Subject:
|
Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 18:41:24 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
968 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Stangl writes:
> So here it is, AGES later (in Internet time), and not one peep out of
> Brad. On something so important they tapped Todd on the shoulder and
> requested a removal.
>
> Brad, what happened to the idea of COMMUNICATION???
>
> You're slacking BADLY on one of your goals.
>
> --
> Tom Stangl
Tom, you're right -- on all counts.
It *is* ages later (in Internet time); but whether you like it or I like it,
there are still parts of the world that move in regular old analog clock time
(actually, most of the world does). We try not to be one of those parts.
Believe me, I was as anxious as you all to explain why we acted as we did, but
in order to do so we needed to understand more completely exactly how this
situation occurred. And the truth is, it takes time to find things out – more
time than I would have liked, but there you are.
Often, when the information we need to get is wholly internal, we can respond
more quickly – and other times, when we require input from other sources, it
can take longer – much longer. This was one of those latter cases. (As noted,
most of the world runs slower than Internet time. Some parts run a whole lot
slower.) Perhaps, in retrospect – particularly if I knew that things would
take as long as they did -- it would have been better for me to pop in with
a “nothing yet, but we’re working on it” announcement. I will apologize for
not doing that, for it is but one instance of how we might have handled this
better. (But more on that later.)
We still don’t have all the details (particularly those from the trade), but
since an explanation is both appropriate and overdue, here is what we know and
why we acted as we did. We considered just letting the whole thing go, but
ultimately, we asked LUGNET (and a couple of other sites) to remove the
information in question because
1) The information is, essentially, privileged (i.e. confidential
corporate property) which is not – despite assertions to the contrary –
available to the public. It contained information regarding product that has
not been released – or even announced. The information is generally considered
to be a “trade secret.”
2) As such, the release of the information was the result of a breach of
confidentiality between LEGO and one of its trade partners, and failure to act
could potentially increase the impact of the breach.
3) Some of the information may be incorrect and it is unclear what
liability may be attached to allowing such information to remain public.
4) The release of set information and – in particular – pricing
information also has competitive considerations. As we are still some weeks
away from finalizing our pricing, it is a paramount consideration that our
business plans are not revealed publicly – to our competitors as well as our
consumers – until the moment *we* feel is appropriate and best for our
business.
The information in question was obtained from data provided to our retail
partners in order to allow them to set up their systems to handle product due
to be introduced later this year and early next year. This is part of the
support process we have for these partners. It is not a process meant to be
abused (however unknowingly) by an employee with access to the system; despite
the posting individual’s comments to the contrary, this is not information
that is intended to be shared with the public. Since that data involves
product not yet introduced – or even announced – it is proprietary,
confidential, and meant to be shared only with the trade. Why the information
was so easily available through the handheld device is a question for which we
have not yet received an answer.
The fact that the trade partner evidently failed to protect that information
adequately does not make the information any less sensitive or confidential;
it certainly does not belong in a public forum. So we made the requests of
LUGNET and the other sites. And this was certainly not a one-sided action on
our part: we are taking stern measures with our trade partners to ensure that
such a situation does not arise again.
We would not make the request we made of LUGNET and the other sites without
good cause – and we are certainly not interested in censoring anything.
Contrary to some claims, we never demanded that no one was permitted to talk
about what they had seen. We realize that the cat was out of the bag, or the
brick out of the bucket, or whatever – but we have certain business
obligations that really required us to act in order to correct the most public
of the leaks. The reason I wrote to Todd and asked him to address the issue,
and not to the author of the original post, was that by the time we were aware
of the posting, the thread had extended to many dozens of posts, most
including the original post. So we would have had to ask each and every poster
to cancel his or her posting; obviously, in the interests of expediency this
was not a practical route.
OK, so after all this, why are we allowing essentially similar information to
be published now? (Some of you are aware of the “new” set lists now on FBTB
and rebelscum.com.) It is true that Tim Saupe wrote to me and requested
permission; I wrote back to say that while we would not comment on the list,
we had no objection if he wish to publish it. I told Philip Wise over at
rebelscum.com the same thing. This might, I admit, smack heavily of
inconsistency (if not insanity). But we said yes this time for two main
reasons. First, the list was regarding Star Wars product only (not anything we
haven’t yet introduced). It’s no great secret that we’re making Star Wars
sets; the chance of a competitor coming out with a Star Wars construction set
is zip (we’ve got the license); and there was no pricing information included
in this list.
But the second, and more important reason, is this: we’re getting it. Not
perfectly, not 100%, and it’ll take a while to get all the way through the
Company. But in the places where it counts the most, we’re getting it. I’ve
been pushing for a while to move up our announcements of new product to take
advantage of the positive buzz a committed community of enthusiasts can
produce, and this incident has served as a catalyst to get many here at LEGO
to realize we should do just that. Hence the publication of the new material
(we’re not commenting on it just yet… but keep your eyes open). We have to
balance such announcements, of course, against competitive considerations and
the need not to cannibalize sales of product currently in the market. I hope
that you will find in the coming weeks a loosening in terms of our willingness
to talk about what’s coming (in the near term). LEGO is not a particularly old
dog, and we are quite capable of learning new tricks at a rather breezy pace.
And we do greatly appreciate the assistance of the LUGNET community and others
in acting as trainers.
We’re aware of the situation with the Builder’s Gallery and Theme Gallery on
LEGO.com as well; steps are being taken to address the current images at
issue. As you might imagine, it’s difficult to ensure certainty that the
person who submits an image of a creation is indeed submitting his or her own
work. There’s no sure way of doing this. It’s absolutely objectionable if
someone is representing another person’s work as his own (particularly for
LEGO, as a company which prizes imagination and creativity.) But we’re now in
the final stages of revamping LEGO.com, and we’ll soon change the Builder’s
and Theme galleries as well – so it’s a great time to implement some
corrective measures. If you’ve got suggestions on ensuring “truth in
advertising” when it comes to sending in news of your LEGO creations, please
let me know. (We’re thinking of requiring multiple pictures of a creation, as
well as a picture of the builder with his/her creation.)
I'm sorry that these situations -- particularly the one regarding the 2001
product info -- have produced hard feelings on the part of some (I certainly
don't enjoy being painted as some heavy-handed corporate ogre). And we’re
sorry to have put Todd and the other sites in a difficult position
(accusations of censorship, bowing to corporate pressure, etc.). At no time
was Todd acting in anything other than the best interests of the community he
founded and stewards.
But confidentiality was breached, and we could not simply fail to act. And it
is not because we "just don't get" the Internet that we acted as we did; it is
precisely because we do get it -- because we understand the power that
information has, and the power that the Internet gives consumers to
disseminate that information -- that we acted as we did. Some of that
information was just plain wrong, or was represented as being “legit” when it
was not. And we'd rather people have and circulate the right information than
the wrong. We'll be doing our best to get that "right" information out sooner
than we ever have before.
But I hope that you all can understand the position that we are in as well. We
welcome open discourse and the sharing of information regarding our company
and our products, but we must protest when that information is privileged and
not yet meant to be shared. We take great care in how we manage our product
introductions; obviously, this is not the way we prefer to do it!
We know that we manner in which we handled this whole episode was not perfect;
we simply did the best we could. But if you have suggestions as to how we can
handle such situations in the future, I would be happy to hear them. It
certainly doesn’t please us to be seen as “bigfooting” the situation; we must
of course be protective of our business and conduct it in the best way we see
fit, but not at the expense of the goodwill of our enthusiasts and consumers.
Finally, Tom – and others who have made the same observation – you’re
absolutely correct that our participation here has not been as promised. The
blame for this lies entirely with me, and I will make no excuses. I will
simply have to let our actions going forward (from this moment on) demonstrate
our commitment to you and all LEGO enthusiasts everywhere.
Here’s a promise: I’ll be posting by the end of this week. And it’ll be news
that I think everyone is looking forward to.
Until then … Play Well.
-- Brad
Brad Justus
Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
|
|
Message has 9 Replies:
 | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes: [snip] (...) I think your handling of this has been more than reasonable. [snip] (...) Here's a suggestion: When you are ready to release the 2001 in box catalogs for a given reigon, mail one to me and I'll (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| (...) To anyone who might be jumping in and hearing about this for the first time, the following articles from last week explain that LEGO made a formal legal request: (3 URLs) don't read too much into the light wording Brad used above (such as (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes: <snip lots of stuff about communication and 2001 set stuff. I will wait and let your actions speek for themselves before getting more critical than I have been.> (...) As for this I think it is something (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| Brad Justus wrote: snip.... (...) In a perfect world, the posting would be for a complete parts reference guide AND a way to bulk order any part in any color. Even if it isn't this fall, knowing it's coming would be nice. :) Mark (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| "Brad Justus" <legodirect@lego.com> wrote in message news:FzLt90.25M@lugnet.com... (...) it, (...) time (...) but (...) more (...) Brad, Thanks for this post. I am encouraged by your words, but obviously it doesn't leave me personally, and us (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| (...) Really. Well, those parts certainly moved fast enough to tell you to contact Todd and ask him to remove it. Those parts also certainly moved fast enough to tell you that there was absolutely legal reasoning behind the "request" when Todd asked (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| Thanks for posting the explanation (and I suppose thanks should go to Tom for rattling the proverbial cage). :-) Personally, I didn't have a problem with any of Todd's actions or Lego's, but since my wife often deals with intellectual property (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| (...) Brad, I know how launching a new business venture can be very time consuming, and that you have a very full plate. I have been a harsh critic of TLC in the past. But from the beginning I decided to cut you some slack, and have given you and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| So here it is, AGES later (in Internet time), and not one peep out of Brad. On something so important they tapped Todd on the shoulder and requested a removal. Brad, what happened to the idea of COMMUNICATION??? You're slacking BADLY on one of your (...) (24 years ago, 18-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
