 | | | | | |
Hello!
> Good news – based on the discussions and debates, many colleagues are clear that
> the color change dramatically affected the AFOLs. They are also clearly aware of
> the reasons it has upset you. In order to help address some of your concerns,
> several things have been agreed upon.
Fine. Becoming aware of something usually is a good first step into a better
direction.
> * The three new colors (light gray, dark gray, brown) will now be classified as
> "universal", and these colors will NEVER be touched again. There will, of
> course, be colors that change over time with trends, but not these universal
> ones.
Yeah, great! We (the AFOLs) fight against those new colours and you (TLC) make
them even more solid and declare them made for eternity? Calling that "good
news" is sheer sneer, isn't it?
Bye
Jojo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> > Good news – based on the discussions and debates, many colleagues are clear that
> > the color change dramatically affected the AFOLs. They are also clearly aware of
> > the reasons it has upset you. In order to help address some of your concerns,
> > several things have been agreed upon.
>
> Fine. Becoming aware of something usually is a good first step into a better
> direction.
...and ensuring issues like this don't happen again.
> > * The three new colors (light gray, dark gray, brown) will now be classified as
> > "universal", and these colors will NEVER be touched again. There will, of
> > course, be colors that change over time with trends, but not these universal
> > ones.
>
> Yeah, great! We (the AFOLs) fight against those new colours and you (TLC) make
> them even more solid and declare them made for eternity? Calling that "good
> news" is sheer sneer, isn't it?
Only if you choose to view it that way. (I tend to be a "on the bright side...."
kind of guy) To me, this is the AFOLs saying something (we're upset that things
changed suddenly), and the company reacting ( locking these new colors so that
you feel confident that we aren't going to change them again, and never again,
will we make changes like this without AFOL input)
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> Only if you choose to view it that way. (I tend to be a "on the bright side...."
> kind of guy) To me, this is the AFOLs saying something (we're upset that things
> changed suddenly), and the company reacting ( locking these new colors so that
> you feel confident that we aren't going to change them again, and never again,
> will we make changes like this without AFOL input)
>
> Jake
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Community Liaison
> LEGO Community Development
With all due respect, Jake, this doesn't make me feel better. Saying 'Oops,
it'll never happen again' doesn't really mean anything to me, because the change
has already happened. If LEGO changes the colors again, what do I care, I don't
plan to have a huge number of the new grey bricks anyway, another change to a
third color won't affect me.
However, again with all due respect, nothing against you, Jake, changing back
the colors and THEN saying 'Oops, it'll never happen again' would have meaning,
would have value, and would build goodwill between LEGO and the AFOL community.
At least that's my opinion.
--Anthony
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hello!
> However, again with all due respect, nothing against you, Jake, changing back
> the colors and THEN saying 'Oops, it'll never happen again' would have meaning,
> would have value, and would build goodwill between LEGO and the AFOL community.
>
> At least that's my opinion.
And so is mine. Thanks, Anthony!
Bye
Jojo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > Yeah, great! We (the AFOLs) fight against those new colours and you (TLC) make
> > them even more solid and declare them made for eternity? Calling that "good
> > news" is sheer sneer, isn't it?
>
> Only if you choose to view it that way. (I tend to be a "on the bright side...."
> kind of guy) To me, this is the AFOLs saying something (we're upset that things
> changed suddenly), and the company reacting ( locking these new colors so that
> you feel confident that we aren't going to change them again, and never again,
> will we make changes like this without AFOL input)
It might be worth noting that this doesn't suggest that TLG will actually take
AFOL input into consideration--merely that TLG won't make the change without
AFOL input. The input might easily be ignored, but TLG can still claim to have
accepted AFOL input...
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
> It might be worth noting that this doesn't suggest that TLG will actually take
> AFOL input into consideration--merely that TLG won't make the change without
> AFOL input. The input might easily be ignored, but TLG can still claim to have
> accepted AFOL input...
Ah, good to see you finally "noticed the color change". ;^)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > It might be worth noting that this doesn't suggest that TLG will actually take
> > AFOL input into consideration--merely that TLG won't make the change without
> > AFOL input. The input might easily be ignored, but TLG can still claim to have
> > accepted AFOL input...
>
> Ah, good to see you finally "noticed the color change". ;^)
Doh! Uh, well, er, I just, um, wanted to stay current re: LEGO developments.
Hey, you're supposed to be in ot.debate! What are you doing here?
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
> It might be worth noting that this doesn't suggest that TLG will actually take
> AFOL input into consideration--merely that TLG won't make the change without
> AFOL input. The input might easily be ignored, but TLG can still claim to have
> accepted AFOL input...
Wow. That's harsh.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> > It might be worth noting that this doesn't suggest that TLG will actually take
> > AFOL input into consideration--merely that TLG won't make the change without
> > AFOL input. The input might easily be ignored, but TLG can still claim to have
> > accepted AFOL input...
>
> Wow. That's harsh.
Heh.
Well, what can I say? I tend to be an "on the dark side" kind of guy...
Harsh, perhaps--but is my assessment inaccurate? Aside from the bottom line,
corporations love nothing as much as preserving wiggle room.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > > It might be worth noting that this doesn't suggest that TLG will actually take
> > > AFOL input into consideration--merely that TLG won't make the change without
> > > AFOL input. The input might easily be ignored, but TLG can still claim to have
> > > accepted AFOL input...
> >
> > Wow. That's harsh.
>
> Heh.
>
> Well, what can I say? I tend to be an "on the dark side" kind of guy...
>
> Harsh, perhaps--but is my assessment inaccurate? Aside from the bottom line,
> corporations love nothing as much as preserving wiggle room.
I suppose, you could be right, but I think it misses the entire point of why we
would ask for feedback in the first place. Why would we even bother to ask if we
didn't think we would somehow use it? The point of us agreeing to include AFOLs
was to avoid another situation like we've had here.
Of course, that said, sure, we might not follow your feedback 100%. After all,
there's always multiple things to consider. If we'd listened only to AFOLs about
Bionicle, we'd have never moved forward with a much loved, incredibly cool
product.
Corporations are not big Matrix-like computers. Corporations are made up of
people. In fact, I'd guess that a huge percentage of people reading this now are
doing so from work at a "corporation". We're trying to do good things here
folks. There are real people behind the decisions and changes that are made. You
may not like them, you may not agree with them, some will fail and some will
succeed. But at the end of the day, the motivations are driven more by people
trying to do good. Good for the company, for the consumer, and for themselves.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message
news:Hx9Aox.251s@lugnet.com...
> But at the end of the day, the motivations are driven more by people
> trying to do good. Good for the company, for the consumer, and for
themselves.
Jake, then why can't we hear from TLC, the people driven company, why they
thought reversing 20+ years of product design was "good." ?
We have yet to hear, besides the focus group reason, why replacing colors
was a good idea.(1)
If LEGO shared their thinking on this, it would be a lot easier to swallow.
But nobody understands the change or the reasons why.
Did LEGO think the new colors would sell more?
Does LEGO have designs on the table that need the new colors?
Did market research of 10,000 children say the colors were better?
Did the Pantone & color industry people say "grayish blue" was "in" and
"stock gray" was "out"?
Is it because MegaBlok colors are almost neon and you are losing market
share to them?
I find it very, very frustrating.
Bryan
(1) OK, we can eliminate the recycle reason, as you discounted that earlier
today.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > Harsh, perhaps--but is my assessment inaccurate? Aside from the bottom line,
> > corporations love nothing as much as preserving wiggle room.
>
> I suppose, you could be right, but I think it misses the entire point of why we
> would ask for feedback in the first place. Why would we even bother to ask if we
> didn't think we would somehow use it? The point of us agreeing to include AFOLs
> was to avoid another situation like we've had here.
I should take a moment to thank you for your courtesy in addressing my concerns,
since I flatter myself to think that you might know my MO here on LUGNET, so I'm
hardly the biggest income source for TLG. Thank you.
I don't mean to lay a big anti-corporate screed on you, either, except to voice
my concern that companies always work to improve profits; if that coincides with
increased customer satisfaction, great. If not, it's no big deal, as long as
profits are satisfactorily maintained. I don't think corporations should even
be criticized for this, unless they use deceptive means to get there (and some
may disagree with me even on that count).
So to answer the current question, if TLG solicits and ignores AFOL input, then
TLG can still claim that it took input from adult fans of the brand. Sure, that
might annoy the AFOL's who feel ignored, but if the "working with the customer"
angle boosts sales overall, then TLG's margin is served.
> Of course, that said, sure, we might not follow your feedback 100%.
That explains why you guys never listened to me, way back here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/fun/?n=7342
but I keep hoping.
> After all, there's always multiple things to consider. If we'd listened only
> to AFOLs about Bionicle, we'd have never moved forward with a much loved,
> incredibly cool product.
Conversely, if you'd listened to AFOL's you wouldn't have bothered with Galidor,
for example. But I understand your point.
> Corporations are not big Matrix-like computers. Corporations are made up of
> people. In fact, I'd guess that a huge percentage of people reading this now are
> doing so from work at a "corporation".
I'm one of them, which is why I'm hyper-sensitive to what I perceive as
corporate spin.
Thanks again for taking the time to reply so thoroughly and patiently.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
[sniparoo]
> So to answer the current question, if TLG solicits and ignores AFOL input, then
> TLG can still claim that it took input from adult fans of the brand. Sure, that
> might annoy the AFOL's who feel ignored, but if the "working with the customer"
> angle boosts sales overall, then TLG's margin is served.
I understand the point, but I don't exactly follow it. The only way that sales
are boosted by paying attention to AFOL feedback is with the AFOL market. There
really isn't a way we can take your (AFOL) feedback and meld it into something
for the kids market. Kids/parents won't really care much about whether or not we
listened to AFOLs or not.
But if we take in your feedback, and react, then in theory your (AFOL) sales
goes up. Why would we not want to listen? Why would we bother asking for your
feedback if we weren't going to use it? I just fail to understand how we could
use AFOL for anything other than addressing AFOL desires.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> [sniparoo]
>
> > So to answer the current question, if TLG solicits and ignores AFOL input, then
> > TLG can still claim that it took input from adult fans of the brand. Sure, that
> > might annoy the AFOL's who feel ignored, but if the "working with the customer"
> > angle boosts sales overall, then TLG's margin is served.
>
> I understand the point, but I don't exactly follow it. The only way that sales
> are boosted by paying attention to AFOL feedback is with the AFOL market. There
> really isn't a way we can take your (AFOL) feedback and meld it into something
> for the kids market. Kids/parents won't really care much about whether or not we
> listened to AFOLs or not.
>
> But if we take in your feedback, and react, then in theory your (AFOL) sales
> goes up. Why would we not want to listen? Why would we bother asking for your
> feedback if we weren't going to use it? I just fail to understand how we could
> use AFOL for anything other than addressing AFOL desires.
I guess I'm thinking about it like this (and please correct me if I'm wrong):
AFOL's are among the most die-hard fans of the brand (low flight-risk)
AFOL's account for a low percentage of overall sales (low dollar-risk)
Kids (& non-AFOL parents) have no particular loyalty to LEGO (high flight-risk)
Kids (& non-AFOL parents) are a large percentage of sales (high dollar-risk)
So TLG can solicit AFOL input and heed or ignore it at TLG's whim, all the while
claiming (not incorrectly) to have solicited input from fans in designing a
product, a theme, or what-have-you. I can even imagine an ad along the lines of
"The new LEGO (insert item), designed with input from fans." If this works as a
selling point, then TLG benefits from the solicitation of input whether the
input is used or not. I don't even think TLG would have to specify which fans
gave input about which products, unless that was a goal (like the extremely cool
Blacksmith's Shop 3739).
TLG can also reliably gamble that AFOL's are sufficiently dedicated to the brand
not to quit the hobby or flee to the competition, even if those AFOL's feel
marginalized by the use/non-use of their input. The color change is the current
prime example of this--how many AFOL's are going to be lost? Very few, I'd
wager.
Kids and their non-AFOL parents are less established in LEGO-brand loyalty, so
TLG must naturally play to that audience, if that's where the most money comes
from (I can't imagine, for instance, that AFOL's account for the majority of
Bionicle sales). If non-AFOL parents are positively influenced to buy LEGO by
the claim of fan-design, then TLG benefits from increased sales to a customer
who might just as easily have bought K'Nex or the like.
So my concern isn't based on hard dollar figures, but on an awareness of how
some corporations work and how some consumers select one product versus another.
Thanks again for your time.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> [sniparoo]
>
> > So to answer the current question, if TLG solicits and ignores AFOL input, then
> > TLG can still claim that it took input from adult fans of the brand. Sure, that
> > might annoy the AFOL's who feel ignored, but if the "working with the customer"
> > angle boosts sales overall, then TLG's margin is served.
>
> I understand the point, but I don't exactly follow it. The only way that sales
> are boosted by paying attention to AFOL feedback is with the AFOL market. There
> really isn't a way we can take your (AFOL) feedback and meld it into something
> for the kids market. Kids/parents won't really care much about whether or not we
> listened to AFOLs or not.
>
> But if we take in your feedback, and react, then in theory your (AFOL) sales
> goes up. Why would we not want to listen? Why would we bother asking for your
> feedback if we weren't going to use it? I just fail to understand how we could
> use AFOL for anything other than addressing AFOL desires.
I know you mean well, (read: don't take this personal) but I completely disagree
with this. I know for a fact the the only thing that has changed in my 'wants'
since I was 8, is the quantity. AFOLs are AFOLs because we were addicted as
kids. While I have no problem with Bionicle as a money-maker, I realize that it
is a fad whose time will pass, and I don't think TLC understands this. Kids who
like construction toys are supposed to be TLCs core market. While TLC may have
gotten lucky in the fad lottery with Bionicle, what are the plans when that cash
cow dries up? As someone who worked in a toy store, I can tell you without
doubt that most of the kids who like Bionicle are not fans of construction toys
or LEGO in general. Meanwhile the kids who like construction toys and LEGO in
general know they are getting the short end of the stick as most of them have
older siblings/parents who were or are FOL. Maybe this is different in other
geographic areas but it is the case in my small corner of the Earth.
-Mike Petrucelli
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> [sniparoo]
>
> > So to answer the current question, if TLG solicits and ignores AFOL input, then
> > TLG can still claim that it took input from adult fans of the brand. Sure, that
> > might annoy the AFOL's who feel ignored, but if the "working with the customer"
> > angle boosts sales overall, then TLG's margin is served.
>
> I understand the point, but I don't exactly follow it. The only way that sales
> are boosted by paying attention to AFOL feedback is with the AFOL market. There
> really isn't a way we can take your (AFOL) feedback and meld it into something
> for the kids market. Kids/parents won't really care much about whether or not we
> listened to AFOLs or not.
>
> But if we take in your feedback, and react, then in theory your (AFOL) sales
> goes up. Why would we not want to listen? Why would we bother asking for your
> feedback if we weren't going to use it? I just fail to understand how we could
> use AFOL for anything other than addressing AFOL desires.
>
> Jake
>
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Community Liaison
> LEGO Community Development
Jake, I feel people may be cynical due to the experience of being
"short-changed" by other large companies. Take eBay, for example. they always
like to give the impression they are listening and "taking the community's ideas
on board", when really they jump first and ask questions later. It's all too
obvious most of the time that changes are decided and implemented a long time
before the community ever gets their say or even gets to hear about it....by
that time, any community feedback or workshop session is just a token to quiet
the masses.
If Lego could prove to AFOLs that they indeed ARE listening and WILL listen and
DO listen to AFOL views, ideas and opinions, I'm sure that some people here will
love (well, "RESPECT") you for it ;0)
Tracey
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Tracey Greenwood wrote:
> Jake, I feel people may be cynical due to the experience of being
> "short-changed" by other large companies. Take eBay, for example. they always
> like to give the impression they are listening and "taking the community's ideas
> on board", when really they jump first and ask questions later. It's all too
> obvious most of the time that changes are decided and implemented a long time
> before the community ever gets their say or even gets to hear about it....by
> that time, any community feedback or workshop session is just a token to quiet
> the masses.
Yeah, I can understand this. You make a good point.
> If Lego could prove to AFOLs that they indeed ARE listening and WILL listen and
> DO listen to AFOL views, ideas and opinions, I'm sure that some people here will
> love (well, "RESPECT") you for it ;0)
See, this is where I scratch my head. I'm not sure what more I can do to
convince people, or prove to people that we do listen. We've developed tons of
products that are extremely AFOL friendly (ISD, RBR, Wright Flyer, etc.), we've
issued Legends, some of them even based on AFOL voting, we've solicited feedback
on what kinds of Legends you'd like to see, we've created a bulk program via
SAH, we've launched general consumer concepts like WWYM, and PaB.
But we make a mistake (albeit an honest one) with the color change, and people
start talking as if we've shunned not embraced the community in the last 4+
years.
Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can I do
to "prove" that we are listening?
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Tracey Greenwood wrote:
>
> > If Lego could prove to AFOLs that they indeed ARE listening and WILL listen and
> > DO listen to AFOL views, ideas and opinions, I'm sure that some people here will
> > love (well, "RESPECT") you for it ;0)
>
> See, this is where I scratch my head. I'm not sure what more I can do to
> convince people, or prove to people that we do listen. We've developed tons of
> products that are extremely AFOL friendly (ISD, RBR, Wright Flyer, etc.), we've
> issued Legends, some of them even based on AFOL voting, we've solicited feedback
> on what kinds of Legends you'd like to see, we've created a bulk program via
> SAH, we've launched general consumer concepts like WWYM, and PaB.
>
> But we make a mistake (albeit an honest one) with the color change, and people
> start talking as if we've shunned not embraced the community in the last 4+
> years.
>
> Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can I do
> to "prove" that we are listening?
You mean besides reversing the color change?
Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jake McKee wrote:
> See, this is where I scratch my head. I'm not sure what more I can do to
> convince people, or prove to people that we do listen. We've developed tons of
> products that are extremely AFOL friendly (ISD, RBR, Wright Flyer, etc.), we've
> issued Legends, some of them even based on AFOL voting, we've solicited feedback
> on what kinds of Legends you'd like to see, we've created a bulk program via
> SAH, we've launched general consumer concepts like WWYM, and PaB.
Yes, you listened to us in this respect, and we are thankful for what
TLC did here. And it propably sold good, too.
> But we make a mistake (albeit an honest one) with the color change, and people
> start talking as if we've shunned not embraced the community in the last 4+
> years.
Because the mistake itself, the way how the issue was handeld, the
results that have been drawn and the suicidal "we stick to this
error"-attitude made all previous efforts and successes worthless. TLC
literally burned the trust we AFOLs had into a product that was worth to
be a fan of.
> Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can I do
> to "prove" that we are listening?
Well, listen is just one side. TLC might have listened, but they did not
understand. They really did not understand, and this makes me sad.
Revert the colour change before it is too late. Not for us - but for TLC.
YOurs, Christian Treczoks
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> See, this is where I scratch my head. I'm not sure what more I can
> do to convince people, or prove to people that we do listen. We've
> developed tons of products that are extremely AFOL friendly (ISD,
> RBR, Wright Flyer, etc.), we've issued Legends, some of them even
> based on AFOL voting, we've solicited feedback on what kinds of
> Legends you'd like to see, we've created a bulk program via
> SAH, we've launched general consumer concepts like WWYM, and PaB.
All that was very good. Thank you! But you do realize the color
change makes all those good things less compatible with your new
products. Right?
> But we make a mistake (albeit an honest one) with the color change,
> and people start talking as if we've shunned not embraced the
> community in the last 4+ > years.
I'm curious. I'm not sure I caught it in all the talk, but what
exactly is the mistake you're admitting to here? Is it that you
changed the colors and made your new products less compatible with
your old products? Or is it that you didn't let us in on it until
all hell broke loose? Or is it something else entirely.
If it's already here somewhere, just point me to the post. Thanks.
> Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this:
> What can I do to "prove" that we are listening?
Maybe you shouldn't spin it. We don't really care if you're
just listening. We want you to listen and then take action. In
this case the only action that really matters is TLC making the
original colors available in sufficient quantities, and the only way
that's going to happen is if they appear in the new sets.
Don
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
<big snip>
> Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can • I do
> to "prove" that we are listening?
First Jake, it is not something you can do.
It is something that Lego as a company has to do. Return to the original
colors
and make them the "universal" from this point forward. Accept and realize
that
this mistake is on a scale that out weighs any good things that have been
done
in the past. It is the right thing to do, but it is clear me that doing the
right thing is not what Lego is willing to do. At the very least,
reformulate
these colors to be compatible with the older colors.
Greg
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can I do
> to "prove" that we are listening?
Some people won't ever be convinced - but I'd like to say this:
The very fact of this question, this thread, and this discussion all supports
one thing:
TLG listens to the Fans.
Jake is a paid professional who's sole job (it seems) is to argue on our behalf
to TLG, and to argue on TLG's behalf to us. This means it is very important to
TLG that there are communication lines open between TLG and the Fan community,
because they are putting real money into those communication lines. I respect
both TLG and Jake for the effort they are putting into this situation.
Having said that, the color-change is perhaps one of the biggest TLG-AFOL
problems ever. And it is definately strikes at an issue of trust. This isn't
about Fans not understanding or agreeing with why TLG did something -> its that
from now on, when a Fan opens a brand new set, the fans will check twice to make
sure all the colors are the same, that the pieces are correct. No longer will I
just dump the new pieces into the "To-Sort" bin and go happily about my day.
Don't get me wrong - I really do love LEGO, and will always love LEGO. I'm very
happy to see the level of interaction we currently have, and hope that it grows.
But I can't ignore that there has been hurt trust here.
-Lenny
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hello!
> See, this is where I scratch my head. I'm not sure what more I can do to
> convince people, or prove to people that we do listen. We've developed tons of
> products that are extremely AFOL friendly (ISD, RBR, Wright Flyer, etc.), we've
> issued Legends, some of them even based on AFOL voting, we've solicited feedback
> on what kinds of Legends you'd like to see, we've created a bulk program via
> SAH, we've launched general consumer concepts like WWYM, and PaB.
Yes, by doing all the mentioned above you gave us sugar.
But by changing the greys and brown you stole our bread.
Bye
Jojo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jake McKee wrote:
> Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can I do
> to "prove" that we are listening?
This question simply proves that you aren't. This thread has had several people
mention that the problem isn't that you're refusing to admit the mistake. The problem
is that you refuse to back out of it and switch back to the old colors. "Cementing
the new colors for all time" is NOT fixing anything.
And another widespread question of when are you going to tell us the REAL reasons for
the switch (focus groups ain't it, so don't cop out with that)?
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Thomas Stangl wrote:
> Jake McKee wrote:
>
> > Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can I do
> > to "prove" that we are listening?
>
> This question simply proves that you aren't. This thread has had several people
> mention that the problem isn't that you're refusing to admit the mistake. The problem
> is that you refuse to back out of it and switch back to the old colors. "Cementing
> the new colors for all time" is NOT fixing anything.
>
> And another widespread question of when are you going to tell us the REAL reasons for
> the switch (focus groups ain't it, so don't cop out with that)?
>
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
> *http://www.vfaq.com/
> *DSM Visual FAQ home
> *http://www.vfaq.net/
> *Prius Visual FAQ Home
Boy... you folks just don't get it do you.
Changing colours is a business decision!!! The fact that TLG decided to
keep the new colours simply can not possibly indicate that they did not listen
to AFOLs... only that they believe the new colours to be a better business
decision.
As for telling you the REAL reason... what possible business sense could
that make?!?! And what business is it of yours anyways. They are a
company... they have responsibilities to those who own the company to decide
what is best for their company.
I personally would like to have the old colours back, selfishly because
I have many thousands of old light gray. But in the end TLG thinks the new
colours to be a good business decision so that is what they should make.
Whether it turns out to be wise or not only time will tell.
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message
news:409AA24C.CFA08DF0@vfaq.com...
> Jake McKee wrote:
>
> > Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What • can I do
> > to "prove" that we are listening?
>
> This question simply proves that you aren't. This thread has had several • people
> mention that the problem isn't that you're refusing to admit the mistake. • The problem
> is that you refuse to back out of it and switch back to the old colors. • "Cementing
> the new colors for all time" is NOT fixing anything.
Hmm, by this logic then, I could claim TLC hasn't been listening since 1991
when they introduced the 9v train system, after all, clearly it was a horrid
mistake to abandon the 12v system with all it's accessories.
If your feeling is that Jake can't do any good because he can't convince the
folks at HQ to revert to the old colors, then I guess we should just all
give up.
I'm annoyed by the color changes. I wish they hadn't changed. I wish they
would go back. I wish for a lot of things in life. Unfortunately, the
reality of the business world is that sometimes things change in ways we
don't like. We can either accept them for what they are, and move on or we
can gte caught up in whining and moaning and not feeling good.
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tom Stangl, VFAQman wrote:
>
> And another widespread question of when are you going to tell us the
> REAL reasons for the switch (focus groups ain't it,
Throw a lot of bricks in old and new colors in a heap on the floor, and then
let in a number of kids and take note of which pieces are used first, and
most.
Mixing old and new gray *really* makes the old look 'dirty', the new are
much 'sharper' - and you know that sharp colors get kids attention. And new
brown looks quite edible.
Also, any kid that knows anything about Lego would recognize the new colors
as new, and start looking closer at them, just to check them out.
Heureka! The focus group prefers the new colors!
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Tom Stangl, VFAQman wrote:
> >
> > And another widespread question of when are you going to tell us the
> > REAL reasons for the switch (focus groups ain't it,
>
> Throw a lot of bricks in old and new colors in a heap on the floor, and then
> let in a number of kids and take note of which pieces are used first, and
> most.
It's fairly obvious that TLG's goal of profit is the main motivation for the
change. To use an example like your own, tell a focus-group-kid that she has
five dollars to spend on a either of two sets, one of which has 10 pieces, while
the other has 100 pieces. Assuming that the production values (box design,
etc.) are comparable, on which set will the kid choose to spend her five
dollars?
Eureka! The focus group prefers a higher piece:price ratio! Do you think that
TLG is therefore likely to sell sets with higher piece-counts for the same price
as low piece-count sets? Probably not.
Clearly, TLG expects to enjoy a financial benefit from this color change, and
*THAT'S* why they did it. Focus groups are subordinate to that fact, and AFOL
feedback is certainly subordinate to it.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Thomas Stangl wrote:
SNIP
| |
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
|
howbout this?:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1685
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> See, this is where I scratch my head. I'm not sure what more I can do to
> convince people, or prove to people that we do listen. We've developed tons of
> products that are extremely AFOL friendly (ISD, RBR, Wright Flyer, etc.), we've
> issued Legends, some of them even based on AFOL voting, we've solicited feedback
> on what kinds of Legends you'd like to see, we've created a bulk program via
> SAH, we've launched general consumer concepts like WWYM, and PaB.
>
> But we make a mistake (albeit an honest one) with the color change, and people
> start talking as if we've shunned not embraced the community in the last 4+
> years.
Jake,
All the sets you have listed in this post (and another previous one) were great
additions for the AFOL. Many thanks to whoever was responsible for bringing them
to us! I don't think anyone would disagree that AFOL treatment was at an all
time high from 2000-2003.
This treatment made my enthusiam soar with each new set release. It began to
plateau last spring when releases slowed down (at least of sets that I thought
were cool: legends, mocs, etc.). So things were already slowing down, and now,
because of the color and minifig changes, my enthusiasm for new sets seems to be
in a freefall.
Maybe the color change was an honest mistake, but aren't honest mistakes usually
corrected ASAP? Plus, imho, it is the second worst mistake the company could
have made (the first being making new bricks that do not connect with the old
ones).
> Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can I do
> to "prove" that we are listening?
Make some cool new sets that have lots of small pieces (instead of 6 special
ones, and yes TLC is doing much better at this lately) that match with our
existing elements (maybe even in color). Bring back more legends and do more MOC
sets. Do more bulk that is affordable. Why are bulk packs so expensive? There is
no set design in them whatsoever. No new molds. I always feel ripped off when I
order $50 worth of bulk parts and get only a small pile of pieces. PaB is great
*if* you live near (or can visit) one of the handful of spots that offer it.
With the ammount I (used to) spend on lego, I can do just about any hobby I
want,so I guess at this point, to put it simply, it's up to the company to make
me want the product or my cash will go elsewhere.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
>
> But we make a mistake (albeit an honest one) with the color change, and people
> start talking as if we've shunned not embraced the community in the last 4+
> years.
I can't help but cynically joke (by rearranging words) that LEGO has embraced
the "4+" community and shunned the minifig this year. Since you're in
apology-mode anyway...
>
> Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can I do
> to "prove" that we are listening?
Keep the all of the wood-like pieces the old brown (Barrels, treasure chests,
ship hulls, rigging, ship's wheel and put them in a pirates service pack.
Actually, I'd like to see the pirates theme revived (A greencoat version of the
Imperial Guards would be cool). I know that may not be feasible, but more
legends runs of the 10040 and the pirate tub certainly could be.
A pirates tub would include pieces similar to the ones found in the 10040 in
similar (but smaller) quantities and one of each of the normal 12-stud-wide hull
sections (fore, middle, aft), plus a handful of minifigs and accessories.
Basically, supplies to build a great little ship. If this sounds like it has
potential, give me a number of pieces and I will create and propose a list.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Wesley Davis wrote:
>
> Keep the all of the wood-like pieces the old brown (Barrels, treasure chests,
> ship hulls, rigging, ship's wheel and put them in a pirates service pack.
I agree, anything that should be made out of wood should be available in the old
color. The old brown looks more like actual wood to me than the new one. Along
with that things like 1x1 brown cylinders and 2x2 round bricks and plates for
use in trees and logs. Maybe the 1x2 and 1x4 log bricks, and the palisade wall
as well.
Jason
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Keep the all of the wood-like pieces the old brown (Barrels, treasure chests,
> ship hulls, rigging, ship's wheel and put them in a pirates service pack.
Perhaps just keep the 10040 on as a "permanent" item in the old colors...
Would that satisfy pirate builders?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
-snippage-
| |
Maybe I should spin this around and ask the AFOLs to answer this: What can I
do to “prove” that we are listening?
|
Jake,
I’ve resisted jumping in and flogging the dead horse, but I also want to add my
voice to the chorus. Sorry - this isn’t as organized as I would like, but I
have tired-head.
You don’t need to prove that you’re listening, that’s obvious; you need to
prove you’re understanding.
The way it strikes me, personally, is that LEGO is being insincere, and somewhat
two-faced. We get word of a color change from a fan, not the company. AFOL
public opinion runs wildly against the color change. LEGO addresses the AFOL
community somewhat, says they’re listening, but the color change is permanent,
etc. Then, they decide to offer a limited run of some parts in the old colors.
Now we hear the new colors (and others) are “almost certainly” (or whatever
words you used to that effect) not going to change, but that LEGO wants to know
what parts we really, really want in the old colors.
I strongly disagree with the color change, and I don’t really believe the
reasons being given are 100% of the reason the change was made. I could live
with it and move on. But the fact that LEGO keeps demonstrating that they
could make elements in the old colors (and will make some elements in them),
but chooses not to, in the face of strong demand from a vocally loyal market
segment, is infuriating.
As an AFOL, I now see LEGO in a much more cynical light than I did before. I
truly believe that the old colors will come back in a “limited edition” or
“classic colors” sense so that LEGO can charge a premium, or in some way other
than in the standard product stream. We will wind up paying more for old
colors, because LEGO now sees the demand. You (LEGO) realize that the only
segment of the market that really cares about the colors happens to be the one
with jobs, so why not charge a bit more - after all, it’s a “limited run.”
James Wilson
Dallas, TX
Lugnet Member #1783
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> I understand the point, but I don't exactly follow it. The only way that
> sales are boosted by paying attention to AFOL feedback is with the AFOL
> market. There really isn't a way we can take your (AFOL) feedback and meld
> it into something for the kids market. Kids/parents won't really care much
> about whether or not we listened to AFOLs or not.
AFOLs contribute a lot of free advertising about LEGO product by doing shows,
running websites, and helping parents/kids out in the toy aisles. The tone of
that advertising is very much dependant on how well our concerns are being
addressed. Furthermore, AFOLs often provide you with practical real-world
insight into the desires of kids/parents, through our interaction with them at
shows, on websites, and in the toy aisles.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > I understand the point, but I don't exactly follow it. The only way that
> > sales are boosted by paying attention to AFOL feedback is with the AFOL
> > market. There really isn't a way we can take your (AFOL) feedback and meld
> > it into something for the kids market. Kids/parents won't really care much
> > about whether or not we listened to AFOLs or not.
>
> AFOLs contribute a lot of free advertising about LEGO product by doing shows,
> running websites, and helping parents/kids out in the toy aisles. The tone of
> that advertising is very much dependant on how well our concerns are being
> addressed. Furthermore, AFOLs often provide you with practical real-world
> insight into the desires of kids/parents, through our interaction with them at
> shows, on websites, and in the toy aisles.
Agreed, and if you stand around me in person more than 10 minutes, you'll
probably hear at least 3 big "thank you!" for that.
But I don't think I did a good job of explaining my point. I'm not saying that
AFOLs are not worth listening to. I'm saying that I don't understand the
original point about how TLC might be "using" the AFOL feedback to further goals
with other audiences (aside from implementing the AFOL feedback, which leads to
product enhancements for general audience products).
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> Agreed, and if you stand around me in person more than 10 minutes, you'll
> probably hear at least 3 big "thank you!" for that.
>
> But I don't think I did a good job of explaining my point. I'm not saying
> that AFOLs are not worth listening to. I'm saying that I don't understand the
> original point about how TLC might be "using" the AFOL feedback to further
> goals with other audiences (aside from implementing the AFOL feedback, which
> leads to product enhancements for general audience products).
Ah, I see now. You were trying to say that the only market that cares strictly
about the commitment to listen to AFOL feedback is the AFOL market itself, which
I can agree with. Noone else has any reason to care why you did something so
much as they do about what you actually did. The way I read it, however, was
that the only market that ever benefits from the actual implementation of AFOL
advice is the AFOL market, which is not true, as AFOLs often pass on feedback
from the general consumer market.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
It's not harsh. It's just a clear statement of what *could* happen.
Judging by this color debacle, it's not much of a stretch, either. I have yet to see
a clear Business Case answer for the color change. Everything stated to date has
been pretty much shot down in here.
Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> > It might be worth noting that this doesn't suggest that TLG will actually take
> > AFOL input into consideration--merely that TLG won't make the change without
> > AFOL input. The input might easily be ignored, but TLG can still claim to have
> > accepted AFOL input...
>
> Wow. That's harsh.
>
> Jake
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Community Liaison
> LEGO Community Development
--
Tom Stangl
*http://www.vfaq.com/
*DSM Visual FAQ home
*http://www.vfaq.net/
*Prius Visual FAQ Home
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, great! We (the AFOLs) fight against those new colours and you (TLC) make
> > > them even more solid and declare them made for eternity? Calling that "good
> > > news" is sheer sneer, isn't it?
> >
> > Only if you choose to view it that way. (I tend to be a "on the bright side...."
> > kind of guy) To me, this is the AFOLs saying something (we're upset that things
> > changed suddenly), and the company reacting ( locking these new colors so that
> > you feel confident that we aren't going to change them again, and never again,
> > will we make changes like this without AFOL input)
>
> It might be worth noting that this doesn't suggest that TLG will actually take
> AFOL input into consideration--merely that TLG won't make the change without
> AFOL input. The input might easily be ignored, but TLG can still claim to have
> accepted AFOL input...
>
> Dave!
I don't agree with that statement. It clearly means that AFOL input WILL be
taken into consideration. Clearly that does not mean that TLG won't make
changes contradictory to the wishes of the AFOL community... nor should it.
TLG will make its decision based on its best understanding and judgement of
what is best for TLG. It seems to me that maintaining the current "new"
colours is a good example of this. It appears to me that TLG has re-reviewed
this decision based on our retrospective input and demands (and... I'm sorry
to say constant threats and non-constructive complaints as well). It would
also appear that they made a decision to stick with the new colours. I am
fairly confident they did this believing it to be a wise business decision.
(Yes... time will ultimately tell whether or not the decision was indeed wise).
Now... in my own personal opinion... I really enjoy building. Lego gives me
and my son the ability to do that together. I am more concerned with the
juniorization and (seeming) lowering of quality standards of the newer kits
than with the colours themselves. Perhaps, as a community, we should try
and provide input and guidance to TLG on how and what we would like to see in
the future so their strategy can reflect our wishes (again... should it make
business sense to do so).
- Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> Only if you choose to view it that way. (I tend to be a "on the bright side...."
> kind of guy) To me, this is the AFOLs saying something (we're upset that things
> changed suddenly), and the company reacting ( locking these new colors so that
> you feel confident that we aren't going to change them again, and never again,
> will we make changes like this without AFOL input)
But how can we trust those words, if you already broke those words, despite your
corporate values and such? Sorry Jake, but apart from changing the stud
dimension LEGO committed one of the worst mistakes any such company could make
and it seems it hasn't learned from it. Like Jojo said, you slap us and then
again afterwards, just to make sure the point comes across.
Look at how for instance model railroading companies introduce changes. Marklin
decided to stop making the old Marklin M track (the metal bedding) around 1990
if memory serves me correct. However the supplies lasted for several more years,
solutions were introduced so people could transfer gradually etc etc.
--
Jan-Albert van Ree
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jan-Albert van Ree wrote:
<Frustration Warning!>
> > Only if you choose to view it that way. (I tend to be a "on the bright side...."
> > kind of guy) To me, this is the AFOLs saying something (we're upset that things
> > changed suddenly), and the company reacting ( locking these new colors so that
> > you feel confident that we aren't going to change them again, and never again,
> > will we make changes like this without AFOL input)
>
> But how can we trust those words, if you already broke those words, despite your
> corporate values and such?
First off, when did I (or anyone from LEGO) ever previously say we were locking
colors and no changes would ever be made? I don't recall ever having done that.
And I'm not sure our corporate values make any stance about never changing our
core system in any way. (In fact, if they did, since the values were developed
well before the LEGO system, we wouldn't have a LEGO system at all)
> Sorry Jake, but apart from changing the stud
> dimension LEGO committed one of the worst mistakes any such company could make
> and it seems it hasn't learned from it. Like Jojo said, you slap us and then
> again afterwards, just to make sure the point comes across.
OK, I have to tell you, this frustrates me a bit. Because we have maintained our
decision and not backed away from it, you are saying that we aren't learning
anything? Despite having announced several things this morning that very very
clearly show that not only have we a) admitted the mistake (repeatedly), b)
taken actions to avoid these mistakes in the future, and c) announced these
intentions publicly in writing, we are still "slapping" you on the face?
Then in an effort to ensure that you (the AFOLs) are completely informed and
kept in the loop on on what's going on, we are "slapping" you again??
Honestly, I think that approaching this as "LEGO has slapped the AFOL" is
completely off base. That makes it sound like we purposely went out of our way
to upset the AFOLs. Nothing is further from the truth!
> Look at how for instance model railroading companies introduce changes. Marklin
> decided to stop making the old Marklin M track (the metal bedding) around 1990
> if memory serves me correct. However the supplies lasted for several more years,
> solutions were introduced so people could transfer gradually etc etc.
So they still made the change, right? They made the change, but they did it in a
way that is more acceptable to you, right? Let's focus on the productive and
talk about ways to ease our transition.
Let me, once again, say this very clearly so that no one can ever say LEGO
hasn't apologize for the problems.
====
Representing the LEGO Company, I apologize for a poor implementation of a major
change. We made a mistake in the way that this change was made, and we are
taking all efforts to ensure we don't end up in this same situation again.
====
Now, from your Marklin example, they made the change, and they did it in a way
that made it easier for their hobbyists to make the switch. I've been asking
for, digging for, and trying to pry info from the global AFOL community about
the best way, moving forward, to ease this transition.
I know this change is not welcomed, and was implemented poorly (see apology
above). But since we can't turn back time, and since the change is here to stay,
let's focus on the best way to ease into the transition.
*Is that by "locking" certain key parts in old colors for the forseeable future?
*Is that by focusing on getting wider access to the new colors?
*Is it by some other concept?
I'm honestly looking for your feedback on this issue. I'm asking what YOU think
is the best way to ease into the switch over.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> I know this change is not welcomed, and was implemented poorly (see apology
> above). But since we can't turn back time, and since the change is here to stay,
> let's focus on the best way to ease into the transition.
>
> *Is that by "locking" certain key parts in old colors for the forseeable future?
> *Is that by focusing on getting wider access to the new colors?
> *Is it by some other concept?
>
> I'm honestly looking for your feedback on this issue. I'm asking what YOU think
> is the best way to ease into the switch over.
>
> Jake
Jake,
I for one really appreciate the considerable effort by yourself and LEGO in
listening and responding to the feedback from a small group of consumers. I hope
the negative responses here don't adversely affect future LEGO community
interaction.
Here is my short list of suggestions for moving forward, in order matching your
question above:
1. Let the AFOL community know what colors are "locked" forevermore and will not
change (barring unforseen circumstances with vendors, etc). This will provide a
sense of stability that appears to have eroded recently.
2. LEGO providing cost-effective bulk product in the new colors in some manner
(tubs or whatever) with at least a minimum of bricks, plates, slopes, and some
specialty pieces (see http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=47229);
3. Other things: a definitive answer on why the change was made. I'm sure it's a
combination of factors: focus group discoveries, material cost, quality, vendor
or supply issues, matching competition, focusing on the future, and so on. As
detailed an explanation as possible would go a long way toward at least getting
understanding if not acceptance in the AFOL community.
4. Make a silk purse out of a perceived sow's ear by touting the change rather
than appearing to slide something in below consumer radar. "LEGO Blahblah: Now
With New Brighter Colors!" If this is a good change from the consumer point of
view, it has value in being advertised.
I'm sure there won't be a lot of agreement here with my fourth suggestion, but
from a larger viewpoint it defuses any quality control issues that could pop up
because of the change.
- Kelly
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jake McKee wrote:
> since the change is here to stay, let's focus on the best way to
> ease into the transition.
>
> *Is that by "locking" certain key parts in old colors for the
> forseeable future?
> *Is that by focusing on getting wider access to the new colors?
> *Is it by some other concept?
<My opinion>
The 'natural' transition to the new colors would be to have as many
different elements as possible available in the *new* colors as soon as
possible (bulk, mixed packs, etc).
As long as only a few different parts are available, it's very difficult to
build as one wishes, and mixing old and new greys doesn't look too good in
many circumstances. Frustration follows...
So, as it's impossible to continue the old colors (may they rest in peace!),
make sure the new ones gets bulk packs, and lots of different parts. Give
the community a couple of years, and most of the problem is gone...
</My opinion>
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jake McKee wrote:
> let's focus on the best way to ease into the transition.
Oh, and I forgot: It would be *very* handy to have a fuller list of 'frozen'
colors, to know what to concentrate on...
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
<<snipped>>
> So they still made the change, right? They made the change, but they did it in a
> way that is more acceptable to you, right? Let's focus on the productive and
> talk about ways to ease our transition.
>
> Let me, once again, say this very clearly so that no one can ever say LEGO
> hasn't apologize for the problems.
>
> ====
> Representing the LEGO Company, I apologize for a poor implementation of a major
> change. We made a mistake in the way that this change was made, and we are
> taking all efforts to ensure we don't end up in this same situation again.
> ====
Let me say seeing this apology shows this AFOL that Lego does care about us.
>
> Now, from your Marklin example, they made the change, and they did it in a way
> that made it easier for their hobbyists to make the switch. I've been asking
> for, digging for, and trying to pry info from the global AFOL community about
> the best way, moving forward, to ease this transition.
>
> I know this change is not welcomed, and was implemented poorly (see apology
> above). But since we can't turn back time, and since the change is here to stay,
> let's focus on the best way to ease into the transition.
>
> *Is that by "locking" certain key parts in old colors for the forseeable future?
No doubt there. The parts packs being offered now are a very good start IMO.
By "locking" in certain parts in old colors I'm given a feeling of security that
I will be able to get my hands on parts I may need in the future, be it one year
or five from now. (I was at LLCA's PAB the other day and seeing a sign marked
"discontinued colors" was not a pleasant thing.)
> *Is that by focusing on getting wider access to the new colors?
At first, I felt a bit uneasy about the tub idea for bringing the new colors to
market but was suddenly struck by one of those "duh" moments. The AFOL
community of 2004 is certainly not the same as that of 1994. If this were 1994,
I'd say I would have been screwed (after all, I didn't know other AFOLs or had
access to the web) but it's not. I have the option in this day and age of
getting together with others and trade my "new" with someone who would like to
get rid of their "old". Sure, it's not perfect but an option.
Having both a "new" color and "old" color tubs on the market should be done with
caution- like make it as clear as possible to the consumer that he/she is buying
the "new" or the "old".
> *Is it by some other concept?
Well, as some have already mentioned, if packets of parts used for detailing are
looked into then getting those who are "in the know" when it comes to using them
in themes like space, castle, town, train, etc. should play a role in what those
packs come with.
Something else also came to mind. I remember reading something about LEGO
wanting to get out of the lincensing market and go back to traditional lines.
Maybe these tubs could play a part in doing so.
>
> I'm honestly looking for your feedback on this issue. I'm asking what YOU think
> is the best way to ease into the switch over.
>
> Jake
>
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Community Liaison
> LEGO Community Development
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jake McKee wrote:
> OK, I have to tell you, this frustrates me a bit. Because we have
> maintained our decision and not backed away from it, you are saying that
> we aren't learning anything? Despite having announced several things this
> morning that very very clearly show that not only have we a) admitted the
> mistake (repeatedly), b) taken actions to avoid these mistakes in the
> future, and c) announced these intentions publicly in writing, we are
> still "slapping" you on the face?
Read Jojo's statement, that's pretty much my point of view as well...
> > Look at how for instance model railroading companies introduce changes.
> > Marklin decided to stop making the old Marklin M track (the metal
> > bedding) around 1990 if memory serves me correct. However the supplies
> > lasted for several more years, solutions were introduced so people could
> > transfer gradually etc etc.
> So they still made the change, right? They made the change, but they did
> it in a way that is more acceptable to you, right? Let's focus on the
> productive and talk about ways to ease our transition.
They managed to back it up with reasonable facts and managed to convince
people it was a better product (and at a similair price level, which in
that case was important too)
> *Is that by "locking" certain key parts in old colors for the forseeable
> future? *Is that by focusing on getting wider access to the new colors?
> *Is it by some other concept?
> I'm honestly looking for your feedback on this issue. I'm asking what YOU
> think is the best way to ease into the switch over.
Sorry but I see no way, apart from keeping the old next to the new. If you
keep making parts a and b but not c at some point we'll run out of c and
the problem is back. And the longer this goes on, the worse it actually
gets, as many of us have very much changing needs and since various stock
slowly dwindles down. The transition to click hinges have already caused me
enough frustration :( (I hate them, sorry but I can't descibe it
otherwise... set 4512 being the prime example of all that's bad about them)
Now purely my point of view
- Don't bother with packs of the new colors, waiste of SKU's which I'd
rather see appear in old colors. I won't buy ANY new colors (so if there
will be more Adventurers/Orient Expedition sets, I'll just accept the fact
that I'm incomplete, same with Designer, already replaced the parts from
the X-Pods with "proper colors" and won't be buying more 2004 stuff with
new greys.
- If you want to keep doing old colors, a minimum in terms of parts would
be:
* all 1*n and 2*n plates + bricks
* 4*n and 6*n plates, L-plates, plates without corner, wedge plates/bricks
* slopes, normal in 33,45 and 75, as well as inverse 33 and 45 degrees.
With convex/concave and top pieces
* hinges, clips, SNOT converters, centerstud tiles, brackets
* all tile sizes
* train track remains darkgrey
* 48*48 baseplates remain old grey (although that might be a problem for
normal retail again....)
* windows/doors
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
Brick Piles | Santa Fe B-unit
GnuPG key | http://www.vanree.net/~javanree/publickey.asc
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> First off, when did I (or anyone from LEGO) ever previously say we were
> locking colors and no changes would ever be made? I don't recall ever having
> done that. And I'm not sure our corporate values make any stance about never
> changing our core system in any way. (In fact, if they did, since the values
> were developed well before the LEGO system, we wouldn't have a LEGO system
> at all)
The simple answer is you didn't. Ever. Not in so many words, at least.
However, to quote the last sentence on p16 of the 2002 LEGO Brand Guide, "All
LEGO elements, whether produced in Denmark or Switzerland, in 1958 or 2001, are
fully compatible". "Fully compatible", to us, includes color consistancy every
bit as much as it does shape/size. The very concept of building up a collection
over a lifetime of play relies just as much on color compatibility as it does on
piece compatibility. Try building a good firetruck when only 1/2 of the parts
you need come in red, and you have to fill in the rest with sand-red, dark-red,
and pink.
> OK, I have to tell you, this frustrates me a bit. Because we have maintained
> our decision and not backed away from it, you are saying that we aren't
> learning anything? Despite having announced several things this morning that
> very very clearly show that not only have we a) admitted the mistake
> (repeatedly), b) taken actions to avoid these mistakes in the future, and c)
> announced these intentions publicly in writing, we are still "slapping" you
> on the face?
You (collectively) are indeed admitting a mistake, but it doesn't seem to be the
same mistake that many of us are most concerned about. I can't speak for
everyone, but I know that I'm more concerned about the fact that the colors were
changed in the first place than the lack of input from the AFOL community during
the decision making process. The latter mistake seems to have been sufficiently
dealt with, but the former mistake has gone from finely scripted parchment to
chiselled stone. At this point, I think I'd rather have been told that our
opinions on the matter would be weighed along with any negative impact on sales
to determine if the colors should be switched back in a couple of years.
Instead, we get "Yeah, we shouldn't have done it this way, but now we're
guaranteeing that certain core colors will never change again...starting with
the only three that you really want changed."
> *Is that by "locking" certain key parts in old colors for the forseeable
> future?
> *Is that by focusing on getting wider access to the new colors?
> *Is it by some other concept?
>
> I'm honestly looking for your feedback on this issue. I'm asking what YOU
> think is the best way to ease into the switch over.
Shifting gears into Reverse sounds good to me. We will {never} be collectively
happy with the new colors. The three biggest issues that have to be dealt with
are the lack of pieces in the new color (that can be fixed), the lack of color
compatibility between the old and new colors (that cannot be fixed), and the
fact that the new bleys clash with over 90% of the existing color pallete in a
way that the old greys didn't (that can only be fixed by skewing the entire
color pallete towards the cool spectrum, thereby sucking the life out of all the
other colors as well). One out of three may not be bad, per se, but it's a far
cry from good.
Why does this color change have to be set in stone? What's so hard about
agreeing to see if this color change has a negative impact on sales or results
in a lot of compaints being registered through Consumer Affairs, and then
agreeing to change it back if that appears to be the wisest course of action?
If, as we've been told on many occassions, the sole reason for changing the
colors was to make the consumers happier, does it seem very wise to guarantee
that the decision will never ever be repealed, even if, as we've been
predicting, the color change proves to have a negative impact on sales or result
in even more complaints being registered through Consumer Affairs? Even the US
Government repealed Prohibition when they realized that the public wasn't happy
with the results.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hello David!
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
> many reasonable things that I fully agree to and that explain my thoughts in the best possible manner.
Thanks.
Bye
Jojo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jake,
Again, it is not against you but those who made the decision.
Jake McKee wrote:
> First off, when did I (or anyone from LEGO) ever previously say we were locking
> colors and no changes would ever be made? I don't recall ever having done that.
> And I'm not sure our corporate values make any stance about never changing our
> core system in any way. (In fact, if they did, since the values were developed
> well before the LEGO system, we wouldn't have a LEGO system at all)
Just for reference, freshly from the lego.com site:
"Quality for the LEGO Company is about product quality, ethical values
and a consistency in all of our actions that engenders an ongoing
feeling of trust." (www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=values)
"product quality", "consistency". I can't imagine a more creative way to
screw these values than the colour change did.
> OK, I have to tell you, this frustrates me a bit. Because we have maintained our
> decision and not backed away from it, you are saying that we aren't learning
> anything?
Yes, of course. Thats *exactly* the point of the whole discussion. (Now
this is directed at you, Jake: do you really not understand this?)
> Despite having announced several things this morning that very very
> clearly show that not only have we a) admitted the mistake (repeatedly), b)
> taken actions to avoid these mistakes in the future, and c) announced these
> intentions publicly in writing, we are still "slapping" you on the face?
If I write a program (or do whatever...), and I make a mistake, I do not
just say to the customer "Well, yes, it's a mistake, and we won't repeat
it.". I fix it!
> Then in an effort to ensure that you (the AFOLs) are completely informed and
> kept in the loop on on what's going on, we are "slapping" you again??
Not by keeping us informed. Only by the decision itself.
> Honestly, I think that approaching this as "LEGO has slapped the AFOL" is
> completely off base. That makes it sound like we purposely went out of our way
> to upset the AFOLs. Nothing is further from the truth!
Maybe this was not out of purpose. It's a punch in the face nontheless,
and hurts like one.
> Let me, once again, say this very clearly so that no one can ever say LEGO
> hasn't apologize for the problems.
And this is going to help us how?
> ====
> Representing the LEGO Company, I apologize for a poor implementation of a major
> change. We made a mistake in the way that this change was made, and we are
> taking all efforts to ensure we don't end up in this same situation again.
> ====
And did a big mistake by just cementing, not fixing the first mistake. I
just can't believe corporate stupidity and stubbornness.
> Now, from your Marklin example, they made the change, and they did it in a way
> that made it easier for their hobbyists to make the switch. I've been asking
> for, digging for, and trying to pry info from the global AFOL community about
> the best way, moving forward, to ease this transition.
>
> I know this change is not welcomed, and was implemented poorly (see apology
> above). But since we can't turn back time, and since the change is here to stay,
> let's focus on the best way to ease into the transition.
>
> *Is that by "locking" certain key parts in old colors for the forseeable future?
> *Is that by focusing on getting wider access to the new colors?
> *Is it by some other concept?
>
> I'm honestly looking for your feedback on this issue. I'm asking what YOU think
> is the best way to ease into the switch over.
Jake, your company is heading full speed into a dead end. There is no
real way to ease the pain of the transition except by taking it back.
Sorry.
Christian Treczoks
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> > Good news – based on the discussions and debates, many colleagues are clear that
> > the color change dramatically affected the AFOLs. They are also clearly aware of
> > the reasons it has upset you. In order to help address some of your concerns,
> > several things have been agreed upon.
>
> Fine. Becoming aware of something usually is a good first step into a better
> direction.
>
>
>
> > * The three new colors (light gray, dark gray, brown) will now be classified as
> > "universal", and these colors will NEVER be touched again. There will, of
> > course, be colors that change over time with trends, but not these universal
> > ones.
>
> Yeah, great! We (the AFOLs) fight against those new colours and you (TLC) make
> them even more solid and declare them made for eternity? Calling that "good
> news" is sheer sneer, isn't it?
>
>
> Bye
> Jojo
My thoughts exactly
Yaron "Webrain" Dori
| | | | | | |
