Subject:
|
Re: Comment Now at LEGO.com: New Grey and Brown
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:34:12 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
3142 times
|
| |
|
|
Jake McKee wrote:
> No problem! But it's a good example of having some faith that we aren't just the
> money grubbing fools that people expect us to be because we're a company.
> Companies aren't just big, cold, faceless organizations. Companies aren't
> inherently evil, they're groups of people trying to do best they can in business
> and in life. (At LEGO, more life than I've ever seen at any company, ever)
Dear Jake,
I would never attribute an action to malice if it can easily be
explained by blunt stupidity ;-)
Honestly, in the last years, the TLC management has made a lot of plain
stupid decisions, and some quite good. And with plain stupid I really
mean stupid, i.e. lauthingly obvious mistakes. Just for the record, I'm
listing the more obvious ones:
Take Spybotics & similar sets: TLC wants kidproof quality stuff, so each
of the electronic single use black boxes for these projects come with
heavy investments in R&D, just to save a few cents in the end product. A
generic (and therefor more Lego-like) solution would have been the use
of the RCX for all kinds of programmable systems, thereby spreading the
calculated R&D and all the support costs over a larger number of lots.
Taking into account that the plain material and production costs of an
RCX are nearly neglectable (I'd daresay that a competent production
facility could build an RCX for about US$10-15 apiece, testing
included), this would have spread the influx of R&D costs over larger
numbers, which could propably negate the factor of having more different
parts in the set, besides giving the customer a way better and more
Lego-ish product. (Spybotics have been scrapped)
Take Duplo vs. Explore: When this "Explore" stuff popped up to replace
Duplo, my first idea was that TLC had to remove the Duplo brand name for
some stupid legal reason. It can't be a sane business decision to burn
an established brand with such a high recognition rate for the sake of
change alone. Parents who had Duplo as kids are astonished to hear that
Duplo is no more, and, when presented with an "Explore" box, tend to
say: But that IS Duplo! (Duplo is Duplo again)
Take Clothing: Among the Dumbest Things(TM) I've seen with a LEGO tag is
kiddies clothing. Again, if you want the customer to experience the
quality Lego was once known for, and you don't have the experience
in-house, you're either bound to make all the experiences yourself
(which can easily hurt ones renown), or you have to buy good external
experience (and boy, they usually charge!). Plus, a lot of external
production capacity must be paid for. (Clothes have been scrapped, AFAIK)
Take Galidor: My first contact with Galidor was the "Random piece of the
Day" at Peeron, which sported a Galidor leg (or arm, I don't really
remember). I investigated to see those Galidor figures and my first idea
was that TLC has finally lost it. In times of crisis, stick to what you
can do best, and if you want to expand, expand into the unexplored (like
with Bionicle), and not right into the turf of the big boys. I consider
it common sense that if one wants to beat Barbie or He-Man, one would be
better of if selling a better product cheaper than with selling a worse
product at propably higher prices. Alas, common sense is no longer
taught at business schools. (Galidor has been scrapped)
Take the new colours: Making a change to a core parameter of a system,
then call it improvement, then saying our main customer group will not
notice it anyway, than the complete absense of marketing of something
initially thought as an improvement, while stubbornly sticking to a
decision which has only lead to an outcry of rage and calls for
boycott... (OK, I stop here, there have been enought rants about this).
Take the Shop at Home Exclusives: It's nice to know that in a corner of
the internet there is a site that sells the really interesting sets to
customers in a few selected countries. Most potential customers will
never know about this secluded corner. Take grandparents, for example.
The typical granny hunting for a present for grandson/-daughter will go
to a shop to make a purchace decision. Some of them just pick their
stuff at random form different brands, some pick them from a selection
on the recipients wishlist. I can hardly see a grandmother shopping
gifts at Shop at Home. I personally dislike online shopping (despite
being on the internet for nearly 15 years now, i.e. since before there
was a "web", so one could hardly call me a technophobe), as I want to
see the box, see the model, pay for it cash and take it home at once,
instead of seperating the shopping and the "having" experience by
purchasing it online and waiting for a delivery. The main contact, the
primary exposure of a brand or physical product is still the classic
brick-and-mortar shop, and, judging from the ever decreasing shelf space
for Lego sets in the shops around here, this contact will be lost in the
next few years.
So there have been a lot of blunt, obviously stupid decisions so far.
Mistakes can always happen, that's human. But the topics I listed were
not just mistakes, they were really stupid mistakes which should not
happen to professionals.
On the positive side there is the opening of Lego to the adult customers
(which I considered long overdue). Big thanks to you and Kate to be our
contact persons. Another big, big plus is the opening of brand stores,
which finally make some of the S@H-exclusives available to those people
who dislike or -trust online shopping. Another big plus is the concept
of the Pick-A-Brick walls (although the selection could be bigger and
better).
I sincerely hope that - with KKK at the helm - things will change for
the better.
Now, back to the topic: No, I don't consider Lego "evil". This is not
the reason why I suspected TLC to suppress negative reactions on the
boards. But after those business decisions in the last years I wouldn't
put it past TLC to pull such a stunt to vindicate the colour change out
of sheer "We Are The Managers, We Know All, You Know Nothing" stupidity.
As I said, I take your word for the content neutrality (a view which
held, as far as I followed the discussion boards), and offer my
apologies to those reviewers I may have offended.
Yours, Chrstian Treczoks
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Comment Now at LEGO.com: New Grey and Brown
|
| (...) The RCX as-is would have looked hideous when tossed in with the sleek color schemes of the Spybotics sets (speaking as someone who was thrilled to see black gears finally see production, as well as trans-purple Bohrok eyes, I love the color (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Comment Now at LEGO.com: New Grey and Brown
|
| (...) Good to hear you're happy about this! I'm not sure that I would agree that there is a "cloud of holyness" surrounding this issue. Just because we've said that we're not reversing the decision, doesn't mean that we're stupid or clueless. I know (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-04, to lugnet.lego) !
|
29 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
|
|
|
|
