Subject:
|
Re: Color Change - Final Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 May 2004 20:06:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9809 times
|
| |
|
|
"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.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Color Change - Final Update
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego)
|
260 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
