| |
All,
As the saying goes... I have some good news and some bad news about the 10152
Maersk ship.
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to post an update. We’ve been working on a
number of things surrounding this set.
As you certainly recall, the situation with the Maersk blue bricks was that we
were very near the end of our Maersk blue ABS supply. We’d been working from a
large stockpile of the Maersk blue for years (we buy big to make it
cost-effective), and it was finally about to run out. Out of coincidence, Maersk
requested a new Maersk LEGO set. We decided to run out the supply of ABS with
this one last set. Once it was gone, it simply wasn’t going to be cost-effective
for us to buy another supply of ABS to continue developing that color.
If you’ve seen the set in person, you’d probably not be surprised to learn that
we had very positive feedback from consumers of all ages. Since we sold out the
Maersk blue version in a matter of weeks, we decided to continue the production,
and asked you for feedback on what color to do it in.
But after a few months, Maersk came back to us with a request for more of the
10152 sets. Apparently the 10152 that they had taken delivery of were working
quite well for them. They agreed to cover the expense of buying a very small
(and expensive) quantity of Maersk blue ABS in order to be able to produce more
sets. We purchased just enough ABS for this one run, and while we don’t have any
plans for more production, I certainly won’t promise again! :)
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152 in
Maersk blue.
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
The estimated launch date for the next run of the 10152 is late spring/early
summer. We’re still working on finalizing this, and I’ll update you as soon as I
can. (The info on LEGOshop.com you say yesterday launched while we still working
on the details... the Feb. launch date was a placeholder only. My apologies for
the confusion.)
My apologies for the re-direction this project has taken, but hopefully it is
more good news than bad!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
Jake & All,
| |
As you certainly recall, the situation with the Maersk blue bricks was that
we were very near the end of our Maersk blue ABS supply. We’d been working
from a large stockpile of the Maersk blue for years (we buy big to make it
cost-effective), and it was finally about to run out. Out of coincidence,
Maersk requested a new Maersk LEGO set. We decided to run out the supply of
ABS with this one last set. Once it was gone, it simply wasn’t going to be
cost-effective for us to buy another supply of ABS to continue developing
that color.
|
Right.
| |
If you’ve seen the set in person, you’d probably not be surprised to learn
that we had very positive feedback from consumers of all ages. Since we sold
out the Maersk blue version in a matter of weeks, we decided to continue the
production, and asked you for feedback on what color to do it in.
|
It is a very cool set, no doubt.
| |
But after a few months, Maersk came back to us with a request for more of the
10152 sets. Apparently the 10152 that they had taken delivery of were working
quite well for them. They agreed to cover the expense of buying a very small
(and expensive) quantity of Maersk blue ABS in order to be able to produce
more sets. We purchased just enough ABS for this one run, and while we don’t
have any plans for more production, I certainly won’t promise again! :)
|
Excellent.
| |
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
in Maersk blue.
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
The estimated launch date for the next run of the 10152 is late spring/early
summer. We’re still working on finalizing this, and I’ll update you as soon
as I can. (The info on LEGOshop.com you say yesterday launched while we still
working on the details... the Feb. launch date was a placeholder only. My
apologies for the confusion.)
My apologies for the re-direction this project has taken, but hopefully it is
more good news than bad!
|
Well, I for one am glad to here it will be out again in the blue, even if it is
a limited run.
Maybe Maersk will be able to help make some more sets, like, oh, I don’t know, a
minifig semi (1831), a Maersk edition of 4549, maybe even a 10133 Maersk engine
perhaps? (I saw a SD40-2 Maersk engine, I don’t know what other types they might
have)
Thanks for the update Jake!
Scott S.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
All,
As the saying goes... I have some good news and some bad news about the 10152
Maersk ship.
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
|
Hey Jake, thanks for updating us on what’s going on.
I hope and pray that you will be able to release the Dark Blue version,
personally I think it looks better that the Maersk blue!
-- Nathan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
> The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
> this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
> in Maersk blue.
For all collectors who trusted your words of a "Limited Edition" of this set and
bought it by thinking having a real rare and collectible set with the ever last
bricks in maersk blue this announcement is a kick in their ass.
One more fact not to trust the words of TLC.
> The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
> dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I'll pass the word.
>
> The estimated launch date for the next run of the 10152 is late spring/early
> summer. We're still working on finalizing this, and I'll update you as soon
> as I can. (The info on LEGOshop.com you say yesterday launched while we still
> working on the details... the Feb. launch date was a placeholder only. My
> apologies for the confusion.)
For the your own and your companies believability and trustworthiness you would
make no mistake if you change some parts of this 2nd edition AND the box AND the
product id-no.
[sarcasm on]
> My apologies for the re-direction this project has taken, but hopefully it is
> more good news than bad!
[sarcasm off]
Ronald
|
|
| |
Hello!
| |
I certainly won’t promise again! :)
|
You’d certainly be well advised not to. Everything you promise (in good faith,
no doubt) is in danger to be turned into a lie by TLC themselves.
| |
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
in Maersk blue.
|
Limited. Sure. Like the “limited” run that made us buy out the first run, huh?
How many collectors, do you think, bought this set because they were hooked by
the prospect of getting a rare and limited set?
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
Hello!
| |
I certainly won’t promise again! :)
|
You’d certainly be well advised not to. Everything you promise (in good
faith, no doubt) is in danger to be turned into a lie by TLC themselves.
| |
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the
10152 in Maersk blue.
|
Limited. Sure. Like the “limited” run that made us buy out the first run,
huh? How many collectors, do you think, bought this set because they were
hooked by the prospect of getting a rare and limited set?
Bye
Jojo
|
Sad..whatever happened to just buying a set because it looks like a great set!
or fun to build play with! For those of you who bought this set just so you
could make a profit later and took those sets away from people or kids who
would have liked to have it becuse it’s a great set ..well TO BAD they are
makeing another run!! Chris (who does have a copy and isn’t complaining because
I missed it or something)
|
|
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.lego, Chris Leach wrote:
| |
Sad..whatever happened to just buying a set because it looks like a great
set! or fun to build play with! For those of you who bought this set just so
you could make a profit later and took those sets away from people or kids
who would have liked to have it becuse it’s a great set ..well TO BAD they
are makeing another run!! Chris (who does have a copy and isn’t complaining
because I missed it or something)
|
You totally missed the point, Chris. The ship was already announced to be
re-released in dark blue which would have made it in no respect a less great set
for kids and anybody who simply enjoys building it. While on the other hand
“limited release” and “maersk blue” were clearly meant to catch the attention of
collectors. And so they did. But by revoking the limitation they (TLC) will
betray the collectors of an essential factor that made them buy this set.
By the way, I’m speaking here in my capacity as collector, not as a dealer. Not
that that should matter at all...
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.lego, Chris Leach wrote:
| |
Sad..whatever happened to just buying a set because it looks like a great
set! or fun to build play with! For those of you who bought this set just so
you could make a profit later and took those sets away from people or kids
who would have liked to have it becuse it’s a great set ..well TO BAD they
are makeing another run!! Chris (who does have a copy and isn’t complaining
because I missed it or something)
|
You totally missed the point, Chris. The ship was already announced to be
re-released in dark blue which would have made it in no respect a less great
set for kids and anybody who simply enjoys building it. While on the other
hand “limited release” and “maersk blue” were clearly meant to catch the
attention of collectors. And so they did. But by revoking the limitation they
(TLC) will betray the collectors of an essential factor that made them buy
this set.
By the way, I’m speaking here in my capacity as collector, not as a dealer.
Not that that should matter at all...
Bye
Jojo
|
Hey JoJo ..Yes I know it was going to be rereleased in the dk blue(I voted
for green I think) but there were plenty of folks who bought it not because
it was limited and wanted a collectors item but with the intention to make a
profit off of parts(the maersk blue) and again I say that in its self kept it
away from people who might have wanted in that color vs the new one . Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
Jake said:
| |
I certainly won’t promise again! :)
|
|
| |
You’d certainly be well advised not to. Everything you promise (in good
faith, no doubt) is in danger to be turned into a lie by TLC themselves.
|
| |
| |
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the
10152 in Maersk blue.
|
|
| |
Limited. Sure. Like the “limited” run that made us buy out the first run,
huh? How many collectors, do you think, bought this set because they were
hooked by the prospect of getting a rare and limited set?
|
How many of those “collectors” went out and said they had hundreds at 200 USD
each for sale?
Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to buy
up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to get
copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors that make
decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity. Collect because
you like the set!
I love that set. I got 5 copies myself, and I even got some of my friends that
weren’t going to buy 5 themselves to sell me some of theirs, but I did it
because I wanted the parts for projects. And I’ll likely be using them for just
that. I parted one out already just to get one part that you can’t get many
other places (I used it in my MTW-2001 BNSF recolor)
If Maersk and LEGO decide to make more Maersk blue sets, I think that’s just
great. It is reason for a celebration, not for wailing about broken promises.
But that’s just me, I guess. This is going to be another “bash Jake” string, I
just know it. I blanch at the very thought. Why? Why must we go there every
time Jake brings us news?
To some people, LEGO can do no wrong. They’re confused, but mostly harmless.
To some people, LEGO can apparently do no right. They’re also confused but not
at all harmless. They’re hurting themselves and the hobby with their negativity,
I think.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle. LEGO is a company guided by nobler
ideals than most, and therefore is better than most. But LEGO is a human
endeavour, and therefore imperfect.
I can accept that. I’ll complain and ask for things to get better. But I accept
LEGO for what it is and what I hope it will be, imperfect but trying. But can
some people? I wonder. Why should LEGO do anything for us fans if they get beat
up no matter what they do?
I’ll probably be buying some more copies although I probably have enough for
what I want to do. As long as LEGO makes good sets, I’ll buy some. I can do no
less. Can you?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
Limited. Sure. Like the “limited” run that made us buy out the first run,
huh? How many collectors, do you think, bought this set because they were
hooked by the prospect of getting a rare and limited set?
|
How many of those “collectors” went out and said they had hundreds at 200 USD
each for sale?
|
Larry I can recall only one...Precious Princess in particular, and having more
than the limit of 5 is what I find disturbing about that. I think Johannes is
right...many people probably WERE hooked by the prospect of getting a Rare and
Limited set. (Whether there intention was to sell it later or not). Maybe
Lego should re-release the numbered Santa Fe Super Chiefs starting with the
number “1” again ;o)
| |
Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to
buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to get
copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors that make
decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity. Collect
because you like the set!
|
So no set should should ever be sold above it’s MSRP?? I agree with Lego’s
policy limiting 5 to each buyer. I don’t agree that a few people should be able
to corner the market and leave other AFOL’s and kids alike wanting. That said,
the fact of the matter is anybody who wanted one of these during the first run
could have purchased one (or 5). Everyone knew about them and they where
available for at least a month. Is it somehow o.k. that you purchased more than
5 simply because they were for your own personal use? Didn’t you also make it
harder for others to get more copies?
Like it or not, Lego is NOT just a toy anymore it is a Collectable. This is
obvious to anyone taking even a cursory look at the current Brickink prices of
the original Star Wars sets, old used Town/Space sets, etc. This is a free
capitalistic society and if somebody out there wants to make a purely
financially based decision to buy a set that Lego swears it will never make
again, God love ‘em and shame on Lego for changing it’s mind.
| |
If Maersk and LEGO decide to make more Maersk blue sets, I think that’s just
great. It is reason for a celebration, not for wailing about broken promises.
|
It is not a reason to celebrate for the many who were counting on having this
set produced in a different color. I was looking forward to having more than
Maersk Blue ships in my Harbor.
| |
But that’s just me, I guess. This is going to be another “bash Jake” string,
I just know it. I blanch at the very thought. Why? Why must we go there
every time Jake brings us news?
|
Agreed! Jake shouldn’t get a bad rap for being the messenger. And even though I
STRONGLY believe Lego should keep it’s promises when it says “Final Limited
Edition,” I understand their desire for profit and the need to respond to
Maersk’s request for more sets...they just shouldn’t release anymore to the
public IN PLACE of what we all voted on!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Justin Pankey wrote:
| |
So no set should should ever be sold above it’s MSRP??
|
No. I’ve never said that. In fact I myself have sold sets above MSRP. Just not
while they were still on sale from S@H, while hiding that fact from my ebay
buyers, or while trying to corner the market, or while giving the false
impression that I already have actually cornered it and there are not any to be
had elsewhere.
In fact I am a strong advocate of selling above MSRP when conditions warrant
it... for example, my view on the primary reason for the gasoline shortages in
FL after the many hurricanes it suffered this season is FL’s asinine law that
requires gas stations (or chain saw sellers or ice vendors, or generator
suppliers) not to raise prices as a way to allocate scarce resources.
As if you could repeal the law of supply and demand! These might as well be the
same bunch of legislators that wanted to legislate pi == 3.00 (they weren’t but
they might as well be...)
But that’s a topic for .debate, please FUT there if you want to take it up.
for another example, when LEGO UK had a stash of blue hoppers they were going to
crush or dump, or sell to a discounter instead of to a toy retailer, I convinced
that retailer (via LD phone calls at my expense) to buy them all up and assured
him I would take all he wanted to sell me... that was a risk for him and for me.
It turned out people DID want them, and I charged over MSRP as a way to
efficiently allocate to those that wanted them badly enough. I explained exactly
how I came to have them, where they came from and why I was charging over MSRP,
and none of my bidders balked.
That said:
I see no reason for LEGO to make things easier for people who want to benefit
from artificial scarcity by reselling stuff that they don’t really care about,
at the expense of those that want the sets to give to their kids, or for their
innate set-neatness or for the parts.
LEGO can do that if they want to, the way that (Hot Wheels, call your office!!!)
some (Kenner, call your office!!!) toy (Barbie, call your office!!) companies
(HASBRO, call your office!!!) pander to collectors and sellers by bringing out
endless limited editions, special rare assortment components, booster packs with
rare cards, and so forth, but if they don’t, or if they change the rules
midstream (Bionicle Masks, call your office!!!) to undermine collectibility, no
one ought to complain.
I made this argument when LEGO re-released the Metroliner, you will recall there
were people complaining about how the re-release destroyed the value of their
original Metroliners. I made the argument then that I got 400 USD of value from
the MISB metroliner I bought for 400 USD, and I was happy as pie that LEGO
re-released them, even if it meant I’d never see 400 if I ever wanted to resell
it. I didn’t buy it to have it for resale, I bought it to have.
I subsequently got over a dozen new Metroliners at one point or another during
the run, some at MSRP, some discounted, which I am very happy to have been able
to purchase (now if I could only find time to build the big project I have in
mind for them, that would be nice...)
I XFUT to market.theory ... prolly veering a bit off .lego already, but I may be
wrong.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to
buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to get
copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors that make
decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity. Collect
because you like the set!
|
Irrelevant. TLC made a promise. They are willfully breaking that promise.
| |
I love that set. I got 5 copies myself, and I even got some of my friends
that weren’t going to buy 5 themselves to sell me some of theirs, but I did
it because I wanted the parts for projects. And I’ll likely be using them for
just that. I parted one out already just to get one part that you can’t get
many other places (I used it in my MTW-2001 BNSF recolor)
If Maersk and LEGO decide to make more Maersk blue sets, I think that’s just
great. It is reason for a celebration, not for wailing about broken promises.
|
Perhaps, but that still doesn’t change the fact that TLC is purposefully
breaking their word. And unnecessarily so. Why not use the extra Maersk blue
pellets for a run of GP38 locos? Or trucks? Why willfully produce more of a
set that they promised would never be produced again? It’s just bad form.
What’s worse, they may cancel the run of dark blue that (at their request!)
AFOLs voted upon??? It’s marketing madness. And the whole thing is so
unnecessary!
Somebody at TLC had better think this one through better because the whole plan
stinks.
JOHN
|
|
| |
Sorry for two replies here to the same post.
In lugnet.lego, Justin Pankey wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
Maybe Lego should re-release the numbered Santa Fe Super
Chiefs starting with the number “1” again ;o)
|
Maybe. Wouldn’t bother me too much.
| |
| |
Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to
buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to
get copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors that
make decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity. Collect
because you like the set!
|
So no set should should ever be sold above it’s MSRP?? I agree with Lego’s
policy limiting 5 to each buyer. I don’t agree that a few people should be
able to corner the market and leave other AFOL’s and kids alike wanting.
That said, the fact of the matter is anybody who wanted one of these during
the first run could have purchased one (or 5). Everyone knew about them and
they where available for at least a month. Is it somehow o.k. that you
purchased more than 5 simply because they were for your own personal use?
|
I have more sympathy for wanting multiple copies of the set for parts than I do
for those that want to buy it up, not caring about it as a set, and resell it to
suckers that didn’t know better while it was still available, yes.
Yes, I know it is the duty of all good capitalists to ensure that fools and
their money are soon parted.
| |
Didn’t you also make it harder for others to get more copies?
|
Well, not really, because I waited for the mad rush to subside, and only then,
after everyone that wanted some had plenty of time to order some, did I canvass
and get more. After I got all I wanted, S@H still had some left, for quite some
time, in fact. I’d say everyone that wanted some had their chance. Also, since I
offered to pay, and in some cases, paid more than MSRP for the ones I bought
from my friends, how is that different than just buying them from a reseller,
which you seem to be OK with?
| |
Like it or not, Lego is NOT just a toy anymore it is a Collectable. This is
obvious to anyone taking even a cursory look at the current Brickink prices
of the original Star Wars sets, old used Town/Space sets, etc. This is a
free capitalistic society and if somebody out there wants to make a purely
financially based decision to buy a set that Lego swears it will never make
again, God love ‘em and shame on Lego for changing it’s mind.
|
I don’t see this as an arbitrary or capricious change on LEGO’s part. I see it
as a significant change in circumstances, as Jake explained.
So I’d say, shame on THEM for deciding that LEGO saying that it was not likely
they would get more ABS in Maersk blue meaning that *nothing* would or could
possibly change that, *nothing* would cause it to be a good thing to bring out
another run, even after Maersk asked them to and agreed to fund the ABS needed.
Saying you have sympathy for those speculators is somewhat like saying you have
sympathy for the people that bought Enron at 120 and rode it down to 0.25.. it
sounds nice but it’s not sound economic policy.
| |
It is not a reason to celebrate for the many who were counting on having this
set produced in a different color. I was looking forward to having more than
Maersk Blue ships in my Harbor.
|
That I’ll buy. But maybe LEGO will change their mind. And also you can build a
number of different hull colors already. (just not the dark green or dark blue
we were hoping for)
| |
| |
But that’s just me, I guess. This is going to be another “bash Jake” string,
I just know it. I blanch at the very thought. Why? Why must we go there
every time Jake brings us news?
|
Agreed! Jake shouldn’t get a bad rap for being the messenger. And even
though I STRONGLY believe Lego should keep it’s promises when it says “Final
Limited Edition,” I understand their desire for profit and the need to
respond to Maersk’s request for more sets...they just shouldn’t release
anymore to the public IN PLACE of what we all voted on!
|
That too I’ll buy. But maybe LEGO will change their mind.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
Perhaps, but that still doesn’t change the fact that TLC is purposefully
breaking their word. And unnecessarily so. Why not use the extra Maersk
blue pellets for a run of GP38 locos? Or trucks? Why willfully produce more
of a set that they promised would never be produced again?
|
Um, because their big and important customer asked them to do so, and paid for
the pellets specifically to produce this particular set, not so you, John Neal
can have your fantasy GP38s in a color scheme never seen on a GP38 in the
wild(and then complain that they have new grey in them)?
Sure, I’d rather have 1633 as I already said. Or a redesign of 10152 that uses
more sizes of bricks and plates to achieve the same model, even, so I can build
a wider selection of things with the parts in it... but that isn’t what is on
offer.
| |
Why willfully produce more of a set that they promised would never be
produced again?
|
I’m not remembering this part the same as you.
They said they weren’t going to have the pellets again to produce anything in
Maersk Blue because they had no plans to buy more, and that this set would use
up the last of what they had. How does that translate into a promise never to
produce any again? Pellets just rained from the sky that they did not expect to
have. That changes everything.
Yes, I agree. It sure is bad form to do what a big customer wants you to do and
is willing to pay for when you are losing money and have idle production
capacity you’re not sure what to do with! Why make easy money when there are
rabid AFOLs to keep happy (neglecting that *nothing* you can or will do will
make some of them happy)? How silly!
| |
What’s worse, they may cancel the run of dark blue that (at their request!)
AFOLs voted upon???
|
There you have my agreement. I think LEGO SHOULD run this set again in another
color.
| |
And the whole thing is so unnecessary!
|
Lost me again.
| |
Somebody at TLC had better think this one through better because the whole
plan stinks.
|
Ya, that doing what big customers ask you to do and pay for you to do is madness
all right.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
We’d been working
from a large stockpile of the Maersk blue for years (we buy big to make it
cost-effective), and it was finally about to run out. Out of coincidence,
Maersk requested a new Maersk LEGO set. We decided to run out the supply of
ABS with this one last set. Once it was gone, it simply wasn’t going to be
cost-effective for us to buy another supply of ABS to continue developing
that color.
|
| |
But after a few months, Maersk came back to us with a request for more of the
10152 sets. Apparently the 10152 that they had taken delivery of were working
quite well for them. They agreed to cover the expense of buying a very small
(and expensive) quantity of Maersk blue ABS in order to be able to produce
more sets. We purchased just enough ABS for this one run, and while we don’t
have any plans for more production, I certainly won’t promise again! :)
|
| |
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
And it appears that many a Lego fan has requested the grays to remain the same.
Of course there was no choice. Perhaps all those in favor of keeping the old
grays have less pull than Maersk. Seems there’s no problem producing Maersk
blue again when there was no plans to ever run that color again, hmmmm. Of
course $$$ talks. It’s just all too fishy. I can’t make heads or tails off it.
I can understand that certain colors cost more than others, but this stuff isn’t
silver and gold and I don’t see it being any more than the difference of a few
cents to a buck per set. Nothing against you Jake, I’m starting to feel sorry
you work for Lego. I wonder if the price of Maersk blue parts on BL shops will
drop. Considering how things have gone with Lego lately I wonder if The Maersk
company didn’t receive enough of the first batch of 10152 for their employees
due to the high demand from the general public. Here’s an idea, don’t charge
Maersk extra for the increased cost of the ABS pellets and in turn they give
Lego a great rate for shipping from China in the future. :)
-Patrick
|
|
| |
OMG, just about everything off the first post in this thread is so lame.
First, Jake, thank you for the update. I’d been kind of wondering actually.
Also, thank you for telling us the story in detail. Where so many other
official releases would just say somehing like, “release has been delayed for
XXXX reason... BTW we found some last few 10152s sitting on a shelf somewhere.”
Next in this thread, I read that some out there thinks Lego is a collectible.
No, it isn’t. It’s a toy. When I see a world city set on a shelf, I don’t
think, “Dang! I better get that and seal it away because it’ll be worth
somehting in 5 years.” Lego is a toy, what people do with it makes it
collectible. But I feel pretty confident when I say that the Lego company
doesn’t produce sets with collectability in mind. Don’t believe me? Read the
product description of the 10152 on Lego.com. Nothing there about “limited
edition.” Insider info made it collectible.
Seems to me the only folk truly upset about the re-release of this set are the
BL people capitalizing on the rarity of Maersk blue or of the set in general. I
understand, I really do. Part of the risk of the second hand parts business I
suppose. Sorry, no sympathy.
And lastly, Lego is a company like any other folks. It’s in business to make
money. And the only reason that they are doing this run is because it’ll turn a
profit. I’m willing to bet Maersk isn’t only paying for the raw materials but
for the all the related costs of the run as well since it will be out of the
ordinary and beyond what Lego has planned for it’s production line. (set up,
storage, tooling, shipping, etc.) And I know some of you out there know that
messing with a production line is not something you do without some pretty heavy
incentive. Frankly, I’m impressed. Maersk must of shelled out a considerable
amout of $$ for this run. AND Lego people get a chance to benefit from that.
Except the BL people who were hoping to keep Maersk blue prices nice and high I
suppose.
Mark
|
|
| |
<snip>
>
> For all collectors who trusted your words of a "Limited Edition" of this set and
> bought it by thinking having a real rare and collectible set with the ever last
> bricks in maersk blue this announcement is a kick in their ass.
> One more fact not to trust the words of TLC.
<more snippage>
I agree somewhat, yes another run does "flood" the market more with sets,
however, if you are truly diligent with your MISB sets, I'm sure in
25 to 30 years, a Maersk Sealand will reach a fine price in the after-market,
assuming Lego maintains its market appeal.
All is not lost.
Ben M.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Yes, I agree. It sure is bad form to do what a big customer wants you to do
> and is willing to pay for when you are losing money and have idle production
> capacity you're not sure what to do with! Why make easy money when there are
> rabid AFOLs to keep happy (neglecting that *nothing* you can or will do will
> make some of them happy)? How silly!
Hi,
very poor try of irony, Larry, you normaly write better ones ;-)
To make a serious theme out of this:
It's for sure a good deal for TLC when Mearsk wanted them to re-release the
ship.
But that they now decided to make the same model again shows up their worse
marketing quality.
They should have told Maersk that they could not run the same model again
because of their "Limited Edition" promise. Such a successful company like
Maersk would have known how important market promises are.
So they should had look together with Maersk what set they can make instead of
this. Again as a limited edition. Maybe an other ship of the company as a start
of a whole ship series?
This would have at least three big trend-setting and money making marketing
advantages:
1. Maersk gets its set now and remains a big customer
2. Collectors get one more set to collect and will trust TLCs promises of
limited editions still in future
3. Maersk blue as a color remains and is still available as an exclusive color
for MOCs.
And to another point you mentioned in your other post:
For sure there are some sellers which just wanted to make big money by buying
100s of copies of the 10152.
But what about those who sell the ship to people which have no access to
Shop@Home in their countries?
And while normal toy dealers have not discount at TLC on buying S@H-Sets its no
wonder that the prices for the 10152 by selling through dealers are that high.
So don't complain about the sellers but complain about TLC.
Bye,
Ronald
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ronald Borchert wrote:
[snip]
> Ronald
When I first read your comment, I was shocked. Then awed, then disgusted.
Your reaction is exactly the kind that makes me sick. Buying up large quantities
of a "rare" set just to make money on them when you resell them! By doing this,
you will artificially raise prices, keeping us less-wealthy people out of the
hobby.
And don't reply with terms as 'collector' when you only see the dollar signs.
Because if you weren't talking about money, let me ask you this:
Is the Maersk ship not as great a model anymore, now that more people may enjoy
it? Because that IS what you say in your post...
/\/\ark "more sets to more people and TLC will continue to excist" de Kock
ps: sorry for this unusual harsh comments from me, but sometimes I am realy
disgusted by some of the so-called "fans" of the brick...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark de Kock wrote:
Hi!
Your last sentence first:
> ps: sorry for this unusual harsh comments from me, but sometimes I am realy
> disgusted by some of the so-called "fans" of the brick...
You don't have to excuse yourself for that, it's your right if you feel like
that.
But I wonder about your comment:
> When I first read your comment, I was shocked. Then awed, then disgusted.
> Your reaction is exactly the kind that makes me sick. Buying up large quantities
> of a "rare" set just to make money on them when you resell them! By doing this,
> you will artificially raise prices, keeping us less-wealthy people out of the
> hobby.
> And don't reply with terms as 'collector' when you only see the dollar signs.
> Because if you weren't talking about money,
I indeed didn't talk about making money and it's not my thing buying ANY sets to
resell them. I buy sets and parts just to HAVE them and build with them or to
put them on the shelf for looking at them.
When any company of toys or other stuff releases a "Limited Edition" and
promises it contains the last parts of a certain condition (in this case maersk
blue bricks) they make this item a "collectible" item.
And when they re-release the same item with the same prosperities they betray
the buyers of that limited item and lie on the market.
There is no discussion and apology at that facts.
> let me ask you this:
> Is the Maersk ship not as great a model anymore, now that more people may enjoy it?
It's a great model indeed and fine for the buyers who missed the first run.
> Because that IS what you say in your post...
No, wanted to say what I tried to explain above.
Friendly regards
Ronald
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
All,
As the saying goes... I have some good news and some bad news about the 10152
Maersk ship.
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to post an update. We’ve been working on a
number of things surrounding this set.
If you’ve seen the set in person, you’d probably not be surprised to learn
that we had very positive feedback from consumers of all ages. Since we sold
out the Maersk blue version in a matter of weeks, we decided to continue the
production, and asked you for feedback on what color to do it in.
But after a few months, Maersk came back to us with a request for more of the
10152 sets. Apparently the 10152 that they had taken delivery of were working
quite well for them. They agreed to cover the expense of buying a very small
(and expensive) quantity of Maersk blue ABS in order to be able to produce
more sets. We purchased just enough ABS for this one run, and while we don’t
have any plans for more production, I certainly won’t promise again! :)
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
in Maersk blue.
|
Good news would be if the second run was only for Maersk and not for selling
them again. What do you now mean with “limited”? Each limited set, TLC sold in
the last years, got a second, third..... production run. Can you imagine that
most of the collectors who are collecting rare LEGO sets aren’t happy about
these decisions?
| |
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
|
Oh, I am not too sad about this. Why don’t you produce another kind of ship?
Why always re-releases??
What about a dark blue oil ship?
It is not difficult to produce ONE fantastic set, but it definately is difficult
to produce for years DIFFERENT sets in the same fantastic type.
greetings Hendrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Neumann wrote:
(snip)
| |
Next in this thread, I read that some out there thinks Lego is a collectible.
No, it isn’t. It’s a toy.
|
In general, you’re right. But not in this case.
| |
When I see a world city set on a shelf, I don’t
think, “Dang! I better get that and seal it away because it’ll be worth
somehting in 5 years.”
|
...and so do most of the other AFOLs I know, for sure.
| |
Lego is a toy, what people do with it makes it collectible.
|
plus, what tools TLC uses to sell those specific sets we’re talking about.
| |
But I feel pretty confident when I say that the Lego company
doesn’t produce sets with collectability in mind. Don’t believe me?
|
Unfortunately, I do believe that you feel “pretty confident” - but me, I don’t.
| |
Read the product description of the 10152 on Lego.com. Nothing there about
“limited edition.” Insider info made it collectible.
|
“Insider Information” spread by TLC employees in official statements all over
the LEGO-related internet world. This is modern marketing.
| |
Seems to me the only folk truly upset about the re-release of this set are
the BL people capitalizing on the rarity of Maersk blue or of the set in
general.
|
Seems to me that you don’t know that aspect of collecting limited stuff.
| |
I understand, I really do. Part of the risk of the second hand
parts business I suppose. Sorry, no sympathy.
|
No one expects sympathy for re-sellers being kicked in the a** by TLC here.
But we’re not even talking about re-sellers.
We’re talking about TLC marketing their products to collectors with promises
they break. And, refering to Larry’s point about “big customer Maersk”:
Tell me, who bought more (in qty.) of those ships, Maersk or the LEGO fans &
collectors (and resellers, yes...) - and who paid more for them?
| |
And lastly, Lego is a company like any other folks. It’s in business to make
money. And the only reason that they are doing this run is because it’ll
turn a profit. I’m willing to bet Maersk isn’t only paying for the raw
materials but for the all the related costs of the run as well since it will
be out of the ordinary and beyond what Lego has planned for it’s production
line. (set up, storage, tooling, shipping, etc.)
|
I wonder if TLC made the profit on their sale to Maersk as well as they did with
us. I do not doubt that Maersk pays for the upcoming cost - but TLC needs to
make profit on their products in order to survive.
| |
And I know some of you out
there know that messing with a production line is not something you do
without some pretty heavy incentive. Frankly, I’m impressed. Maersk must of
shelled out a considerable amout of $$ for this run. AND Lego people get a
chance to benefit from that. Except the BL people who were hoping to keep
Maersk blue prices nice and high I suppose.
|
Plus the collectors being fooled (once again) by a broken promise.
regards,
Jan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Patrick S. O’Donnell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
We’d been working
from a large stockpile of the Maersk blue for years (we buy big to make it
cost-effective), and it was finally about to run out. Out of coincidence,
Maersk requested a new Maersk LEGO set. We decided to run out the supply of
ABS with this one last set. Once it was gone, it simply wasn’t going to be
cost-effective for us to buy another supply of ABS to continue developing
that color.
|
| |
But after a few months, Maersk came back to us with a request for more of
the 10152 sets. Apparently the 10152 that they had taken delivery of were
working quite well for them. They agreed to cover the expense of buying a
very small (and expensive) quantity of Maersk blue ABS in order to be able
to produce more sets. We purchased just enough ABS for this one run, and
while we don’t have any plans for more production, I certainly won’t promise
again! :)
|
| |
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
And it appears that many a Lego fan has requested the grays to remain the
same. Of course there was no choice. Perhaps all those in favor of keeping
the old grays have less pull than Maersk. Seems there’s no problem producing
Maersk blue again when there was no plans to ever run that color again,
hmmmm. Of course $$$ talks. It’s just all too fishy. I can’t make heads or
tails off it. I can understand that certain colors cost more than others, but
this stuff isn’t silver and gold and I don’t see it being any more than the
difference of a few cents to a buck per set. Nothing against you Jake, I’m
starting to feel sorry you work for Lego. I wonder if the price of Maersk
blue parts on BL shops will drop. Considering how things have gone with Lego
lately I wonder if The Maersk company didn’t receive enough of the first
batch of 10152 for their employees due to the high demand from the general
public. Here’s an idea, don’t charge Maersk extra for the increased cost of
the ABS pellets and in turn they give Lego a great rate for shipping from
China in the future. :)
-Patrick
|
This is good news! All we have to is find a shipping company whose trademark
color is old light or dark gray, and convince them to subsidize a run of
old-gray 10152s. Simple.
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
All,
As the saying goes... I have some good news and some bad news about the 10152
Maersk ship.
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to post an update. We’ve been working on a
number of things surrounding this set.
As you certainly recall, the situation with the Maersk blue bricks was that
we were very near the end of our Maersk blue ABS supply. We’d been working
from a large stockpile of the Maersk blue for years (we buy big to make it
cost-effective), and it was finally about to run out. Out of coincidence,
Maersk requested a new Maersk LEGO set. We decided to run out the supply of
ABS with this one last set. Once it was gone, it simply wasn’t going to be
cost-effective for us to buy another supply of ABS to continue developing
that color.
If you’ve seen the set in person, you’d probably not be surprised to learn
that we had very positive feedback from consumers of all ages. Since we sold
out the Maersk blue version in a matter of weeks, we decided to continue the
production, and asked you for feedback on what color to do it in.
But after a few months, Maersk came back to us with a request for more of the
10152 sets. Apparently the 10152 that they had taken delivery of were working
quite well for them. They agreed to cover the expense of buying a very small
(and expensive) quantity of Maersk blue ABS in order to be able to produce
more sets. We purchased just enough ABS for this one run, and while we don’t
have any plans for more production, I certainly won’t promise again! :)
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
in Maersk blue.
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
The estimated launch date for the next run of the 10152 is late spring/early
summer. We’re still working on finalizing this, and I’ll update you as soon
as I can. (The info on LEGOshop.com you say yesterday launched while we still
working on the details... the Feb. launch date was a placeholder only. My
apologies for the confusion.)
My apologies for the re-direction this project has taken, but hopefully it is
more good news than bad!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
Wow, an excellent business move by TLC! These come once in a Maersk blue moon,
so let’s enjoy it. Yeah, yeah, the 10152 was supposed to be the last run of
Maersk blue. But isn’t this good news? - “Hey, we got some other company to
subsidize the production of a couple more tons of Maersk blue parts (a high
proportion of which will end up in the hands of AFOLs)!”
Let me pause here to cry some big, salty tears for those “collectors” whose
portfolio just took a hit... I love capitalism, and I’ll never demonize anyone
for buying these things up and selling them above MSRP - but doesn’t capitalism
involve taking risks? So quit whining.
It’s too bad about the dark blue version. Is not producing it a condition of
Maersk’s deal, or does TLC just think the market will be saturated? I wouldn’t
be buying either version, but I’d like to see more availability of parts.
The real good news here is that now we know TLC will make whatever you want -
for a price. Now, we’ve all seen those posts (I’ve made some of them) about how
much money AFOLs aren’t spending because of the color change. Now we can put
that money to good use buying old-gray and old-brown ABS for TLC to turn into
bricks. Jake, is there any information you can give us about how much this sort
of thing would cost? Did Maersk get completed 10152s as part of the deal, or
just the chance to purchase them along with everyone else?
Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ronald Borchert wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> They should have told Maersk that they could not run the same model again
> because of their "Limited Edition" promise.
That would be an incredibly stupid business decision.
> Maybe an other ship of the company as a start
> of a whole ship series?
>
> This would have at least three big trend-setting and money making marketing
> advantages:
>
> 1. Maersk gets its set now and remains a big customer
> 2. Collectors get one more set to collect and will trust TLCs promises of
> limited editions still in future
> 3. Maersk blue as a color remains and is still available as an exclusive color
> for MOCs.
Number 1 isn't correct as Maersk wouldn't get their set now. They would have
to wait while TLC developed a new set and got approval for it from Maersk,
developed new instruction sheets, packaging, etc., performed production
development for different parts that were never before made in Maersk blue,
etc. This would have not only taken longer, but it most certainly would
have cost more, and Maersk would have had to agree to pay for that.
Maersk was apparently willing/able to pay the premium cost for small-batch
raw materials, but paying for all the extra development of a brand new set
may have been more than they would accept.
Numbers 2 and 3 are only relevant to AFOLs. Since this decision was a
business decision where the prime concern was a major corporate client, for
a colour that is exclusive to that client, you should see that AFOL wishes
are not relevant.
Just be happy that we got advance notice about these plans so that we may be
able to save up to buy one when they're available..., that's far more than
we ever used to get! :]
Personally, I can't fathom how people are upset over this. Before, we were
told the Maersk blue was all out, and if you bought a 10152 after that it
would come in boring regular blue. Now, it's been announced that the 10152
will continue in Maersk blue a while longer (woo-HOO!)..., and people are
unhappy with this?? Priorities folks, priorities...
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Neumann wrote:
Snippage
| |
Next in this thread, I read that some out there thinks Lego is a collectible.
No, it isn’t. It’s a toy. When I see a world city set on a shelf, I don’t
think, “Dang! I better get that and seal it away because it’ll be worth
somehting in 5 years.” Lego is a toy, what people do with it makes it
collectible. But I feel pretty confident when I say that the Lego company
doesn’t produce sets with collectability in mind. Don’t believe me? Read
the product description of the 10152 on Lego.com. Nothing there about
“limited edition.” Insider info made it collectible.
|
Doesn’t Lego have huge vaults with sets from the past that any of us would kill
to get our hands on - NOW! Why are they saving so many sets? They must be
collectors too!
-Patrick
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ronald Borchert wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Mark de Kock wrote:
>
> Hi!
> Your last sentence first:
> You don't have to excuse yourself for that, it's your right if you feel like
> that.
Thanks. I'm glad that this isn't turning into a flame war between afols :-)
> But I wonder about your comment:
...
>
> I indeed didn't talk about making money and it's not my thing buying ANY sets to
> resell them. I buy sets and parts just to HAVE them and build with them or to
> put them on the shelf for looking at them.
>
> When any company of toys or other stuff releases a "Limited Edition" and
> promises it contains the last parts of a certain condition (in this case maersk
> blue bricks) they make this item a "collectible" item.
>
> And when they re-release the same item with the same prosperities they betray
> the buyers of that limited item and lie on the market.
> There is no discussion and apology at that facts.
Okay, my mistake. Indeed, you didn't mention that you would loose money and
such. It seems we are the same kind of collector: we either enjoy the sets or
the parts that come with the sets. I apologise (sp?) for puting words in your
mouth.
However, since TLC does not make ANY set in unlimited quanitites, doesn't that
make EVERY set a Limited Edition? Even the old-grey 2x4 brick is now a Limited
Edition 2x4. And TLC didn't even market it as such. Just immagine the amount of
bricks people would have bought if TLC would have announced that the old-grey
was about to change.
I know enough of real world economics to NEVER, EVER trust marketing
departments. It's almost as bad as believing claims made in commercials :-)
> > let me ask you this:
> > Is the Maersk ship not as great a model anymore, now that more people may enjoy it?
>
> It's a great model indeed and fine for the buyers who missed the first run.
>
> > Because that IS what you say in your post...
>
> No, wanted to say what I tried to explain above.
Indeed, you didn't. Point taken.
>
> Friendly regards
> Ronald
Just a last remark: I didn't want to attack you personally. Especialy now that I
have had time to read the whole thread. Yours was just the first I came across
and my feelings of TLC and fair-chance (to get the set you want) took over
control.
In general terms, I stand by my previous post. It was just not very well typed.
I always feel cheated when I hear about some great set or sale and by the time I
get the money together to get that set, some eVILbay-er has scooped them all and
is now selling them for double the price. When that happened to the metroliner
re-release, I was almost dancing in the streets, singing Nah-nah-nah to those
over-pricing resellers :-)
Friendly regards to y'all and Happy Holidays!
/\/\ark "looking at my Maerskship and thinking about building a fleet" de Kock
|
|
| |
Nice try on putting some icing on it. Unfortunately, production re-runs of a
supposedly limited item generally is a No-No, Mr. McKee! You now have folks at
TLG HQ write that down a hundred times for easier learning. And all the others
here too who think re-issuing 10152 in maersk-blue is not a bad idea at all,
just because it is such a great set or whatever they think they‘re thinking.
Just for the record: I purchased exactly two copies of 10152 and still own both.
No interest in making monstrously large profit by re-selling there. No
sympathies for that kind of moneymakers either.
However, I do not care at all about a company that re-issues limited edition
sets.
Let’s sum up: Instead of having that ship in dark/navy blue out on the shelves
all over the world, helping to get the TLG-cart out of the muck, TLG rather
pleases Maersk with a couple thousand copies and screws their adult buyers
(again) who still, for whatever reason, trusted TLG‘s promise of a limited
production run. TLG really developes a certain amount of talent for turning good
business decisions into bad ones.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
All,
As the saying goes... I have some good news and some bad news about the 10152
Maersk ship.
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
in Maersk blue.
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
Jake
|
Someone simply needs to convince Maersk to change their corporate color from
Maersk blue to dark blue!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ronald Borchert wrote:
> When any company of toys or other stuff releases a "Limited Edition" and
> promises it contains the last parts of a certain condition (in this case maersk
> blue bricks) they make this item a "collectible" item.
>
> And when they re-release the same item with the same prosperities they betray
> the buyers of that limited item and lie on the market.
> There is no discussion and apology at that facts.
I'm being a little facetious here, but a truth you may want to consider
is that some people are really gullible---they'll believe pretty much
anything. And if someone is able to wrestle money out of them, hey, more
power to them! ;]
But seriously, Ben makes an excellent point in his parallel post:
In lugnet.lego, Benjamin Medinets wrote:
> I agree somewhat, yes another run does "flood" the market more with sets,
> however, if you are truly diligent with your MISB sets, I'm sure in
> 25 to 30 years, a Maersk Sealand will reach a fine price in the after-market,
> assuming Lego maintains its market appeal.
In my opinion, there is only one true type of COLLECTOR---a person who
buys something because they want it for some particular reason that matters
only to them. I collect Classic Space, among other things, because I really
like Classic Space. It's *not* because they are so valuable now. (In fact,
their value now is a pain-in-the-a$$ to me because it costs so bloody much
to get the collection!)
But then in a separate category are the people who may call themselves
"collectors", and maybe they mostly are, but they seem more concerned about
hype of "limited editions", etc., because they believe it will cause the
value to go up faster. I think those people are best called "SPECULATORS",
just like in the stock market, real estate, etc. You buy something hoping
the price will go up. That's a risky venture. When situations change and
the price doesn't go up, or doesn't go up as much, those in the stock market
may whine that the company failed them, but in reality, they gambled, they
lost. It's no different with LEGO. If speculation is your only real
interest in collecting sets, well..., see my first paragraph! ;] I think
a true wise speculator (if there is such a thing) will wait quite a while
before picking something up, years after the production runs have ended,
before deciding that something shows promise. (A truely skilled speculator
will probably have no problem buying a MISB set from someone at a steal
of a price, years after production has ended.)
Ultimately, "collecting things" is a very poor investment (high risk) if
all you're interested in is reselling at a higher price..., much of the
price rise is due to years of inflation. I don't hold anything against
speculators---if they do well, great, if not, oh well. But it bugs me when
they run around thinking they are real collectors, but making a stink about
this marketing hype or that, and how much "value" their collection has lost
because of a company decision. Hopefully they can find someone who really
cares to tell it to. Me, I continue to enjoy my collection regardless of
"market value". :]
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
TLC never said that this was a "limited edition" set.
What they said is that they used all their maresk blue up to make the first
run of however many sets and that once they were gone, al;l the maresk blue
would be gone and they wouldnt be able to make any more.
However, maresk has aggreed to pay for the new maresk blue in order for
more maresk boats to be produced. This means that TLC now has more maresk
blue ABS to use to produce more boats that they can sell on Shop @ Home.
TLC never sais that the boat was a "limited edition".
All they said is that this is as many boats as the amount of maresk blue
ABS pellets we have allows us to produce.
They now have more maresk blue, ergo they are in a position to produce and
sell more boats.
|
|
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.lego, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
| |
Personally, I can’t fathom how people are upset over this. Before, we were
told the Maersk blue was all out, and if you bought a 10152 after that it
would come in boring regular blue. Now, it’s been announced that the 10152
will continue in Maersk blue a while longer (woo-HOO!)..., and people are
unhappy with this?? Priorities folks, priorities...
|
For me (for me) Maersk blue was always quite useless, in terms of building.
Before 10152 this colour was virtually not available at all, and through 10152
we got only a small range of parts that was also declared never to be enhanced
in future. That’s not sufficient for my (for my) style of building. Of course
others are gifted with a brighter fancy. Anyway, for me (for me) this Maersk
ship was no more than a very nice model and a collectible. (BTW, I wonder where
you all think to have gotten the information from that I bought multiple copies
of it in order to re-sell them?)
As for priorities: My priority colours are old light grey, old dark grey and old
brown (check my BrickShelf folder for reference). They, however, are not going
to celebrate a rebirth out of nothing.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
| |
Doesn’t Lego have huge vaults with sets from the past that any of us would
kill to get our hands on - NOW! Why are they saving so many sets? They must
be collectors too!
-Patrick
|
moving thread, probably doesn’t belong in .lego. Market.theory I think should
be better.
Insomuch as magazine and newspaper companies are collectors as well. They also
keep one (or more) copies of their product for future reference. I believe Lego
has done the same thing with their past set vault. I don’t think it exists for
the purpose of collectability, revenue generation, envy generation or museam
funtionality. (though visitors are occaisionally given tours it certainly isn’t
common.)
Mark
|
|
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.market.theory, Mark Neumann wrote:
> Insomuch as magazine and newspaper companies are collectors as well. They
> also keep one (or more) copies of their product for future reference. I
> believe Lego has done the same thing with their past set vault. I don't
> think it exists for the purpose of collectability, revenue generation, envy
> generation or museam funtionality. (though visitors are occaisionally given
> tours it certainly isn't common.)
TLC keeps their vault for their lawyers. So when, for example, MegaBloks
produces a set that's tooo similiar to any LEGO set they walk into their
catacombs, take the respective set and show the world: We have done this first!
On this occasion they may be forced to open a sealed box in order to show the
contents, so this is why they keep several copies of each set for future
reference.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
D***, I was really looking foward to that set to get some dark blue bricks. I
may be being selfish but I don’t really care about the Maersk blue parts, there
isn’t enough variety of pieces and its not that different to Medium blue but
Dark blue currently has no normal bricks available at all. I hope it does come
out in the Dark blue eventually.
Tim
|
|
| |
moving thread to lugnet.market.theory
| |
| |
Seems to me the only folk truly upset about the re-release of this set are
| |
| |
the BL people capitalizing on the rarity of Maersk blue or of the set in
general.
|
|
|
Seems to me that you don’t know that aspect of collecting limited stuff.
|
(attn: spite what the following text reads, it isn’t sarcasm. You’d be right
in saying that I’m not primarily a collector. So help me out.(and others who
don’t understand this either)
So instead of having a box on your shelf that is
very very rare, it is now only very rare? It’s not as if this production is
going to be terribly big. I don’t understand why this is a big deal.
Or are
you saying that the potential of (not that they will) a full scale production of
Maersk blue ships will make your set undesirable?
| |
I wonder if TLC made the profit on their sale to Maersk as well as they did
with us. I do not doubt that Maersk pays for the upcoming cost - but TLC
needs to make profit on their products in order to survive.
|
I think this is where we differ. Unless someone posts the numbers we’ll never
know. But, I think in a way they did. Granted at 4000 vs 10,000 units it is
unlikely that comes from set sales. Taken
from Jake’s old post I wonder what other conditions existed in the contract?
For the new run Maersk must certainly be paying some of the cost for the product
run. They bought the pellets, I see that, but there are many other factors in a
production line. This is why Jake says, “The bad news is that this means we
need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the dark blue 10152 version.” Whatever
Maersk in providing, it has to be of enough value to cause the delay or even
kill the production of a popular and anticipated set. And you’re gonna tell me
that you “doubt that Maersk pays for the upcoming cost” I think Maersk is
paying for the initial costs, thereby making the risk of selling the 10152 a
more “sure thing” for public sales by reducing the number of sales required to
produce a profit.
Mark
|
|
| |
>
> Personally, I can't fathom how people are upset over this. Before, we were
> told the Maersk blue was all out, and if you bought a 10152 after that it
> would come in boring regular blue. Now, it's been announced that the 10152
> will continue in Maersk blue a while longer (woo-HOO!)..., and people are
> unhappy with this?? Priorities folks, priorities...
I'm not bothered either way how many Maersk blue 10152s are made and for how
long (I might even get one this time round, its a cool set and I was flat broke
last time!). However Its the DARK blue one I was waiting for, it not regular
blue.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
Hahaha! Yes I am laughing out loud about this.....
I am not trusting in any word out of the LEGO Company as I mentioned a while
ago. Now I am not surprised nor dissapointed as I would have been, if there
still would have been somewhat of trust.
And yes - this is of course sooo great news! I am with all the kids that can now
afford this piece of toy. And yes, I am with all the poor people, who had no
chance to buy the MEARSK ship when it has been available. Plus the bad
capitalists and speculators get the deserved kick in the ass! Great! (They might
never again buy sets from TLC, but this will make the stuff again cheaper and
more affordable for the kids - how great!)
I spent less than 1200 Eur in 2004, which is the lowes sum since ages (Among
these buys less than 10 Eur have been for sets which contained blay, so my
future budget will decrease further). I will help children to get more cheap
toys by avoiding to buy anything new from TLC. Hopefully the future CHINA made
bricks will be even more cheap.
I am so glad every piece of bad information offers a second point of view from
which it is good news.
Thank you TLC - I will even have more money available in 2005 then right now.
You are the best!
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
All,
As the saying goes... I have some good news and some bad news about the 10152
Maersk ship.
|
Thanks for the update, Jake!
After reading the various whining about “broken promises” in this thread,
remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk wanted
more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side effect is,
there’s enough left over for more sales to the public. LEGO looks at the fact
that this was a very good seller...
What part of that reasoning makes you think LEGO would need to think twice
about re-releasing it to the public? It’s an absolute no-brainer, as far as I’m
concerned. The company made business choices based not only on their own bottom
line, but they also tried to offer something they thought a small percentage of
their consumer base would appreciate. I find that encouraging.
Many people are looking at it from the standpoint of “LEGO is producing
collectibles, so they need to honor the implied promise of limited
availability.” Does LEGO look at their products that way? I don’t know, but I
doubt it. Bricks are a commodity that they sell to people willing to buy them.
They don’t position them as collectibles[1] for the most part. And even if
they did, the only ones bothered are the speculators or people looking for a
reason to get upset with the company.
Circumstances changed, making it possible for them to produce more of a product
that sold well. The only bad part is if they can’t produce different colored
versions of the set in the future - and at that, there was never any guarantee
that that would happen anyway. They asked AFOLs to pick some colors out of
courtesy to us.
LEGO asking our opinions is not an entitlement for AFOLs to expect special
treatment.
What if LEGO made the decision to not release the new set to the public,
although they could’ve? The same firestorm of criticism, certainly. There was
really no way for the company to please everybody in this. So they made a
decision that earned them maximum profit, helping the bottom line.
Everybody who thinks that’s a bad thing, by all means, the clone companies
welcome you with open arms.
Kelly
[1] Bionicle kanohi masks started as a collectible of 72 flavors, and
“accidentally” grew. They were so successful that other subsequent Bionicle
collectibles were produced. I don’t know the sales numbers, of course, but IMO
each subsequent release (krana, kraata, kanoka, rhotuka) has been less
successful than the previous, with fewer people trying to collect them.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > As the saying goes... I have some good news and some bad news about the
> > 10152 Maersk ship.
>
> Thanks for the update, Jake!
>
> After reading the various whining about "broken promises" in this thread,
> remember this: {circumstances changed} as they often do in life. Maersk
> wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side effect
> is, there's enough left over for more sales to the public. LEGO looks at the
> fact that this was a very good seller...
Every time I seriously wonder to myself 'why do I torture myself with reading
LUGNET anyways? [1]' it seems a gem like this pops up from someone like Kelly.
He's not the only one who does 'em, but I just love how he puts stuff in
perspective.
-Tim
[1] Something I've been wondering a *lot* lately. Enough to remove it from all
quicklinks I have set up.
|
|
| |
Thanks for the update Jake, and for yet again braving the criticism of those who
only ever seem to see the negative side of things.
I think in this instance, TLG were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.
If they’d never said that the set was on its presumed final go round, then
people might have delayed buying it, and then been disappointed when they’d
finally got round to purchasing it and none were left. Some would have
complained that TLG should have warned them! So TLG did the right thing by
saying, “this is likely your last chance”. Thanks, I bought some, a purchase
which I might have put off and thus lost out.
They chose to say it was limited. They didn’t have to. Maybe next time they
won’t if all they see are people getting bent out of shape about it! I would
like to be able to rely on Jake’s future good will and help in keeping us in the
loop as and when he can. I think, we’ve come a long way and I had to see things
revert back to the corporate stony silence it once was.
JB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote:
>
> > Limited. Sure. Like the "limited" run that made us buy out the first run,
> > huh? How many collectors, do you think, bought this set because they were
> > hooked by the prospect of getting a rare and limited set?
>
> How many of those "collectors" went out and said they had hundreds at 200 USD
> each for sale?
>
> Personally I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to
> buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to get
> copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors that make
> decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity. Collect
> because you like the set!
>
> I love that set. I got 5 copies myself, and I even got some of my friends
> that weren't going to buy 5 themselves to sell me some of theirs, but I did
> it because I wanted the parts for projects. And I'll likely be using them for
> just that. [...]
>
> If Maersk and LEGO decide to make more Maersk blue sets, I think that's just
> great. It is reason for a celebration, not for wailing about broken promises.
>
> But that's just me, I guess. This is going to be another "bash Jake" string,
> I just know it. I blanch at the very thought. Why? Why must we go there
> every time Jake brings us news?
Agreed 100%. I don't wander out of the woodwork too
often these days (and this is liable to change very
soon--glory of glories, I get my collection back in
MI close to New Years', and will have all 1400lb. in
one place again), but the "super-collector" wing has
always bothered me a bit. It's great to collect to
have a complete run, or to have something not generally
available (which 10152 will *still* be, you know) but
those who are effectively speculating on it should
realize that the market has its vagaries.
Besides, I missed out on 10152, being away, and I had
despaired of a chance to get this set and its parts.
Now I will have that opportunity!
What totally floors me is the people in this thread
screaming about TLC "lying" while damning Jake with
faint praise for being earnest. Look at what Jake
did here: He made the announcement, he explained
VERY COMPLETELY AND CAREFULLY the extremely good
and valid reason the decision was taken, and left the
info with us. This is not like the color change at
all; it does not have any valence of Kafka to it
whatsoever. As angry as I was about that first
decision, I am totally ambivalent about this one,
aside from wanting the set to become available again.
The only bad news, as Jake pointed out, is that the
dark blue version may not come to pass, or may come
only later. That makes me sad, because dark blue is
much better for me than Maersk Blue, but hey, that's
how it goes sometimes.
So thanks again to Jake, for hoeing this tough, tough
row--and I'll be buying one, at least.
regards
LFB / 120
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to
buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to
get copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors that
make decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity. Collect
because you like the set!
|
Irrelevant. TLC made a promise. They are willfully breaking that promise.
| |
I love that set. I got 5 copies myself, and I even got some of my friends
that weren’t going to buy 5 themselves to sell me some of theirs, but I did
it because I wanted the parts for projects. And I’ll likely be using them
for just that. I parted one out already just to get one part that you can’t
get many other places (I used it in my MTW-2001 BNSF recolor)
If Maersk and LEGO decide to make more Maersk blue sets, I think that’s just
great. It is reason for a celebration, not for wailing about broken
promises.
|
Perhaps, but that still doesn’t change the fact that TLC is purposefully
breaking their word. And unnecessarily so. Why not use the extra Maersk
blue pellets for a run of GP38 locos? Or trucks? Why willfully produce more
of a set that they promised would never be produced again? It’s just bad
form.
What’s worse, they may cancel the run of dark blue that (at their request!)
AFOLs voted upon??? It’s marketing madness. And the whole thing is so
unnecessary!
Somebody at TLC had better think this one through better because the whole
plan stinks.
JOHN
|
I fear the end of the wrld is coming my friends, because I actually agree 100%
with John here. But I think it’s not surprising coming from TLC that they broke
their promise. We’ve seen a change of corporate attitude in the last years that
aint pretty. More of the same is coming I fear.
Terry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> LEGO asking our opinions is [not] an entitlement for AFOLs to expect special
> treatment.
Well put, Kelly! Their considering AFOL input is a huge privilege for us.
They're not going to just sit on their hands and do everything AFOLs tell them
to do. It seems there are too many people here who believe that when LEGO
does things AFOLs disagree with, that AFOLs are not being given any
consideration.
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to
buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to
get copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors that
make decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity. Collect
because you like the set!
|
Irrelevant. TLC made a promise. They are willfully breaking that promise.
|
Wait, I’m lost here. Can someone please point me to where Lego promised (in
writing) that they would never reintroduce this set? Or did they simply say (at
the time) that there wasn’t a business case to produce more 10152 once their
original supply of Maersk was exhausted?
Spencer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want
to buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others
to get copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors
that make decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity.
Collect because you like the set!
|
Irrelevant. TLC made a promise. They are willfully breaking that promise.
|
Wait, I’m lost here. Can someone please point me to where Lego promised (in
writing) that they would never reintroduce this set? Or did they simply say
(at the time) that there wasn’t a business case to produce more 10152 once
their original supply of Maersk was exhausted?
Spencer
|
Well put Spencer. I want to see that as well.
By the way, I posted a message to .off-topic but forgot to FTX it. If you have
time go read it. It concerns my take on collectibles and collecting in general.
“What Makes A Collectible”
Steven Weiser
|
|
| |
> someone like Kelly.
> He's not the only one
I'm sorry Kelly, I have to admit I always thought you were female! Is Kelly a
common male name in the US?
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
After reading the various whining about “broken promises” in this thread,
remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk
wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side effect
is, there’s enough left over for more sales to the public. LEGO looks at the
fact that this was a very good seller...
|
But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been such
a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased them as
collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought in mind.
| |
What part of that reasoning makes you think LEGO would need to think twice
about re-releasing it to the public? It’s an absolute no-brainer, as far as
I’m concerned. The company made business choices based not only on their own
bottom line, but they also tried to offer something they thought a small
percentage of their consumer base would appreciate. I find that encouraging.
|
I don’t think anyone is complaining that there will be more of these sets in
order to purchase. It was the fact that consumers were led to believe that the
color maersk blue would never again be produced and thus the sets containing
that color would have value beyond their face value. I think the whole matter
would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the number or somehow
made the new run tangibly different from the original. This would require
minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those who were really hoping
for the dark blue version, which may or may not appear).
| |
Many people are looking at it from the standpoint of “LEGO is producing
collectibles, so they need to honor the implied promise of limited
availability.” Does LEGO look at their products that way? I don’t know, but I
doubt it.
|
If they had never said that Maersk blue would be gone forever after the last
run, I don’t think people would have any expectation of limited availability.
Therein lies the rub.
| |
Bricks are a commodity that they sell to people willing to buy
them. They don’t position them as collectibles[1] for the most part. And
even if they did, the only ones bothered are the speculators or people
looking for a reason to get upset with the company.
|
Generally speaking, yes, but in this case we are not talking about any random
set.
| |
Circumstances changed, making it possible for them to produce more of a
product that sold well.
|
Consider this scenario: BNSF now wants TLC to reissue the Sante Fe locomotive
numbered sets from 1-10,000 and they are willing to pay handsomely for them to
do so. Now, TLC never made any promises that they would never do this. Should
they?
| |
The only bad part is if they can’t produce different
colored versions of the set in the future - and at that, there was never any
guarantee that that would happen anyway. They asked AFOLs to pick some colors
out of courtesy to us.
LEGO asking our opinions is not an entitlement for AFOLs to expect special
treatment.
|
Well, I think you are on thin ice to defend TLC here. They clearly implied that
the winner of the color contest would be produced in that set. Yeah, things
change, but does that mean that TLC necessarily doesn’t have to keep their
word? It’s called integrity. “My word is my bond” and all of that stuff.
| |
What if LEGO made the decision to not release the new set to the public,
although they could’ve?
|
For what possible reason? Thinking it would be a big seller but deciding not
to offer it would be sheer lunacy. They are a business. Whoever would make
such a decision would be an idiot and should be sacked from the company for
incompetency.
| |
The same firestorm of criticism, certainly. There was
really no way for the company to please everybody in this.
|
Not so, as I explained above. The answer is quite simple, really. Actually,
it’s too bad that the first run didn’t use classic gray and classic brown. Then
the point would be moot as well...
| |
So they made a
decision that earned them maximum profit, helping the bottom line.
|
Not “maximum” profit. Changing the set number or some such thing would achieve
that.
| |
Everybody who thinks that’s a bad thing, by all means, the clone companies
welcome you with open arms.
|
If it were true, which it isn’t.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
I think the
whole matter would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the
number or somehow made the new run tangibly different from the original.
This would require minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those who
were really hoping for the dark blue version, which may or may not appear).
|
I agree. They should make one with the containers in the old light grey.
Maersk wouldn’t know the difference, the AFOL collectors would be happy and TLG
would get rid of those extra unsold old greys.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
After reading the various whining about “broken promises” in this thread,
remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk
wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side effect
is, there’s enough left over for more sales to the public. LEGO looks at the
fact that this was a very good seller...
|
But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been
such a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased them
as collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought in mind.
|
Yes, I understand - but did LEGO position it as a collectible? Officially, on
their web site? I never read it that way. Jake’s post (I could dig it up if it
matters) clearly laid out that they were running the last of the existing Maersk
blue and they did not anticipate acquiring more of that color. I can’t see a lie
there. There was never anything stating that they would never run more - just
the aside (to AFOLs) that they were using all remaining Maersk blue. Any
assumptions of collectibility were made by purchasers, not LEGO - and I can’t
see how LEGO could’ve positioned it differently so some people wouldn’t assume
collectibility. Unless they didn’t tell the whole truth, of course, in which
case they’d be accused of lying by omission.
| |
I think the
whole matter would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the
number or somehow made the new run tangibly different from the original.
This would require minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those who
were really hoping for the dark blue version, which may or may not appear).
|
Except maybe Maersk, who’s footing the major bill for the rerun, as I understand
it. You may want to have a different set, thereby maintaining the integrity of
a “collectible” but that apparently didn’t meet the needs of LEGO’s primary
customer for this product - Maersk.
| |
| |
Many people are looking at it from the standpoint of “LEGO is producing
collectibles, so they need to honor the implied promise of limited
availability.” Does LEGO look at their products that way? I don’t know, but
I doubt it.
|
If they had never said that Maersk blue would be gone forever after the last
run, I don’t think people would have any expectation of limited availability.
Therein lies the rub.
|
OK then... so the problem is the blue bricks, correct? But above you suggested
you’d be happy by LEGO changing the design or set number. Do you mean LEGO
recreating a Maersk Sealand set without Maersk blue? I wouldn’t think that
would meet the client’s need, personally.
| |
| |
Bricks are a commodity that they sell to people willing to buy
them. They don’t position them as collectibles[1] for the most part. And
even if they did, the only ones bothered are the speculators or people
looking for a reason to get upset with the company.
|
Generally speaking, yes, but in this case we are not talking about any random
set.
|
I’m not sure what the difference is between the Maersk Sealand, and say, the
ISD, or the Wright Flyer. Or any other number of sets.
| |
| |
Circumstances changed, making it possible for them to produce more of a
product that sold well.
|
Consider this scenario: BNSF now wants TLC to reissue the Sante Fe
locomotive numbered sets from 1-10,000 and they are willing to pay handsomely
for them to do so. Now, TLC never made any promises that they would never do
this. Should they?
|
Good question... I personally wouldn’t, were I the owner of that decision. In
that case, since the Sante Fe sets are numbered, there’s more grounds for an
assumption that they won’t reproduce the same number. But that’s their decision.
I’d hope they wouldn’t reproduce set numbers like that. But it’s really a
different situation from the generic Maersk Sealand set, IMO.
| |
| |
The only bad part is if they can’t produce different
colored versions of the set in the future - and at that, there was never any
guarantee that that would happen anyway. They asked AFOLs to pick some
colors out of courtesy to us.
LEGO asking our opinions is not an entitlement for AFOLs to expect special
treatment.
|
Well, I think you are on thin ice to defend TLC here. They clearly implied
that the winner of the color contest would be produced in that set. Yeah,
things change, but does that mean that TLC necessarily doesn’t have to keep
their word? It’s called integrity. “My word is my bond” and all of that
stuff.
|
What word? I don’t recall LEGO promising that, and I voted. If they did promise,
then I’d assume ALL polls are contracts that they would abide by. I’d want to
see all results tabulated, and be able to track how well they met their stated
obligation.
But they didn’t promise.
Soapbox alert, not directed at any one person, so don’t take it personally,
John... but I get terribly irritated when people (anyone) assumes that since
somebody asks their opinion, that person (or company) is then obligated to
follow the stated opinion. LEGO asking AFOL opinion on color (results of which I
heard were virtually 50/50) was a favor to us, and not something a whole lot of
companies would do. The way I took it, the poll was to help the decision-making
process on future color for the set, NOT to replace the decision-making
process.
I’m not saying LEGO hasn’t made mistakes, they’ve made plenty. But I don’t see
this as one of them.
| |
| |
What if LEGO made the decision to not release the new set to the public,
although they could’ve?
|
For what possible reason? Thinking it would be a big seller but deciding
not to offer it would be sheer lunacy. They are a business. Whoever
would make such a decision would be an idiot and should be sacked from the
company for incompetency.
| |
The same firestorm of criticism, certainly. There was
really no way for the company to please everybody in this.
|
Not so, as I explained above. The answer is quite simple, really. Actually,
it’s too bad that the first run didn’t use classic gray and classic brown.
Then the point would be moot as well...
|
Then it wouldn’t have been “Maersk Sealand” in the first place. Just “Sealand”.
| |
| |
So they made a
decision that earned them maximum profit, helping the bottom line.
|
Not “maximum” profit. Changing the set number or some such thing would
achieve that.
|
I thought it was the blue color that was the problem. If it wasn’t blue in the
first place, it wouldn’t be collectible, right?
Maybe I’m missing something that hasn’t been explicitly stated. I can’t see that
LEGO lied when they released the set, nor can I see how changed circumstances
that led to additional runs of this set implies LEGO is untrustworthy.
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
Jake said:
| |
I certainly won’t promise again! :)
|
|
| |
You’d certainly be well advised not to. Everything you promise (in good
faith, no doubt) is in danger to be turned into a lie by TLC themselves.
|
| |
| |
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage
of this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the
10152 in Maersk blue.
|
|
| |
Limited. Sure. Like the “limited” run that made us buy out the first run,
huh? How many collectors, do you think, bought this set because they were
hooked by the prospect of getting a rare and limited set?
|
How many of those “collectors” went out and said they had hundreds at 200 USD
each for sale?
Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to
buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to get
copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors that make
decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity. Collect
because you like the set!
I love that set. I got 5 copies myself, and I even got some of my friends
that weren’t going to buy 5 themselves to sell me some of theirs, but I did
it because I wanted the parts for projects. And I’ll likely be using them for
just that. I parted one out already just to get one part that you can’t get
many other places (I used it in my MTW-2001 BNSF recolor)
If Maersk and LEGO decide to make more Maersk blue sets, I think that’s just
great. It is reason for a celebration, not for wailing about broken promises.
But that’s just me, I guess.
|
Hey Larry.
Just to say that it is not just you. 100% agreed. Thanks for putting my feelings
in so well written words.
Best regards,
Paulo Renato
|
|
| |
In lugnet.people, Tim David wrote:
> > someone like Kelly.
> > He's not the only one
>
> I'm sorry Kelly, I have to admit I always thought you were female! Is Kelly a
> common male name in the US?
:) Common misconception, no worries. There are a number of other boy Kellys
around, but they're few and far between. I need a sigfig with a beard, although
that wouldn't work as well on LUGNET...
http://www.bzpower.com/about.php?go=staff
I'm the handsome one in the top right.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
All,
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
in Maersk blue.
|
Hey Jake,
Though I didn’t buy the first time and probabily will not buy it once more, I
find these really good news for all the people who missed the first chance. And
for me that’s all that maters: getting the set because it is so great.
As for the collectors and/or money makers, I really don’t have no sympathy for
them (specially the latter) but have to respect their points, though I don’t
agree a bit with none of them. This kinda reminds me the reissue of the USS
Constelation (oh, what a season to be ashamed of being part of the AFOL
comunity...) -- a great set (although given the wrong windows) that I (and many
others) would not ever have, hadn’t TLC reissued it.
| |
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
|
These would be rather bad news. Hope TLC can sort of keep its word on this one,
because I imagine people who were counting on it being really disappointed by
now. I sympathise with them.
Best regards,
Paulo-Renato
|
|
| |
Hey Mark,
In lugnet.lego, Mark Jordan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
I think the
whole matter would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the
number or somehow made the new run tangibly different from the original.
This would require minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those
who were really hoping for the dark blue version, which may or may not
appear).
|
I agree. They should make one with the containers in the old light grey.
Maersk wouldn’t know the difference, the AFOL collectors would be happy and
TLG would get rid of those extra unsold old greys
|
Make it so TLC and I promise to buy my 5 this time (against 0 on the first
time).
Best,
Paulo-Renato
FUT --> lugnet.color
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<various snippaging>
| |
| |
But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been
such a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased
them as collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought in
mind.
|
Yes, I understand - but did LEGO position it as a collectible? Officially, on
their web site? I never read it that way. Jake’s post (I could dig it up if
it matters) clearly laid out that they were running the last of the existing
Maersk blue and they did not anticipate acquiring more of that color. I can’t
see a lie there. There was never anything stating that they would never run
more - just the aside (to AFOLs) that they were using all remaining Maersk
blue. Any assumptions of collectibility were made by purchasers, not LEGO -
and I can’t see how LEGO could’ve positioned it differently so some people
wouldn’t assume collectibility. Unless they didn’t tell the whole truth, of
course, in which case they’d be accused of lying by omission.
|
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
From the above post by Jake:
“This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this new set
uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that there is
literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even the parks can no longer get Maersk blue.
This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home.
I believe this implies “limited quantities” with the implication “get them while
they are still available because it will be the last we see of Maersk blue”.
| |
| |
I think the
whole matter would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the
number or somehow made the new run tangibly different from the original.
This would require minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those
who were really hoping for the dark blue version, which may or may not
appear).
|
Except maybe Maersk, who’s footing the major bill for the rerun, as I
understand it. You may want to have a different set, thereby maintaining
the integrity of a “collectible” but that apparently didn’t meet the needs of
LEGO’s primary customer for this product - Maersk.
|
Ideally, yes, but not necessarily so. Even changing the number on the set would
have the same effect of preserving the collectibility of the original run.
| |
| |
| |
Many people are looking at it from the standpoint of “LEGO is producing
collectibles, so they need to honor the implied promise of limited
availability.” Does LEGO look at their products that way? I don’t know, but
I doubt it.
|
If they had never said that Maersk blue would be gone forever after the last
run, I don’t think people would have any expectation of limited
availability. Therein lies the rub.
|
OK then... so the problem is the blue bricks, correct? But above you
suggested you’d be happy by LEGO changing the design or set number. Do you
mean LEGO recreating a Maersk Sealand set without Maersk blue? I wouldn’t
think that would meet the client’s need, personally.
|
No, the problem isn’t the blue bricks. I am glad that more Maersk blue bricks
will be available via this second run. My problem is that the collectibility of
an original run MISB 10052 has taken a severe hit due to some (however
unintended) misdirection on the part of TLC.
| |
| |
| |
Bricks are a commodity that they sell to people willing to buy
them. They don’t position them as collectibles[1] for the most part. And
even if they did, the only ones bothered are the speculators or people
looking for a reason to get upset with the company.
|
Generally speaking, yes, but in this case we are not talking about any
random set.
|
I’m not sure what the difference is between the Maersk Sealand, and say, the
ISD, or the Wright Flyer. Or any other number of sets.
|
Because of the stated limited run assertion (with the implication that Maersk
blue would no longer ever be available-- “Even the parks can no longer get
Maersk blue”).
| |
| |
| |
Circumstances changed, making it possible for them to produce more of a
product that sold well.
|
Consider this scenario: BNSF now wants TLC to reissue the Sante Fe
locomotive numbered sets from 1-10,000 and they are willing to pay
handsomely for them to do so. Now, TLC never made any promises that they
would never do this. Should they?
|
Good question... I personally wouldn’t, were I the owner of that decision. In
that case, since the Sante Fe sets are numbered, there’s more grounds for
an assumption that they won’t reproduce the same number. But that’s their
decision. I’d hope they wouldn’t reproduce set numbers like that. But it’s
really a different situation from the generic Maersk Sealand set, IMO.
|
I don’t think so. In either case specific promises weren’t made, but there
was clear implication of the intention of TLC at the time.
| |
| |
| |
The only bad part is if they can’t produce different
colored versions of the set in the future - and at that, there was never
any guarantee that that would happen anyway. They asked AFOLs to pick some
colors out of courtesy to us.
LEGO asking our opinions is not an entitlement for AFOLs to expect
special treatment.
|
Well, I think you are on thin ice to defend TLC here. They clearly implied
that the winner of the color contest would be produced in that set. Yeah,
things change, but does that mean that TLC necessarily doesn’t have to
keep their word? It’s called integrity. “My word is my bond” and all of
that stuff.
|
What word? I don’t recall LEGO promising that, and I voted. If they did
promise, then I’d assume ALL polls are contracts that they would abide by.
I’d want to see all results tabulated, and be able to track how well they met
their stated obligation.
|
Come on, Kelly, you are bending over backwards. Would you have even bothered to
vote if you knew that TLC had no intention of following through with their plan?
What sense would it make to hold a contest if they had no intention of following
through with the results. It makes no sense.
This is irrelevant in my view. It is about PR.
| |
Soapbox alert, not directed at any one person, so don’t take it personally,
John... but I get terribly irritated when people (anyone) assumes that since
somebody asks their opinion, that person (or company) is then obligated to
follow the stated opinion. LEGO asking AFOL opinion on color (results of
which I heard were virtually 50/50) was a favor to us,
|
??? Seems like providing input is more like US providing a favor TO THEM.
| |
and not something a
whole lot of companies would do. The way I took it, the poll was to help the
decision-making process on future color for the set, NOT to replace the
decision-making process.
|
Tell me how which color scheme a particular set should be (from a choice of 2
given colors) has anything to do with the decision whether or not to rerun the
set in a particular color. It is a non sequitur.
| |
I’m not saying LEGO hasn’t made mistakes, they’ve made plenty. But I don’t
see this as one of them.
| |
| |
What if LEGO made the decision to not release the new set to the public,
although they could’ve?
|
For what possible reason? Thinking it would be a big seller but deciding
not to offer it would be sheer lunacy. They are a business. Whoever
would make such a decision would be an idiot and should be sacked from the
company for incompetency.
| |
The same firestorm of criticism, certainly. There was
really no way for the company to please everybody in this.
|
Not so, as I explained above. The answer is quite simple, really.
Actually, it’s too bad that the first run didn’t use classic gray and
classic brown. Then the point would be moot as well...
|
Then it wouldn’t have been “Maersk Sealand” in the first place. Just
“Sealand”.
|
I don’t follow you there. All I’m saying is that if the set had been produced a
year or so ago, it would have used the old gray and brown, and that would have
been enough to differentiate it from a newer run that will use the new gray and
brown, thus preserving the original collectibility of the first run. But it’s a
moot point.
| |
| |
| |
So they made a
decision that earned them maximum profit, helping the bottom line.
|
Not “maximum” profit. Changing the set number or some such thing would
achieve that.
|
I thought it was the blue color that was the problem. If it wasn’t blue in
the first place, it wouldn’t be collectible, right?
Maybe I’m missing something that hasn’t been explicitly stated. I can’t see
that LEGO lied when they released the set, nor can I see how changed
circumstances that led to additional runs of this set implies LEGO is
untrustworthy.
|
When we talk about collectibility, that to me means MISB sets. That is
different from buying a set containing a rare color such as Maersk blue with the
intent to profit by resale on BL or Ebay. Now, if someone bought a bunch of
10052s to part out Maersk blue, then I would say that these new events are a bit
of a bummer for them because it will probably push down the price of Maersk blue
elements a bit. But I am not talking about that. That is plain tough luck IMO.
What I am talking about is the value of an MISB set that was implied to be
limited. Even if TLC makes a new run as they have stated they are going to do,
they could still preserve the limitedness of the original run by simply changing
the number on the set of the new run. Does that make sense?
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
After reading the various whining about “broken promises” in this thread,
remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk
wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side effect
is, there’s enough left over for more sales to the public. LEGO looks at the
fact that this was a very good seller...
|
But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been
such a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased them
as collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought in mind.
|
If you purchase something at full retail, as a collectable, then someone’s P&L
statement is going to look pretty good. If enough people do that, then there has
been created a ‘demand’ that had more to do with the profit motive than the
desire to own something unique. I think that is what happened here.
| |
| |
What part of that reasoning makes you think LEGO would need to think twice
about re-releasing it to the public? It’s an absolute no-brainer, as far as
I’m concerned. The company made business choices based not only on their own
bottom line, but they also tried to offer something they thought a small
percentage of their consumer base would appreciate. I find that encouraging.
|
I don’t think anyone is complaining that there will be more of these sets in
order to purchase. It was the fact that consumers were led to believe that
the color maersk blue would never again be produced and thus the sets
containing that color would have value beyond their face value. I think the
whole matter would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the
number or somehow made the new run tangibly different from the original.
This would require minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those who
were really hoping for the dark blue version, which may or may not appear).
|
Except that Maersk wants more 10152’s. So TLC is going to make another run of
10152, and split the production between Maersk and S@H. I would be most
pleased if there were enough pellets to do the production run and reissue
something else from the collection of past Maersk sets (e.g 1552 or 1831). I
would suspect that part of the higher pellet cost is a one-shot setup fee. If
so, then it might make more sense to order extra.
| |
| |
Many people are looking at it from the standpoint of “LEGO is producing
collectibles, so they need to honor the implied promise of limited
availability.” Does LEGO look at their products that way? I don’t know, but
I doubt it.
|
If they had never said that Maersk blue would be gone forever after the last
run, I don’t think people would have any expectation of limited availability.
Therein lies the rub.
|
My take is that TLC assumed that the existing stock of pellets would be
sufficient to meet everyones needs. The only thing that might change that
(unlikely back then) was for Maersk to ask for more. Guess what happened ? So
they could just make some for Maersk and ignore us (i.e. S@H) or do it this way.
This makes more sense to me (but is sure to honk off the
collectors/proffiteers).
Ray
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<snip>
| |
But that’s just me, I guess. This is going to be another “bash Jake” string,
I just know it. I blanch at the very thought. Why? Why must we go there
every time Jake brings us news?
|
Well, this has nothing to do with Jake and AFAIK you are the only one who has
made that connection. Ironic?
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Sorry for two replies here to the same post.
In lugnet.lego, Justin Pankey wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
Maybe Lego should re-release the numbered Santa Fe Super
Chiefs starting with the number “1” again ;o)
|
Maybe. Wouldn’t bother me too much.
| |
| |
Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want
to buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others
to get copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors
that make decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity.
Collect because you like the set!
|
So no set should should ever be sold above it’s MSRP?? I agree with Lego’s
policy limiting 5 to each buyer. I don’t agree that a few people should be
able to corner the market and leave other AFOL’s and kids alike wanting.
That said, the fact of the matter is anybody who wanted one of these during
the first run could have purchased one (or 5). Everyone knew about them and
they where available for at least a month. Is it somehow o.k. that you
purchased more than 5 simply because they were for your own personal use?
|
I have more sympathy for wanting multiple copies of the set for parts than I
do for those that want to buy it up, not caring about it as a set, and resell
it to suckers that didn’t know better while it was still available, yes.
|
I thought I made it clear I don’t condone the practice as you are putting it
here. I’m not talking about cornering the current market, I’m talking about
resale years down the road.
| |
Yes, I know it is the duty of all good capitalists to ensure that fools and
their money are soon parted.
| |
Didn’t you also make it harder for others to get more copies?
|
Well, not really, because I waited for the mad rush to subside, and only
then, after everyone that wanted some had plenty of time to order some, did I
canvass and get more. After I got all I wanted, S@H still had some left, for
quite some time, in fact. I’d say everyone that wanted some had their chance.
Also, since I offered to pay, and in some cases, paid more than MSRP for the
ones I bought from my friends, how is that different than just buying them
from a reseller, which you seem to be OK with?
|
You said it...“everyone that wanted some had their chance.” So enter the
speculator (limited to buying 5) ready to make a purchase....I just don’t see
how you can say there’s any wrong in that. Precious Princess Palace having 20
or 200 YES.
| |
| |
Like it or not, Lego is NOT just a toy anymore it is a Collectable. This is
obvious to anyone taking even a cursory look at the current Brickink prices
of the original Star Wars sets, old used Town/Space sets, etc. This is a
free capitalistic society and if somebody out there wants to make a purely
financially based decision to buy a set that Lego swears it will never make
again, God love ‘em and shame on Lego for changing it’s mind.
|
I don’t see this as an arbitrary or capricious change on LEGO’s part. I see
it as a significant change in circumstances, as Jake explained
So I’d say, shame on THEM for deciding that LEGO saying that it was not
likely they would get more ABS in Maersk blue meaning that *nothing* would or
could possibly change that, *nothing* would cause it to be a good thing to
bring out another run, even after Maersk asked them to and agreed to fund the
ABS needed.
|
Agreed as I explained...but Lego didn’t say it was “unlikely.” They said “we
are using the last of the Maersk Blue.”
| |
Saying you have sympathy for those speculators is somewhat like saying you
have sympathy for the people that bought Enron at 120 and rode it down to
0.25.. it sounds nice but it’s not sound economic policy.
|
That’s a ridicilous comparison. Furthermore, It’s not a sympathy issue, it’s a
keeping your word issue. I used to collect coins. If the U.S. Mint promised to
make a limited run of 1 million pieces and then later that year ran a million
more, The buyers of the first million would be rightly outraged. Simple as
that.
| |
| |
It is not a reason to celebrate for the many who were counting on having
this set produced in a different color. I was looking forward to having
more than Maersk Blue ships in my Harbor.
|
That I’ll buy. But maybe LEGO will change their mind. And also you can build
a number of different hull colors already. (just not the dark green or dark
blue we were hoping for)
| |
| |
But that’s just me, I guess. This is going to be another “bash Jake”
string, I just know it. I blanch at the very thought. Why? Why must we go
there every time Jake brings us news?
|
Agreed! Jake shouldn’t get a bad rap for being the messenger. And even
though I STRONGLY believe Lego should keep it’s promises when it says “Final
Limited Edition,” I understand their desire for profit and the need to
respond to Maersk’s request for more sets...they just shouldn’t release
anymore to the public IN PLACE of what we all voted on!
|
That too I’ll buy. But maybe LEGO will change their mind.
|
That’s really the only point I was trying to make...so maybe we’re on the same
page after all :o)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ray Sanders wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
| |
I don’t think anyone is complaining that there will be more of these sets in
order to purchase. It was the fact that consumers were led to believe that
the color maersk blue would never again be produced and thus the sets
containing that color would have value beyond their face value. I think the
whole matter would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the
number or somehow made the new run tangibly different from the original.
This would require minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those
who were really hoping for the dark blue version, which may or may not
appear).
|
Except that Maersk wants more 10152’s. So TLC is going to make another run of
10152, and split the production between Maersk and S@H.
|
I think that I didn’t make myself clear. All I am asking for is that the new
run of 10152s be numbered “10153” or something. This simple change preserves
the collectiblity of the 10052s. I wasn’t suggesting any more radical change
than that. Again, I’m glad that there will be more Maersk blue available on
the market! But I agree that it would be nice if the run was a different set in
order to provide a greater variety of elements colored Maersk blue, but
saylavee.
| |
I would be most
pleased if there were enough pellets to do the production run and reissue
something else from the collection of past Maersk sets (e.g 1552 or 1831). I
would suspect that part of the higher pellet cost is a one-shot setup fee. If
so, then it might make more sense to order extra.
| |
| |
Many people are looking at it from the standpoint of “LEGO is producing
collectibles, so they need to honor the implied promise of limited
availability.” Does LEGO look at their products that way? I don’t know, but
I doubt it.
|
If they had never said that Maersk blue would be gone forever after the last
run, I don’t think people would have any expectation of limited
availability. Therein lies the rub.
|
My take is that TLC assumed that the existing stock of pellets would be
sufficient to meet everyones needs. The only thing that might change that
(unlikely back then) was for Maersk to ask for more. Guess what happened ? So
they could just make some for Maersk and ignore us (i.e. S@H) or do it this
way. This makes more sense to me (but is sure to honk off the
collectors/proffiteers).
|
It might bum out parts resellers, but doesn’t necessarily have to affect MISB
collectors.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<snip>
| |
But that’s just me, I guess. This is going to be another “bash Jake” string,
I just know it. I blanch at the very thought. Why? Why must we go there
every time Jake brings us news?
|
Well, this has nothing to do with Jake and AFAIK you are the only one who has
made that connection.
|
Um, no, there was some and is some bashing elsethread. But maybe I pre-empted
some or most of it, which would be nice, with my prediction.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
in Maersk blue.
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
|
| |
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
cool!
please let us know when you find out how many more sets will be available
as well as if the dark blue version will/will not be produced.
i appreciate your letting us know!
jason
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<various snippaging>
| |
| |
But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been
such a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased
them as collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought
in mind.
|
Yes, I understand - but did LEGO position it as a collectible? Officially,
on their web site? I never read it that way. Jake’s post (I could dig it up
if it matters) clearly laid out that they were running the last of the
existing Maersk blue and they did not anticipate acquiring more of that
color. I can’t see a lie there. There was never anything stating that they
would never run more - just the aside (to AFOLs) that they were using all
remaining Maersk blue. Any assumptions of collectibility were made by
purchasers, not LEGO - and I can’t see how LEGO could’ve positioned it
differently so some people wouldn’t assume collectibility. Unless they
didn’t tell the whole truth, of course, in which case they’d be accused of
lying by omission.
|
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
From the above post by Jake:
“This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this new
set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that there
is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even the parks can no longer get Maersk
blue.
This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At
Home.
I believe this implies “limited quantities” with the implication “get them
while they are still available because it will be the last we see of Maersk
blue”.
|
That’s a fair assertion. Being somebody who collects sets to build them, I don’t
have the mindset that “limited quantities” = “collectible”. Again, though, at
the time that was written, that was accurate.
| |
| |
| |
I think the
whole matter would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the
number or somehow made the new run tangibly different from the original.
This would require minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those
who were really hoping for the dark blue version, which may or may not
appear).
|
Except maybe Maersk, who’s footing the major bill for the rerun, as I
understand it. You may want to have a different set, thereby maintaining
the integrity of a “collectible” but that apparently didn’t meet the needs
of LEGO’s primary customer for this product - Maersk.
|
Ideally, yes, but not necessarily so. Even changing the number on the set
would have the same effect of preserving the collectibility of the original
run.
|
At the risk of belaboring a point, renumbering a set is something collectors
want, not necessarily something LEGO would want or need. In fact, adding a new
number for the identical set would probably be counterproductive in the long run
for the company.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Many people are looking at it from the standpoint of “LEGO is producing
collectibles, so they need to honor the implied promise of limited
availability.” Does LEGO look at their products that way? I don’t know,
but I doubt it.
|
If they had never said that Maersk blue would be gone forever after the
last run, I don’t think people would have any expectation of limited
availability. Therein lies the rub.
|
OK then... so the problem is the blue bricks, correct? But above you
suggested you’d be happy by LEGO changing the design or set number. Do you
mean LEGO recreating a Maersk Sealand set without Maersk blue? I wouldn’t
think that would meet the client’s need, personally.
|
No, the problem isn’t the blue bricks. I am glad that more Maersk blue
bricks will be available via this second run. My problem is that the
collectibility of an original run MISB 10052 has taken a severe hit due to
some (however unintended) misdirection on the part of TLC.
|
I agree with that except for the word “misdirection” which implies wrongdoing.
Changed circumstances, with no wrongdoing on anyone’s part.
<snip>
| |
| |
In that case, since the Sante Fe sets are numbered, there’s more grounds
for an assumption that they won’t reproduce the same number. But that’s
their decision. I’d hope they wouldn’t reproduce set numbers like that. But
it’s really a different situation from the generic Maersk Sealand set, IMO.
|
I don’t think so. In either case specific promises weren’t made, but there
was clear implication of the intention of TLC at the time.
|
Sorry, have to disagree. The set was run with existing color inventory, which
was anticipated to be exhausted. If it were to be positioned as a collectible,
it would’ve been positioned differently. More like the Sante Fe.
If Maersk had not wanted more, and been willing to spend to get it, then this
wouldn’t be an issue; from all accounts, LEGO didn’t intend to purchase that
color of granules in the future. Again, I don’t see how Maersk’s decision at a
later time makes LEGO liable.
| |
| |
| |
| |
LEGO asking our opinions is not an entitlement for AFOLs to expect
special treatment.
|
Well, I think you are on thin ice to defend TLC here. They clearly implied
that the winner of the color contest would be produced in that set. Yeah,
things change, but does that mean that TLC necessarily doesn’t have to
keep their word? It’s called integrity. “My word is my bond” and all of
that stuff.
|
What word? I don’t recall LEGO promising that, and I voted. If they did
promise, then I’d assume ALL polls are contracts that they would abide by.
I’d want to see all results tabulated, and be able to track how well they
met their stated obligation.
|
Come on, Kelly, you are bending over backwards. Would you have even bothered
to vote if you knew that TLC had no intention of following through with their
plan? What sense would it make to hold a contest if they had no intention of
following through with the results. It makes no sense.
|
No, this makes perfect sense to me. In fact, it’s one of my core belief sets.
Just because a vote on LEGO.com might indicate AFOL preference once way or
another, I’m certain that’s not the only factor that influences set production.
Take it to an extreme: say I was the only one to vote. Poll results would have
been 100% dark green. But I take that as no guarantee that this is the only
factor in deciding that color. If the resulting set had come out in dark red
instead, I’d be understandably curious - but I wouldn’t be upset with LEGO for
not listening to me. My vote is only one factor of many, and doesn’t entitle me
to any ownership in the final decision. I also have confidence that Jake would
be able to get some sort of brief explanation, which is again not something I
expect from many other companies.
In fact, I trust my vote on LEGO.com more than I trust my vote to make a
difference in the recent US presidential election. Because I have a greater
trust that LEGO will at least consider my opinion, where I have zero guarantee
the government will. But at no time did I ever consider my LEGO vote for a color
to be a binding contract for LEGO. I made a suggestion, they were free to take
it as they saw fit.
| |
This is irrelevant in my view. It is about PR.
|
Not exactly sure how to respond to that...
| |
| |
Soapbox alert, not directed at any one person, so don’t take it personally,
John... but I get terribly irritated when people (anyone) assumes that since
somebody asks their opinion, that person (or company) is then obligated to
follow the stated opinion. LEGO asking AFOL opinion on color (results of
which I heard were virtually 50/50) was a favor to us,
|
??? Seems like providing input is more like US providing a favor TO THEM.
|
In many ways, sure. They definitely get a valuable amount of information from
our exertion. But it works both ways. I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to
interact (in minor ways) with LEGO on various things. It’s a fair amount of work
in some instances, but the feeling that I have some small voice in the direction
of something more than makes up for it. Because I still have that naive optimism
that whispers, “I can make a difference with something I care about.” I can’t
say that in my job, or many other areas of my existence. Ooh, getting a bit deep
here...
| |
| |
and not something a
whole lot of companies would do. The way I took it, the poll was to help
the decision-making process on future color for the set, NOT to replace the
decision-making process.
|
Tell me how which color scheme a particular set should be (from a choice of 2
given colors) has anything to do with the decision whether or not to rerun
the set in a particular color. It is a non sequitur.
|
?? Not understanding.
| |
| |
| |
| |
What if LEGO made the decision to not release the new set to the public,
although they could’ve?
|
For what possible reason? Thinking it would be a big seller but deciding
not to offer it would be sheer lunacy. They are a business. Whoever
would make such a decision would be an idiot and should be sacked from the
company for incompetency.
| |
The same firestorm of criticism, certainly. There was
really no way for the company to please everybody in this.
|
Not so, as I explained above. The answer is quite simple, really.
Actually, it’s too bad that the first run didn’t use classic gray and
classic brown. Then the point would be moot as well...
|
Then it wouldn’t have been “Maersk Sealand” in the first place. Just
“Sealand”.
|
I don’t follow you there. All I’m saying is that if the set had been
produced a year or so ago, it would have used the old gray and brown, and
that would have been enough to differentiate it from a newer run that will
use the new gray and brown, thus preserving the original collectibility of
the first run. But it’s a moot point.
|
True, that’s a bunch of “what if’s” that don’t have much to do with the subject
now, which is whether or not LEGO has lied or otherwise been misrepresentative
in re-releasing the Maersk Sealand set.
<snip>
| |
What I am talking about is the value of an MISB set that was implied to be
limited. Even if TLC makes a new run as they have stated they are going to
do, they could still preserve the limitedness of the original run by simply
changing the number on the set of the new run. Does that make sense?
|
Yes, I see that it’s important to you to have a valuable MISB set. But I don’t
agree that that should be LEGO’s priority as well. Your values and needs don’t
seem to match LEGO’s needs (or Maersk’s) in this instance. At the risk of
sounding cavalier (which I’m not), I’d say it’s a “tough luck” outcome, nothing
more; I don’t think LEGO’s mission statement is to increase AFOL collection
value. That came out sounding harsher than I really intend... I do feel the
unhappiness, I just don’t agree that it’s LEGO’s responsibility to avoid
situations where people are unhappy for one reason or another.
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
SNIP
| |
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
in Maersk blue.
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
The estimated launch date for the next run of the 10152 is late spring/early
summer. We’re still working on finalizing this, and I’ll update you as soon
as I can. (The info on LEGOshop.com you say yesterday launched while we still
working on the details... the Feb. launch date was a placeholder only. My
apologies for the confusion.)
My apologies for the re-direction this project has taken, but hopefully it is
more good news than bad!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
Jake,
Thanks for the update. I really appreciate being able to get info on special
sets like this. I wouldn’t even know this set existed if it wasn’t for TLC
sharing info like this on LUGNET. I know I’m not the target audience, not being
a kid and not being a Maersk associate, but I happen to be an adult who still
likes to play with this sort of thing so I’m thrilled to know about it. It’s
great for folks like me to be able to find out and get access to this stuff.
Taking time to enjoy my LEGO hobby is one of the ways I take a break from the
typical stresses of everyday life.
Thanks again,
Paul S. D’Urbano
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
At the risk of belaboring a point, renumbering a set is something collectors
want, not necessarily something LEGO would want or need. In fact, adding a
new number for the identical set would probably be counterproductive in the
long run for the company.
|
Well I guess they have an example they can use as a test case now:
As far as I know, there is no difference between these sets except the number. I
don’t own 8438 so can’t say definitively.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
At the risk of belaboring a point, renumbering a set is something collectors
want, not necessarily something LEGO would want or need. In fact, adding a
new number for the identical set would probably be counterproductive in the
long run for the company.
|
Well I guess they have an example they can use as a test case now:
As far as I know, there is no difference between these sets except the
number. I don’t own 8438 so can’t say definitively.
|
They do look identical. Wonder why they have three numbers? Might be a good
question for Jake at some point. Thanks for correcting that, Ross.
I’ll stick by my other assertions about the set, though!
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
| |
Sorry, have to disagree. The set was run with existing color inventory, which
was anticipated to be exhausted.
|
No, it was exhausted. They are mixing up more (at the expense of Maersk).
| |
If it were to be positioned as a
collectible, it would’ve been positioned differently. More like the Sante Fe.
|
This has nothing to do with marketing per se. If it had never been mentioned
that this was the end of the line for Maersk blue, there wouldn’t be an issue at
all.
| |
If Maersk had not wanted more, and been willing to spend to get it, then this
wouldn’t be an issue; from all accounts, LEGO didn’t intend to purchase that
color of granules in the future. Again, I don’t see how Maersk’s decision at
a later time makes LEGO liable.
|
It is TLC’s decision to accommodate Maersk, and, as I mentioned, I have no
problem with that; in fact I welcome it. All I am trying to say is that TLC
gave the impression that Maersk blue would no longer be available after it ran
its course through the 10052 sets. That made the 10052 collectible, based on
that assertion, and that assertion alone.
| |
| |
| |
What word?
I don’t recall LEGO promising that, and I voted. If they did
promise, then I’d assume ALL polls are contracts that they would abide by.
I’d want to see all results tabulated, and be able to track how well they
met their stated obligation.
|
Come on, Kelly, you are bending over backwards. Would you have even
bothered to vote if you knew that TLC had no intention of following through
with their plan? What sense would it make to hold a contest if they had no
intention of following through with the results. It makes no sense.
|
No, this makes perfect sense to me. In fact, it’s one of my core belief sets.
Just because a vote on LEGO.com might indicate AFOL preference once way or
another, I’m certain that’s not the only factor that influences set
production.
|
Perhaps you don’t recall the circumstances:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=2080
It seems pretty clear to me that TLC didn’t care which of the 2 choices they
offered was the winner, but whichever was “elected”, that would be the one
produced.
Now I grant that they are under no legal obligations to do anything, but that
logic of such a campaign is totally lost upon me (assuming that they had no
intention of following through and running with the winning color).
| |
Take it to an extreme: say I was the only one to vote. Poll
results would have been 100% dark green. But I take that as no guarantee that
this is the only factor in deciding that color. If the resulting set had come
out in dark red instead, I’d be understandably curious - but I wouldn’t be
upset with LEGO for not listening to me. My vote is only one factor of many,
and doesn’t entitle me to any ownership in the final decision. I also have
confidence that Jake would be able to get some sort of brief explanation,
which is again not something I expect from many other companies.
|
But don’t you see-- they stated that they would produce the winning color.
How is this not clear? It seems to me that they should make every effort to
keep their word, if not for PR’s sake alone.
<snip>
| |
| |
This is irrelevant in my view. It is about PR.
|
Not exactly sure how to respond to that...
|
Of course they didn’t “promise”. Who cares? They said that they were going to
do something, made a big deal about it, and may not follow through. We didn’t
ask them to hold the contest. Is it unreasonable to expect that they will do
what they say they are going to do?
| |
| |
| |
Soapbox alert, not directed at any one person, so don’t take it personally,
John... but I get terribly irritated when people (anyone) assumes that
since somebody asks their opinion, that person (or company) is then
obligated to follow the stated opinion. LEGO asking AFOL opinion on color
(results of which I heard were virtually 50/50) was a favor to us,
|
??? Seems like providing input is more like US providing a favor TO THEM.
|
In many ways, sure. They definitely get a valuable amount of information from
our exertion.
|
But this wasn’t data collection. It was, “Hey, we saw how popular the 10052 was
but we’ve run out of Maersk blue ABS, and we’ve decided to produce the 10052 in
an alternate color-- either dark blue or dark green. Your vote will decide
which one it is. Go to LEGO.com and vote!” The fact is that it really didn’t
matter which color was chosen, only that one actually was!
<snip>
| |
| |
| |
and not something a
whole lot of companies would do. The way I took it, the poll was to help
the decision-making process on future color for the set, NOT to replace the
decision-making process.
|
|
|
But Kelly, the decision to keep running the 10052 had already been made. The
color choice was obviously not an important one as they were allowing the
decision to be determined by external forces. The decision-making process of
TLC elected to allow fans to make the decision for them.
| |
| |
Tell me how which color scheme a particular set should be (from a choice of
2 given colors) has anything to do with the decision whether or not to rerun
the set in a particular color. It is a non sequitur.
|
?? Not understanding.
|
The decision to choose either dark green or dark blue was left up to a vote.
Whether or not to make another run of the 10052 in either of these 2 colors
wasn’t. That decision had already been made.
| |
Yes, I see that it’s important to you to have a valuable MISB set. But I
don’t agree that that should be LEGO’s priority as well.
|
I think it is if the expectation of limitedness is based upon claims TLC made.
| |
Your values and
needs don’t seem to match LEGO’s needs (or Maersk’s) in this instance. At the
risk of sounding cavalier (which I’m not), I’d say it’s a “tough luck”
outcome, nothing more; I don’t think LEGO’s mission statement is to increase
AFOL collection value. That came out sounding harsher than I really intend...
I do feel the unhappiness, I just don’t agree that it’s LEGO’s responsibility
to avoid situations where people are unhappy for one reason or another.
|
But my point is that people would never have had that expectation in the first
place had they not stated that it was the end of the line for Maersk blue. So
many people who bought that set did so believing that they were purchasing the
last of the Maersk blue, possibly forever. So TLC decides to make more. Okay,
fine, but at least acknowledge that many people may have purchased those 10052s
with the idea that they would be valuable some day, based on TLC’s admission),
and that they may have been misled.
My simple solution would be to change the number of the set, and I believe
everyone would be happy because the value of those initial sets would be
preserved (even parts sellers, because I doubt that the value of Maersk blue
elements will be affected by that much, given the limited run).
JOHN
|
|
| |
> Well I guess they have an example they can use as a test case now:¬
> <<LEGOSet(8460)>>
> <<LEGOSet(8431)>>
> <<LEGOSet(8438)>>
There are definatly differences between the origonal set (the 8460) and the
re-releases (the 8431\8438). For example, the 8460 used 2 of part Technic
Connector Toggle Joint Toothed whereas the 8431 uses a single Technic Angle
Connector #6 for the same thing. There are other differences also, the
insutrctions include a sheet that tells you what the differences are.
I dont know what the differences are (if any) between the 8431 and the
8438. I suspect it might be that its got new packaging and since its new
packaging, its a new item in the lego databases (so that the new box
printing is used instead of the old one) and therefore it needs a new set
number.
Since the maresk boat has the same box, stickers, instructions & parts, it
doesnt need a new set number.
|
|
| |
Selling items, suggesting a last-time chance and indicating there will only be a
limited quantity availible, then make more of exactly the same items later is no
acceptable way of conducting business, regardless of circumstances.
Customers (!) are right being upset now.
Yes, it is that easy. Got it finally, everybody?
"Primus" Burkhard
http://www.BrickCommander.com
|
|
| |
Hi all,
1)
I would like to mention a fact to this issue, which might help to understand the
annoyance of nearly all German AFOLs (here on LUGNET and on 1000steine.de (see:
http://f24.parsimony.net/forum61776/messages/92392.htm).
In Germany, the set was actually announced as limited. The official
announcement of LEGO Direct (Jan Beyer) is here:
http://f24.parsimony.net/forum61776/messages/82404.htm
There’s the sentence: “Die Auflage dieses Sets ist ebenfalls begrenzt, es gibt
insgesamt 14.000 Stck.” Translation: “The edition of this set is likewise
limited, there is a total of 14,000 copies”
As you can see, there’s is a significant difference between the translated
sentence and how Jake announced the set (“This is a small run too - only 14,000
total”)
2)
The set was sold at SaH Germany saying “Dieses ist deine letzte Chance Maersk
blaue Steine zu kaufen”. Translation: “This is your last chance to buy Maersk
blue bricks”
Well, it seems that it was not the last chance. It doesn’t matter whether
there’s a momentous reason for bringing Maersk blue back or not and I don’t want
to discuss this reason. But interesting to know might be the fact, that we have
several laws in Germany that shall protect the consumers. One of these is called
“gesetzliche Gewährleistung” (loose translation: guarantee by law). It says
(among other things), that one can return a product within two(!) years, as soon
as the characteristics of a product became different to what they were at the
time of buying (except wear and tear of course). So everybody could return their
10152s, even if they were opened. Again: I don’t want to discuss whether that’s
good or bad, it’s just as it is.
3)
Most people with no or less symphaties for collectors call them speculators and
money-hunters. That’s just not fair and testifies to jealousy. One can collect
things without having the $-signs in mind and I know many serious collectors who
wouldn’t ever call their collections an “investment”.
Plus: Since the early eighties, TLC forces the idea of a collectible. Once a
slogan for the Castle line was: “LEGO Burg. Zum Bauen, Spielen und Sammeln!”
Translation: “LEGO Castle. Build, Play and Collect!”
Leg Godt!
René
|
|
| |
Hello!
In lugnet.lego, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> I suspect it might be that its got new packaging and since its new
> packaging, its a new item in the lego databases (so that the new box
> printing is used instead of the old one) and therefore it needs a new set
> number.
I do not know the reason why the most recent crane got a new number, but I
suspect it's not due to the new packaging. Because: The new Millennium Falcon
4504 came in its first run in a blue standard box, the second run has a black,
more starwarsish box. Still the same number, though.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
Henrick & All,
Sweet! Yes, indeed, that would be cool to have a set like that come out.
I have that bookmarked now, do I even have enough of that blue to build it?
Hmmm.....
Scott S.
|
|
| |
Hi John!
> Is it unreasonable to expect that they
> will do what they say they are going to do?
This, In my not at all humbly opinion, is the core-question in this entire
thread. Unfortunately it seems the answer is "It is." (Not only in respect of
TLC but in respect of every public statement/promise/warranty/ect. these days,
but this is not .off-topic.debate.)
The second question is: Why does it bother nobody that the answer is "it is"?
Everybody seems just fine with it.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
Well, the combination of non-adherence to advertised values of the
product and the legal endowment to return an item for refund if it does
not match previously promised core properties could really lead to a
case here (IMHO, IANAL).
At the end of the Day, it is propably all down to the Good Thinking(TM)
that is happening in the upper levels of a certain company all day and
night.
The only downturn for me is that now the set returnd in that ugly
baby-blue (my opinion, nobody is forced to share this), chances for the
dark blue version (which I would have bought for the dark red and blue,
despite the bley in the set, which means a lot!) are approaching zero.
Whatever you do, wether you bought ist or not, Lego managed to kick you
right into the face. Again. And don't come again telling me that I am oh
so negative of Lego. Events like this really leave no choice.
Yours, Christian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Well, the combination of non-adherence to advertised values of the
> product and the legal endowment to return an item for refund if it does
> not match previously promised core properties could really lead to a
> case here (IMHO, IANAL).
>
> At the end of the Day, it is propably all down to the Good Thinking(TM)
> that is happening in the upper levels of a certain company all day and
> night.
>
> The only downturn for me is that now the set returnd in that ugly
> baby-blue (my opinion, nobody is forced to share this), chances for the
> dark blue version (which I would have bought for the dark red and blue,
> despite the bley in the set, which means a lot!) are approaching zero.
>
> Whatever you do, wether you bought ist or not, Lego managed to kick you
> right into the face. Again. And don't come again telling me that I am oh
> so negative of Lego. Events like this really leave no choice.
>
> Yours, Christian
I wonder if the car companies go thru this when they released the PT Cruiser or
the (hopefully upcoming) Dodge Charger
"You promised me that this was the last model year of this vehicle!! I invested
all my money into it and now, 20+ years later, you re-released it!! All my
money was for naught!!"
For the love of all things--I'm fast approaching 0 sympathy for those folks that
buy LEGO sets just for the sake that 'someday' the sets'll be worth more.
My uncle collects stamps. He loves 'em. That said, he doens't get his knockers
in a bunch if stamps get re-released--it's part and parcel for collecting.
I hope to high heaven that LEGO re-releases the Galaxy Explorer and any other
set that some folks who still have dozens MSIB so they can watch the "collector
value" plummet.
TLC is not here to make your 'collector' lives easier. They are here to make a
fine quality product for kids and adults that still appreciate the fine quality
product.
Again I say, if you're so upset by what is probably a sound business decision fo
the company, but not a sound business decision for whiny collectors who have
little respect for the product beyond the market value of 'collector sets', then
stop with the LEGO already.
This also factors into those that really hate the colour change as well--"I've
invested hundreds (or thousands) of dollars into collecting 'old grey' and now
that collection is worthless!!" If you can't find the real worth in hundreds or
thousands of dollars worth of previously purchased LEGO bricks, no matter what
the company does today or in the future, then you obviously have missed the
point of LEGO in the first place.
Since I've actually started keeping track of my LEGO purchases in 1999, I've
'invested' more than $10,000.00 into my LEGO collection (small by some standards
of those around me), and i'm not including the bricks I've acquired from 1969
thru to 1999. My LEGO collection, to me, is worth far in excess of what I
bought 'em for 'cause of the hours and days and months and years of me creating,
building, hhaving fun, talking with buddies, doing shows, whatever. As far as
hobbies go, it's one of the best that I've ever partaken in, and, even if the
company folds tomorrow, my collection will keep me happy for the rest of my
life--37 years of proven happiness so far and there's nothing that TLC can do
that can take that away from me.
Life's too short to dwell on things that make you unhappy.
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
| |
Hi all,
1)
I would like to mention a fact to this issue, which might help to understand
the annoyance of nearly all German AFOLs (here on LUGNET and on 1000steine.de
(see: http://f24.parsimony.net/forum61776/messages/92392.htm).
In Germany, the set was actually announced as limited. The official
announcement of LEGO Direct (Jan Beyer) is here:
http://f24.parsimony.net/forum61776/messages/82404.htm
There’s the sentence: “Die Auflage dieses Sets ist ebenfalls begrenzt, es
gibt insgesamt 14.000 Stck.” Translation: “The edition of this set is
likewise limited, there is a total of 14,000 copies”
As you can see, there’s is a significant difference between the translated
sentence and how Jake announced the set (“This is a small run too - only
14,000 total”)
2)
The set was sold at SaH Germany saying “Dieses ist deine letzte Chance
Maersk blaue Steine zu kaufen”. Translation: “This is your last chance to
buy Maersk blue bricks”
|
Guten Tag, Rene! Hope fatherhood is treating you well:^D
Thanks for bringing this into the discussion. It seems this information makes
the case a little stronger against TLC. It’s simply reckless and dishonest to
advertise in this manner, IMO. And it is clearly aimed to induce sales, and a
false sense of urgency at that. Even if they claimed, “Better hurry, this could
be the last run of Maersk blue EVER!”, they wouldn’t be lying, but it’s tacky at
best, beneath the dignity of a company like LEGO.
I understand that things change. Fine. But I believe TLC should step up to the
plate in the following ways in light of that change:
- Change the number of the second run of ships. This would protect collectors who bought the sets to keep as MISB.
- For a limited time, offer to buy back any 10052s already sold. Personally, I think someone would be crazy to take them up on their offer and I doubt a meaningful number actually would, but it would be an honest and sincere gesture.
- Admit that they misled the public and hope that 1 & 2 rectify the situation.
That to me seems reasonable.
Look, people, in the long run, this isn’t about whether my or anyone else’s
precious collectible will appreciate or not; it is about LEGO preserving their
integrity. Isn’t that what is most important?
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> my collection will keep me happy for the rest of my
> life--37 years of proven happiness so far and there's nothing that TLC can do
> that can take that away from me.
David, what you're telling us with so many words is that you're happy with your
existing collection so that you actually don't have to care what TLG does or
does not. That's ok. Nothing wrong with being a happy AFOL dwelling in the past.
37 years of LEGO-happyness are fine, but life goes on. For others here, at
least. And the direction TLG has taken recently is a valid reason to be
concerned for everybody WHO CARES. Complaints about "broken promises" are indeed
misleading. However, your grandfather's LEGO-memories are appreciated, but I'd
rather debate facts. I mean facts like questionable marketing decisions.
"Primus" Burkhard
http://www.BrickCommander.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Well, the combination of non-adherence to advertised values of the
> product and the legal endowment to return an item for refund if it does
> not match previously promised core properties could really lead to a
> case here (IMHO, IANAL).
What constitutes actual advertising versus an employee stating something
incorrectly? Was the phrasing of the post on 1000steine run by Lego's legal
department, just as a paid advertisement would be? If they had instead said
"This MIGHT be your last chance to buy Maersk blue", would that change your mind
100%? Or, if after saying that the last run was limited, that there were
currently no plans to do another run, hence implying that there COULD be plans
in the future for another one?
> At the end of the Day, it is propably all down to the Good Thinking(TM)
> that is happening in the upper levels of a certain company all day and
> night.
I'll say! They're trying to save money, and rather than go through their
existing stock of ABS dark-blue, they got someone else to buy it for them!
Awesome! At the same time, fans will be happy to get more Maersk blue! Awesome!
Maybe some will be dissapointed that there's no dark-blue set coming out
(although they could still decide to make that set). Oh well. Overall: Awesome.
> The only downturn for me is that now the set returnd in that ugly
> baby-blue (my opinion, nobody is forced to share this), chances for the
> dark blue version (which I would have bought for the dark red and blue,
> despite the bley in the set, which means a lot!) are approaching zero.
See, this is the sort of attitude that I just don't get. Lego doesn't have to
tell us ANYTHING. THOUSANDS of decisions like this go on daily at Lego, which
would create THOUSANDS of depressed AFOLs at hearing their favorite ideas get
cancelled and turned down. What if they had been planning to re-release a
classic space set, but had later decided against it? People like you would be
FURIOUS to hear that. But what if they never told us that that's what they were
planning? They'd be more-or-less content. Certainly not screaming.
Having communication with Lego means hearing about decisions that later change.
Insider info that we're privilaged enough to get. Would you prefer it if Lego
just shut up and didn't tell us anything?
> Whatever you do, wether you bought ist or not, Lego managed to kick you
> right into the face. Again. And don't come again telling me that I am oh
> so negative of Lego. Events like this really leave no choice.
No choice? Then how is it that I'm happy to hear the news, whereas you're
ridiculously angry? I'd say there's a choice. You just decide to focus on the
negative for whatever reason.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
<snip>
| |
“You promised me that this was the last model year of this vehicle!! I
invested all my money into it and now, 20+ years later, you re-released it!!
All my money was for naught!!”
|
If they indeed said, “we will never produce this vehicle again” and they went
ahead any way, you are okay with that???
Maybe this is a Liberal thing. It reminds me of a college professor who ran for
a US senate seat on a platform that he wanted to go to Washington DC for 6 years
(one term) and do his thing.
When his term was up, he was reluctant to not run again, and so he did, but
promising that this for sure was his last term as senator!
He got reelected, but then as his second term was coming to an end, he believed
that his presence in Washington was too important and decided to break his
promise and run for a third term. I’ll stop here and ask you. Do you think
he should have run a third time, even though he promised openly during his
second campaign that this was to be his last term? I’m betting not, because
many Liberals in my state saw nothing wrong with it.
As a footnote: apparently God Himself had a problem with it and decided to
make an honest man out of him after all, because less than a week before the
election the Senator and his wife were killed in a small airplane crash while
doing some last minute campaigning. So it really was his last term afterall....
I strayed OT and will set FU there, but won’t respond in OT forums.
And BTW, that senator was the infamous Paul Wellstone.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
| |
Well, the combination of non-adherence to advertised values of the
product and the legal endowment to return an item for refund if it does
not match previously promised core properties could really lead to a
case here (IMHO, IANAL).
|
What constitutes actual advertising versus an employee stating something
incorrectly?
|
It was correct, until TLC decided to make it incorrect by consciously changing
their mind.
| |
Was the phrasing of the post on 1000steine run by Lego’s legal
department, just as a paid advertisement would be? If they had instead said
“This MIGHT be your last chance to buy Maersk blue”, would that change your
mind 100%?
|
I think so. Then we would have recognized it as the typical BS advert hype
which we all know to ignore.
| |
Or, if after saying that the last run was limited, that there were
currently no plans to do another run, hence implying that there COULD be plans
in the future for another one?
|
Are you by chance a lawyer, Dave? If not, maybe you have the mind to become
one;-)
| |
| |
At the end of the Day, it is propably all down to the Good Thinking(TM)
that is happening in the upper levels of a certain company all day and
night.
|
I’ll say! They’re trying to save money, and rather than go through their
existing stock of ABS dark-blue, they got someone else to buy it for them!
Awesome! At the same time, fans will be happy to get more Maersk blue!
Awesome! Maybe some will be dissapointed that there’s no dark-blue set coming
out (although they could still decide to make that set). Oh well. Overall:
Awesome.
|
You forgot: Can’t trust anything they say-- Brutal.
| |
| |
The only downturn for me is that now the set returnd in that ugly
baby-blue (my opinion, nobody is forced to share this), chances for the
dark blue version (which I would have bought for the dark red and blue,
despite the bley in the set, which means a lot!) are approaching zero.
|
See, this is the sort of attitude that I just don’t get. Lego doesn’t have to
tell us ANYTHING. THOUSANDS of decisions like this go on daily at Lego, which
would create THOUSANDS of depressed AFOLs at hearing their favorite ideas get
cancelled and turned down. What if they had been planning to re-release a
classic space set, but had later decided against it? People like you would be
FURIOUS to hear that. But what if they never told us that that’s what they
were planning? They’d be more-or-less content. Certainly not screaming.
|
Fine. So don’t say “it’s limited”, or “last chance to get Maersk blue” or “the
winner is dark blue, the next color of the 10052”. I would rather they DIDN”T
SAY ANYTHING than say things that may or may not be true!
| |
Having communication with Lego means hearing about decisions that later
change.
|
Then they should say that! “This might be the last chance to get Maersk blue
because we have no more Maersk blue pellets left and no plans to create more!”
| |
Insider info that we’re privilaged enough to get. Would you prefer it if Lego
just shut up and didn’t tell us anything?
|
BINGO. Just the facts. And no deceptions. Is that too much to expect?
JOHN
|
|
| |
John wrote:
> Look, people, in the long run, this isn't about whether my or anyone
> else's precious collectible will appreciate or not; it is about LEGO
> preserving their integrity. Isn't that what is most important?
What's the use of integrity, if they go broke?
Lego is a company, companies must generate profit or they will disappear,
sales (mostly) generate profit ==> Lego should sell things. As many as they
can. Not create artificial 'limited editions'. Period.
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> For the love of all things--I'm fast approaching 0 sympathy for those folks that
> buy LEGO sets just for the sake that 'someday' the sets'll be worth more.
I got to 0 already because I keep getting this picture in my head:
[comic book guy]
Oh my gosh! The release will reduce the collectibility of my sets from 5 of
14000 to 5 of 2x000! I must go to the internet and complain!
[/comic book guy]
every time I see the new word "collectibility"... Come on shouldn't the (C)2005
on the new release preserve the "collectibility" of the (C)2004 sets? :D
To me the limited nature of the ship is what kept me from buying a single one.
I like the design and the pieces selection, but I have no interest collecting a
colour which will certainly die. The limited number of available piece would
make using that colour in MOC rather difficult, and I have enough sorting
headache with blays and more orange+brown than on a pH paper.
The real bad news is the dark blue version may become unavailable.
> Again I say, if you're so upset by what is probably a sound business decision fo
> the company, but not a sound business decision for whiny collectors who have
> little respect for the product beyond the market value of 'collector sets', then
> stop with the LEGO already.
Or they can suck it up like Gundam and transformer fans and hoard the re-colours
and re-issues over and over. :p
Since they have to re-print the box anyway, I would suggest LEGO put new photos
on the new box to make those rabid collectors happy.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
in Maersk blue.
|
Cool. I may have to squirrel away some cash to buy a few more.
| |
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
My apologies for the re-direction this project has taken, but hopefully it is
more good news than bad!
|
While I think more Maersk blue is good, I’m bummed at the news that the dark
blue may not happen. Even though I voted for the dark green, I still was looking
forward to seeing more dark blue on the market. Please forward on that us AFOLs
are still eager to buy up some of these in dark blue, whenever (if) they come
out. Thanks for the update/news.
Jason Spears | BrickCentral | MichLUG | CLB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
Then they should say that! “This might be the last chance to get Maersk blue
because we have no more Maersk blue pellets left and no plans to create
more!”
|
Uh, John. That *is* what Jake said. Well, he certainly didn’t say claim
anything *stronger* than that -- actually, what he said was more low key, if
anything.
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
[snippage]
> 37 years of LEGO-happyness are fine, but life goes on. For others here, at
> least. And the direction TLG has taken recently is a valid reason to be
> concerned for everybody WHO CARES. Complaints about "broken promises" are indeed
> misleading. However, your grandfather's LEGO-memories are appreciated, but I'd
> rather debate facts. I mean facts like questionable marketing decisions.
>
> "Primus" Burkhard
> http://www.BrickCommander.com
Okay, this is the first responce that made me LOL in this whole thread. What you
are saying is so "George Double-You" that it is almost too good :-)
So either we complain about every single thing TLC does or we don't CARE?
How about all the fans that are happy with this chance to get a Maersk Ship at
normal cost instead of those blown-up ripp-off prices one sees at eVILbay? Don't
they CARE? And those people that are glad that the fans mentioned now have this
chance, don't they CARE?
I'm sorry while I whipe the milk from my keyboard...
And about those "questionable marketing decisions"... do WE (LUGNET people) know
all the facts? Do we know the details about the deal between TLC (struggling to
stay afloat) and Maersk (has knowledge about staying afloat AND is willing to
move money towards TLC) ? If by "questionable", you mean these (kind of)
questions, I agree. But somehow, I get this feeling that you do not mean that.
As we say in real life: "assumptions are the mothers of all <<**>> ups. Whoops,
almost lost my cool there. But there are little FACTS at this point and I doubt
that Jake or anybody at TLC will want to share facts. Don't forget that their
competitors have internet access too.
But seriously, the set is still a great model, it still has Maersk-blue in it
and it still is great value for money. And to all those people that were
planning to make profits with this set: bah!
I only hope that the Dark [blue/green/pink] one gets released as well.
/\/\ark "complaints about broken promises are misleading ???" de Kock
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > my collection will keep me happy for the rest of my
> > life--37 years of proven happiness so far and there's nothing that TLC can do
> > that can take that away from me.
>
> David, what you're telling us with so many words is that you're happy with your
> existing collection so that you actually don't have to care what TLG does or
> does not. That's ok. Nothing wrong with being a happy AFOL dwelling in the past.
>
> 37 years of LEGO-happyness are fine, but life goes on. For others here, at
> least. And the direction TLG has taken recently is a valid reason to be
> concerned for everybody WHO CARES. Complaints about "broken promises" are indeed
> misleading. However, your grandfather's LEGO-memories are appreciated, but I'd
> rather debate facts. I mean facts like questionable marketing decisions.
>
> "Primus" Burkhard
> http://www.BrickCommander.com
I care. I think I've stated that numerous times--I care so much that I let Jake
know he's doing a great job at being a liason. I care so much that I'm spending
more now on LEGO products than I did before. I care to the point where I do
shows and displays to show off what can be done with LEGO bricks to get otehr
people interested in the hobby.
There's caring, and then there's obsessive behaviour. And people who start
talking about litigation because LEGO decided to bring back a popular set are
obsessed and need to take a step back from the hobby and get some perspective.
If TLC's still in the toy brick building business, after all these so-called
'questionable decisions', then it's obvious that they're doing something right
and maybe it's time for the naysayers to sit down and shut up.
Take, for example, the wonderful 'debate' when Bionicle first made the scene.
"Questionable business decision" according to many AFOL's. Well, I think that
TLC was far too polite. I would have said to all the "adults" who were
admonishing the company, "You can eat crow now".
It's a business. Thankfully TLC's a business that hired a liason to the AFOL's
out there. They didn't have to but they did. And they sometimes 'let us in' on
what may happen. Someone makes a decision--"Let's get rid of all our Maersk
pellets by giving to the AFOL community a really cool set!" (and it is a really
cool set!). Then Maersk approaches them "You know what might be neat? Another
cool Maersk set!" What did you want TLC to do? Say to Maersk, "Well, we stated
to the AFOL community that we wouldn't make any other Maersk blue sets, sorry,
can't take on this (probably) multi-million dollar deal."???? Yeah, that's a
great business decision. The decisions "We're doing a final run of Maersk to
get rid of pellets" vs a few months later "We're entering into a new deal with
Maersk" are both perfectly legitimate ones.
Dave K
-Kosh quote--"The avalanche has started--it's too late for the pebbles to vote"
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Anders Isaksson wrote:
| |
John wrote:
| |
Look, people, in the long run, this isn’t about whether my or anyone
else’s precious collectible will appreciate or not; it is about LEGO
preserving their integrity. Isn’t that what is most important?
|
What’s the use of integrity, if they go broke?
Lego is a company, companies must generate profit or they will disappear,
|
Are you implying that profitability and integrity are mutually exclusive? I
hope not.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
Then they should say that! “This might be the last chance to get Maersk
blue because we have no more Maersk blue pellets left and no plans to create
more!”
|
Uh, John. That *is* what Jake said. Well, he certainly didn’t say claim
anything *stronger* than that -- actually, what he said was more low key, if
anything.
|
That’s not how I took it. But look at the way it was explained to the Germans
via their liason (thanks to Rene’s post):
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=2943
Doesn’t get more clear than that IMO.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
Then they should say that! “This might be the last chance to get Maersk
blue because we have no more Maersk blue pellets left and no plans to
create more!”
|
Uh, John. That *is* what Jake said. Well, he certainly didn’t say claim
anything *stronger* than that -- actually, what he said was more low key, if
anything.
|
That’s not how I took it. But look at the way it was explained to the
Germans via their liason (thanks to Rene’s post):
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=2943
Doesn’t get more clear than that IMO.
JOHN
|
What is even more clear is that, at the time, TLC stated ‘we have such-n-such
quantity of Maersk Blue in stock and want to do something with it. Since, at
htis time, we don’t have a contract with Maersk for anything, we’ll get rid of
our stock and that’ll be it’
But why should that negate future business dealings that may arise with Maersk?
Because TLC stated that “We’re getting rid of excess and since we don’t have a
contract, this’ll be it?” I’d say that TLC is fully within their rights as a
company to enter into contracts with any company they feel like having dealings
with. At the time, no contract with Maersk so “this is it guys, buy ‘em while
you can!” That stated, even explicitly as shown here, does not negate future
contracts with Maersk and future pieces of Maersk Blue.
No one in TLC has a crystal ball. Come on, you know better than to ask for that
kind of assurance--you don’t get that from any other company so why are you
looking for it from TLC?
Differentiate from business decisions made ‘at the time’ and hindsight.
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> > Is it unreasonable to expect that they
> > will do what they say they are going to do?
>
> This, In my not at all humbly opinion, is the core-question in this entire
> thread. Unfortunately it seems the answer is "It is."
Actually, the core question is more directly this: Should LEGO customers feel
entitled to tell LEGO how to conduct their business? Unfortunately, several
people here believe they do feel so entitled, by doing LEGO the favor of
purchasing their product(s).
> The second question is: Why does it bother nobody that the answer is "it is"?
> Everybody seems just fine with it.
It seems there is an expectation mismatch. LEGO sold a set. But it seems some
people bought the set along with what they considered an implication of future
services from LEGO (specifically, to maximize future value of that set).
My suggestion for everyone who feels they deserve more from LEGO on this matter:
call LEGO, ask them to provide that service promise. In writing.
{Kelly}
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
> The estimated launch date for the next run of the 10152 is late spring/early
> summer. We're still working on finalizing this, and I'll update you as soon
> as I can.
Excellent, I look forward to getting a copy of this set (I hadn't heard about it
until this posting).
(Speaking, I guess, as a Lego collector: I don't collect based on whether
something is rare or not, but on whether I like the model. My desire to own a
7740 is not related to how rare it is, although the practical question of
whether I *will* own one certainly is - and on that front, I wish they were a
lot more common.)
I hope you don't take all the negative comments too hard. Lego is communicating
with its customers in a much more direct, honest & open way than companies
traditionally have, and I for one really appreciate it.
--
Jacob Davies
jacob@well.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jacob Davies wrote:
<snip>
> I hope you don't take all the negative comments too hard. Lego is communicating
> with its customers in a much more direct, honest & open way than companies
> traditionally have, and I for one really appreciate it.
Second this sentiment
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> Actually, the core question is more directly this: Should LEGO customers feel
> entitled to tell LEGO how to conduct their business? Unfortunately, several
> people here believe they do feel so entitled,
Oh dear. You are really stubborn, Kelly, as well as persistent in seeing things
from upside down.
Imagine, just for a moment, somebody tells you one thing, then does the exact
opposite. You're following so far? Great. So, wouldn't you be annoyed and maybe
let this person know about your unhappiness?
NO?
Well, this seems to be YOUR core problem then.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> > Actually, the core question is more directly this: Should LEGO customers feel
> > entitled to tell LEGO how to conduct their business? Unfortunately, several
> > people here believe they do feel so entitled,
>
> Oh dear. You are really stubborn, Kelly, as well as persistent in seeing things
> from upside down.
> Imagine, just for a moment, somebody tells you one thing, then does the exact
> opposite. You're following so far? Great. So, wouldn't you be annoyed and maybe
> let this person know about your unhappiness?
>
> NO?
>
> Well, this seems to be YOUR core problem then.
The issue is not TLC did 'exactly the opposite' of what they said, they made
sound business decisions based on all available information at the time.
So, in my humble opinion, it's your flawed analysis of the situation that's
cause for concern, not TLC's business practices.
But, as shown on LUGNET, some AFOL's would rather rant, rave, obfuscate, and
spin what actually happened into an "I Hate TLC!" issue.
As for my persistence of 'staying the course' on this subject, I'm starting to
believe that the truth needs to get out there. Bad things happen when good
people stay home and keep their mouths shut.
Dave K
-sometimes a rumour will get halfway 'round the world before the truth can even
get his or her running shoes on.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> > Actually, the core question is more directly this: Should LEGO customers feel
> > entitled to tell LEGO how to conduct their business? Unfortunately, several
> > people here believe they do feel so entitled,
>
> Oh dear. You are really stubborn, Kelly, as well as persistent in seeing things
> from upside down.
I agree that some here are stubborn and some here are seeing things all topsy
turvy, yes. Where I differ with you, though, is in the identification of which
group of people that appelation belongs to, and which group it doesn't belong
to. We may have to agree to disagree though, as I'm not sure that reason or
logic is likely to change your mind.
That said... I'd like to pose a thought starter question to everyone...
Has everyone said everything they want to say about this topic? Are there any
new ideas or new arguments in need of being made?
If you, dear reader, think that you don't have any new ideas to add, or new
arguments to make, because you can see that they've all been satisfactorily
made, consider using the link that takes you to the next post, rather than the
link that starts a reply.
Just a thought.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark de Kock wrote:
> Okay, this is the first responce that made me LOL in this whole thread. What you
> are saying is so "George Double-You" that it is almost too good :-)
> So either we complain about every single thing TLC does or we don't CARE?
> How about all the fans that are happy with this chance to get a Maersk Ship at
> normal cost instead of those blown-up ripp-off prices one sees at eVILbay?
I'm glad I could be of service. ;)
But I'm afraid you're mixing up so many things I really don't wish to sort it
out for you. And better never, ever mention George Doubble-You to "Old
Europeans" like me ...
> I'm sorry while I whipe the milk from my keyboard...
Try something stronger than milk then. Helps to clear your vision for the bigger
picture, instead of just being happy for the chance to grab your copy of 10152
eventually. Diet Coke maybe?
> And about those "questionable marketing decisions"... do WE (LUGNET people) know
> all the facts? Do we know the details about the deal between TLC (struggling to
> stay afloat)
I'm talking about the facts I have, naturally. And in this case everything seems
pretty clear. How much more facts do you need?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
That said... I’d like to pose a thought starter question to everyone...
Has everyone said everything they want to say about this topic? Are there any
new ideas or new arguments in need of being made?
If you, dear reader, think that you don’t have any new ideas to add, or new
arguments to make, because you can see that they’ve all been satisfactorily
made, consider using the link that takes you to the next post, rather than the
link that starts a reply.
Just a thought.
|
Thank You, Larry. I hate to add one more post to this thread, but feel the
need. I totally agree with what you say about everyone just stopping.
But, I think this thread is a real eye-opener as to the nature of this
community. Is this really where we’ve come? Is this the pinnacle of our
achievement? When Jake and TLG swing a deal that benefits us in making brick
available, we don’t thank, we don’t put in creative (both positive and negative)
input for more than two or three posts before the discussion turns to insults,
back-biting, ripping, tearing and slander.
“So-and-so lied” or “You’re upside down” come spouting from thread after thread
on LUGNET these days, so much so that not only do I now lurk, but I refrain from
reading posts for upwards of weeks because I can’t put up with how much you
people hate each other. What causes this hate? Go on, think about the answer.
Emotions over a children’s toy, an insturment of joy that the AFOL community has
transformed into an insturment to channel hatred and frustration at each other.
I was upset as the next person over the color change. Did I chew on someone’s
head because of it? No. If I were upset with the Maersk situation, would I
perform the Internet equivolent of flinging poo at their face in a great monkey
war? No.
This may be a children’s toy that we all so love, but there is no need to act as
if we’re 3rd graders on the playground duking it out over it.
This community really needs to stop hating itself, or I fear it will self
destruct pretty soon.
-John Rudy
For reference, Jake’s original announcement and his new one:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=2879
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I agree that some here are stubborn and some here are seeing things all topsy
> turvy, yes. Where I differ with you, though, is in the identification of which
> group of people that appelation belongs to, and which group it doesn't belong
> to. We may have to agree to disagree though, as I'm not sure that reason or
> logic is likely to change your mind.
Ooooh, you'd be surprised, Larry! Actually I would happily share your point of
view - if I had a perfectly sound reason to do so. Say, about 80 bucks burning a
hole in my pocket and an empty shelf that would perfectly fit a Maersk ship?
That would certainly help me see the wisdom in LEGO's doings* ;)
Have you actually read ANYTHING René Hoffmeister did post? And do you really
believe in shutting up and being happy with all the, say, at least debate-worthy
decisions coming from TLG?
*) beware of irony
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
What constitutes actual advertising versus an employee stating something
incorrectly?
|
It was correct, until TLC decided to make it incorrect by consciously
changing their mind.
| |
Was the phrasing of the post on 1000steine run by Lego’s legal
department, just as a paid advertisement would be? If they had instead said
“This MIGHT be your last chance to buy Maersk blue”, would that change your
mind 100%?
|
I think so. Then we would have recognized it as the typical BS advert hype
which we all know to ignore.
| |
Or, if after saying that the last run was limited, that there were
currently no plans to do another run, hence implying that there COULD be
plans in the future for another one?
|
Are you by chance a lawyer, Dave? If not, maybe you have the mind to become
one;-)
|
Perhaps I just read all statements from Lego as possibles, whereas others read
them as 100% definites. Let’s look at Jake’s post:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
| |
As many of you have seen from the leaked pictures online, we have released a >
new set: 10152 – Maersk Container Ship.
|
Interpretation: Fact. It’s been released at that point.
| |
To clarify, this set will be available through Shop At Home in both Europe
and North America.
|
Interpretion: Not fact. Projection. If portions of the warehouses blew up, the
set was recalled, Maersk changed their mind on licensing and pulled the set, or
some other catastrophe happened, the set WOULD NOT have been available through
S@H Europe or NA.
| |
The sets are on their way to North America, and we should beginning shipping
them in late June.
|
Interpretation: Fact. The sets ARE on their way. Whether or not they make it IS
in fact questionable. “... we should beginning shipping ...” (skipping the
grammar) Also fact. They SHOULD have. And they did. But also potentially
incorrect in the event of a calamity or drastic change in policy.
| |
They are currently available in Europe.
|
Fact. Whether this is via S@H isn’t clear, but they ARE available.
| |
I do know, however, that there will be 5 set limit per customer on this set
(Troy, are you listening? J). Why you ask?
|
Interpretation: Not fact. Verifying this limit is very difficult (in fact, we
strongly suspect it was incorrect, due to at least one seller who claimed to
have obtained hundreds), and at the time was simply projected. The limit may
have been upped for various reasons. For example, if the set didn’t sell well,
limit may have been increased to 10 or have been unlimited.
| |
This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue!
|
Fact.
| |
In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have
left.
|
Fact.
| |
That means that there is literally no Maersk blue ABS left.
|
Fact.
| |
Even the parks can no longer get Maersk blue.
|
Interpretation: Quasi fact. Parks “can not” get Maersk blue, but may be able to
get it someday, if Maersk decides to do another promo with Lego (which
happened).
| |
This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At
Home.
|
Interpretation: Quasi fact. While I expect these numbers were accurate to with
95%, it’s possible that in the process, some were bought by employees or given
as gifts here and there, and that probably the run was not EXACTLY 14,000.
ANYTHING regarding the future I would expect to regard as a conditional.
Anything difficult to enforce or to get precise numbers on, conditional.
Anything easily verifiable and in the past? Fact.
| |
You forgot: Can’t trust anything they say-- Brutal.
|
True. I don’t. The difference I guess is that I don’t get in a huff when Lego
changes its mind. If it’s a bad decision (like, if they had said long ago that
grey would never change), I’ll voice my objection to that decision, but whether
or not they lied is different.
The fact is, they didn’t lie. At the time, it was the truth. But the future
didn’t meet with their expectations. I’m willing to forgive them. Certainly on
something like this. Now, if instead we heard that dark grey really WAS changed
to save money, and that they TOLD us otherwise, even KNOWING the truth? That’s a
lie I would resent.
| |
Fine. So don’t say “it’s limited”, or “last chance to get Maersk blue” or
“the winner is dark blue, the next color of the 10052”. I would rather they
DIDN”T SAY ANYTHING than say things that may or may not be true!
|
That’s true insofar as I’d rather they said things as though they were
projections rather than facts, but I’d also recommend that you take their
‘facts’ with a grain of salt and a dose of common sense. IE, saying a set will
be available at S@H? 99% probable. A set will never be released again? 75%
probable. New colors will never be changed back? 95% probable. Or whatever. Some
things are surer than others. But they all have an element of chance until
they’ve actually happened.
| |
BINGO. Just the facts. And no deceptions. Is that too much to expect?
|
I think so. The only way to get around that would be to replace the current
community liasons with lawyers. Good ones. No communication with the outside
world until it’s been given careful scrutiny, as few details as possible,
listing everything, even almost definite assurances, as though they were only
50% likely to avoid legal liability at all costs.
I’d rather keep Jake.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Has everyone said everything they want to say about this topic? Are there any
new ideas or new arguments in need of being made?
|
You’re right Larry, this is a perfect point to stop, as the thread has devolved
from relatively restrained (albeit heated) to snotty. The reaction of the
community to this issue is certainly something to think about. I’ll bow out now
and move onto more constructive discussions.
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John M. Rudy wrote:
| |
I think this thread is a real eye-opener as to the nature of this
community. Is this really where we’ve come
|
Oh come on now! What’s wrong with a civilized, lively debate? That’s what Lugnet
is for, beside listening to wonderful news coming to us occasionally from THE
MOUTH OF LEGO (imagine raving orcish minifig hordes in the background ...)*
Agreed, finally there always comes a point when everything’s said and done and
everybody should move on ... However, your worries about the nature of this
community are exaggerated. Just check the names of the most stubborn posters.
John Neal, for example, pops up whereever you look. What keeps this debate going
on is the tendency of some people to ignore facts and feel entitled to be
totally indifferent or liberal, while at the same time being totally upset about
others who have issues with beloved TLC. At that point we’re not dealing with
toys anymore, but with positions, and sometimes things can turn ugly.
But so far this 10152-debate looks ok to me, from the peacekeeping point of view
at least. It even gets lurkers out from under their rocks who would never ever
deliberately post about anything ... ;)
- watch the extended DVD edition of The Return of the King ....
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
Dear René,
thanks for bringing these postings into the debate. Facts are: LEGO gave a
promise and broke it (because they think they can generate profit out of this
decision).
Fact number 2 is: lots of people do not care at all about this (and those are
often enough ok with bley and other controverse decisions as well) - as far as I
can see it.
Now I do wonder: WHAT EXACTELY has TLC to do to make these people criticize the
companies decisions? Change to metric system and make the brick size 1 cm
instead of 0.8 cm?
This is a question I really have at the hard core fans of TLC: What could make
you unsure in your fanatic love to the company and their decisions?
I was not to happy about studless technic beams.
I was slighly fed up about doorless cars of town junior.
I am somewhat fed up about drastically decreased quality.
I am really fed up about bley.
I think galidor and Znap were flops.
I am fed up about the explanation given for bley.
I dislike the pigtone minifigs.
I disklike the too many tank-vehicles of the LEGO police.
I am fed up about lies (I see no difference between a broken promise and a lie).
Could be continued....
But more interesting: what would fed up YOU (especially if you are still a 100%
supporter of TLC)?!
Kind Regards,
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> TLC never said that this was a "limited edition" set.
> What they said is that they used all their maresk blue up to make the first
> run of however many sets and that once they were gone, al;l the maresk blue
> would be gone and they wouldnt be able to make any more.
>
> However, maresk has aggreed to pay for the new maresk blue in order for
> more maresk boats to be produced. This means that TLC now has more maresk
> blue ABS to use to produce more boats that they can sell on Shop @ Home.
>
> TLC never sais that the boat was a "limited edition".
> All they said is that this is as many boats as the amount of maresk blue
> ABS pellets we have allows us to produce.
> They now have more maresk blue, ergo they are in a position to produce and
> sell more boats.
I agree with you Jonathan.
Anyone who buys Lego as an investment should look elsewhere to invest. I own 10
copies of 6390 Main Street. Then 20 years later they re-release it. Was I mad?
No, TLG never said that old sets would not be re-released. Besides I purchased
them not to collect dust in some corner, but to build with the parts. In fact
investor type people have a tendancy to ruin hobbies. Just look at sports
trading cards.
Lego is a Hobby, not an investment portfolio item.
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> But more interesting: what would fed up YOU (especially if you are still a 100%
> supporter of TLC)?!
To be honest, I could care less about what the company does. This is a hobby for me. What this means is that I refuse to let anything LEGO stress me out. In other words, I'll praise the company when they do something I like and ignore everything else. Simply because everything I say about TLC is positive does not mean that I believe the company can do no wrong, I just choose to disregard those things that they do wrong since thay have no relevence to me. I've got plenty of brick.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
>
> Dear René,
>
> thanks for bringing these postings into the debate. Facts are: LEGO gave a
> promise and broke it (because they think they can generate profit out of this
> decision).
>
> Fact number 2 is: lots of people do not care at all about this (and those are
> often enough ok with bley and other controverse decisions as well) - as far as I
> can see it.
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ben
Fact # 1: I have yet to see anyone produce the "PROMISE" that TLC gave.
Fact # 2: I am one of those who IS very upset with the change to the colors. I
have not spent one penny on new sets, nor will I any time soon.
Old sets and parts will be available at reasonable prices(I hope) for some time
to come.
As for being fed up, I am fed up with the discontinuation of "old grays". I am
fed up with everyone who thinks that this is an investment hobby. It is supposed
to be fun damn it. Everyone who has old MISB sets in the closet, go open them
and use the parts for something. Build with it instead of letting it rot on a
shelf. If you want to invest, I have 2 words for you. "STOCK MARKET"
LISTEN TO YOURSELVES. I can't believe how twisted this has become. TLC is in
business to make money. Kudos to them for taking Mearsk's money and turning a
profit with it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Just like I don't buy
anything with the new grays.
I have my flame retardent suit on, so let the flaming begin.
Steven Weiser
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ronald Borchert wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
>
> > The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
> > this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
> > in Maersk blue.
>
> For all collectors who trusted your words of a "Limited Edition" of this set and
> bought it by thinking having a real rare and collectible set with the ever last
> bricks in maersk blue this announcement is a kick in their ass.
> One more fact not to trust the words of TLC.
I think it's incredible that LEGO gives any attention to AFOL's at all. Now you
want them to give special attention to the minority who are collectors? You
don't ask much, do you?
It's great that LEGO has made this set available again. And it's too damn bad
if it kept you from making a profit off it. If all you see in a new LEGO set is
how much money you can make by stashing it away only to sell later, then you are
a leech, not an AFOL.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote:
... While on the other
| |
hand “limited release” and “maersk blue” were clearly meant to catch the
attention of collectors. And so they did. But by revoking the limitation they
(TLC) will betray the collectors of an essential factor that made them buy
this set.
By the way, I’m speaking here in my capacity as collector, not as a dealer.
Not that that should matter at all...
|
I applaud any effort by TLC to spoil the efforts of speculators to profit from
the scarcity of a set.
I wish they would rerelease monorail, Classic Space, and a bunch of other
“collectible” things so people who want to build with them actually can without
paying exhorbitant prices to such “collectors.”
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, William R. Ward wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ronald Borchert wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
> >
> > > The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
> > > this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the 10152
> > > in Maersk blue.
> >
> > For all collectors who trusted your words of a "Limited Edition" of this set and
> > bought it by thinking having a real rare and collectible set with the ever last
> > bricks in maersk blue this announcement is a kick in their ass.
> > One more fact not to trust the words of TLC.
>
> I think it's incredible that LEGO gives any attention to AFOL's at all. Now you
> want them to give special attention to the minority who are collectors? You
> don't ask much, do you?
>
> It's great that LEGO has made this set available again. And it's too damn bad
> if it kept you from making a profit off it. If all you see in a new LEGO set is
> how much money you can make by stashing it away only to sell later, then you are
> a leech, not an AFOL.
Amen, And thank you William, Another voice of reason.
Let the collectors cry all they want. As I said, Kudos to TLC for taking
Mearsk's money and making a profit. Oh, the collectors don't want that
happening. WELL TO DAMN BAD.
Steven Weiser
|
|
| |
"Bill Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:I91w7E.1yL8@lugnet.com...
> I think it's incredible that LEGO gives any attention to AFOL's at all. • Now you
> want them to give special attention to the minority who are collectors? • You
> don't ask much, do you?
Why is it incredible?
If LEGO was an airline, AFOLs would be the first class and business class
frequent flyers, who bring in the most money per mile (brick). So LEGO
ignores AFOLs at its peril.
That isn't to say that ordinary customers don't matter -- they certainly
do -- but they have different, lower expectations, and are largely
indifferent about brands. Take a typical soccer mom, for example; who's
picking up a tub of bricks at Wal-Mart for her kids for Christmas. She
doesn't care much if it says LEGO or MegaBlok, and will probably buy
whatever's cheapest. As long as the contents of the tub matches the
description, she's satisfied, and will never contact LEGO directly. She
would be an airline's typical coach class passenger, who buys tickets from
Expedia.com and pick whatever airline has the lowest fare.
|
|
| |
Why can't LEGO do both, and keep almost everyone happy? That is, LEGO gets
to re-release any set, as long as the box is physically different from the
original.
That way, sets remain collectible, but bricks don't.
"Bill Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:I91wGE.207w@lugnet.com...
> I wish they would rerelease monorail, Classic Space, and a bunch of other
> "collectible" things so people who want to build with them actually can • without
> paying exhorbitant prices to such "collectors."
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
Hello!
| |
I certainly won’t promise again! :)
|
You’d certainly be well advised not to. Everything you promise (in good
faith, no doubt) is in danger to be turned into a lie by TLC themselves.
| |
The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage of
this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the
10152 in Maersk blue.
|
Limited. Sure. Like the “limited” run that made us buy out the first run,
huh? How many collectors, do you think, bought this set because they were
hooked by the prospect of getting a rare and limited set?
Bye
Jojo
|
All this attitude does is tell Lego that when they make a cool set for a
corporate client, they are better off not offering it to the general public.
Luckily for the sane amongst us, the public in general doesn’t have this
attitude.
So the next time Maersk offers to buy pellets for a set, and the marketing
people as Jake, “Do you think AFOLs will buy this one?” 1 He might say, “nah
don’t waste SKU space or bother shipping it to the warehouses. Just make a
bunch for Maersk and be done with it. The AFOLs will just complain.”
More of a good thing is always better, and this is more of a good thing. And
Jake was so honest about the whole thing. Really, some people here must feel
like they’re married to Lego with how far they take the fan-company
relationship. I mean, Lego promised? They didn’t. I haven’t seen a
conversation about imaginary promises like this since I broke up with my psycho
girlfriend 10 years ago.
-Alfred
1 Like anyone ever asks that. If they do, its mostly because of Jake. :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> Even changing the number on the set
> would have the same effect of preserving the collectibility of the original
> run. • [snip]
> No, the problem isn't the blue bricks. I am {glad} that more Maersk blue
> bricks will be available via this second run. My problem is that the
> collectibility of an original run MISB 10052 has taken a severe hit due to
> some (however unintended) misdirection on the part of TLC.
John, I really don't understand this point. I mean that literally, I don't
understand. You may very well be right within this odd-sounding (to me)
corner of the collector world. But personally, I fail to see how a simple
set number change affects anything of the "collectibility". Maybe I just
don't understand at all what you mean by "collectibility". If the set is
materially identical, then the set number difference is no more than an
administrative change, and in my opinion, worthless as any kind of market
value differntiator, if that's what you're trying to assess.
Let me ask this: assuming you've already bought a 10152 because you
speculated it had some kind of monetary value beyond the normal, and they
issue this extra run under a different set number, which you say preserves
the "collectibility" somehow, would you feel that buying a copy from the
extra issue would have comparable "extra value" to the first one you bought?
Would it in fact have even more, because it comes from an even smaller lot
size and therefore is rarer? So following that through, if instead of using
set numbers, TLC instead serialized every box with a unique serial number,
but no set number at all, then would that make each one of those phenomenonly
valuable to you, and you would want to own every single one of them because
they are all so rare (or simply for world domination)? Maybe I'm missing it,
but I think this scenario shows the truth that set numbers are irrelevant
to "value".
A key point that some here (and it *appears* you are among them) seem to
miss and/or conveniently overlook is that none of these sets have any
intrinsic "value" at all. They start out initially with a retail price which
sets a basic *cost* to acquire. But their "value" is simply what most people
are willing to pay for them at any given time. Even retail that is often not
full price. In aftermarket, sometimes people want to pay more, each for their
own reasons. That is the only thing that establishes any kind of "value" that
you can point at. If you bought something because you perceived, for whatever
reason, that it would be limited in production, and now you are ticked that
it is not, then the only reason you would be griping about it *in regards
to value* is that you *speculated* that limited production would make other
people desire these sets more, that they would thus be willing to pay more
in order to obtain one, and should you decide to sell one that the price
you could obtain for it would therefore be higher, and thus that its
*theoretical* value while in your hands would therefore be higher. But again,
that *theoretical* value doesn't materialize until you actually sell it and
get that price.
The fact that the production quantity will not be as small
as you believed (regardless of why you believed that) simply means that you
*now speculate* that people will desire these sets less, that they would
thus not be willing to pay as much for one as before, and should you decide
to sell one that the price you could obtain for it would therefore be lower
than you originally thought, and thus that its *theoretical* value while
in your hands is now lower.
The point I hope I've made (if not to you, then to others following along
painfully at home) is that you were *speculating then*, and you are still
*speculating now*. The possible effects of set number changes is only
*further speculation*.
Ultimately, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else will be able to learn who,
if anyone, is correct about the effects this extra production run would have
on future aftermarket sale prices. They may very well have no effect at all.
But the difference between collectors like myself and speculators like
yourself is that I judge the "value" of the set based on what it is worth
to me, not on its potential resale value in the future, whereas you base it
(at least partly, and apparently, significantly so) on its potential resale
value in the future (to the puzzling point that set numbers are somehow more
important that set contents or production quantity). If those are our
respective worlds, then hey, we agree to disagree. But please at least accept
the fact that you *speculated* (regardless of reason), gambled on it, and
now *believe* that you've lost. Suck it up, I say, hopefully you'll do better
in the future..., not that it's possible to prove that you've actually done
*worse* on this occasion. :]
> What I am talking about is the value of an MISB set that was implied to be
> limited. Even if TLC makes a new run as they have stated they are going to
> do, they could still preserve the limitedness of the original run by simply
> changing the number on the set of the new run. Does that make sense?
No. ;]
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
> It is TLC's decision to accommodate Maersk, and, as I mentioned, I have no
> problem with that; in fact I welcome it. All I am trying to say is that TLC
> gave the impression that Maersk blue would no longer be available after it
> ran its course through the 10052 sets. That made the 10052 collectible,
> [based on that assertion, and that assertion alone].
To clarify: "collectibility", by your explanations, is based purely on your
own *speculation* (and others who share your thinking). TLC's "assertion"
(as you call it) had nothing whatsoever to do with making the set
"collectible", since, as you use the term, "collectibility" is purely
*speculation* of potential resale value. TLC doesn't make things
"collectible"..., you and I do. Just for differing reasons. ;]
> But my point is that people would never have had that expectation in the
> first place had [they not stated] that it was the end of the line for Maersk
> blue. So many people who bought that set did so believing that they were
> purchasing the last of the Maersk blue, possibly forever. So TLC decides to
> make more. Okay, fine, but at least acknowledge that many people may have
> purchased those 10052s with the idea that they would be valuable some day,
> [based on TLC's admission), and that they may have been misled.
They were misled only by themselves. Speculation is risky business. Believing
otherwise is misleading yourself.
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John M. Rudy wrote:
MAJOR SNIPAGE
| |
This community really needs to stop hating itself, or I fear it will self
destruct pretty soon.
-John Rudy
|
The problem doesn’t lie within the community it lies within the company. Proof
of this is that they are dumbfounded as to why with all of their efforts they
are still loosing money.
I missed The whole Marsk debate but let’s face it anouncing to the world that
you are producing something as a limited edition and then saying you changed
your mind for whatever reason is by definition dishonest.
However it should come as no suprise as they basicly did the same thing with the
Superchief.
Lego is ignoring it’s customers and is run by an egocentric bunch. If your tired
of hearing about the color debate then lets frame it in how customers and kids
are put off by sets that now commonly are short pieces.
Or how about how the kids today find Megablocks a better product.(mostly due to
playability)
Parents think Megablocks are a better deal. As misguided as we might think that
to be it is still what the non-AFOL consumer is thinking.
Given the current course we don’t have to worry about the community self
destructing. AFOL’s are most often created by fun one had as a child with Lego.
Since many kids today would rather have Megablocks there will in the future be
far fewer AFOLs.
Lego refuses to listen to anyone wether AFOL or casulal consumer. Until they
figure out that they don’t know everything things will get worse.
It could come sooner than later. Gi Joe was once king, yet as all action figures
fade away at some point so did Joe. Bionical is no diffrent. Bionicle is
propping up much of Lego. Joe has made somewhat of a come back. The question is
then will Lego still be around when the Bionicle kids start feeling nostalgic?
Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John M. Rudy wrote:
> This community really needs to stop hating itself, or I fear it will self
> destruct pretty soon.
For your amusement:
http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
> I agree with you Jonathan.
>
> Anyone who buys Lego as an investment should look elsewhere to invest. I own
> 10 copies of 6390 Main Street. Then 20 years later they re-release it. Was
> I mad? No, TLG never said that old sets would not be re-released. Besides I
> purchased them not to collect dust in some corner, but to build with the
> parts. In fact investor type people have a tendancy to ruin hobbies. Just
> look at sports trading cards.
>
> Lego is a Hobby, not an investment portfolio item.
>
> Gary Istok
Gary, the problem is that from Jake's mouth:
Quote:
I do know, however, that there will be 5 set limit per customer on this set
(Troy,are you listening? J). Why you ask?
This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this new
set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that there is
literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even the parks can no longer get Maersk blue.
End Quote
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
So, they said one thing, and are doing another. It disappoints me, because as
someone who has 2 copies left unopened of the original set, I am disapointed
that they would go back on their word. Perhaps my view of someones word is
different than the rest of the world, but when someone says something, and does
something else, it is like a slap in the face to me.
I didn't buy it as a great big lego investment, but as a way of offsetting my
costs. At some point, my sets would have appeared on bricklink. The money I
get usually goes right back into bricklink, or other lego purchases. But it
helps me offset the cost of my hobby. I don't view it as speculating, when a
set is sold out in retail, its value generally elevates. Even your original
Main Streets are worth more now than they were when you bought them...otherwise,
I will pay you what a old one cost for a new one? No?
And less that people think I am desperately trying to profit, I had one guy on
my ship who wanted one then changed his mind...my price to him was the CDN cost
I paid for the ships...I'm not out to gorge people, but I will let the market
set the price for the set if I am selling outside of my friends.
James Powell
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, John M. Rudy wrote:
MAJOR SNIPAGE
| |
This community really needs to stop hating itself, or I fear it will self
destruct pretty soon.
-John Rudy
|
The problem doesn’t lie within the community it lies within the company.
Proof of this is that they are dumbfounded as to why with all of their
efforts they are still loosing money.
I missed The whole Marsk debate but let’s face it anouncing to the world that
you are producing something as a limited edition and then saying you changed
your mind for whatever reason is by definition dishonest.
|
I promised myself I wouldn’t continue fanning the flames here, but I couldn’t
resist one more...
The gist of the complaints against TLC I’m hearing is they’ve made a business
decision that “changed” from an earlier “promise” (neither of which I think is
true, but there you are). Although the viewpoints are different, the one thing
that’s fairly common is that some people are upset LEGO has changed something.
But if LEGO never changed anything, we’d all still be buying this.
Or we’d still be using tubeless CA bricks. Or we’d have six colors.
I’m sure the LEGO-bashers will have a field day with this. Have at.
<snip>
| |
Lego refuses to listen to anyone wether AFOL or casulal consumer. Until they
figure out that they don’t know everything things will get worse.
|
ROFL. Absolutely not true, from my own experience. LEGO has solicited opinions
in various areas and actually followed the suggestions when they made sense.
And there you have Lesson #1 on Why Sweeping Statements Can Come Back To Bite
You On The Butt.
| |
It could come sooner than later. Gi Joe was once king, yet as all action
figures fade away at some point so did Joe. Bionical is no diffrent. Bionicle
is propping up much of Lego. Joe has made somewhat of a come back. The
question is then will Lego still be around when the Bionicle kids start
feeling nostalgic?
|
Even though the Bionicle team has 21 years worth of storyline mapped out (we’re
currently in the second of seven 3-year cycles), it’s clearly a fad, and I’d be
very surprised if Bionicle lasted that long. Yes, it’s definitely carrying the
product lines that don’t sell as much, but that’ll change, I’m sure. The
question is, will anything else emerge to replace Bionicle’s sales at that time,
or will cheap and inferior Chinese-produced competition, bad management
decisions, and/or continuing sales slumps (possibly caused in part by
disaffected AFOLs) torpedo the company?
I’d like to think LEGO will pull through, and I’ll do what I can to help that.
Like not trashing the company every single chance I get.
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, James Powell wrote:
> Gary, the problem is that from Jake's mouth:
>
> Quote:
>
> I do know, however, that there will be 5 set limit per customer on this
> set (Troy,are you listening? J). Why you ask?
>
> This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this new
> set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that there
> is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even the parks can no longer get Maersk
> blue.
>
> End Quote
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
>
> So, they said one thing, and are doing another.
Wait... Other than the arguable "limit of 5-per-customer" thing, what Jake said
in that quote turned out to be perfectly accurate!
- The run that they did used up all of their Maersk blue. It did. True fact.
- Litterally no Maersk blue ABS left. I guess technically this is wrong since
people owned Maersk blue and it didn't disappear magically. But the implication
was Maersk blue ABS pellets. Also true.
- The parks can no longer get Maersk blue. Again, true. Parks could NOT get
Maersk blue. And since Maersk is shelling out for ABS just for this run, chances
are that'll still be true.
Maybe if Jake had said "There will never, ever, be Maersk blue Lego pieces
produced ever again by the Lego company", then I would agree that it was
incorrect.
Now, what we heard from the German forum WAS factually incorrect:
> The set was sold at SaH Germany saying “Dieses ist deine letzte Chance Maersk
> blaue Steine zu kaufen”. Translation: “This is your last chance to buy Maersk
> blue bricks”
But so far, that seems to be the only example I can find of Lego saying
something that later changed due to the decsion to reproduce the Maersk blue.
And I agree that Jan probably shouldn't have said it. It should have been more
like "This MAY be your last chance to buy Maersk Blue", or something completely
different, yet still equally accurate: "There are currently no plans to produce
Maersk blue bricks ever again". But that's just semantics. I'd hope that people
would understand the intent BEHIND those words.
> It disappoints me, because as someone who has 2 copies left unopened of the
> original set, I am disapointed that they would go back on their word.
?
How does the fact that you own 2 unopened copies change anything, unless you
purchased these to intentionally sell them at an inflated cost in the future?
How would you feel if you owned none?
> Perhaps my view of someones word is different than the rest of the world, but
> when someone says something, and does something else, it is like a slap in
> the face to me.
Let's hope terrorists don't bomb Billund, forcing Lego not to produce the ship
in Maersk blue again, or else you'd blame Lego for not carrying through on their
word!
I assume that you wouldn't really fault Lego in the above situation, but where
does the line get drawn? What if thanks to poor Christmas sales TLC loses a
kajillion dollars and couldn't afford to produce the "promised" Maersk or
dark-blue ships? How about if the production of Maersk blue ABS was incorrectly
mixed and neither Maersk nor Lego were willing to shell out for a new batch?
Would you still blame Lego?
> I didn't buy it as a great big lego investment, but as a way of offsetting my
> costs. At some point, my sets would have appeared on bricklink. The money I
> get usually goes right back into bricklink, or other lego purchases. But it
> helps me offset the cost of my hobby.
So... you DID buy it as an investment. Sympathy points earned: zero.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support your buying sets and re-selling them later.
That's fine. In fact, I'm glad you do it, because it gives people who never got
a chance to buy the set initially a chance to own one later. But by doing so,
you're effectively gambling on the price. You take a certain amount of risk by
hoping to sell the set later. What if nobody buys your set? What if they'll only
buy it at less than the cost you bought it for? What if the cost only increases
at the rate of inflation? It's YOUR risk, not Lego's.
Your point shouldn't be that your sets are going to sell for less money-- why
even bring it up? The only point you should be making (which I also don't agree
with) is that Lego went back on its "word".
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
| |
I’d like to think LEGO will pull through, and I’ll do what I can to help
that. Like not trashing the company every single chance I get.
|
I just want to make one thing clear. Merely because I have a gripe about a
particular decision made by TLC, that doesn’t mean I am throwing the proverbial
baby out with the bathwater. I love LEGO bricks, and I have a high regard for
LEGO as a company. I think it is the best “toy” on earth and that ever was
created. I think the world would be a better place if more kids grew up playing
with LEGO instead of much of the other things that kids do today. I could go on
and on singing the praises of LEGO. I believe in the LEGO System and I am not
afraid to steer anyone into the fold.
Now, having said all of that, I also don’t believe that TLC is perfect. Big
surprise. So, when they made a bad decision IMO I am going to speak up,
because I care. I believe this is all a part of engaging in a dialog with
TLC. I’m not going to constantly blow smoke up their proverbial who-ha, because
that is counterproductive and accomplishes nothing. I pledge to be honest with
them, and that is all I expect in return.
I realize plans change, etc, etc. All I am saying is that I’d rather not hear
anything from TLC at all unless it is a slam dunk or it is portrayed as a
possibility rather than a sure thing. You can’t say “This is your last chance
to buy Maersk blue bricks” if there actually IS a chance, however slim. Even if
they had said, “this could possibly be the last we ever see of Maersk blue
bricks as we have no plans to create that color again”-- then it would be caveat
emptor for collectors and resellers and I would have no gripes whatsoever.
I have no illusions that TLC owes me anything, but when they go out of their
way to tell me something and then purposefully contradict themselves, I am left
feeling wronged, and I think it’s bad form and beneath TLC.
So, in a way, I believe I am helping TLC by 1. suggesting ways to rectify a bad
situation, and 2. providing constructive criticism for policies and marketing
strategies that I think should be avoided in the future.
My intentions were certainly not to merely “trash the company”, but to help it
become better, and that’s good for everyone. (with the possible exception of
the clones;-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
David Koudys wrote:
> I wonder if the car companies go thru this when they released the PT Cruiser or
> the (hopefully upcoming) Dodge Charger
> "You promised me that this was the last model year of this vehicle!! I invested
> all my money into it and now, 20+ years later, you re-released it!! All my
> money was for naught!!"
Wrong end of the line. Imagine what car (or other companies) go through
when they promise something in their advertising, and don't keep it.
E.g. if the any car company advertises a car to run 100km with 3 litres
(The task of calculating the MPG ratio is left up for the eager student,
as long as the pre-metric countries cannot agree on how much a "mile" or
a "gallon" is) of gas, and it turns out to use twice as much, legal hell
breaks loose. Same with Lego. The limitedness of the set was one of the
big sales-pushing factors. This factor did not hold true. Thats all I said.
I am not badmouthing Lego in particular here. If a company sells
anything and it is not up to the advertised/announced specifications
(even if they did not know it initially), they get in trouble, and
rightfully so. This is what a normal customer expects. Truth in Advertising.
> I hope to high heaven that LEGO re-releases the Galaxy Explorer and any other
> set that some folks who still have dozens MSIB so they can watch the "collector
> value" plummet.
Only that the Galaxy Explorer was never ever sold on the promise to be a
limited, absolutely final production run. Never to return. Ever.
> TLC is not here to make your 'collector' lives easier. They are here to make a
> fine quality product for kids and adults that still appreciate the fine quality
> product.
Could you help me with that? Lego left the camp of quality product
producers some time ago, if a lot of concerned people are not totally
mistaken.
> Again I say, if you're so upset by what is probably a sound business decision fo
> the company, but not a sound business decision for whiny collectors who have
> little respect for the product beyond the market value of 'collector sets', then
> stop with the LEGO already.
I don't consider breaking the law on Truth in Advertising a "Sound
Business Decision". Thats my whole point. I'm not a collector of sets. I
didn't even buy one of the ships, because I don't like the Maersk blue
as a colour. It is just that Lego kicked their most devoted customers
rigt in the face, again, but this time they made a real mistake with
that, which might even lead to legan implications.
> This also factors into those that really hate the colour change as well--"I've
> invested hundreds (or thousands) of dollars into collecting 'old grey' and now
> that collection is worthless!!" If you can't find the real worth in hundreds or
> thousands of dollars worth of previously purchased LEGO bricks, no matter what
> the company does today or in the future, then you obviously have missed the
> point of LEGO in the first place.
So what is the point of Lego if not keeping to the company values like
compatibility? Agreed, nobody really promised that the old grey would
stay forever - this was just taken for granted after a 40+ years
history. The case with the ship is different. It might be a legal case,
depending on the strength of consumer rights in the respective
countries. (IMHO, IANAL)
> Since I've actually started keeping track of my LEGO purchases in 1999, I've
> 'invested' more than $10,000.00 into my LEGO collection (small by some standards
> of those around me), and i'm not including the bricks I've acquired from 1969
> thru to 1999. My LEGO collection, to me, is worth far in excess of what I
> bought 'em for 'cause of the hours and days and months and years of me creating,
> building, hhaving fun, talking with buddies, doing shows, whatever. As far as
> hobbies go, it's one of the best that I've ever partaken in, and, even if the
> company folds tomorrow, my collection will keep me happy for the rest of my
> life--37 years of proven happiness so far and there's nothing that TLC can do
> that can take that away from me.
About the same with me.
> Life's too short to dwell on things that make you unhappy.
I am just concerned about how many stupid decisions Lego can stand and
survive. I like the Lego brick, it is my favourite hobby, and I just
fear that decisions like that might drown the company that supplied me
with the raw materials.
Yours, Christian
|
|
| |
Steven Weiser wrote:
> Fact # 1: I have yet to see anyone produce the "PROMISE" that TLC gave.
Rene presented them in his post, just one level above Bens posting:
<http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=2943>
Quotes:
“The edition of this set is likewise limited, there is a total of 14,000
copies”
“This is your last chance to buy Maersk blue bricks”
Yours, Christian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, John M. Rudy wrote:
> > This community really needs to stop hating itself, or I fear it will self
> > destruct pretty soon.
>
> For your amusement:
>
> http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
Thanks Kyle. This fellow is pretty smart... this particular article made its way
around the Transition Team a few months back. Not sure what effect it had or how
to "fix" some of the things (one of his theories is that some things are
fundamentally unfixable)...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, John M. Rudy wrote:
MAJOR SNIPAGE
| |
This community really needs to stop hating itself, or I fear it will self
destruct pretty soon.
-John Rudy
|
The problem doesn’t lie within the community it lies within the company.
Proof of this is that they are dumbfounded as to why with all of their
efforts they are still loosing money.
I missed The whole Marsk debate but let’s face it anouncing to the world
that you are producing something as a limited edition and then saying you
changed your mind for whatever reason is by definition dishonest.
|
I promised myself I wouldn’t continue fanning the flames here, but I couldn’t
resist one more...
The gist of the complaints against TLC I’m hearing is they’ve made a business
decision that “changed” from an earlier “promise” (neither of which I think
is true, but there you are). Although the viewpoints are different, the one
thing that’s fairly common is that some people are upset LEGO has changed
something.
But if LEGO never changed anything, we’d all still be buying this.
Or we’d still be using tubeless CA bricks. Or we’d have six colors.
I’m sure the LEGO-bashers will have a field day with this. Have at.
<snip>
| |
Lego refuses to listen to anyone wether AFOL or casulal consumer. Until they
figure out that they don’t know everything things will get worse.
|
ROFL. Absolutely not true, from my own experience. LEGO has solicited
opinions in various areas and actually followed the suggestions when they
made sense. And there you have Lesson #1 on Why Sweeping Statements Can Come
Back To Bite You On The Butt.
| |
It could come sooner than later. Gi Joe was once king, yet as all action
figures fade away at some point so did Joe. Bionical is no diffrent.
Bionicle is propping up much of Lego. Joe has made somewhat of a come back.
The question is then will Lego still be around when the Bionicle kids start
feeling nostalgic?
|
Even though the Bionicle team has 21 years worth of storyline mapped out
(we’re currently in the second of seven 3-year cycles), it’s clearly a fad,
and I’d be very surprised if Bionicle lasted that long. Yes, it’s definitely
carrying the product lines that don’t sell as much, but that’ll change, I’m
sure. The question is, will anything else emerge to replace Bionicle’s sales
at that time, or will cheap and inferior Chinese-produced competition, bad
management decisions, and/or continuing sales slumps (possibly caused in part
by disaffected AFOLs) torpedo the company?
I’d like to think LEGO will pull through, and I’ll do what I can to help
that. Like not trashing the company every single chance I get.
Kelly
|
I’m pretty sure the duck wasn’t marketed as a “limited edition of 10,000”. It
really matters not what their excuss is if they changed their mind they could
have changed the model. Their move was compleatly unethical and problably leaves
them open to a class action law suit.
My “sweeping statment” hasn’t bit my butt yet. I’m aware of how often Lego
solicets opinoins and I’m aware of how often they go ahead and do it their own
way any way. The fact is that Lego is still loosing money and market share to
what should be inferior competitors. That pretty much proves my point.
Bionical story lines are really unimportant. The point is do they have 21 years
worth of consumers lined up? As kids tire of the line the line and their last
healthy stand will crumble.-Kne
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
>
> Dear René,
>
> thanks for bringing these postings into the debate. Facts are: LEGO gave a
> promise and broke it (because they think they can generate profit out of this
> decision).
Wrong.
TLC stated that they had old Maersk Blue pellets and 'wouldn't it be nice to
give the AFOL a really cool set and use up the pellets at the same time'.
Why should that negate future contracts? It was a business decision made at the
time using the data at the time. No one here has a crystal ball for what might
happen in the future.
> Fact number 2 is: lots of people do not care at all about this (and those are
> often enough ok with bley and other controverse decisions as well) - as far as I
> can see it.
Fact is that people who are fans are getting as yippy as those that are
fanatical about their hobby because, for myself, we're sick and tired of the
tail wagging the dog. We're sick and tired of people who think they have every
right to dictate to a multi-national corporation how to operate 'the business'
because those people have purchased a few thousand dollars worth of bricks over
the years.
> Now I do wonder: WHAT EXACTELY has TLC to do to make these people criticize the
> companies decisions? Change to metric system and make the brick size 1 cm
> instead of 0.8 cm?
TLC could disappear tomorrow and I'd still be happy. Not as happy as I am
knowing that they're still around, but happy anyway. Why? Because I still ahve
my collection. I still have my hobby. I bought the sets willingly, without
threat of coersion nor entered into a binding contract with TLC stating that
they must adhere to what I want in the future. I bought what I want and am
happy with my purchases.
> This is a question I really have at the hard core fans of TLC: What could make
> you unsure in your fanatic love to the company and their decisions?
>
>
> I was not to happy about studless technic beams.
Yeah, that back hoe really does suck. Man, what were they thinking?
> I was slighly fed up about doorless cars of town junior.
Don't buy 'em
> I am somewhat fed up about drastically decreased quality.
I have pieces from the '70's that would shock you with the apparent lack of
quality--differing heights of bricks, variable thickness walls, really bad
stuff. In my own opinion, TLC has increased the quality of their bricks.
> I am really fed up about bley.
Don't buy them
> I think galidor and Znap were flops.
And I' sure that TLC, by the fact that they aren't producing them, may agree
with you. That said, it was their business decision, and they made it. Tell me
you haven't made a mistake in your life. Further, I have a really neat train
bridge at home made entirely of Znap--'tis amazing how compatible the stuff is
with the LEGO brick.
> I am fed up about the explanation given for bley.
And I'm fed up with people who still whine about it. They heard you and they're
sticking to their decision. Life goes on.
> I dislike the pigtone minifigs.
Then don't buy them.
no one is forcing you to purchase products produced by TLC. Not me, not anyone
on LUGNET, no one anywhere. Want to know why Znap and Galidor were
discontinued? No one bought them. Want to know something else that I find more
amazing? In spite of all the furor and ill-will that I read here at LUGNET and
saw with many AFOL's about Bionicle, guess what's generating some of the
greatest revenue for TLC? So from me to you, all this "I hate this" or "TLC
sucks for changing that and they should listen to me!"... Nope. Really, why
would they?
Again, in my opinion, I think that when TLC hears something about the AFOL
community these days, they think of a bunch of ranting fanatics, because that's
what you demonstrate with posts like this--Rabid fanaticism, and you're not
helping your cause one iota. This attitude, again in my opinion, decreases the
chance of some executive taking you seriously. I'm fed up listening to the
rants--why wouldn't they be? And the only reason that I'm spending effort on
this is because I also realized that bad things happen when good people don't
speak up against the fanaticism.
> I disklike the too many tank-vehicles of the LEGO police.
Don't buy them
> I am fed up about lies (I see no difference between a broken promise and a lie).
And I'm fed up with your spin of the situation. There were no lies. At the
time, the decision was based on all available information. In a business, that
decisions made like this do not negate future contracts.
> Could be continued....
>
> But more interesting: what would fed up YOU (especially if you are still a 100%
> supporter of TLC)?!
I'm not a 100 percent supporter of TLC. I don't buy Jack Stone, I didn't buy
Galidor. Off the top of my head, I can't begin to list the other things I
haven't bought. I buy what I like, and don't buy what I don't like. TLC gives
us (now more than a few years ago, to be sure) a virtual smorgasboard of
products from many different lines. Buy what you want to buy, and don't buy the
others. If you don't like any of the new sets at all because of your issues
with bley and pig-tone and tank treads, then for the love of all things, don't
buy them! Vote with your pocketbook!
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ben
Take care,
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
| |
I’d like to think LEGO will pull through, and I’ll do what I can to help
that. Like not trashing the company every single chance I get.
|
I just want to make one thing clear. Merely because I have a gripe about a
particular decision made by TLC, that doesn’t mean I am throwing the
proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I love LEGO bricks, and I have a
high regard for LEGO as a company. I think it is the best “toy” on earth and
that ever was created. I think the world would be a better place if more
kids grew up playing with LEGO instead of much of the other things that kids
do today. I could go on and on singing the praises of LEGO. I believe in
the LEGO System and I am not afraid to steer anyone into the fold.
Now, having said all of that, I also don’t believe that TLC is perfect. Big
surprise. So, when they made a bad decision IMO I am going to speak up,
because I care. I believe this is all a part of engaging in a dialog with
TLC. I’m not going to constantly blow smoke up their proverbial who-ha,
because that is counterproductive and accomplishes nothing. I pledge to be
honest with them, and that is all I expect in return.
I realize plans change, etc, etc. All I am saying is that I’d rather not
hear anything from TLC at all unless it is a slam dunk or it is portrayed as
a possibility rather than a sure thing. You can’t say “This is your last
chance to buy Maersk blue bricks” if there actually IS a chance, however
slim. Even if they had said, “this could possibly be the last we ever see of
Maersk blue bricks as we have no plans to create that color again”-- then it
would be caveat emptor for collectors and resellers and I would have no
gripes whatsoever.
I have no illusions that TLC owes me anything, but when they go out of
their way to tell me something and then purposefully contradict themselves, I
am left feeling wronged, and I think it’s bad form and beneath TLC.
So, in a way, I believe I am helping TLC by 1. suggesting ways to rectify a
bad situation, and 2. providing constructive criticism for policies and
marketing strategies that I think should be avoided in the future.
My intentions were certainly not to merely “trash the company”, but to help
it become better, and that’s good for everyone. (with the possible
exception of the clones;-)
JOHN
|
John,
You’re a business owner, we all know you do much of the shirts for the clubs and
Brickfest. Let me pose a question. What if you made a “special edition”
Lego-based T-shirt for some club or big event. Say the group wanting the shirts
told you to make 200 shirts, and that’s it. The shirt is so popular, it sells
out in 4 hours. Some people got multiple shirts (maybe so they could sell them
at a premium profit later), some didn’t get any. Those who didn’t get any get
very upset and complain to the group that made the shirt. The group caves in to
customers, and requests you to make more to satisfy the general public, but they
don’t have enough money to make any changes to the design at all--they’ve
managed to get just enough to make the shirts.
You’re a businessman...do you take the money and satisfy the customer, or do you
deny that group that’s waving money in your face? Or...do you take a hit and
work with them, and change the design slightly with a bit of loss to you and
your business? What if you couldn’t afford to take the small hit in profit to
change the shirt?
I understand your passion for the brick, believe me. I’ve noticed that much of
the people here who make comments about things are so passionate about Lego that
sometimes they are too close to the forest to see the trees. Questions and
solutions may be posed, but if done, appearing as a raving lunatSome people
don’t seem to understand that there may be decisions (some business, some
cultural, and sometimes one’s we’ll never understand--believe me, international
business can be a royal pain--trust me, I’ve got 7 years experience working with
customers all over the world..you wouldn’t believe what it’s like trying to get
paid sometimes!)
Scott
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
I’m pretty sure the duck wasn’t marketed as a “limited edition of 10,000”.
|
I’m pretty sure that the 10152 wasn’t either. This whole thing seems to turn on
a mistranslation more than anything else. That’s pretty funny at one level,
actually.
Most of the rest of the difference appears to be cultural, we seem to have a
culture of collectors that value different things than other collectors do. I’m
a collector and I’m proud of my collection. But I collect for my own reasons,
not because I care about how limited something is or because I expect my stuff
to have a higher value later. Collectors that care about the extrinsic value
more than the thing are just not understandable to me. Unless this is all a
front to placate their NLSOs about how much they spend or something?
| |
It
really matters not what their excuss is if they changed their mind they could
have changed the model.
|
At some non zero cost. How much more would you pay for the second one to cover
that cost? LEGO is losing money. Advocating that they waste it to placate you is
at best asinine.
| |
Their move was compleatly unethical and problably
leaves them open to a class action law suit.
|
It would be a terrifically sad day for the legal system if that came to pass.
But more seriously, listen to yourself. It’s a toy. Get a grip and get over
yourself. Seriously.
LEGO owes you NOTHING. And you owe LEGO nothing either, except that if you want
to buy their stuff, feel free, and if you don’t want to buy it, also feel free.
This conversation has run its course and then some.
Those of you that insist on prolonging it (no longer referring to Ken directly)
are lucky that LUGNET is not moderated, and that there hasn’t been much
community support for giving argumentative and belligerent people timeouts when
their bile level rises beyond reasonable levels and they start saying hateful
things.
XFUT debate
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Steven Weiser wrote:
>
> > Fact # 1: I have yet to see anyone produce the "PROMISE" that TLC gave.
> Rene presented them in his post, just one level above Bens posting:
> <http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=2943>
>
> Quotes:
>
> “The edition of this set is likewise limited, there is a total of 14,000
> copies”
>
> “This is your last chance to buy Maersk blue bricks”
>
> Yours, Christian
At the time, it was. Does that negate new contracts with Maersk?
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
I missed The whole Marsk debate but let’s face it anouncing to the world that
you are producing something as a limited edition and then saying you changed
your mind for whatever reason is by definition dishonest.
|
Perhaps there are different connotations of the term “limited”?
“Limited” in that we will purposefully limit production to X number of units to
create collector demand, and will never produce them again, thus protecting
their collector’s market value.
-or-
“Limited” in that we are limited by specific constraints such that we actually
can’t manufacture more than X units, but if those constraints were removed we
would certainly produce more.
I never read anywhere that Lego was purposefully limiting the production run.
However I also felt it was a pretty safe bet that they wouldn’t make more units
given the all the constraints involved (including the extra costs involved with
licensed products). But I was wrong.
Also I got the impression that this next batch would be another small run, so I
doubt the collector’s value is going to go down the drain. It’s not likely these
things are going to end up on the shelves at Target for 75% off. But yes, a word
to the wise - it’s definition #2 - there are no guarantees that this is the last
run!
Spencer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
| |
I’d like to think LEGO will pull through, and I’ll do what I can to help
that. Like not trashing the company every single chance I get.
|
I just want to make one thing clear. Merely because I have a gripe about a
particular decision made by TLC, that doesn’t mean I am throwing the
proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I love LEGO bricks, and I have a
high regard for LEGO as a company. I think it is the best “toy” on earth and
that ever was created. I think the world would be a better place if more
kids grew up playing with LEGO instead of much of the other things that kids
do today. I could go on and on singing the praises of LEGO. I believe in
the LEGO System and I am not afraid to steer anyone into the fold.
|
Hi John,
I wasn’t actually referring to you personally... more the continuous TLC-bashing
I’ve seen from some people, and not just on this subject. Makes you wonder why
some people bother frequenting LUGNET, or buying LEGO, at all, if they dislike
the company so much. An aside would be, “How can you enjoy building with LEGO
bricks if you can’t respect TLC in some way?” But that’s a completely different
topic. :)
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
But if LEGO never changed anything, we’d all still be buying this.
|
|
| |
I’m pretty sure the duck wasn’t marketed as a “limited edition of 10,000”. It
really matters not what their excuss is if they changed their mind they could
have changed the model. Their move was compleatly unethical and problably
leaves them open to a class action law suit.
|
Hmm. More sweeping statements, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Again.
| |
My “sweeping statment” hasn’t bit my butt yet. I’m aware of how often Lego
solicets opinoins and I’m aware of how often they go ahead and do it their
own way any way.
|
If you’re aware of the ratio between LEGO soliciting opinions and acting on
opinions, then you must have some data to back it up. Show it. Put up or shut
up. My statements about LEGO listening are based on personal experience, not
secondhand rumor or wild musings.
| |
The fact is that Lego is still loosing money and market
share to what should be inferior competitors. That pretty much proves my
point.
|
And your “proven” point again was... ?
| |
Bionical story lines are really unimportant.
|
To you, maybe. Tell that to the kids and their parents buying the stuff now. You
do realize there are people interested in other aspects of LEGO, right?
| |
The point is do they have 21
years worth of consumers lined up? As kids tire of the line the line and
their last healthy stand will crumble.-Kne
|
You pretty much restated my question - what will take the place of Bionicle once
that fad has run its course? TBD, I guess.
Kelly
|
|
| |
"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message
news:I8xw3s.KoJ@lugnet.com...
> All,
>
> As the saying goes... I have some good news and some bad news about the
> 10152
> Maersk ship.
>
> I'm sorry it's taken me so long to post an update. We've been working on a
> number of things surrounding this set.
>
> As you certainly recall, the situation with the Maersk blue bricks was
> that we
> were very near the end of our Maersk blue ABS supply. We'd been working
> from a
> large stockpile of the Maersk blue for years (we buy big to make it
> cost-effective), and it was finally about to run out. Out of coincidence,
> Maersk
> requested a new Maersk LEGO set. We decided to run out the supply of ABS
> with
> this one last set. Once it was gone, it simply wasn't going to be
> cost-effective
> for us to buy another supply of ABS to continue developing that color.
>
> If you've seen the set in person, you'd probably not be surprised to learn
> that
> we had very positive feedback from consumers of all ages. Since we sold
> out the
> Maersk blue version in a matter of weeks, we decided to continue the
> production,
> and asked you for feedback on what color to do it in.
>
> But after a few months, Maersk came back to us with a request for more of
> the
> 10152 sets. Apparently the 10152 that they had taken delivery of were
> working
> quite well for them. They agreed to cover the expense of buying a very
> small
> (and expensive) quantity of Maersk blue ABS in order to be able to produce
> more
> sets. We purchased just enough ABS for this one run, and while we don't
> have any
> plans for more production, I certainly won't promise again! :)
>
> The good news is that once again, Shop At Home was able to take advantage
> of
> this limited run to produce another (relatively) small quantity of the
> 10152 in
> Maersk blue.
>
> The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel)
> the
> dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I'll pass the word.
>
> The estimated launch date for the next run of the 10152 is late
> spring/early
> summer. We're still working on finalizing this, and I'll update you as
> soon as I
> can. (The info on LEGOshop.com you say yesterday launched while we still
> working
> on the details... the Feb. launch date was a placeholder only. My
> apologies for
> the confusion.)
>
> My apologies for the re-direction this project has taken, but hopefully it
> is
> more good news than bad!
>
> Jake¬
> ---¬
> Jake McKee¬
> Community Liaison¬
> LEGO Community Development
Thanks Jake. Thanks for bringing us this news in person so we can be
prepared before the actual event occurs. As for the rest of you, hmm, let's
see how to delicately put this in sarcastic perspective:
A billion dollar company wants another billion dollar company to make
another run of a previous product via a new contract. I don't think the
business decision is going to hang on whether 20-30 "A"FOLs like it or not.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and get over it...
You should focus more on the real emergencies, like these *expletives
deleted* lightup figs coming out in Feb! UUUGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Rob
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote:
<snip>
> You should focus more on the real emergencies, like these *expletives
> deleted* lightup figs coming out in Feb! UUUGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!
>
> Rob
Yeah, as soon as I saw those, I thought of the pain you'd be feeling. After
checking yout your wonderful work at BF this past summer, this one from TLC has
got to suck.
Well, don't forget you got the light in a 1x1 round plate. TLC couldn't match
that one too easily.
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
Makes
you wonder why some people bother frequenting LUGNET, or buying LEGO, at all,
if they dislike the company so much.
|
Indeed. I have wondered why the same names keep popping up over and over with
respect to TLC negativity. Almost feels a bit like a psy-ops campaign. Free
speech is one thing. Excess indulgence is another.
fut to .off-topic.debate ( shame we can’t fut to lugnet.dev.null )
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
But if LEGO never changed anything, we’d all still be buying this.
|
|
| |
I’m pretty sure the duck wasn’t marketed as a “limited edition of 10,000”.
It really matters not what their excuss is if they changed their mind they
could have changed the model. Their move was compleatly unethical and
problably leaves them open to a class action law suit.
|
Hmm. More sweeping statements, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Again.
| |
My “sweeping statment” hasn’t bit my butt yet. I’m aware of how often Lego
solicets opinoins and I’m aware of how often they go ahead and do it their
own way any way.
|
If you’re aware of the ratio between LEGO soliciting opinions and acting on
opinions, then you must have some data to back it up. Show it. Put up or shut
up. My statements about LEGO listening are based on personal experience, not
secondhand rumor or wild musings.
| |
The fact is that Lego is still loosing money and market
share to what should be inferior competitors. That pretty much proves my
point.
|
And your “proven” point again was... ?
| |
Bionical story lines are really unimportant.
|
To you, maybe. Tell that to the kids and their parents buying the stuff now.
You do realize there are people interested in other aspects of LEGO, right?
| |
The point is do they have 21
years worth of consumers lined up? As kids tire of the line the line and
their last healthy stand will crumble.-Kne
|
You pretty much restated my question - what will take the place of Bionicle
once that fad has run its course? TBD, I guess.
Kelly
|
Well I haven’t financed a study however the financial news is rife with news on
how Lego continues to loose money and market share while it’s competitors
continue to grow. Not even Lego argues this point.
Every day I cross paths with kids who want a certain Megablocks set and would
rather go home empty handed than take a Lego set they don’t want. As well as
parents convinced Megablocks are a better value. As well as fustrated consumers
who spent money on an incomplete Lego set. I could go on and on.
As for a Bionicel replacment the point is if it were to crash now there is no
replacment. It would destroy the company as we know it today.
And back to the original thread the problem is not the AFOL community. You can
not care how many 10152 sets are made but stating that the set is limited
edition and the “changing your mind” is fundementaly dishonest and very poor
buissnes which is but one reason why the company that exists to make money is a
failure and continues it’s downward spiral. -Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
I’m pretty sure the duck wasn’t marketed as a “limited edition of 10,000”.
|
I’m pretty sure that the 10152 wasn’t either. This whole thing seems to turn
on a mistranslation more than anything else. That’s pretty funny at one
level, actually.
|
It was in Jake Mckee’s own words as well as press releases and marketing through
SHO
| |
Most of the rest of the difference appears to be cultural, we seem to have a
culture of collectors that value different things than other collectors do.
I’m a collector and I’m proud of my collection. But I collect for my own
reasons,
|
SNIP
I too however it strikes directly at fundemental honesty and respect for the
consumer that Lego would do this.
SNIP
| |
| |
Their move was compleatly unethical and problably
leaves them open to a class action law suit.
|
It would be a terrifically sad day for the legal system if that came to pass.
|
Not really I’d welcome it as it’s hightime certain people got knocked off their
high horses.
| |
But more seriously, listen to yourself. It’s a toy. Get a grip and get over
yourself. Seriously.
LEGO owes you NOTHING. And you owe LEGO nothing either, except that if you
want to buy their stuff, feel free, and if you don’t want to buy it, also
feel free.
This conversation has run its course and then some.
|
SNIP
Listen to YOURSELF. My gole is for the company to survive which as of right now
it is not. You however want to defend them for whatever they do even if it drags
them further down the hole.
Lego personaly owes me nothing however they exist to make a profit. They are for
years now a failure. If the bone headed managment decisions continue, of which
the 10152 fiasco is only the latest, The company will fall. Someone would likely
pick up the pieces however the result may have as much in common with what we
love as the duck.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> Change to metric system and make the brick size 1 cm
> instead of 0.8 cm?
surely 0.8 cm is as metric as 1cm?
Tim
|
|
| |
>
> You should focus more on the real emergencies, like these *expletives
> deleted* lightup figs coming out in Feb! UUUGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!
>
> Rob
yeah, what sort of sicko would want one of those? ;-P
Seriously this happens a lot in the model railway world, you scratch build a
model of something not avaialable as a kit or RTR from the trade and just when
you finish someone releases it. And everyone goes 'Oh, is that one of those
So-and-so kits?'
tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
> > http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
>
> Thanks Kyle. This fellow is pretty smart... this particular article made its way
> around the Transition Team a few months back. Not sure what effect it had or how
> to "fix" some of the things (one of his theories is that some things are
> fundamentally unfixable)...
That's a theory I buy into..., and until a "solution" is demonstrated, it's
a safely self-satisfied theory. Conflict is human nature, and until the day
we're all lobotomized, or extinct, it won't change. Keeps things interesting
I s'pose. :]
(I'd set a FUT, but I suspect this is a dead-end topic anyway.)
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
> > LEGO gave a promise and broke it.
>
> Wrong.
Sorry to correct you, Dave, but they did. Go read Renes posting. They called the
set limited. And they announced it to be the very last chance to buy Mearsk
blue. There are not 2 last chances in life.
> TLC stated that they had old Maersk Blue pellets and 'wouldn't it be nice to
> give the AFOL a really cool set and use up the pellets at the same time'.
>
> Why should that negate future contracts? It was a business decision made at the
> time using the data at the time. No one here has a crystal ball for what might
> happen in the future.
If I call a product limited and give a limitation number - that is an absulute
value. Just to give another example: LEGO has auctioned the number 1...10 Santa
Fe engines at eBay (for highest prices! have those been toys or collector
items?!). Would you think it to be unfair if they again started an auction with
the same numbers again and again? Some would laugh about the "idiots" who bid
for the first ones - I would not. Same is what they now do with the Maersk ship.
> > Now I do wonder: WHAT EXACTELY has TLC to do to make these people criticize the
> > companies decisions? Change to metric system and make the brick size 1 cm
> > instead of 0.8 cm?
>
>
> TLC could disappear tomorrow and I'd still be happy. Not as happy as I am
> knowing that they're still around, but happy anyway. Why? Because I still ahve
> my collection. I still have my hobby. I bought the sets willingly, without
> threat of coersion nor entered into a binding contract with TLC stating that
> they must adhere to what I want in the future. I bought what I want and am
> happy with my purchases.
Agreed. Same with me here.
>
> > This is a question I really have at the hard core fans of TLC: What could make
> > you unsure in your fanatic love to the company and their decisions?
>
> > I am somewhat fed up about drastically decreased quality.
>
> I have pieces from the '70's that would shock you with the apparent lack of
> quality--differing heights of bricks, variable thickness walls, really bad
> stuff. In my own opinion, TLC has increased the quality of their bricks.
I think this is just valid for the samsonite era bricks. Danish made bricks have
had perfect quality from 1968 ... 1990. From then on the quality may have
decreased. Especially recently it is quite obvious.
[Blay, Pigs, doorless cars]
> Don't buy them
> Don't buy 'em
> Then don't buy them.
> no one is forcing you to purchase products produced by TLC. "I hate this" or "TLC
> sucks for changing that and they should listen to me!"... Nope. Really, why
> would they?
They should listen to me because I spent partly over 10000 bucks per year and I
have been praising TLC and its products over years on my homepage and at public
events. This has stopped now. I advice parents to by PLAYMOBIL if they ask me.
LEGO makes losses. Maybe they should better listen to their (formerly) best
customers.
> Again, in my opinion, I think that when TLC hears something about the AFOL
> community these days, they think of a bunch of ranting fanatics, because that's
> what you demonstrate with posts like this--Rabid fanaticism, and you're not
> helping your cause one iota. This attitude, again in my opinion, decreases the
> chance of some executive taking you seriously. I'm fed up listening to the
> rants--why wouldn't they be? And the only reason that I'm spending effort on
> this is because I also realized that bad things happen when good people don't
> speak up against the fanaticism.
Nice said. But you do not help LEGO by praising any stupid action they are
doing. And recently they are doing not too well. Have you heard about increased
sells? Rumors mention over 30% less than in 2003 instead. Had TLC listend about
duplo-explore renaming they could have saved millions of $. They did not.
And this is not jsut because of gameboys and children becoming "adults" with 14
years. Playmobil makes big wins without war themes, without potter licences,
without changing core values and with 99% of production in Europe. The only
"licence" they have, are a few Bible themed figures. They have vikings,
airplanes (made by more pieces than the Jack stone ones - and the airplane from
Playmobils has actually windows AND it looks better AND it costs half the sum in
comparison to the LEGO set). Based on this information: which company seems to
be better run?
> And I'm fed up with your spin of the situation. There were no lies. At the
> time, the decision was based on all available information. In a business, that
> decisions made like this do not negate future contracts.
There has been a contract. There has been a promise. (go and read Renes
posting!) That cannot be taken back. Everything else is a lie and very bad
style. I would not care if Microsoft did it that way, but I thought LEGO had
higher ethic values. I was proved to be wrong.
> Vote with your pocketbook!
I do! And I even try to convince others to do so as well.
I have been a big supporter of LEGO, but for now there is just the old system
(disconinued in colour in 2004) which I still love. Even the community breaks
into pieces and I have no longer the will to work for a more united community. I
write e-mails with old time friends and with new ones. But just because someone
is a LEGO fans does not mean (any longer) he is a kind of friend of mine.
Play well?....Playmobil!
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Steven D. Weiser wrote:
snipped some text to reduce it to something I'am confused about
> I am
> fed up with everyone who thinks that this is an investment hobby. It is supposed
> to be fun damn it. Everyone who has old MISB sets in the closet, go open them
> and use the parts for something. Build with it instead of letting it rot on a
> shelf. If you want to invest, I have 2 words for you. "STOCK MARKET"
Hi,
in this discussion on lugnet.com almost everybody who wrote about collectors
wrote in a very negative way. It seems as if in the english speaking world a
collector is generally a moneyhunter, speculator, and really a bad guy.
You (and not only you in person) seem to think that anybody who buys sets to
store them MISB are people who just wait for the day the worth doubles or
triples. In your opinion they all seem to buy every set multiple times to sell
them when the price increases. They just wait for the day they could say to
other people "Hey man, you need set 1234? I have one but it costs twice the
release price, sorry."?
Why do you all think so?
There is no doubt that there ARE people who think the way you sugguest, but
would anybody of them take part of this discussion? Why should they? Those
people are not well-seen in all fan forums, thats for sure.
So please think about this (maybe for you new) type of collector, who just
collects things for collecting and not for making money.
If you believe or not, there are indeed people who collect things and don't
think about the worth of their collection.
For sure: No collector would earn the same money he spend for his collection
when he's going to sell it. Maybe there some highlights whichs prices increased
in the last years, but LEGO ist not that type of hobby to make money by
collecting it.
When I find an old MISB 70's set what I like to own why should I open it?
I have enough standard bricks to build MOCs. So I just leave it in the box and
store it away ore put it on the shelf in the box.
And when a new set is relaesed, say with Jack Stoned why should I buy it? It's
nothing.
But a Maerk-Set? With maerskblue bricks? Rare because limited? Only 10,000 on
sale? Buy it immediately before they are gone. Or should I wait until I can buy
it from one of the party you are fed up?
So please try to understand collectors who are very annoyed about this Maersk
Theme. I think, I wouldn't have bought this set if I had known that it is normal
blay set, ok some rare parts in it, which could be bought anytime later and is
produced in the big ammounts like every other set.
The best comparison is what Ben said about the limited Santa Fé:
What would you have thought about Lego as a company when they had done another
run of auctions with number 1-10?
Regards Ronald
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ronald Borchert wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Steven D. Weiser wrote:
>
> snipped some text to reduce it to something I'am confused about
>
>
> Hi,
>
> in this discussion on lugnet.com almost everybody who wrote about collectors
> wrote in a very negative way. It seems as if in the english speaking world a
> collector is generally a moneyhunter, speculator, and really a bad guy.
Not what I intended to bring across. I am saying that any type of investment,
wether it be the stock market, or the toy market, is risky business. You take
your chances on making or losing money. I have purchased shares in companys that
were later bought out and the stock became worthless. It was'nt KMart.
snipped
> > They just wait for the day they could say to
> other people "Hey man, you need set 1234? I have one but it costs twice the
> release price, sorry."?
Is that not what investing is? The people who are keeping these for resale at a
later date are hoping just that. And they may well find someone to buy them at
an inflated price.
I have a science fiction memorabilia collection that I spent tens of thousnads
of dollars on. It was worth $10,000 a decade ago. The value has likely increased
since I had it appraised, but I did not buy any of it with the intention of
reselling it. I enjoy displaying it, and I enjoy allowing other people to see
it. But, if I tried to sell it, only a few choice items would bring a price I
would be happy with.
>
> Why do you all think so?
snipped
> For sure: No collector would earn the same money he spend for his collection
> when he's going to sell it. Maybe there some highlights whichs prices increased
> in the last years, but LEGO ist not that type of hobby to make money by
> collecting it.
And that is the point I was trying make. TLC is losing money. They will do what
is necessary to make a profit. Even re-releasing a re-release that was supposed
to be a "limited edition". They and Mearsk own all copyrights and trademarks,
and therefore can do what they like. The people who are complaining took a
chance and lost. Or did they? Only time and the future demand of this set will
tell that story.
>
> When I find an old MISB 70's set what I like to own why should I open it?
> I have enough standard bricks to build MOCs. So I just leave it in the box and
> store it away ore put it on the shelf in the box.
Why store it where you can't see it? Protect it in a bag and display it. Let
others see it. Out of the sunlight of course.
> But a Maerk-Set? With maerskblue bricks? Rare because limited? Only 10,000 on
> sale? Buy it immediately before they are gone. Or should I wait until I can buy
> it from one of the party you are fed up?
Personally, I am not thrilled with the color, which is why I never bought any.
>
> So please try to understand collectors who are very annoyed about this Maersk
> Theme. I think, I wouldn't have bought this set if I had known that it is normal
> blay set, ok some rare parts in it, which could be bought anytime later and is
> produced in the big ammounts like every other set.
I doubt very much that this will be produced in huge quantities. But, I am not
sure. Does anyone know what the standard production run for a set is.
>
> The best comparison is what Ben said about the limited Santa Fé:
> What would you have thought about Lego as a company when they had done another
> run of auctions with number 1-10?
Different case. The Santa Fe was released as a "limited edition". The Mearsk set
was a release limited by the amount of that color on hand at that time.
You brought up some good points. But in the end. BUYER BEWARE!
Steven Weiser
>
> Regards Ronald
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ronald Borchert wrote:
> You (and not only you in person) seem to think that anybody who buys sets to
> store them MISB are people who just wait for the day the worth doubles or
> triples.
> Why do you all think so?
Because they are the only one that would be negatively affected by this so
called "collectibility" of this set, now that it is not so rare.
> So please think about this (maybe for you new) type of collector, who just
> collects things for collecting and not for making money.
I know tons of those, generally from the anime toy fandom. Some of them buy two
of each action figures - one for display and one for storage. I am very familiar
with those limited-on-purpose bull shit from those anime toy companies.
> But a Maerk-Set? With maerskblue bricks? Rare because limited? Only 10,000 on
> sale? Buy it immediately before they are gone. Or should I wait until I can buy
> it from one of the party you are fed up?
>
> So please try to understand collectors who are very annoyed about this Maersk
> Theme. I think, I wouldn't have bought this set if I had known that it is normal
> blay set, ok some rare parts in it, which could be bought anytime later and is
> produced in the big ammounts like every other set.
Nope it is still limited. And even if it become generally available like other
sets, what do you loss? The bragging right of having a rare set? Did you max
out your credit card to buy the ships and still paying the interest?
> The best comparison is what Ben said about the limited Santa Fé:
> What would you have thought about Lego as a company when they had done another
> run of auctions with number 1-10?
It is not valid. Limited Santa Fe was limited on purpose, the ship was limited
by available material. There is no serial number or "limited" stickers on the
ships box. They were not lying when the ship had limited availibility because
of limited material. I guess when LEGO decide to make more of this set the
so-called "limited" status never registered into their mind.
I am just glad that LEGO is not really getting into this limited release scams
like other companies. The gambling toy (bionical masks) is bad enough already.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
>
> Dear René,
>
> thanks for bringing these postings into the debate. Facts are: LEGO gave a
> promise and broke it (because they think they can generate profit out of this
> decision).
>
> Fact number 2 is: lots of people do not care at all about this (and those are
> often enough ok with bley and other controverse decisions as well) - as far as I
> can see it.
Hey Ben,
I think you know my feelings about crap bley and all of those silly excuses
surrounding it. As you might have read elsewhere I didn't buy any new sets this
year (except for bulk bricks at S@H), so you may have a clue of how I feel. In
fact, browsing your wonderful site I read your position about that issue and I
have to tell you I fully agree with you.
That said, regarding this Maersk Ship issue I don't feel betrayed or like a
'promise' has been broken -- I see an oportunity for TLC to make money and an
oportunity for all of those people who wanted to buy this ship and didn't buy it
yet. I only think it is bad for the collectors or/and the moneymakers. But then
again, even if between two bads, I think tLC hadn't many choices and choosed the
less bad one. (Do you think they should say NO to Maersk company Ben? Put
yourself in their shoes.)
Now, it would be BAD if Lego cancels the release of the dark blue version. That
I would regard as a broken promise. Still, we have to wait to see, since it is
not confirmed yet.
Anyway, since the bley happenings I lost all my faith in TLC.
Please keep voicing your concerns, you and all of you german fellows (and all
the people in the world, of course), I enjoy very much reading your posts --
wether I'm or am not 100% agreed with you, but I think you always spread some
fresh air around here.
Best regards,
Paulo-Renato
|
|
| |
Fredrik Nyman wrote:
>
> If LEGO was an airline, AFOLs would be the first class and business
> class frequent flyers, who bring in the most money per mile (brick).
I sincerely doubt that. I think the AFOLs are much more price-aware that the
casual Lego buyer. Even though the posts about FOTW:s (and FOTM:s and
FOTY:s) have dwindled here on lugnet, I do believe that the 'typical' AFOL
is giving TLC *less* money per brick even if they buy more bricks than the
'typical' non-AFOL.
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
Perhaps there are different connotations of the term “limited”? • SNIP
Spencer
|
No confussion here. They said through Jake M., SHO, and press releases that it
was LIMITED TO 10,000.
I don’t care about collectability. I bought two the first time one for myself
and another for a nephew. I may get another this time.
however I do detest being lied to. the excuse “we changed our minds” is only an
excuse. It does not change the fact that a promise was broken.
After bley and click hinges et. al. some seem to think they are taking the high
road by defending the company no matter what they do. This is sad it’s not the
company doing with their product as they see fit it’s the company lying to
you.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
Perhaps there are different connotations of the term “limited”? SNIP
Spencer
|
No confussion here. They said through Jake M., SHO, and press releases that
it was LIMITED TO 10,000.
I don’t care about collectability. I bought two the first time one for myself
and another for a nephew. I may get another this time.
however I do detest being lied to. the excuse “we changed our minds” is only
an excuse. It does not change the fact that a promise was broken.
After bley and click hinges et. al. some seem to think they are taking the
high road by defending the company no matter what they do. This is sad it’s
not the company doing with their product as they see fit it’s the company
lying to you.-Ken
|
Can we please stop with the spin on the situation? There were no lies
At the time, no contract with Maersk to make future sets and LEGO had these
pellets to get rid of. Come out with nifty set and use up pellets--limited
‘cause, as stated by Jake, et al at TLC, TLC *can’t* make anymore due to no
Maersk Blue pellets. And since, at the time, there was no contract with Maersk
to warrant making more pellets, no more boats after the run was done. Case
closed.
Jump to today--“Hey,” says Maersk, “We want to start a new contract with you
(TLC). We’ll even supply you with the pellets for the colour!”
Which part in there was lieing?
Just becasue you didn’t like what happened, does not give you ‘carte blanc’ to
interpret the events the way you wish.
Dave K
|
|
| |
snippage
| |
Fine. So don’t say “it’s limited”, or “last chance to get Maersk blue” or
“the winner is dark blue, the next color of the 10052”. I would rather they
DIDN”T SAY ANYTHING than say things that may or may not be true!
|
more snippage
John, I hate to be nitpicky here (oh, wait, half the posts on this thread are
about being nitpicky), but I thought the color of set 10052 was yellow..
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/10052
Now...10152...that’s a different story...
Scott
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
No confussion here. They said through Jake M., SHO, and press releases that
it was LIMITED TO 10,000.
|
In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have
left. That means that there is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even the parks
can no longer get Maersk blue. This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with
10,000 coming to Shop At Home.
That production run WAS LIMITED to 14,000 units. This is not the same production
run. There was never a promise to prohibit future production. There was never a
promise to prohibit the future purchase of Maersk blue ABS. Those are the facts.
| |
This is sad it’s
not the company doing with their product as they see fit it’s the company
lying to you.-Ken
|
Well, no wonder you feel constantly lied to. Apparently you are incapable of
understanding even the simplest of facts.
Spencer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
|
SNIP
|
Which part in there was lieing?
Just becasue you didn’t like what happened, does not give you ‘carte blanc’
to interpret the events the way you wish.
Dave K
|
I don’t care what happened as far as set numbers. What I do care about is that
this was presented as a “Limited Edition of 10,000”. They then proceded to break
that promiss. What is your word worth?-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
No confussion here. They said through Jake M., SHO, and press releases that
it was LIMITED TO 10,000.
|
In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we
have left. That means that there is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even
the parks can no longer get Maersk blue. This is a small run too – only
14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home.
That production run WAS LIMITED to 14,000 units. This is not the same
production run. There was never a promise to prohibit future production.
There was never a promise to prohibit the future purchase of Maersk blue ABS.
Those are the facts.
| |
This is sad it’s
not the company doing with their product as they see fit it’s the company
lying to you.-Ken
|
Well, no wonder you feel constantly lied to. Apparently you are incapable of
understanding even the simplest of facts.
Spencer
|
I fully understand what Lego said. I fully understand they broke that promiss.
When I say I will do something you can trust me to do it. How about you? -Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> David Koudys wrote:
> > I wonder if the car companies go thru this when they released the PT Cruiser or
> > the (hopefully upcoming) Dodge Charger
> > "You promised me that this was the last model year of this vehicle!! I invested
> > all my money into it and now, 20+ years later, you re-released it!! All my
> > money was for naught!!"
> Wrong end of the line. Imagine what car (or other companies) go through
> when they promise something in their advertising, and don't keep it.
I seem to recall General Motors making a promise that they were going to release
the new Camaro by "x" date....well, turns out that they didn't make it. The
result? An advertising campaign featuring the "human caring factor" of a
manager who made a really tough decision...ending with the line "he made the
decision because it was the right thing to do...and then he went home and slept
really well."
Not implying here that Lego is doing the right thing--just think what GM had to
pay extra for the PR campaign to quell the voice of drooling potential Camaro
owners...the rabid GM fans...would one call them AFOC's? (Adult Fans of
Camaro?)
(snippage)
> The limitedness of the set was one of the big sales-pushing factors. This
> factor did not hold true. Thats all I said.
Comment spoken in hindsight. At the time, the statement of a limited production
run was accurate. Does a guy say to his friends "I'm never going to get
married", only to discover the true love of his life a short time later....Do
his friends immediately support him, or start citiing legal action for going
back on his word?
Bill Volbrecht said one word that says it all: PERSPECTIVE.
Keep things in perspective...Like Dave Eaton says, no company has the crystal
ball to tell them the future. Things change. Get over it.
>
> I am not badmouthing Lego in particular here. If a company sells
> anything and it is not up to the advertised/announced specifications
> (even if they did not know it initially), they get in trouble, and
> rightfully so. This is what a normal customer expects. Truth in Advertising.
hindsight. Sometimes I wonder if that's aptly named....
> > I hope to high heaven that LEGO re-releases the Galaxy Explorer and any other
> > set that some folks who still have dozens MSIB so they can watch the "collector
> > value" plummet.
> Only that the Galaxy Explorer was never ever sold on the promise to be a
> limited, absolutely final production run. Never to return. Ever.
Again..PERSPECTIVE. The world was a different place back then. Megabloks
didn't exist. Competition wasn't as fierce then (and if you know the toy
industry, you know it's incredibly fierce). The world is becoming a Wal-Mart
society where the lower-cost factor is driving out the higher-quality factor.
> > TLC is not here to make your 'collector' lives easier. They are here to make a
> > fine quality product for kids and adults that still appreciate the fine quality
> > product.
> Could you help me with that? Lego left the camp of quality product
> producers some time ago, if a lot of concerned people are not totally
> mistaken.
>
> > Again I say, if you're so upset by what is probably a sound business decision fo
> > the company, but not a sound business decision for whiny collectors who have
> > little respect for the product beyond the market value of 'collector sets', then
> > stop with the LEGO already.
> I don't consider breaking the law on Truth in Advertising a "Sound
> Business Decision". Thats my whole point. I'm not a collector of sets. I
> didn't even buy one of the ships, because I don't like the Maersk blue
> as a colour. It is just that Lego kicked their most devoted customers
> rigt in the face, again, but this time they made a real mistake with
> that, which might even lead to legan implications.
again...hindsight. Things change. You may be referencing the statement from
the post on 1000Steine, but I see no issue here. I bought 3 Maersk sets...I
couldn't afford 5 at the time. did I get them for collectors purposes? No. I
got them because I didn't have any and wanted some in my collection (1). It was
a way to get a very unique color for a good price (comparative to stuff on
e-bay).
>
> > This also factors into those that really hate the colour change as well--"I've
> > invested hundreds (or thousands) of dollars into collecting 'old grey' and now
> > that collection is worthless!!" If you can't find the real worth in hundreds or
> > thousands of dollars worth of previously purchased LEGO bricks, no matter what
> > the company does today or in the future, then you obviously have missed the
> > point of LEGO in the first place.
> So what is the point of Lego if not keeping to the company values like
> compatibility? Agreed, nobody really promised that the old grey would
> stay forever - this was just taken for granted after a 40+ years
> history. The case with the ship is different. It might be a legal case,
> depending on the strength of consumer rights in the respective
> countries. (IMHO, IANAL)
Do the new color bricks work with the old bricks? Yes? Where does that void
the statement that the bricks aren't compatible? I've noticed that the term
"color compatibility" has never been spoken by Lego (prove me wrong here), and
that it has been an implied perception by AFOL's.
> > Life's too short to dwell on things that make you unhappy.
> I am just concerned about how many stupid decisions Lego can stand and
> survive. I like the Lego brick, it is my favourite hobby, and I just
> fear that decisions like that might drown the company that supplied me
> with the raw materials.
Well, as the old adage goes "you catch more flies with honey than with water".
Present your statements in a calm, informative, clear, logical and proof-based
support, and I'll bet someone listens. When you rant and rave about things,
it's like a parent watch a child lie on the floor kicking and screaming when
they don't get their way--the parents don't listen to kids when they do that
(not to mention it takes the "A" out of AFOL--or replaces it with another
term)...
Scott Lyttle
(1) Collection of Lego bricks I like to build with and display, not collection
of stuff I intend to sell one day
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > SNIP
> > Which part in there was lieing?
> >
> > Just becasue you didn't like what happened, does not give you 'carte blanc'
> > to interpret the events the way you wish.
> >
> > Dave K
>
> I don't care what happened as far as set numbers. What I do care about is
> that this was presented as a "Limited Edition of 10,000". They then proceded
> to break that promiss. What is your word worth?-Ken
Spin.
Stop it.
'They' did no such thing as 'break a promise'.
Fact--TLC had a limited quantity of Maersk Blue pellets and, with no contract
with Maersk at the time, as stated, they were not going to get anymore Maersk
Blue pellets to make more bricks
So of course it's limited due to the fact that they couldn't make anymore Maersk
Blue bricks--no promise, just a statement of fact based on all available info at
the time.
Then here comes Maersk with a new contract, stating that they'll supply the
Maersk Blue colour and wanting more boats.
Yeah, that certainly seems like it's really bad on TLC's part--to sign contracts
with a company that they've been doing business for many years to the mutual
advantage of both companies, as well as giving us real adults some very
exceptional sets to own.
Stop with the lying. Stop with the spinning. Stop spewing forth your slant of
what happened and look at what actually happened.
This is much like the following parable--
"Hey Ken, want to go to Vegas for the weekend?"
Ken, basing his trip on the contents of his wallet, makes this statement--
"No, I can't because I don't have the funds for a ticket"
Later...
"Hey Ken, I have a ticket to Vegas with your name on it--let's go!"
"No I can't go because I said earlier that I couldn't go. The situation has
changed and now it doesn't matter if there's no money in my wallet to purchase
the ticket because you're giving me the ticket, but I can't go anyway because I
stated I couldn't go earlier and I never break my word."
Yeah, pretty much what you want TLC to do--you want them to adhere to business
decisions made using all available data at the time, even though stuff happened
later in the future. Can we all have that crystal ball that you seem to have?
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
| |
In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we
have left. That means that there is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even
the parks can no longer get Maersk blue. This is a small run too – only
14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home.
|
I fully understand what Lego said.
|
It kinda doesn’t sound like you do. In the above quote they said:
1) they used up their existing supply of Maersk blue pellets. They did. It’s
true. Other than Jan’s comment on the German site (which translated roughly to
“this is your last chance to get Maersk blue”), they never said they would
never, ever, make more Maersk blue pellets.
2) They said there’s no Maersk blue ABS left. Obviously the intent in that
statement was “no Maersk blue ABS *PELLETS* left”, but that was also true. They
did NOT say Maersk blue would never again be made.
3) They said the parks can no longer get Maersk blue. Was also true, short of
getting Maersk blue from outside the company (IE they COULD have ordered things
through, say, BrickLink, despite the overwhelming stupidity of that
possibility).
4) They said the RUN, not the SET was limited to 14,000 copies. They said the
run they were doing would produce 14,000 copies of the set. They did NOT say
that future runs would never happen.
The only error I see in all of this was Jan’s statement. Sure, you may have
understood some unspoken implication, but the fact is it wasn’t stated, nor
intentionally implied.
| |
I fully understand they broke that promiss.
|
People keep referring to this as a promise-- I just don’t get it. We were told
the details of the run they were doing, and told that there weren’t plans to do
another one. They didn’t PROMISE by any stretch of the imagination that none
would ever exist. Other than Jan’s one statement, can you find the exact
instance where they “promised” not to make another Maersk blue set?
| |
When I say I will do something you can trust me to do it. How about you?
|
If an asteroid hit Billund tomorrow, destroying the supply of Maersk blue, and
Lego’s insurance didn’t cover ‘asteroid damage’, and Lego couldn’t afford to buy
or manufacture the new Maersk blue sets, would you still accuse Lego of breaking
their “promise”?
If Maersk decided for reasons unknown to call off the deal with Lego and work
with Mega Bloks instead, and forced Lego to cancel the production run, would you
still insist that Lego illegally sell the new run of Maersk blue ships?
At what point would you call it “breaking a promise” versus “acceptible breaking
of a promise”? (I assume if, say, you promised your friend that he could stay at
your house, and your house burned down, preventing you from being able to let
him stay there, that you wouldn’t call that a “broken promise”, but hey, maybe
you would, I dunno)
And why is this in BOTH o-t-d AND lugnet.lego? Isn’t that some sort of oxymoron?
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Fredrik Nyman wrote:
>
> "Bill Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:I91w7E.1yL8@lugnet.com...
> > I think it's incredible that LEGO gives any attention to AFOL's at all. Now you
> > want them to give special attention to the minority who are collectors? You
> > don't ask much, do you?
>
> Why is it incredible?
>
> If LEGO was an airline, AFOLs would be the first class and business class
> frequent flyers, who bring in the most money per mile (brick). So LEGO
> ignores AFOLs at its peril.
That would be true if the airplane sat 100,000 people and had 1 first class and
2 business class seats. Your numbers are all wrong.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Paulo Renato wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> Hey Ben,
>
> I think you know my feelings about crap bley and all of those silly excuses
> surrounding it. As you might have read elsewhere I didn't buy any new sets this
> year (except for bulk bricks at S@H), so you may have a clue of how I feel. In
> fact, browsing your wonderful site I read your position about that issue and I
> have to tell you I fully agree with you.
Dear Paulo!
Thanks for your posting now! -And I remember you once answered in a very
friendly way, when I explained, that I feel nearly expelled out of my hobby due
to the bleys. It was possible your posting which kept me here at Lugnet. I
appreciate lots of your opinions and the way you utter them friendly but
destinct.
> That said, regarding this Maersk Ship issue I don't feel betrayed or like a
> 'promise' has been broken -- I see an oportunity for TLC to make money and an
> oportunity for all of those people who wanted to buy this ship and didn't buy it
> yet. I only think it is bad for the collectors or/and the moneymakers. But then
> again, even if between two bads, I think tLC hadn't many choices and choosed the
> less bad one. (Do you think they should say NO to Maersk company Ben? Put
> yourself in their shoes.)
Let me repeat a really well written analysis from the 1000steine board (in very
free translaton):
Lego did 14000 ships in the first limited run. 4000 for Maersk, 10000 for
basically AFOLs. Mearsk will surly have paid less than the AFOLs per set.
Which part of the deal might be more important? Mearsk or AFOLs?
We can even assume, that Maersk might have gotten the ships for less than
manufactoring costs. As a compensation for TLC they allowed TLC to sell the set
to the public and use the MEARSK logos and colours for theses sets as well. That
is usual marketing and known as mixed calculation.
So who paid and who took most profit out of the situation?
Now Mearsk asks for more ships. How much more? More than 10000? And for which
price? Who pais the bill for this and who will take profit this time? I guess
that again more ships will end up at S@H than at MEARSK.
Is the deal with MEARSK bringing so much profit for TLC that they can risk to
get scratches in their brand name and the worth of their brand? Can they omit on
all those buyers that now feel betrayed?
I have not bought a single set of the MEARSK set because of bley. I am not hurt
by any loss of my collection. I am not sitting on 10 sets and waiting for profit
for myself.
But I always thought LEGO had higher ethical standards. But for a handful
dollars they kick us AFOLs in the face. Next they might produce in China and
take profit out of children working in dark basements sorting bricks into boxes.
That will be more cost effective than danish adult employees. I would dam that.
Even if the LEGO management feels forced to do so for profits sake.
Leg Godt!
Ben
My favorite author Hans Henny Jahnn wrote:
"Everybody is open to bribery - only the sum that has to be spent determines the
character."
TLC's character is not more worth than the character of the average street
whore. For a handful money they both will do everything.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> [... snap ... ]
Nothing new. Already debunked by others.
> But I always thought LEGO had higher ethical standards.
Ha ha! Remember all those gambling toys a.k.a. bionical masks? Can they just
honestly label their product instead of enouraging kids to play lottery?
> But for a handful
> dollars they kick us AFOLs in the face. Next they might produce in China and
> take profit out of children working in dark basements sorting bricks into boxes.
Why do I keep hearing this ignorant crap? Have you ever heard of the one-child
policy that has been around since the 80s? Today in China you will have a hard
time finding parents willing to make their one spoiled kid to wash their dish.
If you want to bitch about moving manufacturing to China, use real issues like
massive air pollution due to poor regulation, or various kinds of corruption of
the government.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > > > SNIP
> > > Which part in there was lieing?
> > >
> > > Just becasue you didn't like what happened, does not give you 'carte blanc'
> > > to interpret the events the way you wish.
> > >
> > > Dave K
I don't need anything to be interpreted. Anyone who knows me knows I am a man of
my word. How about you?-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
SNIP
| |
People keep referring to this as a promise-- I just don’t get it. We were
told the details of the run they were doing, and told that there weren’t
plans to do another one. They didn’t PROMISE by any stretch of the
imagination that none would ever exist. Other than Jan’s one statement, can
you find the exact instance where they “promised” not to make another Maersk
blue set?
|
QUOTH JAKE MCKEE: “Then it’s time for another new adventure! It measures 69cm
long and is your last chance to buy Maersk bricks!
AND:This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At
Home.
More snippage...
| |
If an asteroid hit Billund tomorrow, destroying the supply of Maersk blue,
and Lego’s insurance didn’t cover ‘asteroid damage’, and Lego couldn’t afford
to buy or manufacture the new Maersk blue sets, would you still accuse Lego
of breaking their “promise”?
If Maersk decided for reasons unknown to call off the deal with Lego and work
with Mega Bloks instead, and forced Lego to cancel the production run, would
you still insist that Lego illegally sell the new run of Maersk blue ships?
At what point would you call it “breaking a promise” versus “acceptible
breaking of a promise”? (I assume if, say, you promised your friend that he
could stay at your house, and your house burned down, preventing you from
being able to let him stay there, that you wouldn’t call that a “broken
promise”, but hey, maybe you would, I dunno)
|
And if the queen had B---s then she’d be king. There was no asteroid, no Mega
Block deal, and no fire. Pretty much no excuse for going back on a promiss.
Personally I keep my promisses. How about you?-Ken
|
|
| |
What makes you think that Lego would deign to expend the effort it would
take to lie to a bunch of insignificant moqsuitoes like us? The contribution
margin on the entire load of Maersk ships probably amounts to what we
accountants call a rounding error.
"Ken Nagel" <knandjn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I94x04.11JK@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
>
> SNIP
> > Perhaps there are different connotations of the term "limited"? • SNIP
> > Spencer
>
> No confussion here. They said through Jake M., SHO, and press releases
> that it
> was LIMITED TO 10,000.
>
> I don't care about collectability. I bought two the first time one for
> myself
> and another for a nephew. I may get another this time.
>
> however I do detest being lied to. the excuse "we changed our minds" is
> only an
> excuse. It does not change the fact that a promise was broken.
>
> After bley and click hinges et. al. some seem to think they are taking the
> high
> road by defending the company no matter what they do. This is sad it's not
> the
> company doing with their product as they see fit it's the company lying to
> you.-Ken
|
|
| |
Your thought process, as enumerated below, is flabergasting in the scope of
its naivete.
You realize that Lego is fighting for its very survival, no?
Maybe you're right. Better to have those kindly Danes keep making the brick
until the company is bankrupt. Fabulous!
Lego made a serious tactical error in allowing Mega Bloks to become an
established brand. But they did, and must now deal with the consequences.
One of these consequences is massive cost restructuring.
I was at the Toys R Us in Manhattan today, where a massive Lego display sits
side by side with a massive Mega Bloks display. An excellent setup for
side-by-side comparisons on a grand scale. Let me tell you, if I didn't know
about the inferior quality of Mega Bloks, I'd be buying their sets by the
armful. They have a very impressive lineup. I had lots of company in the
Mega Bloks aisle.
"Reinhard "Ben" Beneke" <ben@1000steine.SPAM-block.com> wrote in message
news:I95DKG.6HI@lugnet.com...
> I have not bought a single set of the MEARSK set because of bley. I am not
> hurt
> by any loss of my collection. I am not sitting on 10 sets and waiting for
> profit
> for myself.
>
> But I always thought LEGO had higher ethical standards. But for a handful
> dollars they kick us AFOLs in the face. Next they might produce in China
> and
> take profit out of children working in dark basements sorting bricks into
> boxes.
> That will be more cost effective than danish adult employees. I would dam
> that.
> Even if the LEGO management feels forced to do so for profits sake.
>
> Leg Godt!
>
> Ben
>
> My favorite author Hans Henny Jahnn wrote:
> "Everybody is open to bribery - only the sum that has to be spent
> determines the
> character."
>
> TLC's character is not more worth than the character of the average street
> whore. For a handful money they both will do everything.
|
|
| |
Hi Ka-On,
<snipped>
> Have you ever heard of the one-child
> policy that has been around since the 80s? Today in China you will have a hard
> time finding parents willing to make their one spoiled kid to wash their dish.
Got me curious about this. It is really true what you are saying? Or are you
talking about the average middle/high class? Isn't it true that overthere you
have a lot of children labour? I saw a documentary in Discovery channel the
other day regarding toy makers enterprises and the reasons they could make it so
cheap was mostly because of cheap children labour. Of course I would be glad to
*know* that it ain't so.
Could you please provide some enlightment on this. I don't know anyone from
China so I really have no idea what's going out there.
Best regards,
Paulo Renato
P.S. :
> If you want to bitch about moving manufacturing to China, use real issues like
> massive air pollution due to poor regulation, or various kinds of corruption of
> the government.
Now this line doesn't apply solely to China I'm afraid...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
SNIP
| |
People keep referring to this as a promise-- I just don’t get it. We were
told the details of the run they were doing, and told that there weren’t
plans to do another one. They didn’t PROMISE by any stretch of the
imagination that none would ever exist. Other than Jan’s one statement, can
you find the exact instance where they “promised” not to make another Maersk
blue set?
|
QUOTH JAKE MCKEE: “Then it’s time for another new adventure! It measures 69cm
long and is your last chance to buy Maersk bricks!
|
I stand corrected! I skimmed right over that bit in Jake’s post
(http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801) repeatedly because I figured it was the
S@H description.
| |
AND:This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop
At Home.
|
The first quote I’ll give you. That one by no means. It was true, still is true.
No promises on possible future runs from that statement. The run they did was
14,000. Nothing even remotely implied about future runs, apart from the “last
chance to buy Maersk bricks” bit.
| |
| |
At what point would you call it “breaking a promise” versus “acceptible
breaking of a promise”? (I assume if, say, you promised your friend that he
could stay at your house, and your house burned down, preventing you from
being able to let him stay there, that you wouldn’t call that a “broken
promise”, but hey, maybe you would, I dunno)
|
And if the queen had B---s then she’d be king. There was no asteroid, no Mega
Block deal, and no fire.
|
Well... yeah. That was the point. Would you hold it against Lego if there was?
Should I just assume your answer is “no”? Should I make up some more scenarios
to find that borderline point between when you think it was ok vs. not ok?
| |
Pretty much no excuse for going back on a promiss.
|
I still think it’s a pretty miniscule excuse of a promise. I mean, yes, I agree
that they should have phrased it as “It may be your last chance” instead of “It
... IS your last chance, but would that little 1-word insertion really have
satisfied you? My guess is no.
To be honest, I think it was very good of them to point out that it might have
been the last chance for Maersk blue, even if they didn’t get the phrasing
right. They were trying (I think) to make sure people knew ahead of time so
nobody got left behind in the dust, still wanting to buy a copy. I don’t think
they were trying to increase the chances of it selling out. With a set like that
in such a limited run, they probably knew it would sell out pretty well.
But to be even more honest, I think the Lego nay-sayers are mostly just itching
for an excuse to vent at the company. If they hadn’t done the color change, were
still producing classic space sets, weren’t as juniorized, had a mix of studded
and studless beamed technic sets, I seriously doubt they’d be getting this kind
of ridiculous flak over such a pathetic thing that probably could’ve been fixed
by inserting a single trivial word into their set description.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Paulo Renato wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
<snip a bit of my stuff>
> Dear Paulo!
>
> Thanks for your posting now! -And I remember you once answered in a very
> friendly way, when I explained, that I feel nearly expelled out of my hobby due
> to the bleys.
> It was possible your posting which kept me here at Lugnet.
Dear Ben,
I'm very glad that you noticed it and I'm really touched to see that you even
recall it! I really think that you are (besides a {greatest} MOCcer, mind you!)
one of the few persons that keep me hanging around here as well.
> I
> appreciate lots of your opinions and the way you utter them friendly but
> destinct.
Now that is got to be the greatest compliment I've ever received here (not that
I've received many:)). Danke schön Ben!
<snip my stuff once more>
> Let me repeat a really well written analysis from the 1000steine board (in very
> free translaton):
>
> Lego did 14000 ships in the first limited run. 4000 for Maersk, 10000 for
> basically AFOLs. Mearsk will surly have paid less than the AFOLs per set.
>
> Which part of the deal might be more important? Mearsk or AFOLs?
>
> We can even assume, that Maersk might have gotten the ships for less than
> manufactoring costs. As a compensation for TLC they allowed TLC to sell the set
> to the public and use the MEARSK logos and colours for theses sets as well. That
> is usual marketing and known as mixed calculation.
>
> So who paid and who took most profit out of the situation?
>
> Now Mearsk asks for more ships. How much more? More than 10000? And for which
> price? Who pais the bill for this and who will take profit this time? I guess
> that again more ships will end up at S@H than at MEARSK.
>
> Is the deal with MEARSK bringing so much profit for TLC that they can risk to
> get scratches in their brand name and the worth of their brand? Can they omit on
> all those buyers that now feel betrayed?
Ok, Ben, I have to admit that I didn't read half of this tread and therefore I
may be missing something, but before I go further I'd like to say two things
about myself:
1. If a *promise* was made then *that promise* should be accomplished. That's
simple as that. Whoever fails a promise doesn't deserve my faith anymore. (Nor
respect for that matter.)
2. I'm not the Pilatos type, washing my hands whenever a subject doesn't
particularly hurt me. Meaning, that despite this particular issue doesn't hurt
me at all, I'd like to add my voice to the ones I think are right, and therefore
I'd like to understand who's right after all.
I confess that your post made me think, mostly because I know you are a wise
man, so if you don't mind I'd like to take a look at some of your thoughts.
(Others who may feel tired, please skip it.)
I think I understood your take on the money-talks part very well, but still,
there are two things bugging my mind.
a) Who, in your opinion, should feel, like you say, betrayed? Collectors? BL
sellers? (BTW, do you personally feel betrayed?) It seems that there are two
substancially diferents statements, one german-worded and another
english-worded. The former seems to include the *promise* (or would it be
*limited qauntities*?) word, am I right? And that's why you are upset?
b) Now forget about TLC profits/prostitution like you say (1) for a while and
tell me, how do you feel about the people that had never the chance to buy the
Maersk ship at the first run and are wholeheartedly happy with the idea of
having it now? Isn't it a bit like we were young? You see, putting myself into
their shoes, I feel really happy for them. Reminds me when I was a kid and used
to look at the stores from the outside, and look, and look, and look... -- then,
you know, some unique day in a year, my mom would offer me this special magical
box with a very distinctive rattle-rattle sound, and I knew I could not be
wrong. I know that I will never have fun like this again. So, seeing these
people being given a 2nd chance I feel a bit like that. Damn, even if TLC did
not act well, isn't it a good thing after all? Or at least, isn't it a much
better thing than a bad one? What is your take on this Ben? (Please forget, if
you will, the meanings, focus in the ends for a while -- then you're free to
go:-))
I'm sorry if I took a different approache than your perspective. You may be
right about TLC, I don't argue that because I have no available data to support
strong arguments about that, but I am much concerned with the humanistic side of
the issue. (Not saying that you are not! Just explaining a bit of the nature of
my foremost concerns.)
> I have not bought a single set of the MEARSK set because of bley.
Make it two of us :-(
> I am not hurt
> by any loss of my collection. I am not sitting on 10 sets and waiting for profit
> for myself.
That was the sentence that made me think the most, really. And that is why I ask
the questions a) and b) above.
> But I always thought LEGO had higher ethical standards. But for a handful
> dollars they kick us AFOLs in the face.
I don't get it. Not many AFOLs, I would think. This is not a permanent issue
like the bley thing; this is only a passing episode. Hope to be enlighted with
the answer to question a) though.
> Next they might produce in China and
> take profit out of children working in dark basements sorting bricks into boxes.
> That will be more cost effective than danish adult employees. I would dam that.
> Even if the LEGO management feels forced to do so for profits sake.
If you ask me I don't put my hands on the fire for TLC. TLC, as it is, only
means for me a company that, as wisely claimed one of my favorite composers,
Frank Zappa, "We're only in it for the money" (2) and as it happens, produces a
great toy. Don't mix up things guys: The toy is great, the company is not.
> My favorite author Hans Henny Jahnn wrote:
> "Everybody is open to bribery - only the sum that has to be spent determines the
> character."
(1) Damn, I thought that line was mine! Honest.
> TLC's character is not more worth than the character of the average street
> whore. For a handful money they both will do everything.
Unfortunately, many gals with that profession just can't say no.
Take care Ben,
Cheers,
Paulo-Renato
(2) Making a parody of the (great!) Beatles' Sgt Peppers album -- sort of: "who
are you kidding guys?; Values, what values? Ah, money-values, that is". Always
sharp this Zappa guy!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
>
> Now I do wonder: WHAT EXACTELY has TLC to do to make these people criticize the
> companies decisions?
Since LEGO is a private company, they can do anything they want. If LEGO
decided to now make automotive parts or kitchen utensils or print newspapers
there is nothing we can say as fans of the brick to make them change their mind.
The LEGO company can do whatever they decide and I am okay with that.
>
> This is a question I really have at the hard core fans of TLC: What could make
> you unsure in your fanatic love to the company and their decisions?
I do not have love for the LEGO company. I _DO_ Love LEGO Bricks.
The LEGO company is a business that needs to do what they decide is best to stay
in business. As a consumer of LEGO products, I buy as much bricks as possible
to show my support for their product. As long as LEGO keeps selling bricks to
me I will be happy. Anything else they do is not my business.
__Kevin Salm__
LUCNY
Agaist proper posting procedures, Follow-ups set to off-topic.debate (without
also posting THIS message there).
.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > > > > SNIP
> > > > Which part in there was lieing?
> > > >
> > > > Just becasue you didn't like what happened, does not give you 'carte blanc'
> > > > to interpret the events the way you wish.
> > > >
> > > > Dave K
>
> I don't need anything to be interpreted. Anyone who knows me knows I am a man of
> my word. How about you?-Ken
You may be a man of your word but you have 'selective interpretation' down to a
science.
If you want to debate the facts, I'm all for it. If you continue to ignore what
actually happened, then we're done here.
Take care,
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> SNIP
> > People keep referring to this as a promise-- I just don't get it. We were
> > told the details of the run they were doing, and told that there weren't
> > plans to do another one. They didn't PROMISE by any stretch of the
> > imagination that none would ever exist. Other than Jan's one statement, can
> > you find the exact instance where they "promised" not to make another Maersk
> > blue set?
>
>
> QUOTH JAKE MCKEE: "Then it’s time for another new adventure! It measures 69cm
> long and is your last chance to buy Maersk bricks!
>
> AND:This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop
> At Home.
>
> More snippage...
> > If an asteroid hit Billund tomorrow, destroying the supply of Maersk blue,
> > and Lego's insurance didn't cover 'asteroid damage', and Lego couldn't
> > afford to buy or manufacture the new Maersk blue sets, would you still
> > accuse Lego of breaking their "promise"?
> >
> > If Maersk decided for reasons unknown to call off the deal with Lego and
> > work with Mega Bloks instead, and forced Lego to cancel the production run,
> > would you still insist that Lego illegally sell the new run of Maersk blue
> > ships?
> >
> > At what point would you call it "breaking a promise" versus "acceptible
> > breaking of a promise"? (I assume if, say, you promised your friend that he
> > could stay at your house, and your house burned down, preventing you from
> > being able to let him stay there, that you wouldn't call that a "broken
> > promise", but hey, maybe you would, I dunno)
>
> And if the queen had B---s then she'd be king. There was no asteroid, no Mega
> Block deal, and no fire. Pretty much no excuse for going back on a promiss.
> Personally I keep my promisses. How about you?-Ken
There was no promise! Stop saying that! Stop spinning this!
At the time Jake said what he said, that's *exactly* what was going on--TLC had
some leftover Maersk Blue pellets and no contract with Maersk Blue to warrant
making more. Those are the facts.
They made a production run and used up all their Maersk Blue pellets, which is
what they wanted to do. It was a win-win for everyone--TLC doesn't have pallets
full of pellets gathering dust, we get a wonderful little set, stated as
"limited" by the fact that TLC didn't have Maersk Blue pellets--TLC couldn't
make anymore sets.
Then, after all this, Maersk and TLC entered into a *new* contract.
These facts are indisputable. There was no promises made that TLC wouldn't sign
another contract with Maersk. And you implying that TLC should make such a
promise, or that you read such a promise into this situation, is arrogant
presumption.
Again, you keep on stating that you are a man of your word. The words I'm
reading are 'arrogant presumption'.
Further, I resent your tagline that you seem to be ending all your posts with
regarding this issue. "Personally I keep my promisses. How about you?"
1--it wrongfully infers that TLC doesn't keep its promises with regards to this
situation. Since there was no promise to begin with, just stated facts that, at
the time were completely and unequivocably true (which does not negate future
contracts, by the way), then you are mis-stating right there, so you are not a
man of your word, unless lying is somethign you want to aspire to.
2--the 'How about you' immediately puts the respondee on the defensive, as if I
have made some sort of wrongful statement. Well, again I will point out, that
it is you who made the mis-statement and that you should not selectively
interpret the events and facts to suit your chip on your shoulder.
IF you want to continue to ignore what actually happened, then go right ahead
and this conversation ends here. If, however, you wish to debate the facts, I'm
all for it. Just step off your high horse before you do so.
Take care,
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > > > > SNIP
> > > > Which part in there was lieing?
> > > >
> > > > Just becasue you didn't like what happened, does not give you 'carte blanc'
> > > > to interpret the events the way you wish.
>
> I don't need anything to be interpreted. Anyone who knows me knows I am a man of
> my word. How about you?
Hey now, there's no need for that. Dave K can speak for himself, but what the
heck--I can speak for himself, too. Regardless of his national origins, I have
always found Dave K to be honest and forthright. He is willing to admit when he
is wrong, and he doesn't tout himself when he's right.
You may disagree with his interpretation of these events, but it's hardly
necessary to impugn his integrity along the way.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Hey now, there's no need for that. Dave K can speak for himself, but what the
> heck--I can speak for himself, too. Regardless of his national origins, I have
> always found Dave K to be honest and forthright. He is willing to admit when he
> is wrong, and he doesn't tout himself when he's right.
The above is not just the DMAS (Dave Mutual Admiration Society) speaking, there
are a lot of other people on LUGNET that feel the very same way, myself
included.
> You may disagree with his interpretation of these events, but it's hardly
> necessary to impugn his integrity along the way.
I totally agree with this, well said, Dave!
|
|
| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@ascentialsoftware.DOT.com> wrote in
message news:I96Ln0.1GsL@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego, Dave Schuler wrote:
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> The above is not just the DMAS (Dave Mutual Admiration Society) speaking, • there
> are a lot of other people on LUGNET that feel the very same way, myself
> included.
>
> > You may disagree with his interpretation of these events, but it's • hardly
> > necessary to impugn his integrity along the way.
>
> I totally agree with this, well said, Dave!
I too agree with Dave Schuler and Larry. I really applaud Dave Koudys for
continuing to be a voice of reason on this topic and sticking his neck out
time and again to outline the facts to people who refuse to acknowledge them
for whatever reason.
I really don't comprehend the outrage people have on this topic. I don't
view the original statements regarding the release of 10152 as any sort of
promise from TLC but rather a simple statements of the facts surrounding its
release at the time of its release. They used up the Maersk pellets they
had on hand and had no plans to aquire more. I truly believe the situation
to be that simple and based on the facts as they were known at the time the
set was released and posts to LUGNET and 1000Steine were submitted.
Business climates change and companies must change or they will fail. In
the case of the re-release of 10152, TLC didn't do anything different than
most large multi-national companies do. They have partners and do special
things for them which they might not do otherwise. I am sure the
conversation went something like this:
Maersk: Hey LEGO, we want to get some more of those Container Ships.
TLC: We don't have any more.
Maersk: Can you make more?
TLC: Well, we could but we used all of the Maersk blue ABS stock we had on
hand doing the last run.
Maersk: Can't you just by more? It's just ABS right?
TLC: Because the color was designed to match the Maersk blue and
historically our agreement with Maersk has prevented us from using it in
production sets, it doesn't make sense for us to buy the raw ABS pellets.
Maersk: What if we buy them for you?
TLC: I guess that would work. It will be expensive in a low volume though.
Maersk: No problem, we'll absorb it as part of our marketing budget. This
ship works well with our promotional efforts and has been well received by
our customers.
TLC: Ok, we'll get to work on it.
Now I am sure this is an over simplication of the dialog between Maersk and
TLC but I'd guess it isn't too far from what really happened. A lot of the
intangible costs (set design, instruction development, BOM management, etc.)
could be re-used from the last run so the cost to run it again were probably
pretty low and limited to just ramping up production. Developing a new set
means going back and touching the whole set design and development process.
Probably not cost effective either. Because the set was done recently, the
instructions and other MRP related items are probably still compatible with
how LEGO produces sets today (unlike say 1831 which was produced 10 years
ago).
There is no shortage of TLC decisions for people to question. However,
IMNSHO, the uproar over the re-release of 10152 is not one of them. Verbage
posted at the time of release of 10152 doesn't make it limited or imply a
promise that it is. Had the packaging noted otherwise (like the Super Chief
box did) then people would have a valid complaint. But it didn't. The
package carried no sort of tag and as such, people took some facts posted by
LEGO employees and drew a conclusion that 10152 was a limited edition set.
If TLC's actions (color change, Bionicle, 10152 re-release, <insert your
favorite TLC action here>, etc.) bring you so much unhappiness into your
hobby, then it is probably time for you to take step back and decide whether
LEGO is a good hobby for you. In the grand scheme of things hobbies are
supposed to be fun and a welcome diversion from every day life. If your
hobby has now gotten you so wrapped around the axel that you don't enjoy
then you should stop.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
|
|
| |
| |
The bad news is that this means we need to postpone (and perhaps cancel) the
dark blue 10152 version. As soon as we know for sure, I’ll pass the word.
|
Well if it still sells very well I hope it is produced in dark blue as well.
Only because I think a set this well designed deserves a large production run
and a spot in the S@H cataloge, and thus further increase its sales. I am just
glad to be able to get one from LEGO rather than a scalper now that I can afford
one. Thank you very much.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
| |
Yes, I'm sure AFOLs are more aware of sales and hot deals and pay less
per brick than a casual LEGO shopper (exception: those who just pick
up 4496's at Wal-Mart; $14.88 for 1000 bricks is hard to beat).
On the other hand, AFOLs but orders of magnitude more sets and bricks
than a casual LEGO shopper, and also buys the high-end sets a casual
shopper will never see (because big retailers such as Wal-Mart and TRU
don't carry them) -- the 10152 Maersk ship, the Imperial Star Destroyer,
the entire Trains line. I would also guess that AFOLs buy most Mindstorms
sets, at least until recently with the FLL stuff getting rolling.
"Anders Isaksson" <isaksson.etuna@REMOVEtelia.com> wrote in message
news:I94uFx.AoL@lugnet.com...
> Fredrik Nyman wrote:
> >
> > If LEGO was an airline, AFOLs would be the first class and business
> > class frequent flyers, who bring in the most money per mile (brick).
>
>
> I sincerely doubt that. I think the AFOLs are much more price-aware that
> the casual Lego buyer. Even though the posts about FOTW:s (and FOTM:s and
> FOTY:s) have dwindled here on lugnet, I do believe that the 'typical' AFOL
> is giving TLC *less* money per brick even if they buy more bricks than the
> 'typical' non-AFOL.
>
> --
> Anders Isaksson, Sweden
> BlockCAD: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
> Gallery: http://w1.161.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
>
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mike Walsh wrote:
>
> "Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@ascentialsoftware.DOT.com> wrote in
> message news:I96Ln0.1GsL@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.lego, Dave Schuler wrote:
<snip>
> If TLC's actions (color change, Bionicle, 10152 re-release, <insert your
> favorite TLC action here>, etc.) bring you so much unhappiness into your
> hobby, then it is probably time for you to take step back and decide whether
> LEGO is a good hobby for you. In the grand scheme of things hobbies are
> supposed to be fun and a welcome diversion from every day life. If your
> hobby has now gotten you so wrapped around the axel that you don't enjoy
> then you should stop.
>
> Mike
Really, thanks guys. I appreciate the support. This is the LEGO User Group
NETwork, and this is why I'm here.
Beyond that, for the 3+ (almost 4) decades of fun that TLC has provided by their
product I had to say something.
Here's one little ancedote about my dealings with TLC.
I love the Mindstorms sets--I love building robots. I went so far as to build a
'bot to 'play' Everquest, and lent that 'bot to a friend. He had that 'bot
running almost conitinuously for 2+ years--basically 2 motors pressing keys on
thekeyboard at specific times.
As well, I have used other Technic 9v motors 'over and above' the probably
recommended way, such as getting 18 volts (pure LEGO solution without modifying
any bricks/plates/battery boxes--if you're interested, drop me a line--I snivved
the idea from other people, but that's neither here nor there)--so out of the
25-30ish 9 volt motors I've purchased in sets for the past number of years, I've
actually broken or wore down a few.
I've never, by the way, sent any of my well-used motors back for
replacement--taht'd be wrong. But what has happened to 3 of the motors, is
that, after a few weeks of normal use, they just got stuck and wouldn't spin
anymore. After the first one got stuck, me, being who I am, took the motor
apart to see what's up with it--turns out that the magnet just seemed to
disintegrate and the coils were rubbing against all the bits of metal at the
back. Didin't worry about it too much because I had 20+ other motors at the
time, some running almost continuously for over a year.
After buying more RIS's and such, I found that two other motors went on me.
Freinds at rtl said that I could send those back and TLC would exchange 'em. I
was really shocked that TLC would do so. But I gave it a shot--I packed up the
teo non functioning motors in a padded envelope and sent them off to TLC. As
well, I threw in all the bits and pieces from the motor that I took apart with
an accompanying letter that stated that they might want to throw these busted
motors over to someone who could examine and maybe prevent such 'magnet busitng'
in the future.
Now friends, I expected that I woudln't get any replacements, because, to me,
the motors were used by me--I mean they had some scratches and such so they were
obviously used. And I especially didn't expect that I'd get a replacement for
the motor I took apart--I mean, no company in the world has ever given me a
'refund' or replacement for something like that.
Yet, a few weeks later I received a package from TLC with 3 brand new 9 volt
motors, with an accompanying letter apologizing--APOLOGIZING--for any issues
arising from the busted motors.
Yeah, pretty much a class act from a company that has provided me with many
years of joy and fun.
Sure there will be mistakes and issues. Life is like that. I had a very polite
'nasty' letter sent to me years ago from TLC's legal department. THis isn't all
honey and roses--TLC is a business, and, as such, will do what is in the best
interest of trying to eek out a living in these times where other companies
don't seem to care as much for quality or community relations. I have
personally experienced that poor quality of TLC's main competitor--minifig hands
breaking when I try to insert a sword. I mean this was me putting the set
together--not my 6 year old nephew who is a little hard on things. Plates
breaking as you try to snap them together--again, me using the same techniques
I've been using for LEGO construction over the past 37 years.
I'm sory, almost everytime I've been asked to help nephews put together their
newest clone set, I've had bad experiences
Anyway, this is just the tip of the reasoning why I really appreciate my chosen
hobby and am more than willing to cut TLC a little slack if the situation
warrants (and this Maersk thing is not even a situation where one has to cut TLC
slack--they're perfectly in the right)
Beyond that, hope everyone has a safe and joyous holiday season. I know I'm
hopeful that my family has finally gotten the clue after 37 years that I really
like LEGO and I might actually get a few sets for Christmas this year for a
change.
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> And why is this in BOTH o-t-d AND lugnet.lego? Isn't that some sort of
> oxymoron?
LOL!! Thanx, Dave, that's my laugh for the week! :]
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
snippage
> Beyond that, hope everyone has a safe and joyous holiday season. I know I'm
> hopeful that my family has finally gotten the clue after 37 years that I really
> like LEGO and I might actually get a few sets for Christmas this year for a
> change.
>
> Dave K
Dave,
If you don't get a LEGO set for Christmas, e-mail me. I'll send you one for
Christmas. No charge for set or shipping. Consider it a gift for all your
efforts. Hell...send me your address..I'll send you something regardless of
whether your family gets you Lego or not..
Scott Lyttle
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> >
> > > > > > SNIP
> > > > > Which part in there was lieing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just becasue you didn't like what happened, does not give you 'carte blanc'
> > > > > to interpret the events the way you wish.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave K
> >
> > I don't need anything to be interpreted. Anyone who knows me knows I am a man of
> > my word. How about you?-Ken
>
> You may be a man of your word but you have 'selective interpretation' down to a
> science.
>
> If you want to debate the facts, I'm all for it. If you continue to ignore what
> actually happened, then we're done here.
>
> Take care,
>
> Dave K
And by "Selective Interpretation" you mean anything short of the way you see
it?-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> >
> > > > > > SNIP
> > > > > Which part in there was lieing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just becasue you didn't like what happened, does not give you 'carte blanc'
> > > > > to interpret the events the way you wish.
> >
> > I don't need anything to be interpreted. Anyone who knows me knows I am a man of
> > my word. How about you?
>
> Hey now, there's no need for that. Dave K can speak for himself, but what the
> heck--I can speak for himself, too. Regardless of his national origins, I have
> always found Dave K to be honest and forthright. He is willing to admit when he
> is wrong, and he doesn't tout himself when he's right.
>
> You may disagree with his interpretation of these events, but it's hardly
> necessary to impugn his integrity along the way.
>
> Dave!
I didn't impugn anything. I asked a simple question wich is quite relevant given
that this is at it's essence a moral question.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
SNIP
|
But to be even more honest, I think the Lego nay-sayers are mostly just
itching for an excuse to vent at the company. If they hadn’t done the color
change, were still producing classic space sets, weren’t as juniorized, had a
mix of studded and studless beamed technic sets, I seriously doubt they’d be
getting this kind of ridiculous flak over such a pathetic thing that probably
could’ve been fixed by inserting a single trivial word into their set
description.
DaveE
|
And on the other side of the coin many want to defend the company no matter what
they do. This is not bley or click hinges. This is basic morality.I’m with the
“nay-sayers” because the company is on a destructive path and if they go down so
does the hobby I love. If you’ve paid any attention to the financal news you
know which direction the company is headed.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> > SNIP
> > > > > Personally I keep my promisses. How about you?-Ken
>
> There was no promise! Stop saying that! Stop spinning this!
Crying is very unbecomming....
>
> At the time Jake said what he said, that's *exactly* what was going on--TLC had
> some leftover Maersk Blue pellets and no contract with Maersk Blue to warrant
> making more. Those are the facts.
Can I use this defense on my wedding vows? "Honest dear I meant what I was
saying at the time but circumstances changed...."
SNIP
> Then, after all this, Maersk and TLC entered into a *new* contract.
>
> These facts are indisputable. There was no promises made that TLC wouldn't sign
> another contract with Maersk. And you implying that TLC should make such a
> promise, or that you read such a promise into this situation, is arrogant
> presumption.
The facts are that Lego Promised this to be a limited run. A new contract for a
new model would have been a diffrent story. As for "arrogant" refer back to all
of your exclimation points. My view is based on EXACTLY what Lego said it's you
who wants to read something else into the situation, or dare I say "spin" it.
>
> Again, you keep on stating that you are a man of your word. The words I'm
> reading are 'arrogant presumption'.
There you go spinning again....
> Further, I resent your tagline that you seem to be ending all your posts with
> regarding this issue. "Personally I keep my promisses. How about you?"
A legitimat question since this is a question of basic morlity....
>
> 1--it wrongfully infers that TLC doesn't keep its promises with regards to this situation.
Not doesn't "DIDN'T"
> Since there was no promise to begin with, just stated facts that, at
> the time were completely and unequivocably true (which does not negate future
> contracts, by the way),
"Well dear the vows were one thing but there's this new woman now..."
> then you are mis-stating right there, so you are not a
> man of your word, unless lying is somethign you want to aspire to.
Now you spinning so fast your in danger of screwing yourself into the ground...
>
> 2--the 'How about you' immediately puts the respondee on the defensive, as if I
> have made some sort of wrongful statement. Well, again I will point out, that
> it is you who made the mis-statement and that you should not selectively
> interpret the events and facts to suit your chip on your shoulder.
Defensive? No but if you see it that way you should be asking yourself why you
feel that way. As for a chip on the shoulder it's you with all the exclimation
points.
> IF you want to continue to ignore what actually happened, then go right ahead
> and this conversation ends here. If, however, you wish to debate the facts, I'm
> all for it. Just step off your high horse before you do so.
In other words "As long as you see things my way we can talk..."
>
> Take care,
>
> Dave K
I still keep my word and don't make promises I can't/won't keep. How about you?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > I don't need anything to be interpreted. Anyone who knows me knows I am a man of
> > > my word. How about you?
> >
> > Hey now, there's no need for that. Dave K can speak for himself, but what the
> > heck--I can speak for himself, too. Regardless of his national origins, I have
> > always found Dave K to be honest and forthright. He is willing to admit when he
> > is wrong, and he doesn't tout himself when he's right.
> >
> > You may disagree with his interpretation of these events, but it's hardly
> > necessary to impugn his integrity along the way.
> >
> > Dave!
>
> I didn't impugn anything. I asked a simple question wich is quite relevant given
> that this is at it's essence a moral question.-Ken
It may be a moral question, but more importantly it's a "have you stopped
beating your wife?" question too.
I tend not to go around claiming I'm a man of my word. Why would I need to? If I
have to make a big deal about it, maybe I'm not. So there is no right answer for
Dave to give, you manage to impugn him either way, whether he says yes or no,
and even if he doesn't answer. That's dirty pool in debating circles, in my
view.
But *I'll* answer your question on behalf of Dave (1), since *I* can answer for
him without that problem. Yes, he is a man of his word. Now, how is this
relevant to the discussion? Further, have you, or anyone else, said anything NEW
here in the last 50 posts that was relevent to the discussion? I don't think so.
LUGNET doesn't (yet) have threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not a
statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we did,
I'd lock this thread so fast it would make your head spin. There is NOTHING
useful happening here (except for the part where we say what a great guy Dave
is, which in the long term is bad for Dave's ability to get through doorways)
any more.
Agree to disagree and move on. Talk about something else. That's just a request
at this point. It's not yet a formal request from the Admins but why wait?
1 - I haven't reviewed the thread in detail to compile a list of all the people
you have asked this of, but if I were to place a bet, I bet they *all* are men
(or women) of their word.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > Since there was no promise to begin with, just stated facts that, at
> > the time were completely and unequivocably true (which does not negate future
> > contracts, by the way),
>
> "Well dear the vows were one thing but there's this new woman now..."
<roll eyes>
How about "Well dear I did say no more buying Lego this month, but you see they
have 30% off this week..."
Seriously, vows?
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > IF you want to continue to ignore what actually happened, then go right ahead
> > and this conversation ends here.
Well Dave it looks like you can end this. I must say your display of patient is
just as impressive as the great skill you shown in your robot and train MOCs.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> LUGNET doesn't (yet) have threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not a
> statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we did,
> I'd lock this thread so fast it would make your head spin. There is NOTHING
> useful happening here (except for the part where we say what a great guy Dave
> is, which in the long term is bad for Dave's ability to get through doorways)
> any more.
Wow Larry, you missed a perfect opportunity for a footnote!
> 1 - I haven't reviewed the thread in detail to compile a list of all the people
> you have asked this of, but if I were to place a bet, I bet they *all* are men
> (or women) of their word.
And a sub-footnote opportunity missed no less!
That's not like you at all! Wink.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
And on the other side of the coin many want to defend the company no matter
what they do.
|
Ha! Clearly you haven’t been reading all my posts. I think I get the most
annoyed with people who leap to conclusions about things they shouldn’t. They
said that ONE phrase that was incorrect, and you and others jump down Lego’s
throat. They didn’t repeat it ad-nauseum nor stress it ridiculously. It’s clear
that the intention was NOT to make this a collector’s item, but to give the
community something it wanted. And you treated it like their *intentions*
changed. They didn’t.
I’m equally quick to jump on the Lego-defenders when they do the same thing. The
color change was NOT good. There’s only one trivially good aspect to it and none
other.
On the other hand, some people seem to react because of their predisposition to
a certain belief, and take the quickest opportunity to do so.
| |
This is not bley or click hinges. This is basic morality.
|
Being a relative moralist, I judge by intent. Lego’s intent was to give us as
much as they could of the remaining Maersk blue. Because they wanted to make
money from us. If they could’ve found a way to make more without spending
additional money on Maersk blue at the time, they would’ve. Their intent was NOT
to make a limited collector’s item. All of a sudden, presto, they got their
wish. Their intent never changed.
If their intent before had been to make a very-limited-quantity set, just to
watch us fall all over each other grabbing for sets, and now they decided to
make a second run to try it again, then yeah, I’d be on your side. Although
admittedly not as vehemently as you seem to be.
| |
I’m with the “nay-sayers” because the company is on a destructive path and if
they go down so does the hobby I love. If you’ve paid any attention to the
financal news you know which direction the company is headed.-Ken
|
Oh, I know alright. For every step forward, they’ve been taking one back. And
meanwhile MegaBloks is eating up more and more of the market share. Ditto
Best-Lock and probably others. If they don’t start developing a better eye for
what products and decisions will do better and which will do worse, they’ll
continue to ride the slow train of decay that they started on in 1998 (I’d
actually argue 1997).
But decrying this particular decision is useless. I think the correct thing to
do in this situation is to do EXACTLY what they’re doing. The color change on
the other hand... That was a decision (I think) that only served to hurt them.
“Violent” toys? Same deal. I’ll continue to urge them to go ahead and make tanks
and fighter jets and the like.
But this? Seriously, this is not only small potatoes of a downside, but the
upside FAR outweighs it, IMHO. They save money by getting “free” ABS pellets,
they give AFOLs more of a chance to collect a dearly loved color, they get to
make more of a set they liked making, and Maersk probably is giving them extra
money on the side to make the deal happen! Only downside is the AFOLs who knew
about the possibility of the new dark blue ship are saddened, and those who
bought zillions of Maersk ships will need to wait a while before their sets are
worth as much as they wanted. Boo hoo. I’ll continue to support this decision
because I think it’s the right thing to do.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Lyttle wrote:
<snip>
| |
John,
You’re a business owner, we all know you do much of the shirts for the clubs
and Brickfest. Let me pose a question. What if you made a “special edition”
Lego-based T-shirt for some club or big event. Say the group wanting the
shirts told you to make 200 shirts, and that’s it.
|
I would only ever make as many shirts as a customer would want:-)
| |
The shirt is so popular,
it sells out in 4 hours. Some people got multiple shirts (maybe so they
could sell them at a premium profit later), some didn’t get any. Those who
didn’t get any get very upset and complain to the group that made the shirt.
|
Well, at this point, I, as the producer for the group would be totally out of
the loop.
| |
The group caves in to customers, and requests you to make more to satisfy the
general public, but they don’t have enough money to make any changes to the
design at all--they’ve managed to get just enough to make the shirts.
You’re a businessman...do you take the money and satisfy the customer, or do
you deny that group that’s waving money in your face? Or...do you take a hit
and work with them, and change the design slightly with a bit of loss to you
and your business? What if you couldn’t afford to take the small hit in
profit to change the shirt?
|
I’m not sure a situation involving my business would be analogous. If a group
comes to me and orders shirts, I produce them, I get paid. They want more, I
produce them, I get paid. I haven’t really any business knowing what the group
is doing with the shirts (giving them away, reselling, whatever).
If this group orders 200 shirts and promises a group that they will only make
200 and they sell them out and come to me for more, I make them no question.
What they do with them is none of my business.
Now, if I produce 200 shirts and decide to sell them, and I say as a selling
point that only 200 will be made, I believe I am obligated to restrict myself to
that number, no matter how fast I might sell them out. Part of the reason that
they might have sold so quickly could be the “promised” limitedness of the
shirt. Though I might have screwed myself in terms of limited profit in the
short term, my reputation as a business of integrity is far more important in
the long term.
Even if TLC apologized and offered to buy back any of the extra 10152s that I
bought, I wouldn’t take them up on their offer. I just want them to stick with
facts and certainties, or let us know if plans are just plans and not set in
stone.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
Now, if I produce 200 shirts and decide to sell them, and I say as a
selling point that only 200 will be made, I believe I am obligated to
restrict myself to that number, no matter how fast I might sell them out.
Part of the reason that they might have sold so quickly could be the
“promised” limitedness of the shirt. Though I might have screwed myself in
terms of limited profit in the short term, my reputation as a business of
integrity is far more important in the long term.
Even if TLC apologized and offered to buy back any of the extra 10152s that I
bought, I wouldn’t take them up on their offer. I just want them to stick
with facts and certainties, or let us know if plans are just plans and not
set in stone.
|
You know what, at this point if I was head of marketting at TLC I would pull the
new run from S@H and only supply them to Maersk. That’d make money for the
company AND save their integrity (1).
ROSCO
(1) As percieved by a small number of AFOLs
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> This is basic morality.I'm
> with the "nay-sayers" because the company is on a destructive path and if
> they go down so does the hobby I love.
And that, right there, probably best sums up why you are meeting with so
much disagreement. You believe that without TLC, your hobby ends, despite the
collection of LEGO I assume you must already have, and despite a very
extensive after-market from which to buy more. There is lots around to build
with, to look at, to buy. Your view, to me, is not the mark of a genuine
hobbyist. Maybe if you saw LEGO more from the hobbyist perspective, you
wouldn't be so uptight about TLC's activities, to the point where you've been
arguing ad-nauseum on this topic from flawed footing, and begun tossing barbs
at Mr. Koudys' reputation. At first, you offered disagreement, which is fair
enough, but now you've crossed into disrespect.
KDJ
_____________
LUGNETer #203
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Scott Lyttle wrote:
>
> `<snip`>
> > John,
> >
> > You're a business owner, we all know you do much of the shirts for the clubs
> > and Brickfest. Let me pose a question. What if you made a "special
> > edition" Lego-based T-shirt for some club or big event. Say the group
> > wanting the shirts told you to make 200 shirts, and that's it.
>
> I would only {ever} make as many shirts as a customer would want:-)
>
> > The shirt is so popular,
> > it sells out in 4 hours. Some people got multiple shirts (maybe so they
> > could sell them at a premium profit later), some didn't get any. Those who
> > didn't get any get very upset and complain to the group that made the shirt.
>
> Well, at this point, I, as the producer for the group would be totally out of
> the loop.
>
> > The group caves in to customers, and requests you to make more to satisfy
> > the general public, but they don't have enough money to make any changes to
> > the design at all--they've managed to get just enough to make the shirts.
> >
> > You're a businessman...do you take the money and satisfy the customer, or do
> > you deny that group that's waving money in your face? Or...do you take a
> > hit and work with them, and change the design slightly with a bit of loss to
> > you and your business? What if you couldn't afford to take the small hit in
> > profit to change the shirt?
>
> I'm not sure a situation involving my business would be analogous. If a
> group comes to me and orders shirts, I produce them, I get paid. They want
> more, I produce them, I get paid. I haven't really any business knowing what
> the group is doing with the shirts (giving them away, reselling, whatever).
>
> If this group orders 200 shirts and promises a group that they will only make
> 200 and they sell them out and come to me for more, I make them no question.
> What they do with them is none of my business.
>
> Now, if [I] produce 200 shirts and decide to sell them, and I say as a
> selling point that only 200 will be made, I believe I am obligated to
> restrict myself to that number, no matter how fast I might sell them out.
> Part of the reason that they might have sold so quickly could be the
> "promised" limitedness of the shirt. Though I might have screwed myself in
> terms of limited profit in the short term, my reputation as a business of
> integrity is far more important in the long term.
And I would agree with that assessment wholeheartedly, John.
That said, if you said, "I can only produce 200 of these printed shirts because
I only have 200 shirts of this colour, and I don't have the opportunity to get
more shirts of this colour--so once they're all used up, that's it--I can't get
them anymore"
And then the producer of the shirts comes to you later and says, "Hey John,
seeing as you did so well with the printed shirt sales, and we really like that
particular printed shirt, how 'bout we give you the specific shirt colour so you
can produce more."
Therein lies all the difference in the world.
You didn't lie when you stated that the run was limited because, at the time it
was. Nor should that fact deny you future contracts with the shirt manufacturer
if they are so inclined to give you the blank shirts of the right colour.
> Even if TLC apologized and offered to buy back any of the extra 10152s that I
> bought, I wouldn't take them up on their offer. I just want them to stick
> with facts and certainties, or let us know if plans are just plans and not
> set in stone.
>
> [JOHN]
Why should they apologize for this? If I remember, they 'sort of' apologized
for the colour issue--"We didn't really consult the AFOL community or take their
ideas into consideration" (iirc, that's kinda what they said, and it's as close
to an apology that I'd expect to get from a multi billion dollar company to
me--a guy who spends 2-3 grand a year on purchasing LEGO bricks). On top of
that, they did offer the AFOL community the ability to purchase old colours in
bulk as a way of saying "We're sorry" Yes it was just a bone thrown our way,
but at least there was an effort made--not good enough for some but I am coming
to think that, unless TLC retools all their manufactuing processes and colours
and piece selection back to circa 1990, that some people just won't be happy.
Anyway, that was a tangent.
People have, and should, apologize when they did something wrong or made a
mistake. With this 10152 issue, there were no mistakes and TLC didn't do
anything wrong.
Seriously, I was planning on getting just one more boat, but all this talk, I'm
in the mood to get me as many as I can ;)
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > This is basic morality.I'm
> > with the "nay-sayers" because the company is on a destructive path and if
> > they go down so does the hobby I love.
>
> And that, right there, probably best sums up why you are meeting with so
> much disagreement. You believe that without TLC, your hobby ends, despite the
> collection of LEGO I assume you must already have, and despite a very
> extensive after-market from which to buy more. There is lots around to build
> with, to look at, to buy. Your view, to me, is not the mark of a genuine
> hobbyist. Maybe if you saw LEGO more from the hobbyist perspective, you
> wouldn't be so uptight about TLC's activities, to the point where you've been
> arguing ad-nauseum on this topic from flawed footing, and begun tossing barbs
> at Mr. Koudys' reputation. At first, you offered disagreement, which is fair
> enough, but now you've crossed into disrespect.
>
> KDJ
> _____________
> LUGNETer #203
rtlToronto has beed doing hobby shows for the past few years, and the Meccano
guys are there displaying their creations. If anyone ever wants to see what
happens when the company providing their 'work material' for their chosen hobby
disappears, talk to the Meccano guys. Pretty much we, as LEGO hobbyists, have
got it 'made in the shade'. Can anyone here think of a single company that
provides hobby material to the masses that even has a 'liason' to the fan
community? A single company that posts on a usergroup about things that may or
may not be 'coming down the pipe' and giving us, as fans, insight into how the
company works?
I can't think of any other company than TLC.
So I don't want TLC to disappear tomorrow, so I want what's best for the
company, as well as the hobbyist (me :) ). I also don't want the fledging and
tenuous relationship between the AFOL's and TLC to become embittered because
it's our best and most direct way of getting things for the Adult community.
The colour issue was a legitimate one. I personally thought it went far too
long but some people won't step down until they're good and ready, at the
expense of any goodwill and future relationships between the AFOL community and
TLC.
This one, however, shouldn't have even been a blip on the radar. It's okay to
point out wrongdoings when something is wrong. To point out perceived or
implied wrongdoings is ludicrous at best and, at the very worst, will close down
the avenue of communication between us and TLC. This avenue of communication,
mind you that a few good people who have put extraordinary effort into creating
and maintaining.
This is fundamentally why I'm on the 'bad things happen when good people keep
their mouths shut' kick. If the people who are putting in the effort don't
realize that their efforts are appreciated, why would they want to continue the
effort? Why would they want to make things better? I know from personal
experience in the volunteer field--i was involved Boy Scouts of Canada for 21
years. The reason why I'm not is because it stopped being good. Everyone had
an opinion and I couldn't do anything right--it seemed that someone had a
problem with anything I did. Mind you, these people offering opinions never
showed up to do the work when needed, but they never seemed to have an issue
pointing out where I was wrong. After years of this, I just stopped. I am sure
that there were those that appreciated the efforts, but they didn't say
anything.
So I'm saying something. I'm stating, for me and me alone, TLC, do what's best
for your market share. Do what's best for your integrity, Do what's best to
further the company as a whole for the years to come.
And if there are some people in the AFOL community that balk, just remember that
some of these people are the same people who thought that Bionicle was the "end
of civilization".
I'll continue to appreciate whay you have done for me and my hobby.
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> Can I use this defense on my wedding vows? "Honest dear I meant what I was
> saying at the time but circumstances changed...."
You're comparing this situation to wedding vows? Ok that's just ridiculous.
> The facts are that Lego Promised this to be a limited run. A new contract for a
> new model would have been a diffrent story. As for "arrogant" refer back to all
> of your exclimation points. My view is based on EXACTLY what Lego said it's you
> who wants to read something else into the situation, or dare I say "spin" it.
<snip>
> I still keep my word and don't make promises I can't/won't keep. How about you?
Dave K, if you're still reading this, it's clear that Ken here really believes
that LEGO has/had made some sort of special "promise" with him - regardless of
how many of us ask for evidence of this supposed "promise".
He also likes to constantly remind others about his integrity. He won't change
his point of view because he "keeps his word". You're talking to someone who
refuses to listen.
-Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> So I'm saying something. I'm stating, for me and me alone, TLC, do what's best
> for your market share. Do what's best for your integrity, Do what's best to
> further the company as a whole for the years to come.
>
> And if there are some people in the AFOL community that balk, just remember that
> some of these people are the same people who thought that Bionicle was the "end
> of civilization".
>
> I'll continue to appreciate whay you have done for me and my hobby.
>
> Dave K
I've stayed out of this stupid, drawn-out thread so far. But, Dave, I do
appreciate your efforts at holding the fort.
Let it be known that I agree with what Dave says above. TLC, there are some
people in the community who *do* appreciate your efforts, even though it may not
seem like it on LUGNET.
In fact, from what I've heard on some international lists I am on, AFOLs around
the world are scratching their heads at the childish behavior of a few here, and
are also supportive.
Chin up, and Merry Christmas.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > This is basic morality.I'm
> > > with the "nay-sayers" because the company is on a destructive path and if
> > > they go down so does the hobby I love.
> >
> > And that, right there, probably best sums up why you are meeting with so
> > much disagreement. You believe that without TLC, your hobby ends, despite the
> > collection of LEGO I assume you must already have, and despite a very
> > extensive after-market from which to buy more. There is lots around to build
> > with, to look at, to buy. Your view, to me, is not the mark of a genuine
> > hobbyist. Maybe if you saw LEGO more from the hobbyist perspective, you
> > wouldn't be so uptight about TLC's activities, to the point where you've been
> > arguing ad-nauseum on this topic from flawed footing, and begun tossing barbs
> > at Mr. Koudys' reputation. At first, you offered disagreement, which is fair
> > enough, but now you've crossed into disrespect.
> >
> > KDJ
> > _____________
> > LUGNETer #203
snip
>
> So I'm saying something. I'm stating, for me and me alone, TLC, do what's best
> for your market share. Do what's best for your integrity, Do what's best to
> further the company as a whole for the years to come.
>
> And if there are some people in the AFOL community that balk, just remember that
> some of these people are the same people who thought that Bionicle was the "end
> of civilization".
>
> I'll continue to appreciate whay you have done for me and my hobby.
>
> Dave K
Dave,
Your comments here are well taken, and I agree with them.
While I have disagreed about some decisions from TLC, I make my position known
with what I choose to buy. I bought the Maersk ship for me (and another as a
gift) to build. And I did. Not because I'm a collector, but actually because it
had boat windows !
I disagree with the self-appointed crusaders who have used LUGNET as a place to
show how wrong TLC is. If the AFOL community is as strong as the crusaders want
to be, then the grey plate bags on Shop at Home would have sold out way back
when. Plain and simple. They didn't, so our overall credibility was reduced
considerably from then on.
I really appreciate the communication that Jake has given us. He's the
messenger. And if you don't like the message, do something else! Don't snipe at
Jake or his integrity. And don't make it an us/them situation - the moment you
polarize the community, you make the community look bad.
Just my .02
Joe Meno
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
SNIP
> So I'm saying something. I'm stating, for me and me alone, TLC, do what's best
> for your market share. Do what's best for your integrity, Do what's best to
> further the company as a whole for the years to come.
>
> And if there are some people in the AFOL community that balk, just remember that
> some of these people are the same people who thought that Bionicle was the "end
> of civilization".
>
> I'll continue to appreciate whay you have done for me and my hobby.
>
> Dave K
God bless that. Unfortunatly they are on a down hill path. This is undeniable,
even TLC knows it. Nothing they have done so far has been able to turn it
around. Possibly because they have failed to see the problems? At any rate if
and when the downward slide is reversed I'll have nothing bad to say.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
And on the other side of the coin many want to defend the company no matter
what they do. • SNIP
|
Being a relative moralist, I judge by intent. Lego’s intent was to give us as
much as they could of the remaining Maersk blue. Because they wanted to make
money from us. If they could’ve found a way to make more without spending
additional money on Maersk blue at the time, they would’ve. Their intent was
NOT to make a limited collector’s item. All of a sudden, presto, they got
their wish. Their intent never changed.
|
The end justifies the means?
| |
If their intent before had been to make a very-limited-quantity set, just to
watch us fall all over each other grabbing for sets, and now they decided to
make a second run to try it again, then yeah, I’d be on your side. Although
admittedly not as vehemently as you seem to be.
|
If their intent wasn’t so then why did they present it as so?
| |
| |
I’m with the “nay-sayers” because the company is on a destructive path and
if they go down so does the hobby I love. If you’ve paid any attention to
the financal news you know which direction the company is headed.-Ken
|
Oh, I know alright. For every step forward, they’ve been taking one back. And
meanwhile MegaBloks is eating up more and more of the market share. Ditto
Best-Lock and probably others. If they don’t start developing a better eye
for what products and decisions will do better and which will do worse,
they’ll continue to ride the slow train of decay that they started on in 1998
(I’d actually argue 1997).
But decrying this particular decision is useless.
|
If this wasn’t part of a trend I have nothing to say. I find the color a
curiosity, nothing I love. Nor am I an investor. The only stake I have in it is
the over-all picture.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> It may be a moral question, but more importantly it's a "have you stopped
> beating your wife?" question too.
>
> I tend not to go around claiming I'm a man of my word. Why would I need to? If I
> have to make a big deal about it, maybe I'm not.
Exactly I am trying to draw him out so he can see the point. If someone did
something like this to him on a more personal level he'd problably be outraged.
> LUGNET doesn't (yet) have threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not a
> statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we did,
> I'd lock this thread so fast it would make your head spin. There is NOTHING
> useful happening here (except for the part where we say what a great guy Dave
> is, which in the long term is bad for Dave's ability to get through doorways)
> any more.
>
> Agree to disagree and move on. Talk about something else. That's just a request
> at this point. It's not yet a formal request from the Admins but why wait?
Funny that the only people I've met that want to put on their brown shirts and
jack boots and squash free speech and disscussion of the company's health seem
to be on the company can do no wrong path.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > This is basic morality.I'm
> > with the "nay-sayers" because the company is on a destructive path and if
> > they go down so does the hobby I love.
>
> And that, right there, probably best sums up why you are meeting with so
> much disagreement. You believe that without TLC, your hobby ends, despite the
> collection of LEGO I assume you must already have, and despite a very
> extensive after-market from which to buy more. There is lots around to build
> with, to look at, to buy. Your view, to me, is not the mark of a genuine
> hobbyist. Maybe if you saw LEGO more from the hobbyist perspective, you
> wouldn't be so uptight about TLC's activities, to the point where you've been
> arguing ad-nauseum on this topic from flawed footing, and begun tossing barbs
> at Mr. Koudys' reputation. At first, you offered disagreement, which is fair
> enough, but now you've crossed into disrespect.
>
> KDJ
> _____________
> LUGNETer #203
First off if you look around some more you'll find there's a lot of people who
agree with me as to Lego's actions.
Second my view of the hobby isn't so ego-centric. Half the joy comes from
sharing the hobby especilly with those who have years and years to go before
they are eligible to become AFOL's. Lego has done far more damage there than
they have with the AFOL's. Yes there is enough Lego bricks (even true gray) to
last my life time there's more to it than that though.
Third I've tossed nothing about anyone's reputation. It's odd though that such a
simple question could stir up so much. -Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Tony Kilaras wrote:
> What makes you think that Lego would deign to expend the effort it would
> take to lie to a bunch of insignificant moqsuitoes like us? The contribution
> margin on the entire load of Maersk ships probably amounts to what we
> accountants call a rounding error.
Snip
I don't think this is part of a plot or deliberately cooked up. If it was only
this problem there would be no problem. There's a patern of poor decisions,
misreading the consumer (AFOL and not) and inability to see when a mistake has
been made. The company continues to be a failure on what ever level you care to
measure it by, Loss of money, market share, etc etc. -Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
And on the other side of the coin many want to defend the company no matter
what they do. SNIP
|
Being a relative moralist, I judge by intent. Lego’s intent was to give us
as much as they could of the remaining Maersk blue. Because they wanted to
make money from us. If they could’ve found a way to make more without
spending additional money on Maersk blue at the time, they would’ve. Their
intent was NOT to make a limited collector’s item. All of a sudden, presto,
they got their wish. Their intent never changed.
|
The end justifies the means?
|
How did you get “ends justify the means” out of that? Wouldn’t “ends justify the
means” imply that it was their intent all along to lie to us? Isn’t that
precisely NOT what I said?
| |
| |
If their intent before had been to make a very-limited-quantity set, just to
watch us fall all over each other grabbing for sets, and now they decided to
make a second run to try it again, then yeah, I’d be on your side. Although
admittedly not as vehemently as you seem to be.
|
If their intent wasn’t so then why did they present it as so?
|
They didn’t. You seem to think they did, though. I admit they made a mistake in
that one statement where they said it was our last chance to buy Maersk blue.
But I’m capable of forgiving an innocent mistake. Are you?
| |
If this wasn’t part of a trend I have nothing to say. I find the color a
curiosity, nothing I love. Nor am I an investor. The only stake I have in it
is the over-all picture.-Ken
|
So fight the trend, not this. Fight the problems, don’t nitpick where it doesn’t
help.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> SNIP
> > So I'm saying something. I'm stating, for me and me alone, TLC, do what's best
> > for your market share. Do what's best for your integrity, Do what's best to
> > further the company as a whole for the years to come.
> >
> > And if there are some people in the AFOL community that balk, just remember that
> > some of these people are the same people who thought that Bionicle was the "end
> > of civilization".
> >
> > I'll continue to appreciate whay you have done for me and my hobby.
> >
> > Dave K
>
> God bless that. Unfortunatly they are on a down hill path. This is undeniable,
> even TLC knows it. Nothing they have done so far has been able to turn it
> around. Possibly because they have failed to see the problems? At any rate if
> and when the downward slide is reversed I'll have nothing bad to say.-Ken
Ken, I don't see how fair-weather AFOL posts like the above do anything to help
TLC or improve the hobby for anyone. Kicking someone when they're down is
impolite at best; and I'm sure you've heard the phrase "part of the solution or
part of the problem."
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
LUGNET doesn’t (yet) have threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not a
statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we
did, I’d lock this thread so fast it would make your head spin. There is
NOTHING useful happening here (except for the part where we say what a great
guy Dave is, which in the long term is bad for Dave’s ability to get through
doorways) any more.
Agree to disagree and move on. Talk about something else. That’s just a
request at this point. It’s not yet a formal request from the Admins but why
wait?
|
Funny that the only people I’ve met that want to put on their brown shirts and
jack boots and squash free speech and disscussion of the company’s health seem
to be on the company can do no wrong path.-Ken
|
You’ve crossed the line again, Ken. You need to remember that LUGNET is a
privately-owned resource and not a pulpit for you to denigrate and demean
people you disagree with. Larry, as a LUGNET staff member, has the right and
responsibility to tell you to tone it down when you go too far.
So I’ll ask you once: stop the personal slights and snide riffs. They do you
and this community no good.
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
LUGNET doesn’t (yet) have threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not
a statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we
did, I’d lock this thread so fast it would make your head spin. There is
NOTHING useful happening here (except for the part where we say what a
great guy Dave is, which in the long term is bad for Dave’s ability to get
through doorways) any more.
Agree to disagree and move on. Talk about something else. That’s just a
request at this point. It’s not yet a formal request from the Admins but
why wait?
|
Funny that the only people I’ve met that want to put on their brown shirts
and jack boots and squash free speech and disscussion of the company’s
health seem to be on the company can do no wrong path.-Ken
|
You’ve crossed the line again, Ken. You need to remember that LUGNET is a
privately-owned resource and not a pulpit for you to denigrate and demean
people you disagree with. Larry, as a LUGNET staff member, has the right and
responsibility to tell you to tone it down when you go too far.
So I’ll ask you once: stop the personal slights and snide riffs. They do
you and this community no good.
Kelly
|
First off I’ve said nothing about anyone personal. For some reason my asking a
simple question hits home personaly with some. Not my fault though.
Second I only stated a fact as I’ve experienced it. There are those on the
company can do no wrong band wagon that absolutly want to squash free speach
when it comes to this debate. There was a lot of fecal mater posted here in the
name of “pre-US-election debate”. Then there was all the sexuality dump that in
my opinion had no place on these boards. I steered clear of these and other
equaly absurd disscusions. Like wise no one need get involved here.
Brown shirts doesn’t go to far. There’s a lot on these boards that should be
shut down so that children can be safetly welcomed here. It passes though. If
one feels there is nothing useful here they can move on. However you certaily
can’t say the discussion is not relevant or warranted.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote: • SNIP
|
If their intent wasn’t so then why did they present it as so?
|
They didn’t. You seem to think they did, though. I admit they made a mistake
in that one statement where they said it was our last chance to buy Maersk
blue. But I’m capable of forgiving an innocent mistake. Are you?
|
They also said there would only be 10,000 availible publicly. They said it
through Jake, SHO, and press releases. Kind’a hard to misread that statment.
| |
| |
If this wasn’t part of a trend I have nothing to say. I find the color a
curiosity, nothing I love. Nor am I an investor. The only stake I have in it
is the over-all picture.-Ken
|
So fight the trend, not this. Fight the problems, don’t nitpick where it
doesn’t help.
DaveE
|
If it ws just a matter of forgiving a simple mistake and not part of a trend
there would be no issue. This is just the latest in a long line of arrogant
decisions that don’t take the consumer (AFOL or not) into concideration.If I am
to overlook this what part of the trend is worthy of fighting.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > SNIP
> > > So I'm saying something. I'm stating, for me and me alone, TLC, do what's best
> > > for your market share. Do what's best for your integrity, Do what's best to
> > > further the company as a whole for the years to come.
> > >
> > > And if there are some people in the AFOL community that balk, just remember that
> > > some of these people are the same people who thought that Bionicle was the "end
> > > of civilization".
> > >
> > > I'll continue to appreciate whay you have done for me and my hobby.
> > >
> > > Dave K
> >
> > God bless that. Unfortunatly they are on a down hill path. This is undeniable,
> > even TLC knows it. Nothing they have done so far has been able to turn it
> > around. Possibly because they have failed to see the problems? At any rate if
> > and when the downward slide is reversed I'll have nothing bad to say.-Ken
>
> Ken, I don't see how fair-weather AFOL posts like the above do anything to help
> TLC or improve the hobby for anyone. Kicking someone when they're down is
> impolite at best; and I'm sure you've heard the phrase "part of the solution or
> part of the problem."
>
> - Kelly
Fair weather? We are not talking about a sports team who lost one game and may
win tomorrow. The company is in crissis. Ignoring this is foolish. They have yet
to see or admit to the problem(s) at hand. TLC's stated goal for fisal year '05
was to break even. I stated at the time that any company setting a goal so low
was bound to fall short. They are well on their way to making this a reality as
they had a poor Christmas. (Mega Blok on the other hand did quite well)
As for "kicking when they are down" and "part of the problem..." The best way to
help Lego fail would be to ignore the problem and not let them know you are
disatified. -Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ka-On Lee wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote: • SNIP
> > "Well dear the vows were one thing but there's this new woman now..."
>
> <roll eyes>
> How about "Well dear I did say no more buying Lego this month, but you see they
> have 30% off this week..."
>
> Seriously, vows?
SNIP
Exactly If I made a promiss not to buy anymore Lego for the month the latest
sale would be a pretty poor excuse for breaking that promiss. -Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Bryan Wong wrote:
> Dave K, if you're still reading this, it's clear that Ken here really believes
> that LEGO has/had made some sort of special "promise" with him - regardless of
> how many of us ask for evidence of this supposed "promise".
SNIP
> -Bryan
Jake Mckee posted on these very boards “Then it’s time for another new
adventure! It measures 69cm long and is your last chance to buy Maersk bricks!
AND:"This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At
Home."
The same was echoed in press releases. SHO marketed it in this fashion.
What evidence is it you are looking for???? -Ken
|
|
| |
Dear Ken,
I propose a very simple solution. If you don’t buy the new Maersk set because of
your moral convictions that it is wrong then Jake’s original statement, and any
other TLC ‘implications’ becomes true. It will be your last chance to buy the
colour (due to your moral outrage at the ‘deception’). By a small series of
inductive steps (one) we have a sound logical conclusion, and you can be
satisfied that not only have you kept your own high standards, you’ve even
helped Lego keep your own high standards too. Wonderful!
I think you’ve written nearly one in every three posts to Lugnet ove the last
couple of hours and you are saying absolutely nothing new. You remind me a
little of the sort of person that constantly write letters to the local
newspaper complaing about this and that but never offers any practical advice.
Those people tend to be very boring.
Now I’m sure that you will accuse me of some form of impropriety, moral
bankruptcy or other nasty transgression for this. Possibly you will make some
other interpration of the post (mine or Jake’s original one) which puts you back
into the Throne of Right, but I’ll merely point out one thing, proclaiming your
right-ness does not actually help others to see it. It may even have the
opposite effect.
Feel free to disparage me, or attack me in anyway you like, I will not be polite
in my response.
Yours,
Tim Gould
PS. Although I’m an atheist, I like one statement from the bible very much. It
is: Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone.
| |
Jake Mckee posted on these very boards “Then it’s time for another new
adventure! It measures 69cm long and is your last chance to buy Maersk bricks!
AND:”This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop
At Home.”
The same was echoed in press releases. SHO marketed it in this fashion.
What evidence is it you are looking for???? -Ken
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> They also said there would only be 10,000 availible publicly. They said it
> through Jake, SHO, and press releases. Kind'a hard to misread that statment.
I don't see why you keep going back to this. What they said was true. There WERE
10,000 available publically. Or, 10,000 via S@H. It's possible Maersk made some
available to the public, I guess. But again, *IF* they had had more Maersk blue,
I think they would have made more. Evidenced by the facts that:
1) They were going to make a new version of the set with another color
2) They're rerunning the set
3) They KNOW (and always knew) that AFOLs would love this set
Now, if what you're saying were true, the intent would have been to make a
"collector's item". Something where even if they HAD more Maersk blue pellets,
they wouldn't have sold more sets. Now, if that were the case, the REASON it
sold well would be BECAUSE it was a collector's item. Hence, wouldn't it make
more sense to do something DIFFERENT to this next run to make it yet another
collectable?
To date, I know of 2 "collector's items" that Lego's sold publically,
specifically for the purposes of collectors. Bionicle masks and the first 10K
Santa Fe's. They've had promo bricks, which are different, because they weren't
sold publically, and limited availability things like the "classic
grey/brown/dark grey" brick/plage packs. Both their collector's items were
designed and marketed as such. Maersk ship? No.
My conclusion? It was never intended as a collector's item. Never intended to
encourage you to buy solely for it's collector's worth nor for its limited
availability.
The one slip they made (you seem to think there were 2, but I disagree) was
unintentional. Someone in the company who wrote that press release or set
description (since we saw it repeated, and italicized by Jake, hence hinting
that he was quoting it) thought they'd be nice to us and let us know that it WAS
probably going to be our last chance for Maersk blue bricks. They didn't want
anyone fuming mad when they sold out in the first few weeks, or angry that they
weren't warned about the disappearance of Maersk blue. They were trying to be
nice by letting us aware of that fact, not underhanded by making us want to buy
more because of it.
> If it ws just a matter of forgiving a simple mistake and not part of a trend
> there would be no issue.
No? Huh? Why not? If the company makes an error, but everything else is ok?
What? If juniorization, click-hinge replacement, etc never existed, but the
color change had still happened, then the color change would've been ok? It's ok
if I murder one person, but if it's part of a trend, THEN I should be arrested?
I think each problem should be addressed according to its merit, not according
to the problems surrounding it. Of course, I think that's irrelevant in this
case because I don't think this decision part of a negative trend.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ka-On Lee wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote: SNIP
> > > "Well dear the vows were one thing but there's this new woman now..."
> >
> > <roll eyes>
> > How about "Well dear I did say no more buying Lego this month, but you see they
> > have 30% off this week..."
> >
> > Seriously, vows?
>
> SNIP
>
> Exactly If I made a promiss not to buy anymore Lego for the month the latest
> sale would be a pretty poor excuse for breaking that promiss. -Ken
Thanks Ken,
for being that patient in explaining your point (which is mine at the same
time).
A lie is a lie and a broken promise is a broken promise. And Lego is having no
finacial success while Playmobil (in Europe) and Megabloks (in America) are
doing very well. Those are hard facts. And to come to a conclusion, that the TLC
management is (was?) not doing well is the most obvious thing on earth to me....
Kind Regards,
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ka-On Lee wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote: SNIP
> > > > "Well dear the vows were one thing but there's this new woman now..."
> > >
> > > <roll eyes>
> > > How about "Well dear I did say no more buying Lego this month, but you see they
> > > have 30% off this week..."
> > >
> > > Seriously, vows?
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > Exactly If I made a promiss not to buy anymore Lego for the month the latest
> > sale would be a pretty poor excuse for breaking that promiss. -Ken
>
> Thanks Ken,
>
> for being that patient in explaining your point (which is mine at the same
> time).
> A lie is a lie and a broken promise is a broken promise. And Lego is having no
> finacial success while Playmobil (in Europe) and Megabloks (in America) are
> doing very well. Those are hard facts. And to come to a conclusion, that the TLC
> management is (was?) not doing well is the most obvious thing on earth to me....
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ben
One more time from the top--if you want to misinterpret what happened, by all
means. But, let's look at Ken's very example, which is completely inaccurate to
the actual situation.
> > Exactly If I made a promiss not to buy anymore Lego for the month the latest
> > sale would be a pretty poor excuse for breaking that promiss. -Ken
LEGO made no such promise and there was no going back on that promise for 'the
latest sale'
A better example, using Ken's faulty analogy as a basis, but correcting it--
1. "I'm broke. I cannot buy LEGO bricks."
2. "Hey broke dude! Here's a gift certificate for LEGO sets! Go knock yourself
out!"
3a "I can't buy LEGO bricks even using your gift certificate because I stated
earlier that I can't buy LEGO bricks because I'm broke."
3b "Oh thank you for giving me a wonderful opportunity to get the LEGO sets I
want--this gift certificate is totally appreciated!"
so break it down in 'the real world'--
1 is related to TLC stating the *fact* that they had a limited supply of Maersk
Blue and the *only* reason why 10152 was limited was due to the *fact* that
(reiterated for those that keep on completely missing the point) TLC had a
limited supply of Maersk Blue and, at the time, there was *no* reason to expect
more--no contract with Maeersk and no more Maersk Blue pellets.
2 is when Maersk came to TLC with a new contract *and* Maersk brought their own
colour! Let me reiterate that--Maersk came to TLC with the contract *and* the
colour--so, again, how is this TLC's fault? And why shouldn't TLC sign the
contract?
3a is, in my opinion, a very wrong and a completely invalid way of conducting
one's affairs--if you can't adapt to the situation when the facts change, you're
going to stagnate, and since there was no laws or 'one's word' being broken,
then go for it. More importantly, specifically directed at Ken and Ben, due to
your misinterpretations of what actually happened, more animosity has arisen
between the AFOL community and TLC.
3b is how I would end this sequence of events--TLC was completely forthright and
open with the AFOL community from the beginning, and if Maersk comes to them
after the fact and wants more, and brings their own colour, why would people,
especially in the AFOL community, balk? You (Ken, Ben) can keep right on
reading promises into what was actually stated, but your interpretation is
wrong, pure and simple.
TLC stated the reason why there was a limitation on 10152 was *only* due to the
limitation of Maersk Blue pellets and that there was no contract to get more.
Then Maersk came to TLC with a new contract and brought their own colour with
them. These facts are indesputable. You can wrongfully interpret them to keep
yourselves on the rant that whatever decisions TLC have made over the past years
(juniourizaiton, Jack Stone, colour changes, whatever) are 'all wrong', but
there comes a time when you have to either accept the idea that not everything
that TLC does is bad, or get out of the hobby.
I have no issues whatsoever of voicing grievances (and bringing up 'browncoats'
is arrogant presumption once again (not you Ben, but I want one reply, so,
again, Ken)--if you do a history of mine and most other people's posts who are
against your wrongful interpretation of the 10152 issue, you will note that many
of us love debates and discussion issues and we are as far as one could possibly
get to censoring people's ideas and/or posts.
That said, if you have a legitimate grievance, by all means voice it, but also--
first--open your mind to the possibility that your grievance may not be
legitimate, and maybe you should re-evaluate what actually happened instead of
adhering to your wrongful interpretation.
secondly, and, in my opinion, infinitly more important, voice your grievance in
a polite, non-condescending way such that people who are reading or listening to
your side of hte issue are not automatically put on the defensive due to your
tone and your apparant unconsciously smug 'high horse' attitude. On the flip
side, if you're into the debate by a couple of weeks and the other side just
isn't getting it, then, by all means, release the facetiousness.
Papa used to say 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.'
Anyway, as for continuing this, debate the facts--(mostly directed at Ken now,
again) don't delete the parts that you don't like and add some "I'm still right"
posts at the end, either, for if you want to continue the conversation (and it
looks like you obviously do or you wouldn't be here--I want to as well, for,
well, I think your interpretation is flawed, and you have as yet to prove
differntly) then continue it. I, and others, have consistently pointed out what
we believe is your fallacy, but you keep deleting that part of the posts and
rebutt with "Promisses broken!"
Take care,
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ka-On Lee wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote: SNIP
> > > > "Well dear the vows were one thing but there's this new woman now..."
> > >
> > > <roll eyes>
> > > How about "Well dear I did say no more buying Lego this month, but you see they
> > > have 30% off this week..."
> > >
> > > Seriously, vows?
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > Exactly If I made a promiss not to buy anymore Lego for the month the latest
> > sale would be a pretty poor excuse for breaking that promiss. -Ken
>
> Thanks Ken,
>
> for being that patient in explaining your point (which is mine at the same
> time).
> A lie is a lie and a broken promise is a broken promise. And Lego is having no
> finacial success while Playmobil (in Europe) and Megabloks (in America) are
> doing very well. Those are hard facts. And to come to a conclusion, that the TLC
> management is (was?) not doing well is the most obvious thing on earth to me....
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ben
Thanks for the support. Unfortunatly while I could go back and point out the
posts where I have been personally called a liar, my asking of a simple moral
question has been labeled a detriment to the site and some how it it said to
"impune" the reputation of those who I ask the question of. The facts of Lego
falling down are many but those who want to squash that discussion are
threatening off the board to revoke posting rights-Ken
|
|
| |
Snipped most of it to focus on one point
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> I have no issues whatsoever of voicing grievances (and bringing up 'browncoats'
> is arrogant presumption once again (not you Ben, but I want one reply, so,
> again, Ken)--if you do a history of mine and most other people's posts who are
> against your wrongful interpretation of the 10152 issue, you will note that many
> of us love debates and discussion issues and we are as far as one could possibly
> get to censoring people's ideas and/or posts.
Note that saying that you think a discussion is over, does anyone have anything
NEW to add, is not censorship. If no one adds anything new, asking that people
not repeat the same points except LOUDER is not censorship either. If someone
continues to bait people, casts aspersions on people's character (whether
directly or by implication, or even by backhanded inference by posing "have you
stopped beating your wife" questions) and in general acts in a manner not
becoming that of a civilised person engaged in civilised discourse (and thus,
not abiding by the TOS here), giving that someone a temporary or permanent time
out is not censorship either.
LUGNET does not censor. It does, however, require that people abide by the rules
of LUGNET. People who are not willing to do so may not be able to post here. So
be it. We may warn them privately. We may warn them in a bantering manner,
informally, but publicly. We may warn them in a stern official public manner. We
may not warn them at all (not the preferred approach but I won't rule it out).
But we will maintain decorum.
> That said, if you have a legitimate grievance, by all means voice it, but also--
>
> first--open your mind to the possibility that your grievance may not be
> legitimate, and maybe you should re-evaluate what actually happened instead of
> adhering to your wrongful interpretation.
>
> secondly, and, in my opinion, infinitly more important, voice your grievance in
> a polite, non-condescending way such that people who are reading or listening to
> your side of hte issue are not automatically put on the defensive due to your
> tone and your apparant unconsciously smug 'high horse' attitude. On the flip
> side, if you're into the debate by a couple of weeks and the other side just
> isn't getting it, then, by all means, release the facetiousness.
No. Facetiousness is not welcome here. Even if you're provoked and sorely put
upon.
If you are a couple weeks (or a couple hundred posts) into a debate and the
other side "isn't getting it", and especially if you find yourself restating
what you already said, state your points one last time if you must, summarized
as best you can, (or just reference them, or just skip this stating the points
part) and then say "I'm done, the other side doesn't get it but I made my point"
and MOVE ON. Or skip saying "I'm done" even...but move on.
Let the other guy have the last word if you have, to but move on. Please. (and
thank you, as Nik always says)
Dave, I know what you really mean and I know you're not advocating facetiousness
as a general rule, but I am using your words as a way to be clear here. LUGNET
will maintain decorum.
|
|
| |
Well said Tim.
Many people in TLC ARE trying hard, but despite whatever some people do, it will
never be good enough. This will always be a problem for every company all the
time, it is not alone to just LEGO.
Anyways, I always am having differences in opinion with what TLC does, but I try
not to let it ruin my life. Even if, it is indeed a big part of my life, even
bigger then some people might know.
I have been surprised by many of the attitudes displayed here, a place that I
used to always come to for something different, something good. I don't post
much, but have always read just about everything. It makes me a little sad.
I don't know what else to say. Anyways, build away as always :)!
-Brett
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, Ka-On Lee wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote: SNIP
> One more time from the top--if you want to misinterpret what happened, by all
> means.
I have no need to misinterpert anything. I can read what jake posted on these
boards and words mean things. I read what Lego chose to publicly post.
> 1 is related to TLC stating the *fact* that they had a limited supply of Maersk
> Blue and the *only* reason why 10152 was limited was due to the *fact* that
> (reiterated for those that keep on completely missing the point) TLC had a
> limited supply of Maersk Blue and, at the time, there was *no* reason to expect
> more--no contract with Maeersk and no more Maersk Blue pellets.
>
> 2 is when Maersk came to TLC with a new contract *and* Maersk brought their own
> colour! Let me reiterate that--Maersk came to TLC with the contract *and* the
> colour--so, again, how is this TLC's fault? And why shouldn't TLC sign the
> contract?
They should have found a diffrent way to satisfy Maersk and keep their word to
the consumer at the same time. It would not have been a dificult thing to do.
> your misinterpretations of what actually happened, more animosity has arisen
> between the AFOL community and TLC.
Lego has stated many times that AFOL's are not a priority. I'm pretty sure
there's nothing I can say that would make that worse.
> if Maersk comes to them
> after the fact and wants more, and brings their own colour, why would people,
> especially in the AFOL community, balk? You (Ken, Ben) can keep right on
> reading promises into what was actually stated, but your interpretation is
> wrong, pure and simple.
No words mean things....
> TLC stated the reason why there was a limitation on 10152 was *only* due to the
> limitation of Maersk Blue pellets and that there was no contract to get more.
> Then Maersk came to TLC with a new contract and brought their own colour with
> them. These facts are indesputable.
What is disputable is the fact that you can tell your consumers anything you
want and the next week change your mind without consiquenses.
> I have no issues whatsoever of voicing grievances (and bringing
> up 'browncoats' is arrogant presumption once again if you do a history of
> mine and most other people's posts who are against your wrongful
> interpretation of the 10152 issue, you will note that many of us love debates
> and discussion issues and we are as far as one could possibly get to
> censoring people's ideas and/or posts.
Glad to hear that however even though there are many who agree with me and even
though I have been personally called a liar in this thread, my asking of a moral
question has been determined to be "impuging" people and I am being threatened
through private e-mail that my posting rights are going to be revoked.
> open your mind to the possibility that your grievance may not be
> legitimate, and maybe you should re-evaluate what actually happened instead
> of adhering to your wrongful interpretation.
Or perhaps you should take a look at what actually happened and stop trying to
justify TLC actions no matter what.
> don't delete the parts that you don't like
It has nothing to do with what I like. Lugnet TOS demand that excess be trimed.
> you keep deleting that part of the posts and rebutt with "Promisses broken!"
>
> Take care,
>
> Dave K
Exactly! Lego said we are choosing to market a limited edition set and then
changed their minds. You can twist it anyway you want but the fact is they took
back what they said. That would indeed be wrong both on a moral plane and wrong
when it comes to keeping a loyal customer base.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Snipped most of it to focus on one point • Ditto
>
> LUGNET does not censor. It does, however, require that people abide by the rules
Censorship does come into play when you say "LUGNET doesn't (yet) have
threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not a
statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we did,
I'd lock this thread so fast it would make your head spin. There is NOTHING
useful happening here"
I have personally been called a liar several times in this thread. Since the
debate is a moral question I legitimatly stated I keep my word and asked my
opposition if they do the same. That impugns nothing. If your wish is to keep
order I trust you'll be contacting those that called me a liar... Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Lyttle wrote:
> snippage
>
> > Beyond that, hope everyone has a safe and joyous holiday season. I know I'm
> > hopeful that my family has finally gotten the clue after 37 years that I really
> > like LEGO and I might actually get a few sets for Christmas this year for a
> > change.
> >
> > Dave K
>
>
> Dave,
>
> If you don't get a LEGO set for Christmas, e-mail me. I'll send you one for
> Christmas. No charge for set or shipping. Consider it a gift for all your
> efforts. Hell...send me your address..I'll send you something regardless of
> whether your family gets you Lego or not..
>
> Scott Lyttle
Thanks for the very generous offer, Scott--it was appreciated.
I was lucky this year--I received the Technic Mars Rover, a Harry Potter set,
and the little World City fireboat--that's a really cute little set.
So I'm pretty happy--it's my largest Christmas haul since I was in my early
teens ;)
So there you are.
Take care,
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> Can anyone here think of a single company that
> provides hobby material to the masses that even has a 'liason' to the fan
> community? A single company that posts on a usergroup about things that may or
> may not be 'coming down the pipe' and giving us, as fans, insight into how the
> company works?
Yep. Turner Suspension Bicycles ( http://www.turnerbikes.com/ ) does just that
in this forum: http://forums.mtbr.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31
And good luck finding anyone whining about the constant colour changes there ;)
Some might think it's sad some colours go away or change but none is raving
about it. It's a good thing at least some fans are adults. And yes, I've been
more and more into mountainbiking lately since Lugnet is what it has become.
Should anyone else feel like /leaving/pausing from/ this flamed hobby, I
strongly suggest looking into MTB or road cycling. There's alot really cool
folks out there. Although, stay out of some Freeride-forums since it's mostly
kids who think less of you if you can't do at least a backflip - a little like
.space ;)
best regards,
/Tobbe (remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > They also said there would only be 10,000 availible publicly. • SNIP
> I don't see why you keep going back to this.
Because that is what they said and words mean things.
> What they said was true. There WERE 10,000 available publically. Or, 10,000
> via S@H. It's possible Maersk made some available to the public, I guess.
> But again, *IF* they had had more Maersk blue,
> I think they would have made more. Evidenced by the facts that:
>
> 1) They were going to make a new version of the set with another color
> 2) They're rerunning the set
> 3) They KNOW (and always knew) that AFOLs would love this set
"If" doesn't much matter as "if" wasn't true so they chose to market it as a
limited set. The new color (that they took back) doesn't matter as that was to
be a diffrent set based on the same design. The fact that they are going back on
their word and rerunning the set is the problem. The fact that they knew AFOL's
would love the set is why they should have kept their word.
> Now, if what you're saying were true, the intent would have been to make a
> "collector's item". Something where even if they HAD more Maersk blue pellets,
"If" again has no bearing on the situation.
SNIP
> To date, I know of 2 "collector's items"... SNIP ...Both their collector's
> items were designed and marketed as such. Maersk ship? No.
That's exactly why they chose to releas press releases stating there would be
only 14k with 10k at SHO.
> My conclusion? It was never intended as a collector's item. Never intended to
> encourage you to buy solely for it's collector's worth nor for its limited
> availability.
....OK.....
> > If it ws just a matter of forgiving a simple mistake and not part of a trend
> > there would be no issue.
>
> No? Huh? Why not? If the company makes an error, but everything else is ok?
> What? If juniorization, click-hinge replacement, etc never existed, but the
> color change had still happened, then the color change would've been ok? >It's ok
> I think each problem should be addressed according to its merit, not according
> to the problems surrounding it. Of course, I think that's irrelevant in this
> case because I don't think this decision part of a negative trend.
The trend is the point that Lego, when viewed as a company is a failure. They
have lost money and market share for years and continues to fall. That is not a
matter of opinion it is big news in the world wide financal comunity. 10152 is
not the whole problem nor was the color change but piled on top of one and
another plus other very poor buissness decisions is why the company continues to
be a failure and why the problem must for the sake of the company be viewed as a
whole. Untill the mindset that the consumer (AFOL's and other wise) will take
anything as showen by this desicion and others the company will continue to
lose. Naturaly if they do continue to lose, changes that no AFOL wants to see
will be inevitable.-Ken
|
|
| |
"Ken Nagel" <knandjn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I9GHGE.1z3u@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> That's exactly why they chose to releas press releases stating there would • be
> only 14k with 10k at SHO.
[ ... snipped ... ]
Where is this press release you refer to? I looked for a copy of the press
release on LEGO.com was unable to find it. Can you provide a link to the
press release as I don't recall ever seeing one.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > They also said there would only be 10,000 availible publicly. SNIP
> > I don't see why you keep going back to this.
>
> Because that is what they said and words mean things.
Yeah, but what they said was true. "This is a small run too – only 14,000 total,
with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home." It *WAS* a small run, and it *WAS* limited
to 14K, and 10K *DID* go to S@H. Please point out the exact error in the phrase,
because as I see it, the phrase that was used in NO WAY referenced future runs
of the set, and hence is not in error as regards to the new run of 10152's.
> > But again, *IF* they had had more Maersk blue,
> > I think they would have made more. Evidenced by the facts that:
> >
> > 1) They were going to make a new version of the set with another color
> > 2) They're rerunning the set
> > 3) They KNOW (and always knew) that AFOLs would love this set
>
> "If" doesn't much matter
No. "If" DOES matter to me because I judge morality based on intent. "If"
matters a great deal to me. "If" there were a way to stop Bin Laden from causing
any harm, but without killing him, would you? Your answer will affect my moral
judgement of you, regardless of what you actually do or do not do. Just because
someone WOULD steal something, but hasn't, doesn't make them moral. Since you
brought the company's moral value into the debate, I'll examine it as I believe
it should be. And "if" matters.
> as "if" wasn't true so they chose to market it as a limited set.
No. They chose to tell us that it was limited. Larry mentioned elsewhere
something I had forgotten, but is phenomenally relevant. When Lego re-released
cypress trees in a bulk pack, they knew full well that it would be a limited run
and that the mold would be destroyed afterwards. But they didn't tell us. And
they suffered a great deal of flak for that lack of warning. I expect the same
would be true with the ship, if AFOLs attempted to order one a month after it
was released only to discover that it was out of stock and never to be re-issued
(again, "if" matters).
They told us because they believed we should know. Not because they were stating
a policy that the set would never come again. If you can prove otherwise, I'd
love to see it.
> The fact that they knew AFOL's would love the set is why they should have
> kept their word.
No. A word should be kept regardless. But their word is not what they intended
to give.
> > Of course, I think that's irrelevant in this case because I don't think this
> > decision part of a negative trend.
>
> The trend is the point that Lego, when viewed as a company is a failure. They
> have lost money and market share for years and continues to fall. That is not
> a matter of opinion it is big news in the world wide financal comunity.
I didn't say that there is no negative trend. I said I don't think this decision
is a part of one.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mike Walsh wrote:
> "Ken Nagel" <knandjn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> [ ... snipped ... ]
> > That's exactly why they chose to releas press releases stating there would be
> > only 14k with 10k at SHO.
> [ ... snipped ... ]
>
> Where is this press release you refer to? I looked for a copy of the press
> release on LEGO.com was unable to find it. Can you provide a link to the
> press release as I don't recall ever seeing one.
I'm not sure it qualifies as an actual "press release", but what I think we've
been referring to is Jake's post on Lugnet:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
and the post on 1000steine, which supposedly had very similar content:
http://f24.parsimony.net/forum61776/messages/82404.htm
I almost vaugely remember this set being on the back of a S@H catalog as well,
but if so, I can't seem to find one with it, and I think the only season of
catalog I couldn't find for 2004 was the summer one. I was curious what it said
(if anything) about the set in the set description. But I assume if it DID
appear in the catalog, it probably made no mention of the Maersk blue being
limited. Dunno tho. Whatever Jake posted in italics in his post looks like it
was more "official" in some manner; and it DID mention that it WAS the last
chance to buy Maersk blue bricks, which was erroneous. But that's the only bit
I've seen to date that was false.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
<snip>
> No. They chose to tell us that it was limited. Larry mentioned elsewhere
> something I had forgotten, but is phenomenally relevant. When Lego re-released
> cypress trees in a bulk pack, they knew full well that it would be a limited run
> and that the mold would be destroyed afterwards. But they didn't tell us. And
> they suffered a great deal of flak for that lack of warning. I expect the same
> would be true with the ship, if AFOLs attempted to order one a month after it
> was released only to discover that it was out of stock and never to be re-issued
> (again, "if" matters).
I forgot all about this ine--TLC can't win one way or the other. Nice catch
Larry and Dave.
>
> They told us because they believed we should know. Not because they were stating
> a policy that the set would never come again. If you can prove otherwise, I'd
> love to see it.
>
> > The fact that they knew AFOL's would love the set is why they should have
> > kept their word.
>
> No. A word should be kept regardless. But their word is not what they intended
> to give.
As Dave just stated--there was no 'word' given--just the statement of facts that
at the time were perfectly correct. Those that can adapt to changes evolve--we
should be supporting TLC in this endeavour wholeheartedly due to the simple fact
that they are doing something completely right for their financial side, as well
as for the AFOL community. But nope, we're here griping about semantics and
misread or misinterpreted events and calling on 'morals'--230ish posts going
'round and 'round.
I once sent an e-mail to a good friend that was posting in a thread akin to
this, here on LUGNET. He was trying valiantly to 'talk sense' to someone else
and, to an outsider, it seemed the discussion was getting nowhere--multitude of
posts restating and rehashing the points, but no movement.
I once heard a phrase from West Wing--"He won't get off the stage until he gets
off the stage." I sent that in the e-mail to my friend, with the intent that,
even though I completely agreed with his side of the issue, that the other side,
being immovable, wasn't worth the effort.
Of course, this goes contrary to my other idea that "bad things happen when good
people don't speak up", so I'm at a loss as to what I'm going to do. It's
apparent to me that Ken thinks he's fully in the right, contrary to the facts as
I see them.
So I add another post :)
> > > Of course, I think that's irrelevant in this case because I don't think this
> > > decision part of a negative trend.
> >
> > The trend is the point that Lego, when viewed as a company is a failure. They
> > have lost money and market share for years and continues to fall. That is not
> > a matter of opinion it is big news in the world wide financal comunity.
>
> I didn't say that there is no negative trend. I said I don't think this decision
> is a part of one.
>
> DaveE
Bingo. But even if you believe it was an issue, I'm all for a healthy discourse
about it. 200+ posts may be a good time where all people just let it go. I'm
not convinced that Ken is right, and it's apparent that Ken isn't convinced that
we are. So where does that get us at the end of the day?
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> Of course, this goes contrary to my other idea that "bad things happen when
> good people don't speak up", so I'm at a loss as to what I'm going to do.
You've put up a good fight-- I don't expect Lego or others would believe that
there's a majority negative opinion at this point, whereas had none of us spoken
up, that might have been a possible interpretation. I don't think anyone
(excluding perhaps Ken) will think any less of you or the communal opinion if
you don't respond. At this point, I think only your (collective) personal
opinions are at stake. I'd just say respond if you feel like it, and if you
think you can make some headway.
> 200+ posts may be a good time where all people just let it go. I'm not
> convinced that Ken is right, and it's apparent that Ken isn't convinced that
> we are. So where does that get us at the end of the day?
I may be just about done. Note I'm now switching this to o-t.d because I'm
discussing the discussion, and not so much the points therein. Note this post is
also probably in danger of meriting me a "time out" because arguably I'm putting
Ken down. I suppose this may make a good test case. Anyway.
I'm getting more and more convinced that Ken is not being open-minded about
this. I'm actually rather glad that I was in error earlier in this thread and
admitted so, because it demonstrates that I'm willing to be convinced. Ken
doesn't seem to do the same. We've repeatedly dissected the semantics of Jake's
phrase "This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop
At Home.", and shown that it actually (as we've claimed all along) does NOT
demonstrate a promise concerning potential future runs of the same set. Yet
despite this continued demonstration, Ken not only ignores the error by not
addressing it in his replies, but repeatedly uses the phrase again as though it
were further proof of his point.
By comparison, you'll note that each post since the admission of my error
attempts to make careful note of the fact that Lego DID make an erroneous
statement which could be legally interpreted as a promise ("It ... is your last
chance to buy Maersk bricks!"). Instead, I've changed my argument such that I'm
focusing on the meaning behind the words, suggesting that the erroneous
statement was not intended to imply policy.
I suppose it could also be because Ken isn't really reading the responses, but
rather wantonly replying to everything "pro-Lego" that is posted in reply to
him. I dunno. I mentioned a couple times that I admit that Lego has been on a
downtrend, yet he's presented that downtrend to me a few times now as though I
were totally unaware of it, or that I thought that they've totally reversed
direction. Hence, either he's unaware of the continuity of the sub-threads and
doesn't know who I am and what I've already said, or he's not reading what I've
written. Or he's just so eager to keep referring to the downtrend that he'll
ignore the debate at hand and revert right back to what he really WANTS to be
discussing, and expound on the horrors of the company.
To be honest, I don't mind continuing the debate with Ken. It hasn't gotten
boring to me yet, though it may get there shortly, as he does seem to be
starting to repeat himself to me. If my portion of the thread were the only
active one, I might consider just taking it to email, but it does seem to still
be active, so I haven't really gone that route. I guess I'd normally say that if
the administration wishes, I'll take it to email, but my guess is I don't need
to even ask that. Perhaps my next reply to Ken (assuming there is one) will just
take place off Lugnet.
So, now that I've written all that, I guess I'm more worried about this time out
thing. Does what I've written here constitute slander to Ken? Do I deserve a
time out for it? Hm. I kinda wonder about that. On the one hand I want to say
no, because I think I've stated a personal analysis of actual facts. They just
happen to relate to Ken's behavior. But at the same time the more I think about
it, the more I think I just disagree with the policy in general, so maybe it
DOES merit me a time out. Perhaps the policy is in place to prevent us from
making valid (or invalid) negative assessments of other people and/or their
behavior, regardless of how much evidence is used to back up those facts, or how
emotionally/unemotionally they're presented.
I dunno though. After all, I don't think the policy wants to prevent, say, the
belittlement of George W. Bush, but I DO think the policy wants to prevent, say,
me belittling a fellow Lugnetter to their face in a heated debate with that
person.
I think in the end, I'd rather have either:
1) No policy at all regarding slander, you're free to slam people all you want
2) No guidelines whatsoever, admins know trouble when they see it
As it is, I keep coming up with iffy situations and wonder whether they're
allowed or not. Anyway. Enough for me for now. I guess we'll see what the
verdict is later.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > > They also said there would only be 10,000 availible publicly. SNIP
> > > I don't see why you keep going back to this.
> >
> > Because that is what they said and words mean things.
>
> Yeah, but what they said was true. "This is a small run too – only 14,000 total,
> with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home." It *WAS* a small run, and it *WAS* limited
> to 14K, and 10K *DID* go to S@H. Please point out the exact error in the phrase,
> because as I see it, the phrase that was used in NO WAY referenced future runs
> of the set,
I'd say "LAST CHANCE" pretty much locks that up.
SNIP
"If" there were a way to stop Bin Laden from causing
> any harm, but without killing him, would you? Your answer will affect my moral
> judgement of you, regardless of what you actually do or do not do. Just because
> someone WOULD steal something, but hasn't, doesn't make them moral. Since you
> brought the company's moral value into the debate, I'll examine it as I believe
> it should be. And "if" matters.
I really don't get all of these u-turns in the name of whatever but since you
bring it up "IF" Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden when the Saudies tried to give
him to us the twin towers would still be standing and multible thousands of
people would still be alive. However he didn't so we have to deal with the cards
we were delt. One could loose himself wondering about all the "IF"'s of the
past.
>
> > as "if" wasn't true so they chose to market it as a limited set.
>
> No. They chose to tell us that it was limited.
Exactly- Glad to see you agree
SNIP
> > The fact that they knew AFOL's would love the set is why they should have
> > kept their word.
>
> No. A word should be kept regardless. But their word is not what they intended
> to give.
Intent or not they choose to market it as a limited set. You are right though
they should have kept their word.
>
> > > Of course, I think that's irrelevant in this case because I don't think this
> > > decision part of a negative trend.
> >
> > The trend is the point that Lego, when viewed as a company is a failure. They
> > have lost money and market share for years and continues to fall. That is not
> > a matter of opinion it is big news in the world wide financal comunity.
>
> I didn't say that there is no negative trend. I said I don't think this decision
> is a part of one.
One bad decision on top of another equals a trend. Wether you agree or not a lot
of post out there have agreed with me. The decision has created bad feelings
amung consumers. Consumers that an ailing company can not afford to put off. It
is therefore by definition a bad decision. It would be kind of hard to pull one
bad decision out of the pile and say that this one was a fluke.
>
> DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mike Walsh wrote:
>
> "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
> news:I9GuDD.nKo@lugnet.com...
> Neither of these posts by LEGO employees is a Press Release. If these posts
> are what Ken is referring to as Press Releases then he should stop doing so
> because it is very misleading. The posts by Jake and Jan do not resemble
> anything similar to the press releases found on the LEGO web site:
> http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=press
>
> Mike
Obviously at this point the press release has been pulled. I was virtuly
identical as the post Jake put up acting as a representitive of TLC. It was also
marketed so by SHO and the "limited" aspect was played up there more than
anywhere. Nothing misleading here.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
>
> <snip>
SNIP
> As Dave just stated--there was no 'word' given--just the statement of facts that
> at the time were perfectly correct. Those that can adapt to changes evolve--we
> should be supporting TLC in this endeavour wholeheartedly due to the simple fact
> that they are doing something completely right for their financial side, as well
> as for the AFOL community. But nope, we're here griping about semantics and
> misread or misinterpreted events and calling on 'morals'--230ish posts going
> 'round and 'round.
SNIP
> Dave K
230 proves that it's not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be. This is another
bad decision that will alienate more customers and financialy they can not
afford to be doing so.
With a little thought a new supply of Maersk blue ABS could have been a godsend.
Instead they put no thought into it, took back their word (or changed the facts)
with regard to limited and further dissapointed everyone who was dragged into
the vote for the new color ship.
Ailienating customers is never "compleatly right for thier financial side".
Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
>
> I'm getting more and more convinced that Ken is not being open-minded about
> this. I'm actually rather glad that I was in error earlier in this thread and
> admitted so, because it demonstrates that I'm willing to be convinced. Ken
> doesn't seem to do the same. We've repeatedly dissected the semantics of Jake's
> phrase "This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop
> At Home.", and shown that it actually (as we've claimed all along) does NOT
> demonstrate a promise concerning potential future runs of the same set. Yet
> despite this continued demonstration, Ken not only ignores the error by not
> addressing it in his replies, but repeatedly uses the phrase again as though > it were further proof of his point.
Unfortunatly your definitin of open minded means I have to agree with you. I
don't and you left out of your quote that this was touted as the "LAST CHANCE"
> By comparison, you'll note that each post since the admission of my error
> attempts to make careful note of the fact that Lego DID make an erroneous
> statement which could be legally interpreted as a promise ("It ... is your last
> chance to buy Maersk bricks!"). Instead, I've changed my argument such that I'm
> focusing on the meaning behind the words, suggesting that the erroneous
> statement was not intended to imply policy.
>
> I suppose it could also be because Ken isn't really reading the responses, but
Carful now your getting personal... Intent is not relevent. The did what hey
did. If they didn't intend to market it as a limited set it's a shame because
they did. Since they did they would in most people's minds have an obligation to
live up to their marketing.
> rather wantonly replying to everything "pro-Lego" that is posted in reply to
> him. I dunno. I mentioned a couple times that I admit that Lego has been on a
> downtrend, yet he's presented that downtrend to me a few times now as though I
> were totally unaware of it, or that I thought that they've totally reversed
> direction. Hence, either he's unaware of the continuity of the sub-threads and
> doesn't know who I am and what I've already said, or he's not reading what I've
> written. Or he's just so eager to keep referring to the downtrend that he'll
> ignore the debate at hand and revert right back to what he really WANTS to be
> discussing, and expound on the horrors of the company.
Good to know you know what I know and want but as I see it you can't seperatet a
decision this poor, that has angered so many from the fact that they are
failing.
SNIP
Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
<snip>
> > because as I see it, the phrase that was used in NO WAY referenced future runs
> > of the set,
>
>
> I'd say "LAST CHANCE" pretty much locks that up.
Why did reps form TLC state that it was 'the last chance'?
Did they do it because they were marketing a limited set as a collector item (a
la numbered Santa Fe), or was the 'last chance' only due to a limitation of
coloured Maersk Blue pellets, with no contract to make more at the time this was
stated--A situation, I remind you, that has subsequently changed with a new
contract.
Answer me that. Why did they state it was the last chance? What were their
intentions? You're playing the 'moral card'--why did the reps from TLC state
that the run was limited to 10k for consumers.
<snip>
eh, i'll focus on specifically this issue and not a 'greater moral one'
> > No. They chose to tell us that it was limited.
>
> Exactly- Glad to see you agree
We all agree that the set was stated as limited at the time. It's the 'why'
that you're not getting. THe history of TLC is the history of 'limited
runs'--all sets will eventually stop being produced. I can't walk in the store
and buy a 'Galaxy Explorer'--that run was limited. But you'd have an issue if
TLC were to bring it back as a 'Legend'. Speaking of which, why haven't you had
any issues with the Legend series? Every one of those sets was 'limited' and
they were brought back. Oh right, TLC didn't state that they were limited. Got
it.
So if TLC states that something is limited *for any reason whatsoever*, that's
it until the end of time--the company cannot reproduce that particualar set.
Hmmm...
At this time, I'm particualry thankful that TLC isn't abiding by your morals,
for we woudln't have the Legend series. Beyond that, if a run is limited due to
external factors, such as the lack of a particular colour, and is *only limited*
due to the limitation of a specific colour, and the reps state it as such, that
conditional statement becomes null and void if and when that particular colour
becomes available again, and that's exactly the case here.
One more time for the obtuse--
TLC stated that the set was limited only because of the limited quantity of the
particular colour (Maersk Blue)
TLC also stated openly and honestly that they had no contract with Maersk to
make more coloured pellets, so, again at the time the statement was made, this
was a perfectly legitimate statement to make.
Legally, ethically, morally, all of TLC's bases are covered by the simple
statement, "Due to the limitation of coloured Maersk Blue pellets, and only
because of the limitation of Maersk Blue pellets, this set is limited."
It is just like my examples that you keep deleting about hte trip to Vegas or
the Gift Certificate to buy LEGO bricks.
If you, Ken, were to state "I am broke therefore I cannot buy LEGO, and the only
reason I have to not buy LEGO is due to me being broke" I respect that.
If, however, someone gives you a gift certiicate to buy LEGO bricks, that reason
for not buying--that statement of fact, immediately becomes null and void.
There is no ethical, moral or legal reason for you not to use the certificate to
purchase LEGO sets, and you would still be able to say you're a man who always
keeps his word.
Well, my friend, TLC kept their word--the set was limited *only* because of the
limitation of colour (reiterating in case you missed it the first hundred times)
with no contract at the time to make more.
Then Maersk came to TLC (again, reiterated because you seem to like deleting and
not responding to this bit) *with the colour in hand* (one of the important
bits) and with a *new contract* (again, important 'shouldn't delete this bit but
actually try to refute it' bit) and said "Please make more".
Where in this sequence of events does TLC actually break their word to anyone?
Point by point please.
>
>
> SNIP
> > > The fact that they knew AFOL's would love the set is why they should have
> > > kept their word.
> >
> > No. A word should be kept regardless. But their word is not what they intended
> > to give.
>
> Intent or not they choose to market it as a limited set. You are right though
> they should have kept their word.
They did. They stated that the set was limited *only* due to the colour
limitation. Once the colour showed up on their doorstep, the statement becomes
null and void. Dispute this, please.
>
> >
> > > > Of course, I think that's irrelevant in this case because I don't think this
> > > > decision part of a negative trend.
> > >
> > > The trend is the point that Lego, when viewed as a company is a failure. They
> > > have lost money and market share for years and continues to fall. That is not
> > > a matter of opinion it is big news in the world wide financal comunity.
> >
> > I didn't say that there is no negative trend. I said I don't think this decision
> > is a part of one.
>
> One bad decision on top of another equals a trend. Wether you agree or not a lot
> of post out there have agreed with me. The decision has created bad feelings
> amung consumers. Consumers that an ailing company can not afford to put off.
I'm a consumer. I beleive that this decision was a good one. I believe that
there have been too many people focused on every little thing that TLC does and
are just ready to pounce on any llittle thing. All the power to these
people--checks and balances as it were. That said, this isn't, in my opinion,
one of those things that 'consumers' should have focused on or found TLC in an
'error of judgement'.
Furthermore, this decision from TLC has done well with the consumers I know and
has eased the 'bad feelings' as you put it, with these consumers. Contrary to
being 'put off', these consumers are anticipating the re-release of this
particular set.
You stating that it was a bad decision does not make it so. You have as yet to
make the point that it was a bad decision and that TLC broke their word. Your
points have been refuted but you consistently adhere to your wrongful view of
what actually transpired.
On top of which, you've been stating that TLC is an ailing company--they sold
out of the Maersk Blue boats quickly, so it's obvious that people actually want
'em. For TLC to listen to your faulty logic and not to re-release this set
would, in my opinion, contribute to their 'downward spiral'. For a person that
has stated that he wants what is best for this company, you really have a funny
way of showing it--you don't want TLC to release this set because if they
release it, it'll make them money? Good logic.
It
> is therefore by definition a bad decision. It would be kind of hard to pull one
> bad decision out of the pile and say that this one was a fluke.
> >
> > DaveE
It's difficult to see what exactly your point is at this time. If you want to
discuss TLC's 'bad decisions', again. I'm all for it. If you want to prove that
this is one, you have as yet to make a coherent or cohesive arguement, and any
points you have made thus far have been refuted (even through deletions by you).
My Pappy used to have an expression--'Put up or shut up'.
(or is that crossing the liine with these new 'time out' things?)
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
<snip>
> Good to know you know what I know and want but as I see it you can't seperatet a
> decision this poor, that has angered so many from the fact that they are
> failing.
>
> SNIP
>
> Ken
TLC's failings are directly related to this issue? TO their 'poor decision
making?'
Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a poorer
quality product and therefore able to sell it cheaper, that they can get their
pieces made in China and have little to no 'moral integrity' to 'do the right
thing'. Competitors, mind you, that sometimes even blatantly rip off the exact
set (a la ones from China) and TLC has to spend enormous resouces taking these
companies to court. Yep, nothing like that would affect TLC's financial bottom
line.
Seriously, you keep mentioning these 'many'. I'll likewise mention that the
'many' that I chat with about our chosen hobby are all optimistic about hte
direction of TLC, that these past few years have been wonderful for the variety
of sets and such, and one of the few things that is even discussed as a
legitimate issue is the colour change, but they're content to live with that if
TLC doesn't change back--they voiced their arguement against he colour change in
the best manner that they could and left it up to the purview of the LEGO execs.
We cannot be the hair on the tail wagging the dog.
And the 'many' I know trumps, in my opinion, the many you know for mine seem to
take into consideration all sides of the issue, and know when to leave things
alone (unlike me, obviously).
Dave K
-my moral integrity is still intact--hows yours doing?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Mike Walsh wrote:
> >
> > "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
> > news:I9GuDD.nKo@lugnet.com...
>
> > Neither of these posts by LEGO employees is a Press Release. If these posts
> > are what Ken is referring to as Press Releases then he should stop doing so
> > because it is very misleading. The posts by Jake and Jan do not resemble
> > anything similar to the press releases found on the LEGO web site:
> > http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=press
> >
> > Mike
>
> Obviously at this point the press release has been pulled. I was virtuly
> identical as the post Jake put up acting as a representitive of TLC. It was also
> marketed so by SHO and the "limited" aspect was played up there more than
> anywhere. Nothing misleading here.-Ken
This is laughable.
It would be near impossible for a company to make a press release disappear.
When comapnies issue press releases they go out over the wire and news sources
pick them up. So if LEGO did remove a copy of a press release form their own
web site (which I seriously doubt) then I am sure some news agency has a copy of
it somewhere.
As for 10152 appearing in the S@H catalog, I recall it being on the back cover
of one of them, probably the Spring 2004 issue. Does anyone have one handy? If
so, can you scan it in and post it on BrickShelf so we can all read the 10152
description? I would not be surprised if the "Limited Quantities, Order Now"
icon appeared with the description but TLC does that all the time when inventory
is low and a set is not scheduled for production again.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring dot com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> TLC's failings are directly related to this issue? TO their 'poor decision
> making?'
>
> Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a poorer
> quality product and therefore able to sell it cheaper, that they can get their
> pieces made in China and have little to no 'moral integrity' to 'do the right
> thing'. Competitors, mind you, that sometimes even blatantly rip off the exact
> set (a la ones from China) and TLC has to spend enormous resouces taking these
> companies to court. Yep, nothing like that would affect TLC's financial bottom
> line.
I'd like to mention that legitimate competitors such as BTR and MegaBloks do not
engage in the illegal duplication of TLC's protected intellectual property, so
these two companies (at least) should be considered separate from those less
reputable corporations that *do* copy TLC's stuff.
It was my impression that TLC has recently decided to manufacture some of its
stock in China--am I incorrect in this regard? If they have decided to do so,
then one can't really criticize TLC's competition for likewise manufacturing in
China. Or, at least, they can't be criticized any more strongly than TLC can
be.
It was also my impression that a victorious plantiff in an intellectual property
dispute can seek compensation from the defendant including the costs of
litigation. Is this incorrect? It would seem to mitigate the costs of
defending one's property (once they've litigated what's mitigated, I suppose.)
Also, I know vanishingly little about this kind of legal proceding, so for all I
know the plantiff might be required to pay a dollar to everyone whose name
begins with Q.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > TLC's failings are directly related to this issue? TO their 'poor decision
> > making?'
> >
> > Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a poorer
> > quality product and therefore able to sell it cheaper, that they can get their
> > pieces made in China and have little to no 'moral integrity' to 'do the right
> > thing'. Competitors, mind you, that sometimes even blatantly rip off the exact
> > set (a la ones from China) and TLC has to spend enormous resouces taking these
> > companies to court. Yep, nothing like that would affect TLC's financial bottom
> > line.
>
> I'd like to mention that legitimate competitors such as BTR and MegaBloks do not
> engage in the illegal duplication of TLC's protected intellectual property, so
> these two companies (at least) should be considered separate from those less
> reputable corporations that *do* copy TLC's stuff.
I was referring to the direct kock-offs of TLC sets, and I apologize for
inadvertently lumping all 'building brick' competitors into the same mold.
> It was my impression that TLC has recently decided to manufacture some of its
> stock in China--am I incorrect in this regard? If they have decided to do so,
> then one can't really criticize TLC's competition for likewise manufacturing in
> China. Or, at least, they can't be criticized any more strongly than TLC can
> be.
The issue for me is that they may have to take, or already have taken, this
course of action to remain competitive. It's not a biggie for me--almost
everything we buy these days has some ties to that country. Since we're sending
money there anyway, what's a little more with the LEGO purchases.
As well, it is my belief that with a greater 'globalized' community, the more
the workers in China will benefit, as well as working on the
enviornmental/health issues. But that's just my hope--the leaders of ROC may
just pocket lotsa money and the workers will still get paid a pittance.
We shall see what transpires.
>
> It was also my impression that a victorious plantiff in an intellectual property
> dispute can seek compensation from the defendant including the costs of
> litigation. Is this incorrect? It would seem to mitigate the costs of
> defending one's property (once they've litigated what's mitigated, I suppose.)
A personal issue that I just went thru with a government body, in which, after
many phone calls and letters and such, the situation was rectified with
relatively little financial expense on my part. That said, I was not reimbursed
for my time and effort. I mean, how can one bill those exactly? 'Billable
hours' naturally means that we can try, but tby the very fact that the company
has to put time and effort, as well as money, into litigation in the first
place, is bound to end up as a net loss, for you can't cover every jot and
tittle of the process.
But again, my opinion.
> Also, I know vanishingly little about this kind of legal proceding, so for all I
> know the plantiff might be required to pay a dollar to everyone whose name
> begins with Q.
>
> Dave!
As long as no one litigates against guys named Dave!
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> I'd like to mention that legitimate competitors such as BTR and MegaBloks do
> not engage in the illegal duplication of TLC's protected intellectual
> property, so these two companies (at least) should be considered separate
> from those less reputable corporations that *do* copy TLC's stuff.
That's generally accurate, although IIRC there have been lawsuits eating up time
and money from both TLC and MB. And I expect this is primarily "Comapny X"
against Lego, like the Lego against the China knock-off, or Lego against
Best-Lock. I admit I probably wouldn't know about it if it was happening, but I
don't think there are as many suits between, say, MegaBloks and Best-Lock.
Hence, my guess is that it really IS hurting Lego moreso than other competing
brands, but that also comes with the territory of being the best known in the
building block market.
> It was my impression that TLC has recently decided to manufacture some of its
> stock in China--am I incorrect in this regard? If they have decided to do
> so, then one can't really criticize TLC's competition for likewise
> manufacturing in China. Or, at least, they can't be criticized any more
> strongly than TLC can be.
I don't think Dave K (dang, I'm going to need to start differentiating Dave's
here) was getting at the fact that others should be criticized for their
production in China so much as the fact that it's another negative contributer
to Lego's financial situation. But admittedly, the fact that Lego wasn't already
producing sets in China could possibly be regarded as "poor decision making".
> It was also my impression that a victorious plantiff in an intellectual
> property dispute can seek compensation from the defendant including the costs
> of litigation. Is this incorrect?
I thought that wasn't true, but I could be wrong as well. Certainly I expect
that differs country-to-country. And possibly case-by-case or even
state-to-state in the US.
Certainly I've always been an advocate of it being true, since you'd think that
you shouldn't have to PAY to defend your intellectual property. But on the other
hand, I guess if I don't pay my insurance and my Lego gets stolen and destroyed,
I might not get compensated.
Given how often this "IANAL" bit comes up in o-t, I think we should all sponsor
an AFOL to go to law school, just so we can have someone who can answer this
stuff for us...
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> Given how often this "IANAL" bit comes up in o-t, I think we should all sponsor
> an AFOL to go to law school, just so we can have someone who can answer this
> stuff for us...
I thought we already HAD an AFOL who was a lawyer... but he quit and went on to
be a LLCA model builder. :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > I'd like to mention that legitimate competitors such as BTR and MegaBloks do
> > not engage in the illegal duplication of TLC's protected intellectual
> > property, so these two companies (at least) should be considered separate
> > from those less reputable corporations that *do* copy TLC's stuff.
>
> That's generally accurate, although IIRC there have been lawsuits eating up time
> and money from both TLC and MB. And I expect this is primarily "Comapny X"
> against Lego, like the Lego against the China knock-off, or Lego against
> Best-Lock.
That's true. Of course, the LEGO v MegaBloks suits are somewhat different from
LEGO v Shifty/Brick, since LEGO's beef with MegaBloks involves the specific
design of the studs-n-tubes interlocking system and the "look" of the 2x4 brick,
whereas LEGO has sued Shifty because Shifty has outright stolen trademarked
designs.
I've wondered about TLC's choice to continue pursuing their claim against
MegaBloks, because to date they've lost every single case[1], and each
subsequent loss is a weakness in future litigation[2].
> I admit I probably wouldn't know about it if it was happening, but I
> don't think there are as many suits between, say, MegaBloks and Best-Lock.
> Hence, my guess is that it really IS hurting Lego moreso than other competing
> brands, but that also comes with the territory of being the best known in the
> building block market.
That's probably true, too. However, I recently mentioned in a different thread
that Shifty appears to have stolen some MegaBloks designs, too, so perhaps such
a case might still come to pass?
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/clone-brands/?n=2408
[1] Well, TLC *did* succeed in requiring MegaBloks to drop the "works with LEGO"
claim from MegaBloks products, so that's a legitimate victory
[2] Inasmuch as one can apply precedent from one country to another, which
probably isn't all that much. Still, I've read write-ups along the lines of "in
this case as in previous cases in other countries, LEGO's claim was found to be
invalid" or what have you. So who knows?
Where's that LLCA AFOL lawyer when you need him?!?
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mike Walsh wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Mike Walsh wrote:
> > >
> > > "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
> > > news:I9GuDD.nKo@lugnet.com...
> >
> > > Neither of these posts by LEGO employees is a Press Release. If these posts
> > > are what Ken is referring to as Press Releases then he should stop doing so
> > > because it is very misleading. The posts by Jake and Jan do not resemble
> > > anything similar to the press releases found on the LEGO web site:
> > > http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=press
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > Obviously at this point the press release has been pulled. I was virtuly
> > identical as the post Jake put up acting as a representitive of TLC. It was also
> > marketed so by SHO and the "limited" aspect was played up there more than
> > anywhere. Nothing misleading here.-Ken
>
>
> This is laughable.
>
> It would be near impossible for a company to make a press release disappear. • SNIP
>
> Mike
Laughable that their web sit periodicaly changes? You'll note that the link you
provided does not cover every press realease ever released. That does not mean
that it did not exist. -Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> It's difficult to see what exactly your point is at this time. If you want to
> discuss TLC's 'bad decisions', again. I'm all for it. If you want to prove that
> this is one, you have as yet to make a coherent or cohesive arguement, and any
> points you have made thus far have been refuted (even through deletions by you).
>
> My Pappy used to have an expression--'Put up or shut up'.
>
> (or is that crossing the liine with these new 'time out' things?)
>
> Dave K
My deletions are needed as A) it's part of the TOU & B)The server wont let you
repost anything as long as your replies are getting with out snipping.
As for coherent & cohesive there's pleny of people who agree with me. Your
twisting things around however to excuse the fact that TLC bungeled this does
not change the fact that they choose to market the set as being limited.
Changing their mind for whatever reason or twist of logic does not change the
fact that they turned their back on the consumers whom were told that this was a
limited set.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Good to know you know what I know and want but as I see it you can't seperatet a
> > decision this poor, that has angered so many from the fact that they are
> > failing.
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > Ken
>
> TLC's failings are directly related to this issue?
No as I said this is only part of the puzzel. This decision on it's own would
mean nothing
> TO their 'poor decision making?'
Absolutly. You have to be making a lot of poor decisions to be loosing money for
as long as they have been.
> Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a
> poorer quality product and therefore able to sell it cheaper,
While this is the view of the average AFOL it is not the view of the average
consumer. Parents find clones to be an excellent value. Many who grew up with
Lego would rather buy their kids Mega Bloks. Kids like the sets that Mega Blok
is putting out. I've personally witness a number of times a kid searching for a
particular set and choosing to leave empty handed rather than take the Legos.
There's no need to argue this I as an AFOL don't agree with them but that dosn't
change where there dollars are being spent.
>
> Seriously, you keep mentioning these 'many'. I'll likewise mention that the
> 'many' that I chat with about our chosen hobby are all optimistic about hte
> direction of TLC,
In the world of AFOL's most things are rosey if you discount bley. However Lego
has mentioned we are insignifigant and they are failing worse with the general
public.
SNIP
> And the 'many' I know trumps, in my opinion, the many you know for mine seem to
> take into consideration all sides of the issue, and know when to leave things
> alone (unlike me, obviously).
>
> Dave K
> -my moral integrity is still intact--hows yours doing?
Except what I know is that Lego is by definition a failure as a company. That's
not even debatable. A company exists to make a profit. As for me if I promiss
something I still keep my word. Thank for asking.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
>
>
> > It's difficult to see what exactly your point is at this time. If you want to
> > discuss TLC's 'bad decisions', again. I'm all for it. If you want to prove that
> > this is one, you have as yet to make a coherent or cohesive arguement, and any
> > points you have made thus far have been refuted (even through deletions by you).
> >
> > My Pappy used to have an expression--'Put up or shut up'.
> >
> > (or is that crossing the liine with these new 'time out' things?)
> >
> > Dave K
>
> My deletions are needed as A) it's part of the TOU & B)The server wont let you
> repost anything as long as your replies are getting with out snipping.
>
> As for coherent & cohesive there's pleny of people who agree with me. Your
> twisting things around however to excuse the fact that TLC bungeled this does
> not change the fact that they choose to market the set as being limited.
> Changing their mind for whatever reason or twist of logic does not change the
> fact that they turned their back on the consumers whom were told that this was a
> limited set.-Ken
It is you who are twisting the facts to suit your flawed opinion. In my
country, as well as the US of A, by law a party is onnocent until proven guilty.
You have as yet to prove TLC's guilt in this case. Since you have continuously
deleted all valid points made by your opposition without once refuting any
points listed, as well as having all your points refuted continuously, well,
that's that.
And hiding behind the TOU? If you made any effort to refute any of the points
listed, that issue becomes null and void--an idea that you seem to not
comprehend.
And you keep mentioning that TLC turned their backs on the consumers. How? By
offering the consumers a set the consumers want? Specifically with regard to
the 10152, show me how TLC turned their backs? I have talked to many people who
are excited, adn many have posted here on LUGNET with enthusiam about hte
re-release of this set. So where does that get us? You have your camp, I have
mine. Which is better?
Finally, I have stated this over and over again and yet you delete, obfuscate,
and adhere to your bottom line, which, as shown by all evidence, proves you to
be wrong. But you still adhere to it. You obviously haven't convinced ne that
you're even remotely right, nor, by your apparent lack of debating the actual
issue, does it seem this is going to change. We're done.
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
Except what I know is that Lego is by definition a failure as a company.
|
Lego is by definition a failure as a company? An interesting assertion.
| |
That’s not even debatable.
|
I think it might be...
| |
A company exists to make a profit.
|
No... a company exists to pool resources and to protect shareholders.
A company will often (but not always) seek to give a return to shareholders
-making a profit is but one way of doing this.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
> Finally, I have stated this over and over again and yet you delete, obfuscate,
> and adhere to your bottom line, which, as shown by all evidence, proves you to
> be wrong. But you still adhere to it. You obviously haven't convinced ne that
> you're even remotely right, nor, by your apparent lack of debating the actual
> issue, does it seem this is going to change. We're done.
>
> Dave K
Dave,
as you write yourself, you have stated things over and over again. But you have
not convinced me. And I have not seen a single pro-TLC posting within the German
AFOL community. They are obviously tending towards Ken's opinion as I do. Some
people do not care at all. And I myself should not care as well, because I never
bought a set 10152 and I will not buy one unless they are doing one in grey
instead of bley.....
Nevertheless I am deeply disappointed by TLC. They called the set limited in
Germany and gave certain numbers. They said this would be the last chance for
fans to get Mearsk bricks from TLC. (Then the base for these statements chaged
as you said - I know that point of yours, but still disagree strongly).
I had partly lost my faith in statements from TLC and this has now again come
worse. That is why I am thinking this rerelease is so bad. They could have
solved this so easy by changing the set number by one digit or changing the
package design (or changing from bley to grey :-). That would have caused some
minor costs, but now they have bad reputation due to this very thread (and
others all over the web and real world). I am sure this loss of reputation is by
far more cost effective than a the costs for a change.
Happy new year!
Ben
P.s.: I think if you are done with Ken, then we are done as well. And this means
at this very point, that you have decided to devide the community.
Do you really think we cannot live within one community and have different
opinions? I prefer 7-wide trains and still 8-wide Homa and John are friends of
mine.....
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
Except what I know is that Lego is by definition a failure as a company.
|
|
SNIP
| |
A company will often (but not always) seek to give a return to shareholders
-making a profit is but one way of doing this.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
Except Lego is not publicly owned. It is owned by people with increasingly less
wealth. -Ken
|
|
| |
SNIP
> > > > In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
SNIP
> It is you who are twisting the facts to suit your flawed opinion. In my
> country, as well as the US of A, by law a party is onnocent until proven guilty.
I don't know about your country but here that only applies in a court of law. I
am certainlt alowed to come to a decision based on the facts at any time I wish.
> You have as yet to prove TLC's guilt in this case. Since you have continuously
> deleted all valid points made by your opposition without once refuting any
> points listed, as well as having all your points refuted continuously, well,
> that's that.
>
> And hiding behind the TOU? If you made any effort to refute any of the points
> listed, that issue becomes null and void--an idea that you seem to not
> comprehend.
Ok so it's not in the terms of use but I've read it somewhere and the fact is
that if your reply is not something like 90% of the original message the server
kicks it back and asks you to edit it. If your messages wern't so long and
wandering I wouldn't HAVE to do any snipping.
SNIP
> Finally, I have stated this over and over again and yet you delete, obfuscate,
> and adhere to your bottom line, which, as shown by all evidence, proves you to
> be wrong. But you still adhere to it. You obviously haven't convinced ne that
> you're even remotely right, nor, by your apparent lack of debating the actual
> issue, does it seem this is going to change. We're done.
>
> Dave K
The evidence shows no such thing. I keep "sticking to the bottom line" because
Lego wrote a few short sentances which have meaning. You on the other hand want
to write paragraph after paragraph as to what YOU think they meant and what YOU
think their intention was. I don't have to go to such lenghts because I can read
what they said.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > > > In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
>
>
> > Finally, I have stated this over and over again and yet you delete, obfuscate,
> > and adhere to your bottom line, which, as shown by all evidence, proves you to
> > be wrong. But you still adhere to it. You obviously haven't convinced ne that
> > you're even remotely right, nor, by your apparent lack of debating the actual
> > issue, does it seem this is going to change. We're done.
> >
> > Dave K
>
> Dave,
>
> as you write yourself, you have stated things over and over again. But you have
> not convinced me. And I have not seen a single pro-TLC posting within the German
> AFOL community. They are obviously tending towards Ken's opinion as I do. Some
> people do not care at all. And I myself should not care as well, because I never
> bought a set 10152 and I will not buy one unless they are doing one in grey
> instead of bley.....
Hey Ben,
I have, and he has, and we all have stated our POV over and over again. The
thing is, the points that Ken made were refuted by others, as well as myself, in
this very thread. These points were not addressed but summarily deleted, and
the original faulty claim that TLC somehow didn't keep their word was
reitereated.
I love debates. I love debating. I love going on and on about whatever subject
is put in front of me (especially one that I have some passion about, such as
our chosen hobby here) and I would like to think I have an open mind to be able
to see other people's POV. One of the issues specifically with this part of the
debate is that there is no debate--points made by 'the other side (me and those
that agree with me) are not refuted and/or removed from discussion, and
reiteration of, in my opinion, faulty logic. This is not debating. This is,
again in my opinion, blindly adhering to an idea contrary to available evidence
and 'shouting down' the other side. Stamina in a shouting match--to basically
'stick to your guns' until the other side just gets tired of trying to talk
sense--does not equal a debate.
> Nevertheless I am deeply disappointed by TLC. They called the set limited in
> Germany and gave certain numbers. They said this would be the last chance for
> fans to get Mearsk bricks from TLC. (Then the base for these statements chaged
> as you said - I know that point of yours, but still disagree strongly).
And I thought that, since day one when they came out with this set, it was known
that the limitation of the set was due to the limitation of colour--that TLC
didn't change their statement--they've been forthright with us from the
beginning.
I've stated that very notion--
TLC stated that the set was limited--True.
TLC stated that the reason for the limitation was the limitation of Maersk Blue
pellets--True.
Maersk came to TLC with the colour and a contract to make more--True.
With a new contract, and the Maersk Blue colour, the reason the 10152 was
limited becomes null and void--True.
If you would like to dispute any of these points, again, I'm all for the debate.
Don't use my example, but show me where TLC 'broke their 'promiss''. In doing
so, remember that the example that Ken gave way back was a faulty analogy and
was summarily refuted (again, with no response).
>
> I had partly lost my faith in statements from TLC and this has now again come
> worse. That is why I am thinking this rerelease is so bad. They could have
> solved this so easy by changing the set number by one digit or changing the
> package design (or changing from bley to grey :-). That would have caused some
> minor costs, but now they have bad reputation due to this very thread (and
> others all over the web and real world). I am sure this loss of reputation is by
> far more cost effective than a the costs for a change.
And I say that they've earned a 'better reputation' from this neck of the
woods--many people I know are excited about this--new contracts that will
provide lucrative returns for TLC as well as wonderful sets for the AFOL
community--it's a 'win-win' for all involved.
Again I will reiterate--for people who state they are so concerned about TLC and
their chosen hobby, in my opinion, you really have a strange way of showing
it--"Hey TLC--don't you go signing that contract because you will make money if
you do so!"
>
> Happy new year!
>
> Ben
>
> P.s.: I think if you are done with Ken, then we are done as well. And this means
> at this very point, that you have decided to devide the community.
> Do you really think we cannot live within one community and have different
> opinions? I prefer 7-wide trains and still 8-wide Homa and John are friends of
> mine.....
See, projecting these ill-will ideas on me is akin to me asking you "Are you
still beating your wife?" The question immediately it puts you in a bad light.
I state emphatically that it is not I that 'decided to divide the community'.
Rather, in my opinion, I try with my actions, words, and deeds to promote this
hobby. Further, I try to promote what I believe is best in maintaining a
relationship amongst AFOLs as well as between the AFOL community and TLC.
Since there are those who are vehemently adhering to a very faulty view of what
actually transpired, I believe it is these people who are embittering and
dividing the LEGO community at large. It's much like that school yard bully,
with the inordinately large chip on his or her shoulder, walking around daring
someone else to knock the chipp off. Anything that happens is perceived by the
bully as a dare--"You looking at me kid??".
After years of 'Jack Stone', 'bley', 'Galidor', 'Znap', and some would even say
'Bionicle', certain members of this AFOL community are holding huge grudges
against TLC. Anything that TLC does now is slanted by this pent-up
frustration--The past 'transgressions' of TLC has embittered people to look at
*anything* that TLC does as wrong. And, again only my belief, that's exactly
what happened here. I here phrases like 'downward spiral' and the like, which
shows to me that these people group this decision in 'with the rest', instead of
analysing the 10152 issue as a separate one, as it should be.
If one were to actually analyse what transpired specifically relating to the
10152 issue, instead of grouping it with 'transgressions of the past', I believe
that one would come closer to my interpretation. Look at the facts (as outlined
above) and try to prove guilt in this specific instance.
Finally, when I said I was done, I meant I ws done 'debating' with Ken. A
flurry of posts between the two of us and no one was saying anything
different--compounded with the apparent lack of his trying to refute any point,
idea, or example I made. I forgot what they called it in a chess game, but if
both sides repeat the same move over and over again, with no chance of winning
for either player, the game is called.
Dave K
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
Except what I know is that Lego is by definition a failure as a company.
|
|
SNIP
| |
A company will often (but not always) seek to give a return to shareholders
-making a profit is but one way of doing this.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
Except Lego is not publicly owned.
|
You are correct in saying that it is not publically owned, but why do you say
‘except’? It makes no difference.
There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to make a
profit.
| |
It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth.
|
Is it? How do you know?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to make
a profit.
|
“privately owned”
| |
| |
It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth.
|
|
“decreasing wealth”
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to make
a profit.
|
“privately owned”
| |
| |
It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth.
|
|
“decreasing wealth”
ROSCO
|
Geesh Ross, put the ruler away, someone might get hurt.
Bad memories of overly strict teachers with nasty looks on their faces.
Janey “C- Red Brick”
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
Shouldn’t that be “Here come the grammar police”? :)
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to make
a profit.
|
“privately owned”
|
Privately owned is not the same as non publicly owned. (Though Lego is both non
publicly owned and privately owned.)
I’m not sure why I spelled it ‘publically’, though. Must be that speech to text
software acting up again. ;-)
| |
| |
| |
It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth.
|
|
“decreasing wealth”
|
It would seem so. But the question remains: is Lego owned by people with
decreasing wealth?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
Shouldn’t that be “Here come the grammar police”? :)
|
And since when is ‘watchout’ a word? ;-)
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> > > > > In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > > > > > In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
SNIP
> I love debates. I love debating. I love going on and on about whatever subject • SNIP
> Dave K
A debate is an exchange of FACTS in order to prusuade the other party to your
point of view. The facts that you seem to be dissapointed that I stick to are
Lego said this was the "last chance" to buy Maersk blue and there would only be
14k sets with 10k availible publicly via SHO. These FACTS are irrifutable as
they were published on these very boards.
You keep putting forth not facts but what you THINK lego was thinking or what
you THINK they meant to say or what you THINK might have been "IF" only...
You have yet to bring forth a single FACT. So as you have said in several of
your posts I guess you are done. -Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to
make a profit.
|
“privately owned”
|
Privately owned is not the same as non publicly owned. (Though Lego is both
non publicly owned and privately owned.)
I’m not sure why I spelled it ‘publically’, though. Must be that speech to
text software acting up again. ;-)
| |
| |
| |
It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth.
|
|
“decreasing wealth”
|
It would seem so. But the question remains: is Lego owned by people with
decreasing wealth?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
Thanks for defending the “non Public part” As for “increasingly less wealth” it
was exactly choosen to make the point. Lego has been loosing money for years and
the family/owners have been increasingly worried about maintaining the status
quo.-Ken
P.S. Thank good there’s no speling poliec.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
|
SNIP
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to
make a profit.
|
“privately owned”
|
Privately owned is not the same as non publicly owned. (Though Lego is both
non publicly owned and privately owned.)
I’m not sure why I spelled it ‘publically’, though. Must be that speech to
text software acting up again. ;-)
| |
| |
| |
It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth.
|
|
“decreasing wealth”
|
It would seem so. But the question remains: is Lego owned by people with
decreasing wealth?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
Thanks for defending the “non Public part”
|
No worries. However, you did make the claim that “A company exists to make a
profit”. The fact that Lego is a private company is neither here to there, a
company does not exist to make a profit. And yet that’s what you claimed.
You didn’t lie, did you? ;-)
| |
As for “increasingly less wealth”
it was exactly choosen to make the point. Lego has been loosing money for
years and the family/owners have been increasingly worried about maintaining
the status quo.
|
Well, maybe. But on what basis do you claim that they have increasingly less
wealth? I’ve held some shares for the last year the value of which has
decreased, but yet, at the same time, my wealth has increased...
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> SNIP
> > I love debates. I love debating. I love going on and on about whatever subject SNIP
> > Dave K
>
> A debate is an exchange of FACTS in order to prusuade the other party to your
> point of view. The facts that you seem to be dissapointed that I stick to are
> Lego said this was the "last chance" to buy Maersk blue and there would only be
> 14k sets with 10k availible publicly via SHO. These FACTS are irrifutable as
> they were published on these very boards.
Yes, LEGO said that. But some people are confusing a "statement of fact" with a
"promise". They are different.
You are of course welcome to continue to fervently believe LEGO lied to you, and
to continue to believe that all statements by the company are promises that must
not be changed regardless of circumstance. But it seems to me that anyone doing
so is setting themselves up for disappointment, as - in the real world -
circumstances often do change. This will not be the last time LEGO changes a
business decision. I just hope that the next time ("when" and not "if") LEGO
announces a minor business decision change, we won't see this level of acrimony
inside the community.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote: • SNIP
> This will not be the last time LEGO changes a
> business decision. I just hope that the next time ("when" and not "if") LEGO
> announces a minor business decision change, we won't see this level of acrimony
> inside the community.
>
> - Kelly
We are not talking about a business decision. Bley was a business decision. In
this case they chose the words "Last chance" and "Very limited production run"
as part of their adveritizing. Since this is how they choose to present the
product to the consumer they have an obligation to live up to what they said.
As for our harmony I suspect untill Lego manages to turn things around or untill
the "TLC can do no wrong crowd" moderates we are only waiting for the next bomb
to drop
-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote: • SNIP
|
|
Well, maybe. But on what basis do you claim that they have increasingly less
wealth? I’ve held some shares for the last year the value of which has
decreased, but yet, at the same time, my wealth has increased...
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
we’re splitting hairs a bit however my statement about their wealth is based
upon suppositon. One can only afford to loose so much and if it were not an
issue they would not be worried about maintaining control.-Ken
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
...
| |
But after a few months, Maersk came back to us with a request for more of the
10152 sets. Apparently the 10152 that they had taken delivery of were working
quite well for them. They agreed to cover the expense of buying a very small
(and expensive) quantity of Maersk blue ABS in order to be able to produce
more sets. We purchased just enough ABS for this one run, and while we don’t
have any plans for more production, I certainly won’t promise again! :) • ...
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
Okay LEGO,
Now the cat’s out of the bag. How much do we have to chip in for two train car
hopper loads of Classic Grey and Dark Grey ABS?
Ed
|
|
|
