| |
In lugnet.color, David Simmons wrote:
| |
... The only possible explanation that I can
imagine is that the old gray, dark gray and brown colors were part of the
batch that were eliminated in order for the new resin pilot program to be
fully effective. However, that’s not stated here and that interpretation
is way too much of a stretch for me to accept based on the wording above.
|
Say what? Do you really expect them to address the issue of new versus old grey
specifically in an article about supply-chain management? Really?
How is it a stretch to infer that? Perhaps if you read the whole article again
instead of demanding other people find a quote for you, and then added the
statements of TLC employees on the subject for the last several years you would
be able to easily make the simple connections.
LEGO is back to being profitable and will continue to produce our favorite toy.
The colour switch was part of that. What else is there to know?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Ted Godwin wrote:
| |
Say what? Do you really expect them to address the issue of new versus old
grey specifically in an article about supply-chain management? Really?
|
The reason I’m asking this question in the first place is because the person who
posted about the article initially said “It also explains the change in color
pallets.” I was hoping that this meant that they were saying that the article
would describe why certain colors which were not eliminated from the current
palette were “altered.” From my perspective, the article did not address that.
| |
How is it a stretch to infer that? Perhaps if you read the whole article
again instead of demanding other people find a quote for you, and then added
the statements of TLC employees on the subject for the last several years you
would be able to easily make the simple connections.
|
Whooaaaaah, nelly! Let’s just back off the anger throttle, shall we? First of
all, I read the article from front to back twice after it was posted, and I
didn’t find anything in it to suggest why certain long-standing colors were
changed. Secondly, I did not demand that other people find a quote for me,
I simply asked if anyone had seen something that I had not. Clearly, you
did, and yet instead of reproducing these simple connections, you chose to
ridicule me for daring to ask for a little clarification.
| |
LEGO is back to being profitable and will continue to produce our favorite
toy. The colour switch was part of that. What else is there to know?
|
Just because they’re back to being profitable does not mean that they are beyond
called into question for the decisions that were made to restore said
profitability. I will state here that I would be perfectly happy to adopt the
new colors IF TLG or anyone else can produce information that clearly states
that the change was made to ensure the profitability of the company.
Nothing in the article indicated that to me, and if it indicated such to
you, then you’re a much more interpretive reader than I.
Finally, I have to say that the main reason that I don’t participate in Lugnet
forums as much as I used to is because I’m tired of having to defend myself
merely for asking a question! I think that the color change is a bad thing, and
I’ve tried my damnedest to keep that to myself because I don’t want to
contribute to the static on the ng’s. However, it seems that another group of
AFOL’s is also trying their damnedest to keep from screaming “S.T.F.U. and
support the company regardless of what they do!!”
I won’t be a cheerleader for a song like that. If someone s**** on my head, I’m
not going to turn around and say “Thanks for the hat!”
Of course, that’s overstating my emotional commitment to this situation by a
huge degree, but I do think it’s a funny metaphor!
I certainly hope the situation hasn’t progressed the point where we can’t even
ask pertinent questions without being told to *uck off!
Dave S.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, David Simmons wrote:
> The reason I'm asking this question in the first place is because the person
> who posted about the article initially said "It also explains the change in
> color pallets." I was hoping that this meant that they were saying that the
> article would describe why certain colors which were not eliminated from
> the current palette were "altered." From my perspective, the article did
> not address that.
Hmm, I guess I thought it did. They drasticly reduced the number of resin
suppliers, which means that a large number of suppliers (who might have been the
ones supplying, for instance, old grey) were eliminated, making those resins no
longer availible. As an example, say you start out with six different suppliers
selling eight resins:
Ralph's Resins -
Supplies: red, blue, yellow
Also availible: brown, orange
Gary's Greys -
Supplies: old light grey, old dark grey
Also availible: peach
Harry's Hues -
Supplies: brown
Also availible: light bley, dark bley, purple, tan
Ken's Kustom Resins -
Supplies: orange
Also availible: old light grey
Winnie's One-stop Wonders -
Supplies: tan
Also availible: nothing
Resin's Aren't Us:
Supplies: purple
Also availible: Tie-dye (hey, I can wish?)
Current pallet: red, blue, yellow, old light grey, old dark grey, brown, orange,
tan, purple
Now if you want to reduce the number of suppliers drasticly, you have to find a
smaller set of suppliers that can supply something like your required pallet.
Here, one possibility is Ralph (for red, blue, yellow, and adding orange) and
Harry (brown, and adding light bley, dark bley, purple, tan). You've kept a very
similar pallet (swapping the grey for bleys) and preserved what you could
(stayed with the brown from Harry instead of switching it pointlessly for the
slightly different one from Ralph), but drasticly simplified your supply chain.
If a lot of the resins were being sourced in "boutique" fashion, I'm surprised
there weren't *more* changes in the process.
Why not keep one more supplier (Gary) and keep the original pallet? Perhaps,
cost. There's a balance to be struck, and while not everyone may agree with the
result, I can see how an attempt to reduce the number of suppliers will lead to
a shifted color pallet in some cases. Also note that when the grey shift came
out, there were comments that LEGO had other reasons as well to "shift" those
colors (market research, or perhaps focus groups). If your research indicates
you can reduce costs by changing your supply change in a certain way, and in the
process marketing says focus groups are not neutral but actually approve of the
resulting changes, well... that would seem to me to be a Good Choice.
Now you can open this argument up a whole lot (again) with things like "The
incremental cost increase of keeping the original grey supplier would have been
small", or "They used the wrong focus groups (i.e., I wasn't in it", or "But in
cutting the supply chain cost they are making an inferior product", or "damaging
brand image", or "violating customer loyalty", etc. All those may be true... but
they aren't relevant to the above possible explaination.
Note I'm not saying this is why the color change happened, or that this is the
only cause, etc. I'm just pointing out how the constraint of reducing the number
of suppliers can indeed exaplin a shift in the color pallet. The exact
individual choices would be based on the exact mix of suppliers and products,
and pricing (both for indiviual colors and bulk sales), so it doesn't "prove"
anything... but it does offer a reasaonble explaination.
> Whooaaaaah, nelly! Let's just back off the
> anger throttle, shall we?
Agreed. I didn't take your post as offensive, and in fact I think your raised a
good point ("how exatly does this explain it?"), which I tried to answer. Yeah,
anger seems... uncalled for.
> Just because they're back to being profitable
> does not mean that they are beyond called into
> question for the decisions that were made to
> restore said profitability.
Agreed. They could have become "profitable" by selling off all the company
assets too, so I'd agree that there are paths to "profitable" that would violate
the core ideals here, and those should be called into question. Personal
opinion, I *don't* think the color change is one of those... but then again, I'm
from a very different end of the hobby than most in the color issue (robots, and
functional mechanisms).
> Finally, I have to say that the main reason that I don't participate in
> Lugnet forums as much as I used to is because I'm tired of having to defend
> myself merely for asking a question!
I completely agree, which is why I jumped in to try to explain the possible
reasoning. You and I may see the color issue very differently, but that
certainly doesn't mean there needs to be an attack. Heck, perhaps it's just my
POV - I've done more on USENET than I've ever done on LUGNET, and LUGNET at the
worst of times is a civil, quite, respectful backwater compared to USENET :-).
--
Brian "for not caring I'm long-winded" Davis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, David Simmons wrote:
| |
I certainly hope the situation hasn’t progressed the point where we can’t
even ask pertinent questions without being told to *uck off!
|
By all means ask pertinent questions. Your “questions” thus far have not been
so.
| |
Definition of pertinent (adjective): of importance; relevant
|
TLC has clearly stated that they made business decisions that resulted in the
current colour palette. Those decisions have ensured the survival of the
company. Those decisions were made years ago and are no longer of concern to any
but a very few AFOL’s. Your continued objections are petty and perhaps even
obsessive. Relevant? Hardly.
You can choose to read into articles such as the one under discussion what you
like. Just please stop pretending that you are willing to embrace facts with
which you simply disagree.
The only anger on my part is at myself for having been fooled by someone
trolling.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.color, Ted Godwin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.color, David Simmons wrote:
| |
I certainly hope the situation hasn’t progressed the point where we can’t
even ask pertinent questions without being told to *uck off!
|
By all means ask pertinent questions. Your “questions” thus far have not been
so.
| |
Definition of pertinent (adjective): of importance; relevant
|
TLC has clearly stated that they made business decisions that resulted in the
current colour palette. Those decisions have ensured the survival of the
company. Those decisions were made years ago and are no longer of concern to
any but a very few AFOL’s. Your continued objections are petty and perhaps
even obsessive. Relevant? Hardly.
You can choose to read into articles such as the one under discussion what
you like. Just please stop pretending that you are willing to embrace facts
with which you simply disagree.
The only anger on my part is at myself for having been fooled by someone
trolling.
|
Nice trolling yourself, Ted! I just re-read the entire thread and you
contributed much more negativity than I did and you’re revealed yourself to
be a bigger and more obnoxious troll for continuing to attempt to bait me with
such needless vitriol.
Please read Brian Davis’ mature, intelligent and very thoughtful response to my
inquiries. I believe that you could learn a lot from it.
Dave S.
|
|
| |
Wow, Brian, thanks so much! Your thoughtful, intelligent and mature response
gives me hope that Lugnet will continue to remain a place where fans can engage
in introspective and constructive (pun intended) conversation without devolving
into petty, useless word wars.
As you acknowledge, there still isn't a clear answer to the burning question,
however you did a beautiful job of attempting to answer it. I appreciate that
very much and look forward to further dialogue with you and other like-mined and
like-tempered AFOL's!
Dave S.
|
|
| |
--snip--
| |
How is it a stretch to infer that? Perhaps if you read the whole article
again instead of demanding other people find a quote for you, and then added
the statements of TLC employees on the subject for the last several years you
would be able to easily make the simple connections.
|
I think it’s fairly clear what my position on the colour change and people that
harp on about it is but I don’t believe that the reason for the change is given
in that article and the other info from TLG has been a little ‘random’. From my
reading the article discusses the reasons for the reduction in pallette but I
don’t think that the change of colour is neccessarily related.
| |
LEGO is back to being profitable and will continue to produce our favorite
toy. The colour switch was part of that. What else is there to know?
|
I’m not convinced that it was but agree that it would be nice if people would
ITAMO the colour change. It was tired years ago and it’s even tireder today.
Tim
|
|
| |
Thanks for the explanation and contributing positively to this thread, Brian.
Like David, I also couldn’t quite figure out how limiting its suppliers led to
changing the colors, but your explanation does an excellent job.
My favorite line in your post was:
You and I may see the color issue very differently, but that
certainly doesn’t mean there needs to be an attack.
Regards,
-Bryan
|
|
|
