| |
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
>
> > To me it also proves that our DOC (Department Of Complainers) here at Lugnet
> > (and especially the Germans) couldn't have been that wrong on the issue. Let me
> > tell all you counter-complainers straight away:
> >
> > WE WERE RIGHT.
>
> I'm not sure that's necessarily a valid conclusion. Another possible conclusion
> is that you were wrong, but LEGO is such a good company at heart that they
> apologised anyway in the interests of peace and harmony.
Larry's statement would be my personal take of the situation, given all the
observable facts, and without knowing exactly what happened behind boardroom
doors.
Dave K
-not that I want this to escalate into a debate.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Larry’s statement would be my personal take of the situation, given all the
observable facts, and without knowing exactly what happened behind boardroom
doors.
|
Me too, but its not really a black and white thing. Customers are customers -
when they are annoyed you do your best to fix them up, whatever the
technicalities of the situation.
When you are surprised by a customer reaction (remember New Coke?) you get to
learn something about your customer and their relationship with your product
that you didn’t know before.
I guess this time, TLG learned a little bit more about “Collectability”. If
there are plenty of returns, it will prove the existence of an adult
collectors market beyond doubt. Then TLG will start thinking about ways of
exploiting it to a greater degree than they have in the past - with both good
and bad effects for us AFOLs.
|
|
|
