Subject:
|
Re: LD's Auctions (Re: Going once, going twice, sold!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:58:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
598 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> I guess I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of not 'discussing' on LUGNET here
> - I try only post to get information out to the public and to praise
> creations - but here goes.
Welcome back.
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Rick Clark writes:
> > Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> > more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> > alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> > either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> > or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> > opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> > any of those options.
>
> I totally agree.
Me too. (although I sent a copy of MTW-4001 to the executives at Skyline
Chili, I put #01 up for bid, just as I always do with new sets)
> > The auction method gives everyone a fair market chance to purchase what
> > many feel is a highly desirable set.
Exactly. The alternative that Rick gave of having some 7 year old get it
would be no fun at all. In lieu of running a (skill based?) contest to give
the items away, holding an auction is the fairest possible way to allocate
scarce resources.
We should be happy that we got a chance to bid (and I'm counting my pennies
and re-evaluating how much this set is worth to me, I may yet bid again) on
it instead of it going to someone who won't appreciate it at all. We KNOW
whoever wins it will certainly appreciate it (to the tune of 400 USD or
maybe quite a bit more!!!), that's for sure.
> > Additionally, it gives LEGO Direct
> > some additional hard data that it can show to LEGO Corporate, showing
> > that they are doing things right (the fact that in the first twelve
> > hours of a ten day auction, the set has been bid to nine times its
> > original value, should prove to be quite interesting to the suits at the
> > home office).
Indeed. AND the overall success of the F7 and of the other recent items in
the LD refreshed train line prove that realism sells. Further, I bet Jorn,
the designer who did these (after being forced to do the 4559 and 4561 and
other recent sets by corporate) is pretty darn proud of what he was allowed
to show off, too. He's like a race horse that was forced to haul the milk
wagon. :-)
> Yep. I think its obvious LEGO Direct is doing well as it is. If they
> weren't, we wouldn't see all the cool newer stuff like the Super Chief to
> begin with. If LD was doing things wrong and not right, how would they have
> gotten the funding to go out on a limb and design a totally new product like
> that? LD has their act together, IMO.
Ditto ditto. What must frustrate LD to no end, though, are the minor slip
ups that production seems to keep making. It seems like each set they
release recently has had obvious wrong parts that LD had to correct at
significant expense. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd theorise that
someone in Billund is sabotaging them. But I can't believe that to be true.
> I think what upsets me and offends me much more than these auctions is
> seeing members of this community slam LEGO for this. If I were the one who
> posted this announcement after working hard on the program, I'd be a bit put
> off. I have no idea how Jake or others at LEGO Direct feel about it, but
> I'm speaking from my own perspective. I hope they let it roll off and focus
> on what they do best.
Ditto ditto. But I'll go further, I think they ARE doing just that. Letting
it roll off, and focusing on what they do best. Go ahead and slam them,
detractors, and know that you're causing personal hurt to good people inside
LD, but you're not going to ultimately affect things. LD will triumph and
turn TLC around, whether you help or hurt the effort.
> We as a community should be wanting to work with LEGO, not slamming them.
> Slamming's different than constructive criticism. The latter is good for
> learning from shortcomings, the former doesn't build either side up. I
> offer honest constructive criticism as well as I take it. But I see
> publicly slamming LEGO here as counterproductive and terribly embarrassing
> for this community.
Yep.
> -Tim (who probably won't stay in a long discussion about this, if one happens)
Responders, please feel free to redirect as needed, as per charter,
lego.direct is not intended for long debate but I'm not sure whether sending
this to o-t.debate is the right place. I've said what I wanted to say and
will try to be less long winded should I respond.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
38 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
