Subject:
|
Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:33:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
553 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Marc Nelson, Jr. writes:
> In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
>
> > I smiled when I read the release. Then I thought, "why am I smiling if I like
> > LEGO?" Now, reading your reaction, I half wonder if the release isn't designed
> > to renew faith in TLC.
> >
> > Personally, it makes me smile to think of something like, the death of
> > Bionicle,and here I see the company "ship" may steer away from such stuff (?)
> > But TLC did recently hear, via The Wall Street Journal, that outside
> > perception was of an awfully big risk being taken with that very product.
> >
> > I suppose, the only thing you can say, if you have to admit to the public that
> > you lost that much money, is:
> >
> > "we know what happened"
> > "we will fix"
> > "no big risks"
> >
> > ...smile gone.
> >
> > back to my day as usual.
> > -Suz
>
> Not knowing what is going on at LEGO, I have to take them at their word. If
> they say, "We screwed up, we're going back to what worked", why not believe
> them?
Because they've said it directly to my face. I didn't believe it, not in the way
most folks here see it meaning. I saw a face that wanted (in a fantasy) to have
things back-to-basics, but was having say something else.
The words spoken to me were the same ones as in the PR.
If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Just to play devil's advocate,
why believe them? If Mattel stepped out and said, "Barbie stamps a bad image on
young girls. We're sorry. We'll fix all that now." what would you think? Now,
what other meanings can you imagine those words having?
> When they said, "Kids are dumb, so we have to make video games and
> crappy sets, etc.", that happened.
yup. that IS the toy industry. and you gotta Play if you wanna be in the Game. I
can't imagine TLC leaving the Field. I think it would be fatal.
In a smaller game called, "Nostalgia," look up what's been done in the
past 5 years with Tinker Toys, Lincoln Logs, and Mechano/Erector. I think that
bit's just about done now.
> What reason do they have to lie? They're a private company,
Who says they lied?
In most companies the "Truth" feels like Silly Putty on a warm day. (IMO)
> so they don't
> have to butter up stockholders and impress TV analysts.
But what about their plan for World Domination? that's out there waiting for its
date stamp.
> I don't know why
> they would announce stuff like this at all; if my company lost a ton of
> dough, I wouldn't shout it to the world. (1)
footnote (1) sounds good. The "nipping in the bud" of humiliation during a Plan
for World domination sound good too. Miraculous recoveries can make us look
great. etc
> Now, if by "renew faith", you mean our (AFOL's) faith, then that would make
> sense. But I don't see LEGO doing something just for our benefit, especially
> when they mentioned children as their target in that release.
I don't just mean AFOLs.
BTW, we're a tool, not a market.
> Admittedly, this release was short on specifics, but just the fact that they
> admitted their mistake is an encouraging sign. Maybe after being discouraged
> about LEGO for so long, I am a little delirious at the moment, but you can't
> be down all the time.
Aw, come on, I'm sure it's possible (to be down all the time).
;-)
> It is only fair for me to be happy when LEGO says
> something good if I am going to complain every time they do something dumb.
You could just cease the latter. Like lapsing into a state of unaffectedness.
But that's dull I know.
I try to not complain because I'm not sure which things they do really ARE dumb.
I do complain when Marketing slithers through here, leaving their slime
trail for me to scrub off. But even that isn't "dumb." it's pretty smart.
Anyway, piont is: I try not to be happy about any company's statements, claims,
promises, numbers, etc. Instead I stick to the happiness of opening a new box of
LEGO elements, which I can count on.
I'm neither happy nor sad nor angry right now. As I said in my post, "back to my
day as usual." I only posted here because they did trick me for about a tenth of
a second.
:-)
-Suz
> -Marc
>
> 1: Announcements like these do make sense if you buy into the theory that
> LEGO is setting itself up to be bought. I try not to think about that.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
| (...) Right. This is why I always figured we AFOL on Lugnet and on RTL should get favored treatment (advance notice, specialized treatment, etc.). We are free advertising (mouth to mouth writ VERY large internet-wise!) if there ever was such a (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
| Suz, you've become wise beyond my expectations. I now go out of my way to read your posts, whereas before I tended to skip the defender-of-the-lego-copyright posts. :) What I _hope_ the press release says is: "All that money we were going to spend (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
| (...) Suzanne, that's the most concise statement of this fact that I've ever read. I've always felt there's some delusions here about us being some significant portion of the total sales market. Even as far as us being a tool..., well, there's a lot (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
| (...) Not knowing what is going on at LEGO, I have to take them at their word. If they say, "We screwed up, we're going back to what worked", why not believe them? When they said, "Kids are dumb, so we have to make video games and crappy sets, (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
