray doesn’t quite match their older
pieces? Is the effect on their (often rainbow warrior) building habits
significantly altered?
Lots of subtle color changes occur in products to increase their visual appeal.
Those changes aren’t specifically advertised and consumers might not even
consciously notice it. And yet the new product is visually superior to the old
one. Customers may not be able to pinpoint exactly why they find the product
more appealing because they are not out there doing side-by-side A versus B
comparisons, but nevertheless the effect is tangible and important.
| |
TLC has given us no evidence that there will be any increase in sales from
kids to offset the loss in sales from even one AFOL, let alone thousands.
|
Why should they give us confidential sales data? Anything they give to us goes
directly to MegaBloks too...
Spencer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
| |
If kids aren’t going to notice the color change, why not change it back,
since they won’t notice that either? The only people who have noticed the
color change are, by and large, not happy about it.
|
Why do kids have to actually note a color change between versions A & B for
it to be a worthwhile product enhancement? Do most kids buy multiple copies
of the same set and compare them? So what if the gray doesn’t quite match
their older pieces? Is the effect on their (often rainbow warrior) building
habits significantly altered?
|
I wish people would stop talking about children like they are idiots. My 8
year-old *has* noticed the change, and she *has* asked me about it. She brought
it to my attention, not the other way around. Does she buy multiple copies of
the same set? No. She does have the entire Harry Potter line though, and she’s
not very happy that the new sets don’t match her old sets. Especially the
flesh-toned minifigs. I still haven’t come up with a good explanation for her
on why Harry is yellow in one set, and flesh colored in another.
Maybe my single child isn’t a good representation of the company’s target
market, but I’d be willing to bet that there are other parents out there who
have children who are asking the same questions.
-Elroy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
| |
If kids aren’t going to notice the color change, why not change it back,
since they won’t notice that either? The only people who have noticed the
color change are, by and large, not happy about it.
|
Why do kids have to actually note a color change between versions A & B for
it to be a worthwhile product enhancement? Do most kids buy multiple copies
of the same set and compare them? So what if the gray doesn’t quite match
their older pieces? Is the effect on their (often rainbow warrior) building
habits significantly altered?
|
Why not change old gray to pink then? You are saying that kids don’t care about
color, but the color change was still an improvement?
| |
Lots of subtle color changes occur in products to increase their visual
appeal. Those changes aren’t specifically advertised and consumers might not
even consciously notice it. And yet the new product is visually superior to
the old one. Customers may not be able to pinpoint exactly why they find the
product more appealing because they are not out there doing side-by-side A
versus B comparisons, but nevertheless the effect is tangible and important.
|
I’m really not buying that the subtle, subliminal appeal of the new colors to
kids will outweigh the very real disgust with the new colors from AFOLS.
| |
| |
TLC has given us no evidence that there will be any increase in sales from
kids to offset the loss in sales from even one AFOL, let alone thousands.
|
Why should they give us confidential sales data? Anything they give to us
goes directly to MegaBloks too...
|
Why would MegaBloks want that data? They’ve been making bricks in the new gray
for years.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
| |
If kids aren’t going to notice the color change, why not change it back,
since they won’t notice that either? The only people who have noticed the
color change are, by and large, not happy about it.
|
Why do kids have to actually note a color change between versions A & B for
it to be a worthwhile product enhancement? Do most kids buy multiple copies
of the same set and compare them? So what if the gray doesn’t quite match
their older pieces? Is the effect on their (often rainbow warrior) building
habits significantly altered?
|
Why not change old gray to pink then? You are saying that kids don’t care
about color, but the color change was still an improvement?
|
I think you may be missing some subtilty in the argument here. My son may
be a good example of this. He is definitely drawn to certain colours and
exciting images when shopping. However... when building his own creations
he does not seem to care in any way about matching colours... only in creating
what he is building. He is still young and I’m sure others have different
experiences with their children etc. etc. However the point I am trying
to make is the following. TLG may believe that the new colours will help
draw customers to their products leading to purchases. Many of those same
customers may not notice (or care if they do) that the new colours do not
match their existing Lego. Hence... this would be beneficial to TLG.
(as I’ve said before... believing something is a good idea and the reality
of that idea being good are not necessarily the same thing).
Jeff
| |
| |
Lots of subtle color changes occur in products to increase their visual
appeal. Those changes aren’t specifically advertised and consumers might not
even consciously notice it. And yet the new product is visually superior to
the old one. Customers may not be able to pinpoint exactly why they find the
product more appealing because they are not out there doing side-by-side A
versus B comparisons, but nevertheless the effect is tangible and important.
|
I’m really not buying that the subtle, subliminal appeal of the new colors to
kids will outweigh the very real disgust with the new colors from AFOLS.
| |
| |
TLC has given us no evidence that there will be any increase in sales from
kids to offset the loss in sales from even one AFOL, let alone thousands.
|
Why should they give us confidential sales data? Anything they give to us
goes directly to MegaBloks too...
|
Why would MegaBloks want that data? They’ve been making bricks in the new
gray for years.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
It’s past time to get beyond debating the “why” of the color change (and
especially haranguing Jake about it). I don’t see any reason not to take Jake
and the TLC at their word that the new colors work better with the core
market at point of sale: at the toy store.
|
I agree whole-heartedly. I have my issues with the company’s direction and some
of the decisions they make. But the fact is, I’m not sitting in their meetings
and I don’t have the information they have. We can all keep ranting about how
we don’t like it or we can realize the decision has been made and move on.
Thank you, Jake. Its nice to know there’s an AFOL in there fighting for us.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that our opinions were actually considered and
a long-term decision was made based on how we feel. Could we have said that 5
years ago?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
| |
| |
In lugnet.general, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
If kids aren’t going to notice the color change, why not change it back,
since they won’t notice that either? The only people who have noticed the
color change are, by and large, not happy about it.
|
Why do kids have to actually note a color change between versions A & B for
it to be a worthwhile product enhancement? Do most kids buy multiple copies
of the same set and compare them? So what if the gray doesn’t quite match
their older pieces? Is the effect on their (often rainbow warrior) building
habits significantly altered?
|
Why not change old gray to pink then? You are saying that kids don’t care
about color, but the color change was still an improvement?
|
I didn’t say children don’t care about color or are incapable of noticing a
color change. My response is to those who question: if the color change is
really an improvement then why Lego doesn’t hype the color change to their
target market in their advertising.
I’m simply speculating about the building priorities of children versus adults.
There’s a difference between “Hey, these colors are a little different than my
old ones. They look nice. I will adapt to them in my constructions” and “I don’t
want any more Lego because they don’t match my old ones.”
Spencer
|
|
| |
| |
We can all keep ranting
about how we don’t like it or we can realize the decision has been made and
move on.
|
Actually, I’m not being that magnanamous. I don’t like the color change and if
ranting or anything else might get it reversed I will rant.
My point was rather that I can’t understand why people are questioning that
TLC’s reasons as given by Jake are anything but the true reasons. And I
certainly don’t approve of us giving Jake a harder time than we already do.
I have every reason to think that Jake’s unique position at TLC as an advocate
for the serious LEGO builder (I personally dislike the term AFOL) is as much due
to Jake working to get the company to create the position as to being selected
for the job. It’s not a matter of not “shooting the messenger” but more of not
shooting our best and only friend while he’s trying to help us.
-Ted
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Ted Michon wrote:
> My point was rather that I can't understand why people are questioning that
> TLC's reasons as given by Jake are anything but the true reasons.
Well, there are several levels of truth to be considered in this context.
1. The information is "true" insofar as it accurately reflects the
motivations and goals of TLG
2. The information is "true" insofar as it is "truly" the information that
TLG has told Jake to give us
3. The information is "true" insofar as TLG has told Jake that it's true, but
we have no way to verify its underlying accuracy
4. The information is "true" insofar as it accurately reflects current
policies of TLG, but we cannot know how "true" it will be tomorrow
and on and on. Without knowing which of these "truths" is really *the* "truth,"
it's not surprising that some of us are unsatisfied with the stated reasons for
the change.
> And I certainly don't approve of us giving Jake a harder time than we
> already do.
At the end of the day, his job (as it pertains to us) is customer service, and
95% of customer service is dealing with irate customers. Jake has performed
admirably in maintaining a patient, courteous demeanor even in this hostile
environment, so I'm not too worried about the "harder time" we might give him.
Heck, he's been positively cordial to me, and I'm the clone-guy!
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
someone else wrote(1)
| |
We can all keep ranting
about how we don’t like it or we can realize the decision has been made and
move on.
|
Actually, I’m not being that magnanamous. I don’t like the color change and
if ranting or anything else might get it reversed I will rant.
|
Yep. If I thought ranting and carrying on would increase our influence in the
company rather than diminish it, or would be likely to reverse the change, I’d
be out there ranting too.
| |
My point was rather that I can’t understand why people are questioning that
TLC’s reasons as given by Jake are anything but the true reasons. And I
certainly don’t approve of us giving Jake a harder time than we already do.
I have every reason to think that Jake’s unique position at TLC as an
advocate for the serious LEGO builder (I personally dislike the term AFOL) is
as much due to Jake working to get the company to create the position as to
being selected for the job.
|
Agreed. Jake started out as in charge of some aspects of web development, NOT as
a community liason guy... So I think you’re spot on in your speculation that
Jake’s lobbying was at least in part responsible for the very existance of the
role...
I agree with the part I snipped about not shooting the messenger (or not biting
the hand that feeds us, in some ways) too...
1 - Ted, a favor please. Don’t snip attribution, it leads to accidental
misquoting... Thanks!
|
|
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.general, Ted Michon wrote:
> I personally dislike the term AFOL
You are right, this term is highly questionable. I like building with LEGO
bricks and collecting LEGO sets. But I am not a "fan of LEGO" because -
following TLC's corporate identity statement on www.lego.com - "it is not
possible to separate our company from our brand". But I do not like the company.
I certainly don't.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> You are right, this term is highly questionable. I like building with LEGO
> bricks and collecting LEGO sets. But I am not a "fan of LEGO" because -
> following TLC's corporate identity statement on www.lego.com - "it is not
> possible to separate our company from our brand". But I do not like the company.
> I certainly don't.
I keep on agreeing with Jojo! I've gone from being a supporter of the company
to merely a supporter of their product now (as a result of the colour change).
-Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
>
> You are right, this term is highly questionable. I like building with LEGO
> bricks and collecting LEGO sets. But I am not a "fan of LEGO" because -
> following TLC's corporate identity statement on www.lego.com - "it is not
> possible to separate our company from our brand". But I do not like the company.
> I certainly don't.
Now that you mention it, that's just how I feel as well. The product is still
fantastic despite the poorly selected new shades of classic colors, but the
company can no longer be trusted to maintain any of the values that make the
lego system so wonderful. I think AFBLB is a better term for myself now - Adult
Fan of Building with Lego Bricks.
If I ever purchase a set at retail again it'll be with a bit of trepidation. Who
knows how long it'll be before the part geometry changes? I feel a little silly
saying that but, really, if they think it'll somehow increase sales then why
worry about how their customers feel?
Here's to hoping I'm just in a horrid mood and totally wrong!
|
|
| |
I hate to say it, but ditto. While I support Lego-the-product, LEGO-the-company does
NOT have my support.
I have bought 23 2004 sets to date, and 20 of those had all bley instantly added to my
BL shop. I only bought 22 of the 21 to get 11 of the 4695s! If it were possible to
get the 4695 with 4755, as in Europe, I would have never have bought 22 of the 23
sets.
Meanwhile, I have bought over 200 2003-prev sets so far in 2004. As those disappear
from the TLG larder, my money will disappear from their coffers.
Keep it up, TLG. Your slide to bankruptcy or public ownership is only a matter of
time with the boneheaded moves you've pulled in the last few years (all the GOOD ones,
like Lego Direct and all of its' products, won't save you when the boneheaded moves
vastly outweigh them!). None of the moves compare to removing CORE COLORS as you have
done lately.
Bryan Wong wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> > You are right, this term is highly questionable. I like building with LEGO
> > bricks and collecting LEGO sets. But I am not a "fan of LEGO" because -
> > following TLC's corporate identity statement on www.lego.com - "it is not
> > possible to separate our company from our brand". But I do not like the company.
> > I certainly don't.
>
> I keep on agreeing with Jojo! I've gone from being a supporter of the company
> to merely a supporter of their product now (as a result of the colour change).
>
> -Bryan
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
|
|
| |
I should note (even though I have already done so numerous times), that while I do NOT
support the company, I DO support Jake. Only if Jake had KKK's job would I blame him for
the current issues. But since his job now includes liason, he's going to have to hear my
(and other's) dissatisfaction with the company. Hopefully he'll bend enough ears to make
some positive (in our minds, anyways) changes.
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" wrote:
> I hate to say it, but ditto. While I support Lego-the-product, LEGO-the-company does
> NOT have my support.
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Thomas Stangl wrote:
> I have bought 23 2004 sets to date, and 20 of those had all bley instantly added to my
> BL shop. I only bought 22 of the 21 to get 11 of the 4695s! If it were possible to
> get the 4695 with 4755, as in Europe, I would have never have bought 22 of the 23
> sets.
Well if anyone's keeping track, I've purchased ONE set (MINI Star Destroyer)
with the new colours so far. It was cheap and for a specific part (ironic thing
is that the part was in new light grey). Opening this set was so difficult -
not because it was a MISB classic - but because I just could not bear to witness
the new colours. The set is still sitting on my desk, collecting dust, in the
original packaging, with only a pair of 8x4 wings removed.
Meanwhile, I don't have an exact count on how many pre-2003 sets I've purchased
from stores in 2004, but it's definitely many more than 1. I've also spent
$300+ (80+ "sets") at S@H recently in an effort to stock up on the original 3
colours.
My monetary spending amounts may pale in comparison to Tom and others, but like
many others, if you compare my pre-2003 set purchases to 2004+ sets, you'll
notice a huge discrepancy.
-Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
I didn’t say children don’t care about color or are incapable of noticing a
color change. My response is to those who question: if the color change is
really an improvement then why Lego doesn’t hype the color change to their
target market in their advertising.
|
2004 Lego Harry Potter,
Now with new, improved colors!
That sounds silly.
This is more like when food companies put dye in their products to make them
look better. They don’t tell the customer outright, but if you look carefully
at the ingredients, you’ll see the dyes listed. For these types of products,
“New and improved!” is good enough. Keep the customer guessing about what’s
new.
For Lego, it’s always been new sets with new pieces and occasionally new colors.
Unfortunately, someone at Lego thought it would be a good idea to “improve” old
colors as well. As we all know, this is a fundamentally different change
because it effectively removes colors from the Lego spectrum. :-(
| |
I’m simply speculating about the building priorities of children versus
adults. There’s a difference between “Hey, these colors are a little
different than my old ones. They look nice. I will adapt to them in my
constructions” and “I don’t want any more Lego because they don’t match my
old ones.”
|
Definately depends on the child. Younger children may buy the set to build the
picture on the box (according to the instructions), but when they build their
own creations, they don’t much care about colors.
Older children might care more about colors and may even start to buy sets
according to the pieces they contain, rather than the main model on the box.
They would be the ones that would notice the color change. They are also the
children who will likely go through a “dark ages” in their late teens and later
“rediscover” Lego as an AFOL.
Since we already know how small a segment AFOL’s are, I’d speculate that
children that try to match colors in their creations are a small segment also.
Jeff
|
|
| |
| |
I think you may be missing some subtilty in the argument here. My son may
be a good example of this. He is definitely drawn to certain colours and
exciting images when shopping. However... when building his own creations
he does not seem to care in any way about matching colours... only in
creating what he is building. He is still young and I’m sure others have
different experiences with their children etc. etc.
|
When I was young my Lego buddy was like this, colour didn’t matter, it was the
shape and technical abilities of the model he was interested in, for myself the
colour was an important element in designing a model. I think Kids just vary.
However the point I am
| |
trying to make is the following. TLG may believe that the new colours will
help draw customers to their products leading to purchases. Many of those
same customers may not notice (or care if they do) that the new colours do
not match their existing Lego. Hence... this would be beneficial to TLG.
(as I’ve said before... believing something is a good idea and the reality
of that idea being good are not necessarily the same thing).
|
I think this is a good point and actually fits with the ‘preferred by focus
groups’ line. When you are choosing to buy something there are many more
elements that influence you that you conciously think of.
Having seen the new HP sets on the shelves the photographs on the front of the
boxes do seem to have a more attract colour balance. (mind you they could have
just done this by altering the colour balance of the photos instead of chaning
the bricks!)
| |
Jeff
| |
| |
Lots of subtle color changes occur in products to increase their visual
appeal. Those changes aren’t specifically advertised and consumers might
not even consciously notice it. And yet the new product is visually
superior to the old one. Customers may not be able to pinpoint exactly why
they find the product more appealing because they are not out there doing
side-by-side A versus B comparisons, but nevertheless the effect is
tangible and important.
|
|
|
Think how many times the Coke packaging has changed (ignore new coke for now!)
and Pepsi even more. You don’t really notice as it still retains its ‘brand
qualities’ and has been subtle, also you don’t keep the product to compare it to
the new one. However I do think here Lego HAS taken its eye off brand quality,
and also it is in the ‘collectors market’ in the sense that it is a system that
is designed to allow combining of sets.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> But I do not like the company.
> I certainly don't.
You are so right Jojo....
I do not like the company for bringing us the blueish greys and I even do not
like the products from 2004 (and future ones).
As long as they come in wrong colours I stop buying anything new. I only bought
the mini ISD so far for reference purpose and I strongly dislike it.
I even do not agree with the former headline: Jake himself told he loves the new
grey and the pale minifigs. How can I suppose he did his best to work in the
interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003).
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
>
>
> > But I do not like the company.
> > I certainly don't.
>
>
> You are so right Jojo....
>
> I do not like the company for bringing us the blueish greys and I even do not
> like the products from 2004 (and future ones).
> As long as they come in wrong colours I stop buying anything new. I only bought
> the mini ISD so far for reference purpose and I strongly dislike it.
>
> I even do not agree with the former headline: Jake himself told he loves the new
> grey and the pale minifigs. How can I suppose he did his best to work in the
> interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003).
>
> Ben
Hi Ben -
Please continue to express your opinion in the new newsgroup, lugnet.color [1].
I've set the follow-ups for this post to that group.
Thanks!
-Tim
[1] http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=2527
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
| |
We can all keep ranting
about how we don’t like it or we can realize the decision has been made and
move on.
|
Actually, I’m not being that magnanamous. I don’t like the color change and
if ranting or anything else might get it reversed I will rant.
My point was rather that I can’t understand why people are questioning that
TLC’s reasons as given by Jake are anything but the true reasons. And I
certainly don’t approve of us giving Jake a harder time than we already do.
I have every reason to think that Jake’s unique position at TLC as an
advocate for the serious LEGO builder (I personally dislike the term AFOL) is
as much due to Jake working to get the company to create the position as to
being selected for the job. It’s not a matter of not “shooting the messenger”
but more of not shooting our best and only friend while he’s trying to help
us.
-Ted
|
As much as I’d like to agree, I guess that if Jake likes the new color and the
new Minifig flesh heads, then he should have asked for someone else to do the
job, since he can’t defend an opinion he doesn’t share as well as his own
position.
I’m not saying he should have resigned, but maybe he failed to make TLG truly
understand just how terrible this decision was? Well, I think he failed to do
it, since they didn’t take the time to listen to us properly. My point here is
not about blaming Jake, but I do not necessarily think he did good. He did ok
to make the decision stick and people here tame their opinion. that wasn’t my
expectations.
Terry
|
|
| |
Hi Tim,
> Hi Ben -
> Please continue to express your opinion in the new newsgroup, lugnet.color
Ben did not necessarily express an opinion focused towards the colour issue. So
I think posting this in .general is also appropriate.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
>
> > Hi Ben -
> > Please continue to express your opinion in the new newsgroup, lugnet.color
>
> Ben did not necessarily express an opinion focused towards the colour issue. So
> I think posting this in .general is also appropriate.
If you read the text of Ben's post, I don't see how it can be interpreted as
anything *but* a continued commentary on the issue of the color change.
FUT set back to lugnet.color.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> You are so right Jojo....
>
> I do not like the company for bringing us the blueish greys and I even
> do not like the products from 2004 (and future ones). As long as they
> come in wrong colours I stop buying anything new. I only bought the
> mini ISD so far for reference purpose and I strongly dislike it.
>
> I even do not agree with the former headline: Jake himself told he
> loves the new grey and the pale minifigs. How can I suppose he did his
> best to work in the interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick
> (1963-2003).
Hi Ben,
Good news -- there's brand new group, just created today, for the focused
discussion of LEGO colors. Here's the announcement:
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=2527
Not to single you out; just noticing this while checking back in and seeing
Tim's reply.
I realize it'll probably take a day or two before everyone notices the
existence of the new group, so please don't feel as though you are being
chastised.
Guten Schleimen,
--Todd
[xfut => lugnet.color]
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> I even do not agree with the former headline: Jake himself told he loves the new
> grey and the pale minifigs. How can I suppose he did his best to work in the
> interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003).
Wow. Not really sure how to respond to this. It took me quite a while to decide
whether or not to reply to this post, but it's hard not to take something like
this personally.
Make no mistake, my role is a dual one - to take the AFOL needs to the company,
as well as the company needs to the AFOLs. I'm not sure anyone could honestly
argue that a) this doesn't make sense, or b) I've ever tried to hide this.
My personal thoughts on the subject aside, I simply do not agree that I'm
incapable of going to bat for the AFOLs because I don't agree 100% with the AFOL
view of an issue. That's like saying that if you're not 3 years old, you're
incapable of designing DUPLO sets.
Which brings us the issue of what my opinions on the color issues (new colors
and flesh mini-figs). To be clear Ben, what I told you was a story about how I
built the new Hagrid's Hut and was surprised with how much I liked the new
colors. I also said that I was as concerned as anyone with the sorting, matching
and obtaining issues, as I have a large collection of the old colors too.
Further, what I said about the new minifigs was that I agreed whole-heartedly
with the decision to move into doing real characters with the skin tone
appropriate colors, and that I was happy to know that the generic sets would
remain yellow. In an increasingly multi-national, global world, I think it only
makes sense. That's my personal opinion only, and am happy to discuss more
offline.
Now back to your question/concern: "How can I suppose he did his best to work in
the interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003)"?
Well, that's really up to you. Either you trust me, or you don't. I work long
hard hours including many nights and weekends, I have huge goals, tiny budgets,
and I go round and round with more colleagues than I can count. Sadly, 90% of my
job will go unseen by the AFOLs. I've had a personal mantra that I feel I've
done a good job of keeping: Keep an open and honest relationship with the fans.
Please don't mistake my living up to this mantra by sharing the company thinking
on decisions or my personal view on current events as anything more than trying
to live up to my mantra.
Just because I'm telling you why the company did something doesn't mean I'm
being a corporate lackey. Just because I'm more than willing to have a
discussion about current events doesn't mean I'm trying to convince you your
opinion is wrong. Just because the color change wasn't reversed doesn't mean we
don't undertsand or that we weren't listening. And just because you can't see
what I do day to day doesn't mean that I'm not doing my level headed best to get
you what you need and ask for.
I apologize for what's certainly going to lead to yet more posts on the subject,
but I felt it was important to reply to this.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Webmaster - BIP
http://www.bricksonthebrain.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
>
> > I even do not agree with the former headline: Jake himself told he loves the new
> > grey and the pale minifigs. How can I suppose he did his best to work in the
> > interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003).
>
> Wow. Not really sure how to respond to this. It took me quite a while to decide
> whether or not to reply to this post, but it's hard not to take something like
> this personally. • -snip-
> I apologize for what's certainly going to lead to yet more posts on the subject,
> but I felt it was important to reply to this.
Well played, Jake. Well played.
Let me say that I trust you completely to present AFOL interests to the company.
-Lenny
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote: • ...
> Now back to your question/concern: "How can I suppose he did his best to
> work in the interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003)"?
>
> Well, that's really up to you. Either you trust me, or you don't ...
Jake, I too am very disappointed in LEGO as of late. But it is more than the
subject-that-must-not-be-named-lest-you-get-forwarded-to-another-newsgroup that
concerns me.
Here are some outstanding issues that have never been addressed to my knowledge
by you or anyone else at LEGO. (Please forgive my igorance if I am wrong!)
- The 9V wheel sets. Starting with the Metroliner re-release, and most noticable
on the Santa Fe because of the increased weight of the cars, I have
inadvertantly purchased 100s of wheel sets that drag as the wheel bites into the
plastic. This was clearly a design defect. My questions for LEGO:
Has the design defect been identified and corrected?
Have the defective wheelsets been removed from inventory? (Both in manufacturing
and in the S@H service stock?)
Is there a policy for large buyers like myself to obtain replacements?
- The Santa Fe passenger car designs. Unless the 9V track is perfectly level,
the plates on the bottom of the cars will rub against the track.
Has the design defect been identified?
Have the instructions been altered or amended to work around this?
- The HP Knight Bus subject-that-may-not-be-named:
Is this truely acceptable quality in LEGOs eyes?
Can we expect similar variance in the future?
Do you see the same problem that I and many others do?
- Brick quality control
"Ben" Beneke has documented many problems with recent bricks, but most memorable
for me is this:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=615926
It shows two stacks of plates of different heights! Since Ben obtained the
malformed plates from Pick-A-Brick in Cologne, it suggests that Pick-A-Brick is
a dumping ground for out of spec parts.
Is this truely acceptable quality in LEGOs eyes?
Can we expect similar variance in the future?
---
Jake, I do not doubt that you work very, very hard. I also know that not one of
the problems I mention are in any way your fault. However, it would go miles
toward restoring my faith in LEGO to hear some progress on any of these
concerns.
If you or anyone else can point me to a thread that answers one or all of these
issues, then please accept my apologies. I'd love to know that even one of these
issues has been officially addressed.
Cary Clark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> >
> > > I even do not agree with the former headline: Jake himself told he loves the new
> > > grey and the pale minifigs. How can I suppose he did his best to work in the
> > > interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003).
> >
> > Wow. Not really sure how to respond to this. It took me quite a while to decide
> > whether or not to reply to this post, but it's hard not to take something like
> > this personally. -snip-
> > I apologize for what's certainly going to lead to yet more posts on the subject,
> > but I felt it was important to reply to this.
>
> Well played, Jake. Well played.
>
> Let me say that I trust you completely to present AFOL interests to the company.
>
> -Lenny
yes, that was heavy. Good job.
e
P.S. I'll bet some plates that no one knows how "I" feel about the new colors
and the old ones going awayish.
:P
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
>
> > I even do not agree with the former headline: Jake himself told he loves the new
> > grey and the pale minifigs. How can I suppose he did his best to work in the
> > interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003).
>
> Wow. Not really sure how to respond to this. It took me quite a while to decide
> whether or not to reply to this post, but it's hard not to take something like
> this personally.
[snip]
> Just because I'm telling you why the company did something doesn't mean I'm
> being a corporate lackey. Just because I'm more than willing to have a
> discussion about current events doesn't mean I'm trying to convince you your
> opinion is wrong. Just because the color change wasn't reversed doesn't mean we
> don't undertsand or that we weren't listening. And just because you can't see
> what I do day to day doesn't mean that I'm not doing my level headed best to get
> you what you need and ask for.
Well said, Jake. Thanks for your continued commitment to the community, despite
the fact that it is sometimes a thankless job. I'm behind you.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Terry Prosper wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Ted Michon wrote:
| |
| |
We can all keep ranting
about how we don’t like it or we can realize the decision has been made and
move on.
|
|
|
snip
| |
| |
I have every reason to think that Jake’s unique position at TLC as an
advocate for the serious LEGO builder (I personally dislike the term AFOL)
is as much due to Jake working to get the company to create the position as
to being selected for the job. It’s not a matter of not “shooting the
messenger” but more of not shooting our best and only friend while he’s
trying to help us.
-Ted
|
As much as I’d like to agree, I guess that if Jake likes the new color and
the new Minifig flesh heads, then he should have asked for someone else to do
the job, since he can’t defend an opinion he doesn’t share as well as his own
position.
|
That doesn’t make sense to me. “Only people who completely agree with my point
of view should be allowed to represent the AFOL community to LEGO.” Jake has
said repeatedly that he gets it and is working hard to bring your concerns
to the right people within the company. The fact that he has said he likes the
colors in some circumstances (as do I, BTW) does not categorically mean he’s
incapable of being an effective liaison between “us” and “them”. The color
change means far less to me than most people here, it seems, regardless of the
tens of thousands of pieces I currently own; but that doesn’t mean I don’t
understand the problems others have with the change. Although I am having a
tough time understanding the degree of passion (and rudeness) some have shown
regarding it.
Besides, you’re making it sound as if Jake should be responsible for getting
something changed to suit your specific needs. All the job descriptions I’ve
heard from Jake more accurately could be called a two-way information courier.
Is it his job to defend your opinion?
| |
I’m not saying he should have resigned, but maybe he failed to make TLG truly
understand just how terrible this decision was? Well, I think he failed to
do it, since they didn’t take the time to listen to us properly.
|
“... just how terrible this decision was” for a subset of the company’s target
audience. It’s been said before but needs amplification: just because LEGO
didn’t do things the way you wanted them to doesn’t mean they didn’t listen and
understand your problem.
Face it, Jake’s about the best possible advocate for LUGNET readers that one
could imagine. No, he’s not going to be able to convince the company leaders to
make sweeping changes that would only suit a few people. But he can/has/will be
able to inform said superiors so that AFOL concerns at least play a part of
future decisions.
I’d be hard-pressed to find another global company that provides regional
ombudsmen who interact with special interest groups as thoroughly as LEGO has.
Personally, I’m grateful that a pair of ears are pointed our direction, not
coincidentally attached to somebody with a brain to use what he hears. (I’m
using Jake as an example, but you could insert “Kate” here just as well.)
So yes, Jake done good, and I trust he will do so in the future, regardless of
his personal thoughts or biases. I think anybody who’s had the opportunity to
actually speak with him for five minutes would tend to agree.
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Terry Prosper wrote:
| |
As much as I’d like to agree, I guess that if Jake likes the new color and
the new Minifig flesh heads, then he should have asked for someone else to do
the job, since he can’t defend an opinion he doesn’t share as well as his own
position.
|
OK...Terry, I don’t know if I’ve ever met you at a Fest, or talked to you
anywhere or anything, but I’m going to say something here that if you have met
me, you’ll know that I mean this with the utmost respect:
You’re either more emotional about this issue than Goldman’s mom was after I
dumped her...or you’re an idiot. And I’m leaning towards the latter, but maybe
you just really, really, really like tilting at windmills.
There is no reason that Jake can’t take feedback from the community and pass
it on to his higher-ups even if he doesn’t share the same opinion. It’s called
integrity. Now, maybe you think Jake lacks integrity. If so, well, that’s
your opinion, so I can’t argue. But my opinion, which is based on all of the
information I have about him--from talking to him in person, to reading his
posts, to conducting pillow-talk with his mom--leads me to believe that he can
represent our interests even if he doesn’t agree with them.
I’m just going to give you one example of what I’m talking about. Let’s say
that Jake wanted the next Legend to be a train set--say, the Crocodile Engine
(4551). But the majority of fans want something else. Do you think Jake would
abuse his position to get 4551 made? Or would he pass along the actual desires
of his constituency? (And yes, that’s a hypothetical situation. But I think it
gets the point across.)
| |
I’m not saying he should have resigned, but maybe he failed to make TLG truly
understand just how terrible this decision was? Well, I think he failed to
do it, since they didn’t take the time to listen to us properly. My point
here is not about blaming Jake, but I do not necessarily think he did good.
He did ok to make the decision stick and people here tame their opinion.
that wasn’t my expectations.
|
Even mentioning the idea of him resigning in this situation is laughable. And
trust me, I’m sure Jake did just fine in making TLG understand how terrible
you think this decision was.
I don’t like the new greys or minifig colors either, but you’ve voiced your
concerns to Jake more than enough, just vote with your wallet (or purse) like
the rest of us. (And yes, I’ve bought one 2004 set, but I had to have a Greedo.
I’m sorry. I haven’t caved on anything else yet.)
Look, I know this is the harshest post I’ve ever written--and you should have
read the first draft; I’ve gone back and deleted some of the things I had in
here--and I know I come across as an arrogant a-hole, but seriously dude, you
need to think about what you know about Jake and his motivations.
Derek
P.S.--I haven’t been this hot since...well...you all know the rest.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Derek Schin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.color, Terry Prosper wrote:
|
‘sho nuff.
e
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Eric Sophie wrote:
| |
In lugnet.color, Derek Schin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.color, Terry Prosper wrote:
|
‘sho nuff.
e
|
I’m NOT EVEN GOING TO ASK why you’re posting pics of your mom in lugnet.color
(1), especially since it’s likely to draw unwanted attention from Mr. Goldman
(2) to her, are you sure you actually want that?
So let me just give that “‘sho nuff” a hearty second. And note for the record
that Terry doesn’t speak for all of us (dare I say, “many of us”?)
1 - is it because she’s wearing purple??
(3)
2 - AND Mr. Schin...
(3)
3 - mom comments probably belong in o-t.fun
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.color, Eric Sophie wrote:
| |
In lugnet.color, Derek Schin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.color, Terry Prosper wrote:
|
‘sho nuff.
e
|
I’m NOT EVEN GOING TO ASK why you’re posting pics of your mom in lugnet.color
(1), especially since it’s likely to draw unwanted attention from Mr. Goldman
(2) to her, are you sure you actually want that?
So let me just give that “‘sho nuff” a hearty second. And note for the record
that Terry doesn’t speak for all of us (dare I say, “many of us”?)
1 - is it because she’s wearing purple??
(3)
|
I sure hope she’s prepared for the consequences of that! *ahem*
(both Eric and Lar should know what I’m talking about, Kelly knows too, and many
of the Mecha folk)
XFUT -> o-t.fun
-Tim
|
|
| |
wait, are you talking about my Mom?
;)
e
:P
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.color, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> > Ben did not necessarily express an opinion focused towards the colour issue. So
> > I think posting this in .general is also appropriate.
>
> If you read the text of Ben's post, I don't see how it can be interpreted as
> anything *but* a continued commentary on the issue of the color change.
>
> FUT set back to lugnet.color.
I agree with Tim, and even if the post was broadly about the LEGO company and
Ben's feelings about that rather than mostly about color, it still doesn't
belong in .general... that sort of thing belongs in the .lego hierarchy
somewhere.
And arguing about where a thread belongs tends not to belong in .general either!
That verges over into the .admin area...
Please note: We just went through a patch where .general was growing by leaps
and bounds (to the point where LUGNET, the server, was caving under the load)
and arguably mostly with posts that didn't really belong in .general... Todd's
now created a .color group to help focus discussion better. (at the behind the
scenes urging of some of us) It may be a bit bumpy at first while we all try to
internalise what belongs there and what doesn't so please bear with it if you
would... in the end it will make things run much more smoothly if you steer
stuff to the right place yourself without being reminded, or go along with
steering when it's being done by folks such as Todd, Tim, Frank or myself.
++Lar
|
|
| |
Hi Jake,
I believe that you have kept your own personal opinions separate from working
with the afol community. One of your strengths is the ability to do this.
I guess some fans that have talked to you know your personal opinions on colors,
certain lines of product,etc. Sometimes we agree (both liking Hagrids Hut for
example) and other times we may not. At the same time, I think it should be
evident to everyone that you listen to our concerns very well and act
impartially to your own opinions whether you like a decision or dislike it as a
fan.
I also think it is a "low blow" to bring up your fan opinions in these
conversations. The afol community should be able to give constructive comments
on why we like or dislike issues like product lines and color without
questioning your integrity as a liason between us and LEGO.
Keep up the good work!
Ben Ellermann
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Cary Clark wrote:
<snip>
> Here are some outstanding issues that have never been addressed to my knowledge
> by you or anyone else at LEGO. (Please forgive my igorance if I am wrong!)
>
> - The 9V wheel sets. Starting with the Metroliner re-release, and most noticable
> on the Santa Fe because of the increased weight of the cars, I have
> inadvertantly purchased 100s of wheel sets that drag as the wheel bites into the
> plastic. This was clearly a design defect. My questions for LEGO:
>
> Has the design defect been identified and corrected?
> Have the defective wheelsets been removed from inventory? (Both in manufacturing
> and in the S@H service stock?)
> Is there a policy for large buyers like myself to obtain replacements?
>
> - The Santa Fe passenger car designs. Unless the 9V track is perfectly level,
> the plates on the bottom of the cars will rub against the track.
>
> Has the design defect been identified?
> Have the instructions been altered or amended to work around this?
>
> - The HP Knight Bus subject-that-may-not-be-named:
>
> Is this truely acceptable quality in LEGOs eyes?
> Can we expect similar variance in the future?
> Do you see the same problem that I and many others do?
>
> - Brick quality control
>
> "Ben" Beneke has documented many problems with recent bricks, but most memorable
> for me is this:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=615926
>
> It shows two stacks of plates of different heights! Since Ben obtained the
> malformed plates from Pick-A-Brick in Cologne, it suggests that Pick-A-Brick is
> a dumping ground for out of spec parts.
>
> Is this truely acceptable quality in LEGOs eyes?
> Can we expect similar variance in the future?
>
> ---
>
> Jake, I do not doubt that you work very, very hard. I also know that not one of
> the problems I mention are in any way your fault. However, it would go miles
> toward restoring my faith in LEGO to hear some progress on any of these
> concerns.
>
> If you or anyone else can point me to a thread that answers one or all of these
> issues, then please accept my apologies. I'd love to know that even one of these
> issues has been officially addressed.
>
> Cary Clark
Spotlighted. I would also like to hear some official response to the many valid
points raised in this post. I hope it doesn't get lost in this thread.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@myrealbox.com
|
|
| |
Jake, we are 100% behind you. We can't begin to thank you enough for the things
you are trying to do for us and we understand that it's not that easy.
We know it can be diffcult to be the middleman who get shouts from allover,
frankly we couldn't ask for some1 better then you.
Yaron "Webrain" Dori
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Thomas Main wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Cary Clark wrote:
> <snip>
> > Here are some outstanding issues that have never been addressed to my knowledge
> > by you or anyone else at LEGO. (Please forgive my igorance if I am wrong!)
> >
> > - The 9V wheel sets. Starting with the Metroliner re-release, and most noticable
> > on the Santa Fe because of the increased weight of the cars, I have
> > inadvertantly purchased 100s of wheel sets that drag as the wheel bites into the
> > plastic. This was clearly a design defect. My questions for LEGO:
> >
> > Has the design defect been identified and corrected?
> > Have the defective wheelsets been removed from inventory? (Both in manufacturing
> > and in the S@H service stock?)
> > Is there a policy for large buyers like myself to obtain replacements?
I've had this problem and it gets worse the more weight you put on the wheelsets
(it's awful with 8mm:1ft scale trains as the trains are twice the weight of
6-wide ones). I've had to modify quite a few wheelsets as a workaround. I too
am seeking assurance that the problem has been fixed.
> > - The Santa Fe passenger car designs. Unless the 9V track is perfectly level,
> > the plates on the bottom of the cars will rub against the track.
> >
> > Has the design defect been identified?
> > Have the instructions been altered or amended to work around this?
Looks like tiles need to be used on the bottom in place of plates with studs.
> > - The HP Knight Bus subject-that-may-not-be-named:
> >
> > Is this truely acceptable quality in LEGOs eyes?
> > Can we expect similar variance in the future?
> > Do you see the same problem that I and many others do?
I've avoided buying the Knight Bus due to this problem. When I am assured that
the problem is fixed, then I'll buy.
> > - Brick quality control
> >
> > "Ben" Beneke has documented many problems with recent bricks, but most memorable
> > for me is this:
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=615926
> >
> > It shows two stacks of plates of different heights! Since Ben obtained the
> > malformed plates from Pick-A-Brick in Cologne, it suggests that Pick-A-Brick is
> > a dumping ground for out of spec parts.
> >
> > Is this truely acceptable quality in LEGOs eyes?
> > Can we expect similar variance in the future?
It's not just Pick-a-Brick! I've had this problem with stacks of plates from
ordinary sets and bulk packs from LS@H. Putting two stacks of 2x3s together,
there is a variance of a whole plate height in 40 - a 1 in 40 tolerance error,
or 2.5%. That's a ridiculous margin of error considering the normal tolerances
of parts.
It's not just the height of parts either. Try stacking some 1x2 bricks and see
how they don't line up like they used to.
> > ---
> >
> > Jake, I do not doubt that you work very, very hard. I also know that not one of
> > the problems I mention are in any way your fault. However, it would go miles
> > toward restoring my faith in LEGO to hear some progress on any of these
> > concerns.
> >
> > If you or anyone else can point me to a thread that answers one or all of these
> > issues, then please accept my apologies. I'd love to know that even one of these
> > issues has been officially addressed.
> >
> > Cary Clark
>
> Spotlighted. I would also like to hear some official response to the many valid
> points raised in this post. I hope it doesn't get lost in this thread.
>
> --
> Thomas Main
> thomasmain@myrealbox.com
Hear hear!
I suspect that there are an awful lot of ducks without their third coat of
paint, or even the second one! (see the Ultimate Lego Book).
I want to hear that someone at TLG is staying up all night putting back the
quality.
I'll add to the list of issues:
#5: 71427 motors: I'm glad that 43362 motors appear to have solved the problems,
but what's this I hear about replacements for faulty motors only up to 2 years
old? The policy used to be lifetime warranty on electrical parts. A motor that
is known to last only 2 years isn't worth £15. I've had 6 of about 20 replaced
so far. If it's genuinely faulty it should be replaced. period. What is the
life expectancy of a motor? It must have a reliability calculation somewhere so
that it's not over-engineered and therefore too expensive. Is there a
recommendation to exercise all motors regularly?
#6: Why do the pneumatic cylinders in 8455 Backhoe Loader need their nozzles
drilling out to remove the airflow restriction before they can be used as
intended? Pulling and pushing a cylinder by hand will illustrate this point.
If you pull all the way fast then let go it retracts part way because the air
can't get in fast enough.
#7: Some parts are streaked with other colours. Is this because the moulding
machines are not cleaned out properly between colour batches? A few people
value these parts for rarity, but I find it just another corner that's been cut.
I've had 4x4 plates, 1x2 bricks and now a -45degx1 roof tile with this problem.
The first two were black parts streaked with silver - I don't know of those
parts ever being produced in silver!
#8: One of my 4410 creator sets contained a blue 1x3 brick instead of the blue
1x4 brick that should have been there. I thought machines did the counting, so
how on earth did this happen? Has the tolerance on the weighing machine also
been relaxed, so that it wasn't detected?
Jake, please would you ask around and post some official answers to these
issues. I know it's not your fault, but you're best placed to find out.
Thanks.
Mark Bellis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Cary Clark wrote:
> "Ben" Beneke has documented many problems with recent bricks, but most memorable for me is this:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=615926
>
> It shows two stacks of plates of different heights!
Oh, man, is that scary! I used to think is was bad enough that a 2 foot stack of
Duplo misaligned with a similar height stack of LEGO by 1/16 inch, but THIS IS
HORRIBLE! I hold out the hope that this was a manufacturing glitch (I could
imagine this happening if the bottom of the mold was not fully pressed up
against the top, for example. I find it not credible that this was a mold design
failure.)
-Ted
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
Hello Jake,
some of my recent messages have been written under - let me call it - emotional
stress. I knew, part of it could be understood as hurting personally, on the
other hand the colour change is a topic that hurts me daily more. I kept really
cool, when I learned about it in late 2003, I was somewhat upset when we met in
Portland PDX; in the meantime the level of "hate" against the gray-decision is
beyond any rational explanation.
As said, I stopped buying new sets and I see not need to overthink that
decision. I dislike the bley colours and I would rather get out of my hobby than
starting collecting stuff I dislike.
So this topic is about leaving my hobby. Getting expelled out of my hobby,
because my bank account screems for being lowered by buying LEGO products as
usual, but the old sets become already somewhat rare in the shelves and there
will never be new sets to spend money on, since the bleys are eternal.
Under these circumstances none of your news have been good news. I do not want
some bulkpacks. In my eyes these are not more than a pill to keep us quiet.
Nothing good....
But one of the main points behind all this is trust: Can I trust the LEGO
Company (TLC), can I trust its employees and can I trust you?
My very personal opinion is that the answer on these questions is "No".
You said you did not lie to us. And I never called you a liar.
But between "telling not the truth" and "telling lies" there is still room for
lots of "Jake-postings" and Jake-TLC-announcements. (My very own opinion - as
everything written in this whole posting - in your mind, please add a "IMHO" at
the end of each line.)
Just to give you one very distinct point to overthink:
You said (more or less correctly quoted) something like:
*************
The flesh tone will (only) be used exclusively on "real charakters". Now and in
future yellow-head minifigs will remain to be used on TLC's "own" themes.
*************
Ok, concerning this very statement, I do not tell you a liar. But still I do
accept this only to be a truth for this very moment. And that means, it might be
not the truth tomorrow and I am 99% convinced it is not the truth in a few
years.
You tell me minifigs stay yellow. And I tell you: I do not trust you, I do not
trust TLC in this decision.
I would offering a bet about 100 $ US against your "yellow statement"!
I bet in the year 2007 will every new set come with the pale "fleshy" minifigs.
Yellow ones might only appear in Legend sets.
2007 that is not more than 2.5 years ahead and TLC-inside the sets for 2006
should be on the scratchbook already, so this is not about far future. I offered
this bet in public on the 1000steine-board and nobody held against it. So one
could believe nobody there trusted your word, your statement, your promise?
Ok, let me explain, why I doubt your statement and feel enough self-confidence
to do a bet like this:
1. Right now most (all?) new Explore - ehem, sorry - Duplo-figures come in
flesh tones. In a few years kids want to have these colours for minifigs as
well.
2. The mix out of yellow and "pale fleshies" looks awful (in my personal
opinion). That is the reason why all minifigs will appear that way soon.
3. It is a nice marketing instrument to have news at hand for some years. For
now the more expensive sets (the licenced ones) come with flesh tune, the
"cheaper" ones later....
4. Since you can't mix (imho) yellow and pale, there have to be replaced
millions of minifigs in the worldwide LEGO collections. Nobody wants to play
with oldfashioned stuff. That might lead to increased sales.
I am most sorry about the fact that some really nice yellow minifig heads will
become obsolete due to this change.
All in all I do not dislike the pale minifigs that much as I disklike the
grey-change. But I do not have to care about flesh at all, since I will not buy
any of them (or are there sets without bley that come with fleshies?
*******
Only as a sidenote: What I basically dislike about the new minifigs is the fact,
that they are no addition to the SYSTEM, but they are (IMHO) a replacement (you
cannot mix them). For me a brown Lando has been perfectly ok: that has been an
addition to the system, since he comes in standard brown colour. Doing pale
basketball players has been "on the border": those have been collectors items
only. I have no opinion on wether those had been better yellow or not. But it
helped opening pandoras box somewhat.
*******
Let me come to a conclusion:
As shown on the yellow-minifig example I do not trust the LEGO communication /
the LEGO promises any more. Changes to the worse might come at every time and
without warning. Our so far trustful communication has been cut from your side
(IMHO).
Other topics where I doubt your statements: purple busses are technical ok, but
it is only our eyes, which is "cheating" us, because the human eyes are very
sensible concerning this very colour. I still think this _IS_ a quality issue. I
do not trust TLC in this point.
I still doubt the explanation of the reasons why bley got introduced. If TLC
thinks it is so superior: why are there no posters in the retail shops no big
announcement on LEGO.com about the new improved colour. I feel betrayed in this
point. TLC should inform their customers about such a huge design change. I lost
my faith in TLC due to this as well....
In the end I see nothing good in all the bley-discussions. LEGO will not change
back but hands out a few pills to keep us quiet. I do not care if focus group do
have learned their lesson for now. I am out of the hobby (at least as far as it
concerns new sets) from now on. My hobby will suffer under drasctical changes. I
will "play" more and more with the ML-CAD system, I will stop being a promoter
for new LEGO products. If some parents around ask me about my hobby, I tell them
how upset I am about the bad way the company is run and how useless the 2004+
products are (IMHO).
I nearly cannot loose anything more now. You TLC cut me off from support of new
bricks and sets (which fit to the SYSTEM you sold me over the past 30+ years).
So I "fight" back as hard as I can. I am not interested in some tranquilizer
pills to keep me calm.
And I would not put so much time in claiming and discussing (and now even
flaming), if this was not all about my biggest hobby, my favorite childhood
memory, my most beloved, always inspiring LEGO bricks! R.I.P 2004.
Regards,
Ben
P.s.:
I will write a few more lines between your answer and send that to your private
mail. It does not belong into the public of Lugnet. And I have not sorted all my
thoughts to well right now. But I have to overthink your position of being an
Afol and an LEGO employeee at the same time.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Bryan Wong wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> > You are right, this term is highly questionable. I like building with LEGO
> > bricks and collecting LEGO sets. But I am not a "fan of LEGO" because -
> > following TLC's corporate identity statement on www.lego.com - "it is not
> > possible to separate our company from our brand". But I do not like the company.
> > I certainly don't.
>
> I keep on agreeing with Jojo! I've gone from being a supporter of the company
> to merely a supporter of their product now (as a result of the colour change).
Well, glad to see i'm not alone (for a change...).
I agree 100% with you both (and with Ted Michon as well). This color change
might be not reversible (1). So will not be my feelings about TLC. I'm very
disappointed with this unexcusable color change. I trust in Jake still (and
appreciate his efforts very much!), but no longer in TLC.
Paulo Renato
(1) I strongly believe that if the part of the comunity that is *really* unhappy
with this colour change could manage to work together and stay firm to a boycot
or a similar strong measure to avoid new products, maybe this color change would
reverse. But as it is, (like people that don't - or didn't - like this change
already giving suggestions to bricks in the new colors, for instance) I think
that TLC has realised by now that a grand part of us follows the ancient lemma
"if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". (2)
(2) I'm not criticising no one. You do what you think is best for you. Of
Course. Also i'm not saying that i'd like to see everyone here agreeing with me.
I only wish that there could be a way for we to work a bit more in unisson in
important issues like this one. Like an old favorite of mine: "Together we
stand, divided we fall" (in 'Hey You' by Roger Waters/Pink Floyd).
|
|
| |
Hello Ben,
I don't want to interfere between you and Jake. This post is only about some of
the things you said about Lego and LEGO. It's not about any other
considerations.
First i would like to express my solidarity to you.
I fully understand you when you say bulkpacks are pills to calm you down. I feel
exactly the same. How long will they last? Even if they lasted forever, the
bricks would collapse in time, they would not follow the natural evolution of
new molds. Concerning this i made a (well intentioned) suggestion to Jake about
bulk packs. My suggestion was that TLC could offer packs of the same bricks
being produced in the new colors. It would cost more money to us, but would be
worth of it, i think. This would be a good solution for us, don-t you agree?
Otherwise, old colors are dead for good.
I read your post a few times and i think i know what you feel about TLC. I feel
over the same. Many will not understand and even sugest that some of "us" forget
the A in AFOL. Some say that *real* problems are others (as we didn't know it
already!). I just say you this, Ben: They do not understand. And good for them
that they do not understand. I wish i didn't understand too. Oh, how i wish i
didn't understand a post like yours!...
Best regards,
Paulo Renato
P.S. Allow me to make my best wishes that things between you and Jake will work
allright.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
>
> > I even do not agree with the former headline: Jake himself told he loves the new
> > grey and the pale minifigs. How can I suppose he did his best to work in the
> > interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003).
>
> Wow. Not really sure how to respond to this. It took me quite a while to decide
> whether or not to reply to this post, but it's hard not to take something like
> this personally.
>
> Make no mistake, my role is a dual one - to take the AFOL needs to the company,
> as well as the company needs to the AFOLs. I'm not sure anyone could honestly
> argue that a) this doesn't make sense, or b) I've ever tried to hide this.
>
> My personal thoughts on the subject aside, I simply do not agree that I'm
> incapable of going to bat for the AFOLs because I don't agree 100% with the AFOL
> view of an issue. That's like saying that if you're not 3 years old, you're
> incapable of designing DUPLO sets.
>
> Which brings us the issue of what my opinions on the color issues (new colors
> and flesh mini-figs). To be clear Ben, what I told you was a story about how I
> built the new Hagrid's Hut and was surprised with how much I liked the new
> colors. I also said that I was as concerned as anyone with the sorting, matching
> and obtaining issues, as I have a large collection of the old colors too.
> Further, what I said about the new minifigs was that I agreed whole-heartedly
> with the decision to move into doing real characters with the skin tone
> appropriate colors, and that I was happy to know that the generic sets would
> remain yellow. In an increasingly multi-national, global world, I think it only
> makes sense. That's my personal opinion only, and am happy to discuss more
> offline.
>
> Now back to your question/concern: "How can I suppose he did his best to work in
> the interest of the fans of the "true" LEGO brick (1963-2003)"?
>
> Well, that's really up to you. Either you trust me, or you don't. I work long
> hard hours including many nights and weekends, I have huge goals, tiny budgets,
> and I go round and round with more colleagues than I can count. Sadly, 90% of my
> job will go unseen by the AFOLs. I've had a personal mantra that I feel I've
> done a good job of keeping: Keep an open and honest relationship with the fans.
> Please don't mistake my living up to this mantra by sharing the company thinking
> on decisions or my personal view on current events as anything more than trying
> to live up to my mantra.
>
> Just because I'm telling you why the company did something doesn't mean I'm
> being a corporate lackey. Just because I'm more than willing to have a
> discussion about current events doesn't mean I'm trying to convince you your
> opinion is wrong. Just because the color change wasn't reversed doesn't mean we
> don't undertsand or that we weren't listening. And just because you can't see
> what I do day to day doesn't mean that I'm not doing my level headed best to get
> you what you need and ask for.
>
> I apologize for what's certainly going to lead to yet more posts on the subject,
> but I felt it was important to reply to this.
>
> Jake
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Webmaster - BIP
> http://www.bricksonthebrain.com
I remember how excited I was when you came into LUGNET with official postings
from TLC itself.
How sad it is to read posts like this now: depressing, self-defensive posts that
you have been made to feel compelled to write. How low some people have gone;
how much for granted your presence, input, and output has been taken. It's even
gone beyond that, really. It's gone to personal levels, where you've been
directly, personally accosted.
Please don't allow some of us to kill the messenger, Jake!
For my part, I read everything you write with appreciation, and while not
everything I've read has been good news, I'm glad we at least have you to
deliver all tidings good and bad.
--Dave
|
|
|
