| |
Hello!
In lugnet.general, Joel Midgley wrote:
| |
I can only speak for myself, but I think lack of communication has alot to do
with it. ...
Moreover, this lack of communication between Ambasssadors and non-Ambassadors
leads to a certain level of suspicion among the latter group.
|
Actually I don’t see that problem at all. Why would there be a lack of
communication? Sure, there are some AFOLs who get per ambassadorship some
insight in some activities within the LEGO group. Whenever they (the
ambassadors) are allowed to do so they tell the AFOL community about these
activities. That’s communication.
Most things, so we hear, the ambassadors get insight into are not publicised.
These things wouldn’t be publicised anyway, if there were ambassadors or if
there were none. So what’s the difference?
Maybe we, the non-NDA-ed AFOL community, simply expect to much of this whole
ambassador programme. It was never meant to make the LEGO company transparent to
us. Yet that seems to be the expectation of some AFOLs.
I’m sure the LEGO company gains some profit out of this ambassador programme,
otherwise they wouldn’t have installed it in the first place, and otherwise they
wouldn’t have renewed it a second and third time. Whether or not this programme
will yield some real benefit for the AFOLs/for all LEGO customers only time will
tell. So far we sometimes get some information through an ambassador that we
might have gotten through any LEGO representative (Brad, Jake, Steve, Jan) in
case there weren’t ambassadors.
| |
Being in the
dark, the non-Ambassador may question whether the Ambassadors are truly
representing them, and the AFOL community as a whole. Unfortunately for
Ambassadors, there doesn’t seem to be a way to confirm that they are
representing more than their own personal interests when interacting with
LEGO.
|
Ambassadors are not elected representatives of the AFOL community in the
parliamentary-democratic sense of the word. Everybody was free to apply but TLC
chose the candidates. That means the AFOL community has no right to demand
anything from both TLC and the ambassadors. However, as far as I am able to
judge it the ambassadors try for being representatives of the AFOL community,
though without denying themselves. And I think they do it right.
| |
Finally, alot of non-Ambassadors are simply jealous. There is no other way to
describe it. They wish they had your position. ...
I think alost every fan would give a lung or kidney
for the chance to actively meet with representatives at LEGO to give them
their suggestions.
|
You are probably right concerning the jealousy. This jealousy would likely get
lessened when the jealous ones were to read, understand and answer 1500
ambassador mails per round :-)
I’m not sure about the leg-and-kidney-thing, though. Even LEGO-representatives
are human. They even are mortal. They don’t live somewhere outa space, not on
Olympus Mons. They ain’t even famous in the yellow-press-world outside the AFOL
community. Everybody can always reach one of the LEGO representatives through
e-mail, letter or forum post, can even meet them in person on Brickfests,
1000steine-Lands or other meetings.
| |
The reality is, LEGO would be hard-pressed to find better people to serve as
Ambassadors, and people who are returning for a second, third or even fourth
time have undoubtedly proven themselves to be worthwhile to both the
community and to the Ambassador program.
|
Yep.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
Actually I don’t see that problem at all. Why would there be a lack of
communication? Sure, there are some AFOLs who get per ambassadorship some
insight in some activities within the LEGO group. Whenever they (the
ambassadors) are allowed to do so they tell the AFOL community about these
activities. That’s communication.
|
I agree. I think the difficulty is that many fans are simply expecting too much
from the ambassador program. And again, I’ll restate my earlier point; I
believe that any mistrust is fueled largely by jealousy. Simply put; some (I
won’t say many as that is probably an exaggeration) fans feel slighted simply
because they are not privy to the same information that our ambassadors are.
| |
Most things, so we hear, the ambassadors get insight into are not publicised.
These things wouldn’t be publicised anyway, if there were ambassadors or if
there were none. So what’s the difference?
|
Again, I don’t dispute this. Frankly, I prefer getting first-hand information
from enthusiasts, rather than LEGO employees. The difference is that some
people expect more than our ambassadors are able to give. They (incorrectly)
treat non-disclosure as an act of betrayal.
| |
Maybe we, the non-NDA-ed AFOL community, simply expect to much of this whole
ambassador programme. It was never meant to make the LEGO company transparent
to us. Yet that seems to be the expectation of some AFOLs.
|
I think this is what I was trying to get at in my previous post. Many fans
expected the Ambassador program to create open two-way communication between
LEGO and its fans. Of course, such an expectation is silly.
| |
Ambassadors are not elected representatives of the AFOL community in the
parliamentary-democratic sense of the word. Everybody was free to apply but
TLC chose the candidates. That means the AFOL community has no right to
demand anything from both TLC and the ambassadors. However, as far as I am
able to judge it the ambassadors try for being representatives of the AFOL
community, though without denying themselves. And I think they do it right.
|
A fair point.
I don’t think that the ambassadors owe us (the avg. joe fan) anything. Nor do I
think I am confusing our LEGO ambassadors with political ambassadors. As far as
I understand things, the ambassador program was simply a way of sampling some of
the more-active members of the AFOL community for their thoughts and opinions.
They do not represent us, nor do they owe us anything. I do, however, believe
that many fans have come to see our ambassadors as something different. That
these fans have elevated their expectations of the program, and consequently
mistrust the LEGO ambassadors.
My earlier post was not to suggest that any mis/distrust of the LEGO ambassadors
was justified. For me at least, giving reasons is not the same as justifying
them. In this particular situation, any misgivings about our ambassadors (as a
group) do not seem particularly justifiable. That doesn’t mean that one can’t
attempt to rationalize them
| |
I’m not sure about the leg-and-kidney-thing, though.
|
An embellishment to be sure (of course, you only need one).
Later.
|
|
|
