| |
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.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Color Change - Final Update
|
| In lugnet.general, Jan-Albert van Ree wrote: <Frustration Warning!> (...) 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
