Subject:
|
Re: what makes a legend?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 03:45:10 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
812 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.lego.direct, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
> > >
> > > > How does not having the mold for an element affect it's reproducibility? I
> > > > would have thought that with all of the latest and greatest laser measuring
> > > > technology there would be *some* way of getting a new master mold for a
> > > > particular piece, providing you had the original piece to measure off from.
> > >
> > > Sure, there is SOME way
> > >
> > > > But there is probably a cost involved in doing this so you're not too keen
> > > > on it for that reason?
> > >
> > > But that's it. Cost. This is a low budget operation and molds are not cheap.
> > > Precision tolerances are pricey. I have heard numbers batted around that I
> > > have a bit of faith in even though they were speculation... these numbers
> > > are 10-50K USD PER MOLD.
> >
> > The solution here seems obvious... and free.
>
> "every problem has a simple solution. Unfortunately, it's often wrong" Just
> thought I'd toss that out to ponder.
Strange quote. The way I've heard it is, "The best solution is often the
simplest one." Maybe I should stop hanging around software engineers. :)
> > Use more plain old regular bricks in the design of future sets. No need for
> > new molds. No debates over specialized/juniorized parts.
>
> Great advice in general. Not a valid response to Geoffrey who is asking "why
> can't we have this part back that we don't have the mold for", though.
I wasn't really trying to answer Geoffrey's question. My apologies if it
seemed that I was. I was really just trying to present an alternative
solution for the company to consider.
> > And best of all,
> > more good old fashioned bricks with which to build other stuff on your own,
> > once you've built the primary kit.
>
> Again great. The rest of this is directed at more than just this post of
> yours, or even just you, Allan...
>
> LD has a mandate. That's "direct to consumer". It is not "retail". You can
> fault the organization of the company if you like, or you can hope that if
> LD is successful, LD type thinking will catch on elsewhere. But saying "go
> sell these sets in stores" (as you have) means you are asking LD to take on
> Futura, and take on the mandate of what Retail does. That may well be a
> political battle that Brad cannot yet win (if he even would want to engage
> it!!! Which I doubt.).
I suspect you are entirely correct on your last point... an internal
political battle. I am simply trying to do my part, as a caring consumer, to
give Brad all the ammunition I can... should he decide he wants it. I
haven't a clue how to get my opinion heard by the company. I figured if I
posted something to this type of direct contact... maybe... someday...
somewhere... my opinion might be heard. I am a huge fan of this company and
it pains me to see what they do to themselves.
> LD has a budget. That budget, I speculate, includes a few dollars for new
> colors of existing parts (yes, this is not free), but almost certainly does
> NOT include dollars for new colors never seen before. It almost certainly
> does not include new parts.
>
> The new parts budget, or so I speculate, (which includes OLD parts if the
> molds are gone) is in the hands of Futura. Futura designs new sets, I
> speculate. Futura gets sets approved by some guy in Denmark who has a pretty
> good idea (or so he thinks) of what kids want. Or so I speculate.
Actually, my comments regarding budgeting were almost exclusively about
promoting the LEGO Direct services and especially the Legends series. A
good job they have done on the reissues themselves... a poor job they have
done marketing them. My point was that in order to share
production/marketing costs LEGO Direct should get LEGO Regular to sell the
stuff in stores.
> LD has gotten permission to design a few new sets under severe cost
> constraint, I speculate. LD has gotten permission to bring back some sets,
> again under severe cost constraint, I speculate.
See comment above about sharing costs.
> > Take a look at the Jack Stone series. Any reason those columns couldn't
> > have been stacks of 2x2's? They could have saved one mold right there. :)
> >
> > Frankly, the problem isn't that they can't afford more molds, but rather
> > that they already spend way too much on new ones each year.
>
> Oh, you are so right. Really.
Larry... I marked my calendar, I hope you mark yours. We agreed on
something! :)
> Unfortunately... All it takes to change it, though, is that KKK make Brad
> president of everything, displacing all the Danes, and that he sack all the
> people in Futura and elsewhere that know better than we do about what kids
> want. That can easily happen overnight, right? Or can it?
No it can't. This type of change takes time. But the time to start
changing is now. My fear is that if significant changes don't occur soon
then LEGO will go the way of Meccano and eventually be bought up by it's own
competition. The history of the Meccano company, including how it couldn't
keep up with changing times, didn't listen to its adult customers and
eventually lacked focus, is a tale that should be studied in the Halls of
LEGO to see what can go wrong, even when you think you've always done things
right.
> Just be happy that there is change emanating from LD, and that (as I *said
> it would* many months ago) the rate of change is visibily accelerating. The
> better LD does at its current mandate, the more likely it is that the budget
> will expand or that the mandate itself will expand.
I am extremely happy with what they're doing. I just wish I could wander
down to the store that sells the Jack Stone sets and buy one of the
reissues, or perhaps a sculpture.
> Carping about Jack Stone, valid as it may be, will not in *any way* help LD
> choose the next sets to bring back. So you might want to *save* that carping
> and focus on the question you were asked, or decide that you don't want to
> help LD at all, which is also acceptable. Nobody HAS to give them free
> advice if they don't want to, after all.
I wasn't asked a question. I decided to stick my nose in and bitch about the
company's problems. They don't have to take my advice, I suspect they would
rather ignore people like me who do nothing but whine. I'm not presenting
the popular opinion... I'm not trying to. One of my responses to the
original thread was one that encouraged Brad to print out many or all of the
responses and let them be heard within the company. I would love it if all
the voices got heard, not just mine.
Larry, I have to be sincere with you for a moment. I love this company
(more accurately its products) more than you can know. My biggest fear is
that someday, if I have kids who might like to enjoy it the way I did as a
child, that there won't be a company around to enjoy. If I've chosen the
wrong place to bitch about this.... sorry. I am trying to make an
alternative opinion heard. Carping about Jack Stone is like telling an
alcoholic that his problem is the bottle of beer in his hand. It's the
obvious problem, but someone needs to point it out to him.
> Me, I want to help LD succeed in every way I can, as I see it as the little
> engine that will drag the rest of the semi-inert spaceship that is TLC where
> we want it to go.
>
> Do you?
I spent a great deal of time and effort on my initial response to this post.
See:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=3480
It's full of ideas aimed specifically at helping LEGO Direct succeed, and
offers specific responses to Brad's questions.
But ultimately... I want to see the entire company succeed and prosper. I'm
willing to offer any amount of advice, criticism or insight that I can.
They *seem* to want this information, though I'm not entirely sure any of it
ever bubbles to the top. Can it hurt to try?
> Note that I repeatedly say "I speculate"... that's a hedge and a shield. But
> I'll stack my speculation up against *anyone* else here as more likely to be
> correct, unless they actually sign their posts LD without being in violation
> of the ToS.
I'm sure your speculation is worth whatever weight you decide to assign to
it. I'm not looking to be the authority on anything around here. I'm
saying to them, "look, here's an average guy, with an average collection of
LEGO bricks, who'd like a little more out of your company. Here's the
things that interest me, and here's the things I think you're a bit
misguided about. I want to work with you to see that your company succeeds."
I quit LUGNET once Larry... because no one seemed willing to talk about the
problems that LEGO is facing. Everyone seemed to just want to tell them how
lovely all the new sets were no matter how poorly designed or marketed they
were. When the summer Shop At Home Catalog came out, I felt that things had
gotten even worse. I began posting again in the hopes that someone *might*
listen... someday.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: what makes a legend?
|
| (...) "every problem has a simple solution. Unfortunately, it's often wrong" Just thought I'd toss that out to ponder. (...) Great advice in general. Not a valid response to Geoffrey who is asking "why can't we have this part back that we don't have (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
134 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
