 | | | | | | |
| |
|
I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit. We have just spent Friday evening and all
day Saturday meeting with folks from Lego Direct including Brad Justus,
Peter Andersen, an LD product manager, Jorn Kristian Thomsen the lead Lego
trains designer from Billund, Jake McKee, producer, and Steven Hawco, in
charge of the Shop at Home operation.
The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and ways to
leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
I am terrifically pumped up about this and very happy to have been among
those selected to attend. While it was impossible to have every single train
fan attend, we worked hard to make sure it was a representative cross
section of US train fans and that many viewpoints were represented.
The attendees included
John Neal – GMLTC
Steve Barile – PNLTC
Conan Collopy - GMLTC
John Gerlach – GMLTC
James Mathis - PNLTC
Dan Parker – PNLTC
Larry Pieniazek – poly-LTC
Mike Poindexter - BAYLTC
James Trobaugh - NGLTC
More will be forthcoming from us in days to come but I was so excited I had
to use LEGO connectivity (We're in NYC) to get this out in front of folks.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip>
Forgot to crosspost to .direct
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> [...]
> The conversation was wide ranging and very productive.
Awesome!
> We discussed things
> that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and ways to
> leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
> [...]
Ohohoo, when you say "the future of the product line," I assume you are
referring to trains? If so, that sounds very encouraging! Can you say
whether rumors of the train product line's demise are greatly exaggerated?
Will be any new train sets coming out in 2001 or 2002? Will there be a
Harry Potter Hogwarts Express train? Any new bulk paks coming soon? Most
importantly, were you able to sleep last night?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [...]
> > The conversation was wide ranging and very productive.
>
> Awesome!
>
> > We discussed things
> > that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and ways to
> > leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
> > [...]
>
> Ohohoo, when you say "the future of the product line," I assume you are
> referring to trains?
Yes.
> If so, that sounds very encouraging! Can you say
> whether rumors of the train product line's demise are greatly exaggerated?
Yes I can decisively say that. I think I did already, actually.
> Will be any new train sets coming out in 2001 or 2002? Will there be a
> Harry Potter Hogwarts Express train? Any new bulk paks coming soon?
That kind of information would be covered under the NDA so I can't
specifically comment.
> Most
> importantly, were you able to sleep last night?
After dinner the lot of us fested till pretty late, so at 2 AM when I got to
bed, I was out like a light. (it doesn't help that I have been deathmarching
on a project for the last few weeks and getting about 4 hours a nite sleep)
I'll try to upload a few pics later tonite or tomorrow, suffice it to say
I've never seen so many top top top shelf train MOCs in one place at one
time ever before.
Also, I would like to thank the various people who participated in publicly
speculating about things like production volumes and what molding machine
configurations were like and various other supply chain/MRP/operational
related topics.
That speculation, which some derided as pointless, was extremely helpful to me.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > If so, that sounds very encouraging! Can you say
> > whether rumors of the train product line's demise are greatly exaggerated?
>
> Yes I can decisively say that. I think I did already, actually.
Exxxxxxxxxxcellent.
> > Will be any new train sets coming out in 2001 or 2002? Will there be a
> > Harry Potter Hogwarts Express train? Any new bulk paks coming soon?
>
> That kind of information would be covered under the NDA so I can't
> specifically comment.
So you know then?
> I'll try to upload a few pics later tonite or tomorrow, suffice it to say
> I've never seen so many top top top shelf train MOCs in one place at one
> time ever before.
MOCs at din?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > Will be any new train sets coming out in 2001 or 2002? Will there be a
> > > Harry Potter Hogwarts Express train? Any new bulk paks coming soon?
> >
> > That kind of information would be covered under the NDA so I can't
> > specifically comment.
>
> So you know then?
That kind of information would be covered under the NDA so I can't
specifically comment.
> > I'll try to upload a few pics later tonite or tomorrow, suffice it to say
> > I've never seen so many top top top shelf train MOCs in one place at one
> > time ever before.
>
> MOCs at din?
After, last nite back at the hotel, and most all day during the meeting.
Train MOCs have a way of taking up the entire table, which is not prudent. I
prefer a clean machine.
I have uploaded some pics to the following brickshelf folder:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3084
The POVray is my LDraw capture of the gift each of us was given, just
something Jorn doodled up for us. It, since it is an image of a design
originated from within TLC, is of course a realisation of a design
copyrighted by LEGO and the image should be treated as such.
The pics are festish, don't expect to see anything not yet publicly released.
But you will see pics of a rather fun and boisterous dinner Friday,
including one in which J2 is bending Brad's ear about something, oh, I
dunno, maybe 8 wides??? (and if Brad could take *that* intensity level he
can take anything...) We never actually had to tape J2 down but we did have
duct tape at the ready. (J2 will insist it was actually for me.)
Then there are pics from the afterdinner run/bull session, featuring a 7
loco (9 motor) lashup (work from James T, Steve B, Lar, and Mike P) pulling
a rather long freight train, just before the speed controller popped a
thermistor for a few minutes.
The "plastic land" pic was in the chinatown fleamarket section on the way
over in the morning, and it just somehow seemed fitting as a backdrop. We
ALL want something "for all your plastic needs". LOL
Finally there's a group shot inside LD that I took late today just before we
all broke up.
Enjoy.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > Will be any new train sets coming out in 2001 or 2002? Will there be a
> > > > Harry Potter Hogwarts Express train? Any new bulk paks coming soon?
> > > That kind of information would be covered under the NDA so I can't
> > > specifically comment.
> > So you know then?
> That kind of information would be covered under the NDA so I can't
> specifically comment.
Ahh, in other words: "Splunge." :-)
> After, last nite back at the hotel, and most all day during the meeting.
> Train MOCs have a way of taking up the entire table, which is not prudent. I
> prefer a clean machine.
>
> I have uploaded some pics to the following brickshelf folder:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3084
Those are really great pix! Thanks so much for sharing! Looks like it was
a total blast! Glad to hear it was fun and productive!!
--Todd
[followups to .trains]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
in article G87yEK.Cnt@lugnet.com, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> I have uploaded some pics to the following brickshelf folder:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3084
Can we have some names to go with those faces, please?
Thanks :^)
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego(R) Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Mark Sandlin writes:
> in article G87yEK.Cnt@lugnet.com, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> >
> > I have uploaded some pics to the following brickshelf folder:
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3084
>
> Can we have some names to go with those faces, please?
Urp, good point
In this one... sDscn1209.jpg
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=30212
starting from the left
Larry Pieniazek – poly-LTC
Peter Andersen - LD product manager
Jorn Kristian Thomsen - Lead Lego trains designer from Billund
James Mathis - PNLTC
Jake McKee - Senior producer
Mike Poindexter - BAYLTC
John Neal – GMLTC
James Trobaugh - NGLTC
Dan Parker – PNLTC
Steve Barile – PNLTC
Conan Collopy - GMLTC
John Gerlach – GMLTC
Missing from this picture:
Brad Justus - Senior Vice President, Lego Direct, President, Lego New York
Steven Hawco - Vice President, Lego Direct
Brad can be seen in sDscn1195.jpg, he is to the left of John Neal (who is
wearing the GMLTC ballcap) http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=30202
I am embarrased to admit the only picture I have of Steve H is of the back
of his head which can be seen in sDscn1194.jpg (he's in a dark sweater with
a blue collar) http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=30201
FUT .people
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> I have uploaded some pics to the following brickshelf folder:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3084
>
> The "plastic land" pic was in the chinatown fleamarket section on the way
> over in the morning, and it just somehow seemed fitting as a backdrop. We
> ALL want something "for all your plastic needs". LOL
I certainly do. Did any of you happen to go into the store and find out what
this Revolvolution stuff is?
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=30210
At first I thought it read "Re-volvo-lotion", and I was thinking it might be
something useful for the interior of my car... however, judging from the
surrounding pictures, I may be off-base....
Maggie C.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > > > Will be any new train sets coming out in 2001 or 2002? Will there be a
> > > > Harry Potter Hogwarts Express train? Any new bulk paks coming soon?
> > >
> > > That kind of information would be covered under the NDA so I can't
> > > specifically comment.
> >
> > So you know then?
>
> That kind of information would be covered under the NDA so I can't
> specifically comment.
>
> > > I'll try to upload a few pics later tonite or tomorrow, suffice it to say
> > > I've never seen so many top top top shelf train MOCs in one place at one
> > > time ever before.
> >
> > MOCs at din?
>
> After, last nite back at the hotel, and most all day during the meeting.
> Train MOCs have a way of taking up the entire table, which is not prudent. I
> prefer a clean machine.
>
> I have uploaded some pics to the following brickshelf folder:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=3084
>
> The POVray is my LDraw capture of the gift each of us was given, just
> something Jorn doodled up for us. It, since it is an image of a design
> originated from within TLC, is of course a realisation of a design
> copyrighted by LEGO and the image should be treated as such.
>
> The pics are festish, don't expect to see anything not yet publicly released.
>
> But you will see pics of a rather fun and boisterous dinner Friday,
> including one in which J2 is bending Brad's ear about something, oh, I
> dunno, maybe 8 wides???
lol BION, I'm pretty sure I never uttered the sacred phrase "8 wide" to Brad at
all. In the pic where he and I are laughing, I think we were talking about one
of your MOCs, Lar >;-D
> (and if Brad could take *that* intensity level he
> can take anything...) We never actually had to tape J2 down but we did have
> duct tape at the ready. (J2 will insist it was actually for me.)
We *almost* needed it for SteveB, though;-) (inside joke)
> Then there are pics from the afterdinner run/bull session, featuring a 7
> loco (9 motor) lashup (work from James T, Steve B, Lar, and Mike P) pulling
> a rather long freight train, just before the speed controller popped a
> thermistor for a few minutes.
>
> The "plastic land" pic was in the chinatown fleamarket section on the way
> over in the morning, and it just somehow seemed fitting as a backdrop. We
> ALL want something "for all your plastic needs". LOL
>
> Finally there's a group shot inside LD that I took late today just before we
> all broke up.
>
> Enjoy.
Thanks for the expeditious posting of the pics, Lar! (and for the invite to hang
out in the WorldPerks lounge)
-John
>
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > [...]
> > > The conversation was wide ranging and very productive.
> >
> > Awesome!
> >
> > > We discussed things
> > > that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and ways to
> > > leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
> > > [...]
> >
> > Ohohoo, when you say "the future of the product line," I assume you are
> > referring to trains?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, that sounds very encouraging! Can you say
> > whether rumors of the train product line's demise are greatly exaggerated?
>
> Yes I can decisively say that. I think I did already, actually.
My apologies everyone, I totally underestimated the power of the
(LEGO)Force. I'm very glad that Trains have a bright future, this has been
my lesson in faith. -Harvey
>
> > Will be any new train sets coming out in 2001 or 2002? Will there be a
> > Harry Potter Hogwarts Express train? Any new bulk paks coming soon?
>
> That kind of information would be covered under the NDA so I can't
> specifically comment.
>
> > Most
> > importantly, were you able to sleep last night?
>
> After dinner the lot of us fested till pretty late, so at 2 AM when I got to
> bed, I was out like a light. (it doesn't help that I have been deathmarching
> on a project for the last few weeks and getting about 4 hours a nite sleep)
>
> I'll try to upload a few pics later tonite or tomorrow, suffice it to say
> I've never seen so many top top top shelf train MOCs in one place at one
> time ever before.
>
> Also, I would like to thank the various people who participated in publicly
> speculating about things like production volumes and what molding machine
> configurations were like and various other supply chain/MRP/operational
> related topics.
>
> That speculation, which some derided as pointless, was extremely helpful to me.
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Also, I would like to thank the various people who participated in publicly
> speculating about things like production volumes and what molding machine
> configurations were like and various other supply chain/MRP/operational
> related topics.
>
> That speculation, which some derided as pointless, was extremely helpful to
> me.
In what ways was this helpful?
-Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Wow ! I (we, I should say) are soooo jealous...sounds like a rush.
Did ya ask if they are ever gona make proper steam engine wheels, sorta like
Ben's April Fools catalogue ? ( but then I suppose ya can't talk about that,
eh?)
Anyway Good goin' !
Cheers
Oliver
Play Well
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G87D35.EpA@lugnet.com...
> I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post • to
> say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit. We have just spent Friday evening and all
> day Saturday meeting with folks from Lego Direct including Brad Justus,
> Peter Andersen, an LD product manager, Jorn Kristian Thomsen the lead Lego
> trains designer from Billund, Jake McKee, producer, and Steven Hawco, in
> charge of the Shop at Home operation.
>
> The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
> that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and ways to
> leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
>
> I am terrifically pumped up about this and very happy to have been among
> those selected to attend. While it was impossible to have every single • train
> fan attend, we worked hard to make sure it was a representative cross
> section of US train fans and that many viewpoints were represented.
>
> The attendees included
>
> John Neal - GMLTC
> Steve Barile - PNLTC
> Conan Collopy - GMLTC
> John Gerlach - GMLTC
> James Mathis - PNLTC
> Dan Parker - PNLTC
> Larry Pieniazek - poly-LTC
> Mike Poindexter - BAYLTC
> James Trobaugh - NGLTC
>
> More will be forthcoming from us in days to come but I was so excited I • had
> to use LEGO connectivity (We're in NYC) to get this out in front of folks.
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
> say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit. We have just spent Friday evening and all
> day Saturday meeting with folks from Lego Direct including Brad Justus,
> Peter Andersen, an LD product manager, Jorn Kristian Thomsen the lead Lego
> trains designer from Billund, Jake McKee, producer, and Steven Hawco, in
> charge of the Shop at Home operation.
>
> The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
> that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and ways to
> leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
Awesome!
I hope all of those who have been whining will think about what happened
here, and think about Larry's comments over the past few months about
how whining is not the best way to go about things, and consider that
this meeting probably took a while to set up.
One thing this would definitely seem to show is that TLC has not fallen
asleep at the wheel. They clearly have been paying attention to what the
LTCs have been doing, and the increased visibility of the brand to a
business segment which has a lot of potential (and has potential for
non-juniorized sets).
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G87D35.EpA@lugnet.com...
> I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post • to
> say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit.
>
> The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
> that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and ways to
> leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
>
> I am terrifically pumped up about this and very happy to have been among
> those selected to attend. While it was impossible to have every single • train
> fan attend, we worked hard to make sure it was a representative cross
> section of US train fans and that many viewpoints were represented.
1st good news in a long while.
Though it had better not be anything like the 4561.
I wonder if they plan to have any meetings like this in other countries?
Germany seems very keen on trains.
Plenty of interest here in the UK too.
Perhaps I wont sell my Lego collection after all
Honest, I was so dissolutioned with their directions, I was on the verge!
regards
lawrence
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> 1st good news in a long while.
> Though it had better not be anything like the 4561.
I've said it before, it is my view that 4561 is a good product for the
market it is targeted at. Town Jr. is a good product for the market it is
targeted at. Bionicle is a good product for the market it is targeted at,
for that matter. None of those are targeted at us, so trashing them doesn't
accomplish much, really.
LEGO is not a monolith. The creation of products requires Product Managers.
LD has product managers now. 4561 did not come from the same place that
Statue of Liberty came from.
> I wonder if they plan to have any meetings like this in other countries?
It was the *first* LEGO(r) Train Summit.
> Germany seems very keen on trains.
> Plenty of interest here in the UK too.
>
> Perhaps I wont sell my Lego collection after all
> Honest, I was so dissolutioned with their directions, I was on the verge!
Nothing... not the dissolution of the company, not the end of the minifig,
not the decision by the company to focus on WWF action figures, even, would
cause me to sell my collection. Stay focused. What TLC does can help us have
*more* fun but cannot in any way detract from the fun we have with our
current collections unless we *let* it detract. Stay focused.
Hypothetical examples of course.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I wonder if they plan to have any meetings like this in other countries?
> > Germany seems very keen on trains.
> > Plenty of interest here in the UK too.
>
> It was the *first* LEGO(r) Train Summit.
No, he didn't ask wether there would be more train summits, but having
assumed there assumed there will be, whether non-northamerican train fans
(lego staff don't really count) will be included in the invitations.
James (who is trying to hatch the Trains of Australia Lego Club, TALC)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
> say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit.
Great stuff! Are there plans to have such meeting again someday? It's great
to hear that Lego is _really_ in touch with their community!
I guess the NDA covers future products, or does it also cover other things?
Please tell us for a rough indication about what questions we don't have to
bother asking.
> We have just spent Friday evening and all
> day Saturday meeting with folks from Lego Direct including Brad Justus,
> Peter Andersen, an LD product manager, Jorn Kristian Thomsen the lead Lego
> trains designer from Billund, Jake McKee, producer, and Steven Hawco, in
> charge of the Shop at Home operation.
I was wondering if the folks from Lego all are reading Lugnet and what their
feelings are about how the community reacts to things. Did you also talk
about that kind of stuff?
> The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
> that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and
Did you talk also about the general feeling that sets are ...uhm..
'different' than 5 years ago?
> ways to
> leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
Can you tell a bit about what was discussed on this topic?
[snipped attendees]
> More will be forthcoming from us in days to come but I was so excited I had
> to use LEGO connectivity (We're in NYC) to get this out in front of folks.
Hope to hear more about this soon :-)
-Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Frank Buiting writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
> > say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> > first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit.
>
> Great stuff! Are there plans to have such meeting again someday? It's great
> to hear that Lego is _really_ in touch with their community!
It was the *first* *train* summit.
>
> I guess the NDA covers future products, or does it also cover other things?
> Please tell us for a rough indication about what questions we don't have to
> bother asking.
I can't talk about future products, about demographics or web usage or sales
figures, or about costs/numbers/successes for various marketing, sales or
production activities, for example. There are other things that I probably
*could* talk about but that I would prefer to let LD reveal in the way and
fashion that they choose to. It's their thunder, they ought to get to make it.
> I was wondering if the folks from Lego all are reading Lugnet and what their
> feelings are about how the community reacts to things. Did you also talk
> about that kind of stuff?
Yes indeed. The following is all my opinion and inference, not an official
LD statement, because I am not an official LD spokesperson. I think it is
very very very close to the sentiment within LD though.
The answers are what you might expect. Communication is a core part of the
LD mission. Communication TO consumers, communication FROM consumers,
communication AMONG consumers. LUGNET is an important part of that
communication, because we are influential out of proportion to our numbers.
But in absolute numbers LUGNET is dwarfed (orders of magnitude) by the very
effective communication that lego.com is achieving with the primary LEGO
target market. The numbers on usage of lego.com are proprietary but they are
stunning blowouts in areas like satisfaction, number of visits, number of
repeat visits, stickiness, etc, *among the target market* for lego.com. That
target market is not us, except peripherally.
If you are asking specifically about the cluelessness and rudeness that some
exhibit here, yes, it detracts from the effectiveness of the multi way
channel here. LD is listening. Really.
Things happen because of stuff that is reported here but Brad is not going
to respond to every problem report about a missing comma on the website. I
think the suggestion to come up with something more like a problem reporting
or trouble ticket system would be a good start to cut down on the noise
factor here. The problem reports ARE important and are appreciated but they
should not be the primary focus of this group and people should not go off
because something isn't fixed right away or because every problem isn't
acknowledged. A site with the millions of visits that lego.com gets is not
something that you change willy nilly, you have to have a rigorous rollout
and promotion process. Anyone who works in software development ought to
realise that. And you especially DON'T mess with stuff during high season.
The venom/cynicism/sarcasm doesn't help. It's not necessary. LD gets it.
Things *are* changing, but things don't change overnight, and anyone who
thinks that a year is overnight is pretty clueless as to how things work
inside big companies, especially large family held ones. Does that mean
clueless people that spew venom need to be banished? No. Let them spew. It
may curdle the stomachs of some very nice and very hard working people, many
of them truefans, inside LD, but venom comes with the territory, they're
used to it.
Quiet diplomacy gets a lot more done. The squeaky wheel may get the grease
but the other wheels of the wagon are doing all the work. Venom may well in
the final analysis tell who can be mostly ignored and who matters. And the
people who say "we want X" and when X happens, say "X was what I wanted but
I'm still not going to buy any X because LEGO sucks" are the easiest to
ignore in my opinion.
There are some thought leaders here who ought to think a bit more about
their words before they indulge themselves. But the people already on the
ignore list, why, you guys can just keep on spewing, in my opinion you
already blew your chance. We need a skipfilter here though so the rest of us
can igore them too.
What I find most ironic is the slamming of LD for not moving fast enough and
for not experimenting and for not doing things incrementally at the same
time that the website and the bulk assortment and other things are being
slammed for not being perfect on the first try. Gimme a break.
Clearly the original communication expectations that LD set were optimistic.
I expect some clarification on what communication expecations are reasonable
to happen "soon". But remember what "soon" means, please. It does not
necessarily mean "overnight".
All of the above is my opinion and my opinion only.
> > The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
> > that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and
>
> Did you talk also about the general feeling that sets are ...uhm..
> 'different' than 5 years ago?
The following is my opinion and interpretation, not official. I think it's
very close to LD opinion but it was a controversial topic, not everyone in
attendance agreed with LD.
Yes, sets are different.
Kids are different too.
There is a continuum of targets for sets. Primo, Duplo, Creator/Town Jr.
start things out. But there is a big gap between Jr. and Mindstorms, for
instance. LD is trying to fill some of the gaps. But the process is a bit
out of the normal way that products get created. Way out. So it has to
happen incrementally, LD cannot wave a magic wand and get everything changed
instantly. And each increment has to prove itself against stiff IRR/ROI
targets. The standard LSI product development process is well known, well
understood, happens internally, happens in Billund, takes a long time, and
is within everyone's comfort zone. What LD is doing is none of those things.
It is totally new ground and has to prove itself step by step.
So LD has work to do before big changes happen. Small changes come first and
have to prove themselves.
But even in that context, LD shouold not instantly make Jr. go away, as Jr.
fills an important role. Tell me what 6 year old could handle a set with the
complexity of my PCC streetcar, to pick an non LEGO example?
> > ways to
> > leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
>
> Can you tell a bit about what was discussed on this topic?
Clubs are not, and should not be, a marketing arm for LD. Clubs are not, and
should not be, a recruitment arm for the NMRA. We do stuff in clubs because
it is fun and one should never lose focus on that. Fun is the primary focus.
LD does not exist solely to make clubs successful, LD exists to move
product. That means moving the product that exists and doing what it can to
grow the market by developing products that do that.
But there are things that LD can and will do to help clubs, in areas like
formation, ongoing support, better contact points, etc. And there are things
that LTCs can do to help LD as well. This discussion, in depth, took up a
substantial part of the day.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Frank Buiting writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
> > > say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> > > first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit.
> >
> > Great stuff! Are there plans to have such meeting again someday? It's great
> > to hear that Lego is _really_ in touch with their community!
>
> It was the *first* *train* summit.
>
> >
> > I guess the NDA covers future products, or does it also cover other things?
> > Please tell us for a rough indication about what questions we don't have to
> > bother asking.
>
> I can't talk about future products, about demographics or web usage or sales
> figures, or about costs/numbers/successes for various marketing, sales or
> production activities, for example. There are other things that I probably
> *could* talk about but that I would prefer to let LD reveal in the way and
> fashion that they choose to. It's their thunder, they ought to get to make it.
>
> > I was wondering if the folks from Lego all are reading Lugnet and what their
> > feelings are about how the community reacts to things. Did you also talk
> > about that kind of stuff?
>
> Yes indeed. The following is all my opinion and inference, not an official
> LD statement, because I am not an official LD spokesperson. I think it is
> very very very close to the sentiment within LD though.
>
> The answers are what you might expect. Communication is a core part of the
> LD mission. Communication TO consumers, communication FROM consumers,
> communication AMONG consumers. LUGNET is an important part of that
> communication, because we are influential out of proportion to our numbers.
> But in absolute numbers LUGNET is dwarfed (orders of magnitude) by the very
> effective communication that lego.com is achieving with the primary LEGO
> target market. The numbers on usage of lego.com are proprietary but they are
> stunning blowouts in areas like satisfaction, number of visits, number of
> repeat visits, stickiness, etc, *among the target market* for lego.com. That
> target market is not us, except peripherally.
>
> If you are asking specifically about the cluelessness and rudeness that some
> exhibit here, yes, it detracts from the effectiveness of the multi way
> channel here. LD is listening. Really.
>
> Things happen because of stuff that is reported here but Brad is not going
> to respond to every problem report about a missing comma on the website. I
> think the suggestion to come up with something more like a problem reporting
> or trouble ticket system would be a good start to cut down on the noise
> factor here. The problem reports ARE important and are appreciated but they
> should not be the primary focus of this group and people should not go off
> because something isn't fixed right away or because every problem isn't
> acknowledged. A site with the millions of visits that lego.com gets is not
> something that you change willy nilly, you have to have a rigorous rollout
> and promotion process. Anyone who works in software development ought to
> realise that. And you especially DON'T mess with stuff during high season.
>
> The venom/cynicism/sarcasm doesn't help. It's not necessary. LD gets it.
> Things *are* changing, but things don't change overnight, and anyone who
> thinks that a year is overnight is pretty clueless as to how things work
> inside big companies, especially large family held ones. Does that mean
> clueless people that spew venom need to be banished? No. Let them spew. It
> may curdle the stomachs of some very nice and very hard working people, many
> of them truefans, inside LD, but venom comes with the territory, they're
> used to it.
>
> Quiet diplomacy gets a lot more done. The squeaky wheel may get the grease
> but the other wheels of the wagon are doing all the work. Venom may well in
> the final analysis tell who can be mostly ignored and who matters. And the
> people who say "we want X" and when X happens, say "X was what I wanted but
> I'm still not going to buy any X because LEGO sucks" are the easiest to
> ignore in my opinion.
>
> There are some thought leaders here who ought to think a bit more about
> their words before they indulge themselves. But the people already on the
> ignore list, why, you guys can just keep on spewing, in my opinion you
> already blew your chance. We need a skipfilter here though so the rest of us
> can igore them too.
>
> What I find most ironic is the slamming of LD for not moving fast enough and
> for not experimenting and for not doing things incrementally at the same
> time that the website and the bulk assortment and other things are being
> slammed for not being perfect on the first try. Gimme a break.
>
> Clearly the original communication expectations that LD set were optimistic.
> I expect some clarification on what communication expecations are reasonable
> to happen "soon". But remember what "soon" means, please. It does not
> necessarily mean "overnight".
>
> All of the above is my opinion and my opinion only.
>
> > > The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
> > > that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and
> >
> > Did you talk also about the general feeling that sets are ...uhm..
> > 'different' than 5 years ago?
>
> The following is my opinion and interpretation, not official. I think it's
> very close to LD opinion but it was a controversial topic, not everyone in
> attendance agreed with LD.
>
> Yes, sets are different.
>
> Kids are different too.
>
> There is a continuum of targets for sets. Primo, Duplo, Creator/Town Jr.
> start things out. But there is a big gap between Jr. and Mindstorms, for
> instance. LD is trying to fill some of the gaps. But the process is a bit
> out of the normal way that products get created. Way out. So it has to
> happen incrementally, LD cannot wave a magic wand and get everything changed
> instantly. And each increment has to prove itself against stiff IRR/ROI
> targets. The standard LSI product development process is well known, well
> understood, happens internally, happens in Billund, takes a long time, and
> is within everyone's comfort zone. What LD is doing is none of those things.
> It is totally new ground and has to prove itself step by step.
>
> So LD has work to do before big changes happen. Small changes come first and
> have to prove themselves.
>
> But even in that context, LD shouold not instantly make Jr. go away, as Jr.
> fills an important role. Tell me what 6 year old could handle a set with the
> complexity of my PCC streetcar, to pick an non LEGO example?
>
> > > ways to
> > > leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
> >
> > Can you tell a bit about what was discussed on this topic?
>
> Clubs are not, and should not be, a marketing arm for LD. Clubs are not, and
> should not be, a recruitment arm for the NMRA. We do stuff in clubs because
> it is fun and one should never lose focus on that. Fun is the primary focus.
> LD does not exist solely to make clubs successful, LD exists to move
> product. That means moving the product that exists and doing what it can to
> grow the market by developing products that do that.
>
> But there are things that LD can and will do to help clubs, in areas like
> formation, ongoing support, better contact points, etc. And there are things
> that LTCs can do to help LD as well. This discussion, in depth, took up a
> substantial part of the day.
Some of your opinions anger me Larry. I hate to say this but you also
criticize other people. Maybe you should take a look at the "venome" in you.
And not act like everyone is so feeble in the field of trians.
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> [...] The numbers on usage of lego.com are proprietary but they are
> stunning blowouts in areas like satisfaction, number of visits, number of
> repeat visits, stickiness, etc, *among the target market* for lego.com. That
> target market is not us, except peripherally.
I'm surprised to hear that, but if it's true, then it's good news, and it
would make things a lot clearer. So, what then *is* the target market for
lego.com, and how were things like satisfaction measured?
> A site with the millions of visits that lego.com gets is not
> something that you change willy nilly, you have to have a rigorous rollout
> and promotion process.
And usability testing, of course. :-)
> [...]
> What I find most ironic is the slamming of LD for not moving fast enough and
> for not experimenting and for not doing things incrementally at the same
What is meant mean by "not experimenting"? I missed that flame.
> time that the website and the bulk assortment and other things are being
> slammed for not being perfect on the first try. Gimme a break.
I don't think it was being slammed for not being perfect on the first try.
I think it was being slammed for totally sucking on the third try (2000),
after mildly sucking on the second try (1998), after not so badly sucking on
the first try (1996). But that's an AFOL view, and I understand what you are
saying about AFOLs not being part of the target market for the site. Kids
probably think it's better now than it ever was. More power to them.
> [...]
> But there are things that LD can and will do to help clubs, in areas like
> formation, ongoing support, better contact points, etc. And there are things
> that LTCs can do to help LD as well. This discussion, in depth, took up a
> substantial part of the day.
Awesome!
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
that the things we want are different than what
kids want. I hear just about every day from
a very reliable source that parents and kids
hate juniorized sets. They want sets with more pieces.
They want sets with more "bricks" rather than special pieces.
They *really* want "girl sets that you can build like
the boy sets." Even parents buying Duplo want more bricks,
less tubes. They want mid-sized Technic sets so they don't
have to buy Mindstorms or Silver Champion to get some Technic
parts. They want sets they can build the main model, the alternate
models and their own ideas using all of the pieces in the set.
I'm not making this stuff up, this is what actual parents
and kids say every day while making LEGO purchasing decisions.
If LEGO is going to include the adult demographic in their
target market that's great! I hope they also realize that
most of the rest of their target market wants the same things.
They want sets that are fun and challenging to build. They want
pieces they can re-use.
My guess it that their current strategy focuses more on playing
than building. The problem is that LEGO is a building toy. It
inspires the creative mind through the building process. This is
because it is only a coarse representation of reality. The mind
must fill in the gaps. Play-focused toys are much more articulate,
but infinately less configurable. LEGO should return to focusing
on the building experience. Playablility still plays a minor role,
quite naturally after the building is complete, but it should
not be the primary focus.
KL
In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > [...] The numbers on usage of lego.com are proprietary but they are
> > stunning blowouts in areas like satisfaction, number of visits, number of
> > repeat visits, stickiness, etc, *among the target market* for lego.com. That
> > target market is not us, except peripherally.
>
> I'm surprised to hear that, but if it's true, then it's good news, and it
> would make things a lot clearer. So, what then *is* the target market for
> lego.com, and how were things like satisfaction measured?
>
>
> > A site with the millions of visits that lego.com gets is not
> > something that you change willy nilly, you have to have a rigorous rollout
> > and promotion process.
>
> And usability testing, of course. :-)
>
>
> > [...]
> > What I find most ironic is the slamming of LD for not moving fast enough and
> > for not experimenting and for not doing things incrementally at the same
>
> What is meant mean by "not experimenting"? I missed that flame.
>
>
> > time that the website and the bulk assortment and other things are being
> > slammed for not being perfect on the first try. Gimme a break.
>
> I don't think it was being slammed for not being perfect on the first try.
> I think it was being slammed for totally sucking on the third try (2000),
> after mildly sucking on the second try (1998), after not so badly sucking on
> the first try (1996). But that's an AFOL view, and I understand what you are
> saying about AFOLs not being part of the target market for the site. Kids
> probably think it's better now than it ever was. More power to them.
>
>
> > [...]
> > But there are things that LD can and will do to help clubs, in areas like
> > formation, ongoing support, better contact points, etc. And there are things
> > that LTCs can do to help LD as well. This discussion, in depth, took up a
> > substantial part of the day.
>
> Awesome!
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Kevin Loch wrote in message ...
> LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
> that the things we want are different than what
> kids want. I hear just about every day from
> a very reliable source that parents and kids
> hate juniorized sets.
I am a mom, sons 4 (almost 5) and 1. My son has had no interest in Jr. sets
past the age of three. He likes my town sets, from the early 90's and 80's
because of the detail, like garage doors. I talk to my friends about their
kids and Lego, I talk to people in stores about Lego, I talk to anyone about
the merits of Lego and I listen to what they don't like and what they want
to see. My firends really struggle to find sets to buy for their daughters.
But this is an old issue that has been stated before, the creator series is
a step towards this, but I hope Lego has a lot more in store for us females.
They want sets with more pieces.
> They want sets with more "bricks" rather than special pieces.
> They *really* want "girl sets that you can build like
> the boy sets." Even parents buying Duplo want more bricks,
> less tubes. They want mid-sized Technic sets so they don't
> have to buy Mindstorms or Silver Champion to get some Technic
> parts. They want sets they can build the main model, the alternate
> models and their own ideas using all of the pieces in the set.
I agree.
>
> I'm not making this stuff up, this is what actual parents
> and kids say every day while making LEGO purchasing decisions.
>
> If LEGO is going to include the adult demographic in their
> target market that's great! I hope they also realize that
> most of the rest of their target market wants the same things.
But their market analysis shows otherwise. This is according to a post from
someone from Legoland, CA.
>
> They want sets that are fun and challenging to build. They want
> pieces they can re-use.
>
> My guess it that their current strategy focuses more on playing
> than building. The problem is that LEGO is a building toy. It
> inspires the creative mind through the building process. This is
> because it is only a coarse representation of reality. The mind
> must fill in the gaps. Play-focused toys are much more articulate,
> but infinately less configurable. LEGO should return to focusing
> on the building experience. Playablility still plays a minor role,
> quite naturally after the building is complete, but it should
> not be the primary focus.
But I think some of the detail is being left out in favor of faster building
toys. My son likes the models that "do" stuff. I guess this follows their
marketing strategy to a certain degree. Take the King Leo's Castle, they
provided some pretty good playabilty (the shooting stuff is fun) but they
wasted those precious secret hiding places under the foundation. I end up
playing with the Lego with my son, so I appreciate the playabilty factor,
but don't mistake this for their streamlining of the building process.
I happen to like the way they package the new sets into separte poly bags,
if you really want the challenge of sifting through parts then you can just
open all the bags and have at it. But this method makes it easier for my son
and I to build sets together.
For myself the playabilty is a lesser part of the experience, I enjoy the
building process more. But as I stated my son wants me to play with him so I
do take playabilty into consideration.
I am still learning to build, a few years ago I tried to build houses with
2X bricks, it doesn't work very good. From building houses out of the old
basic set instructions I have gotten better at this and I figured out why
Lego gives you so many 1X bricks. My friends (moms) want to build with their
daughters (and sons) but they don't have the building skills if they did not
play with Lego as a child. I told one friend of mine to buy the building
books but then she had the problem that they didn't have the right bricks.
The bulk bricks do help with this problem some. I miss the old basic books,
where they showed you how to build cool houses, because this is what I
always want to build with my son because it is how I relate to my childhood.
I really like the building instructions in the new catalog, I never thought
of building a "bus " station like that.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Rose Regner writes:
>
> Kevin Loch wrote in message ...
> > LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
> > that the things we want are different than what
> > kids want. I hear just about every day from
> > a very reliable source that parents and kids
> > hate juniorized sets.
>
> I am a mom, sons 4 (almost 5) and 1. My son has had no interest in Jr. sets
> past the age of three. He likes my town sets, from the early 90's and 80's
> because of the detail, like garage doors.
My sons are ages 5 and 7. The younger one loves to build and can easily build
sets labeled ages 8-12, for instance. The worst trouble he has is finding the
pieces, so I agree with Rose that the newer inside packaging into separate poly
bags helps in that regard. My seven-year-old, however, is one of those kids
who just doesn't have the patience to build. He wants to play with the
finished model right away, and often his little brother ends up building his
sets for him. And this is in spite of the fact that this kid has a mom who
is an AFOL and has been exposed to LEGO in one form or another practically
since birth. I think there are plenty of kids out there like this, and TLC is
trying to direct some of their product at this type of child (who I'm afraid is
becoming more and more common).
> My friends really struggle to find sets to buy for their daughters.
> But this is an old issue that has been stated before, the creator series is
> a step towards this, but I hope Lego has a lot more in store for us females.
My sister-in-law requested I get my 5 year old niece some girl's LEGO, and she
didn't want what she called "the cheesy Belville stuff" (not my opinion BTW).
I couldn't bring myself to waste one of my Poolside Paradise sets on a five
year old, so I ended up giving her Playmobil. But I do have to say, I remember
when the Paradisa sets were out in the stores (circa 1992-95), and they really
didn't sell well. I ended up getting my 6411's and 6416's from MacFrugal's.
And I picked up several 4151 and 4161 girls' Freestyle sets on clearance at
Walmart. So there is a reason LEGO isn't putting out many sets aimed at
girls-- while WE may buy them, the fact is, most people won't.
>
> I am still learning to build, a few years ago I tried to build houses with
> 2X bricks, it doesn't work very good. From building houses out of the old
> basic set instructions I have gotten better at this and I figured out why
> Lego gives you so many 1X bricks. My friends (moms) want to build with their
> daughters (and sons) but they don't have the building skills if they did not
> play with Lego as a child. I told one friend of mine to buy the building
> books but then she had the problem that they didn't have the right bricks.
> The bulk bricks do help with this problem some. I miss the old basic books,
> where they showed you how to build cool houses, because this is what I
> always want to build with my son because it is how I relate to my childhood.
> I really like the building instructions in the new catalog, I never thought
> of building a "bus " station like that.
I agree, I would love more books that have ideas for basic building details. I
have always built with 2xn bricks, only using 1xn's in areas where the 2xn's
wouldn't work well, until a fellow AFOL, when negotiating a possible trade,
seemed surprised that I built this way (and then offered to trade me his 2xn's
for my 1xn's). Until then, the advantages of building with 1xn's didn't even
occur to me. I too liked the instructions for the little school house as well
as those for the LEGOland truck trailer that was in the catalog a couple of
years ago.
Maggie C.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Well said!
My LEGO Retailer friends tell me these same things all the time. Their customers
are very frustrated.
-Suz
In lugnet.trains, Kevin Loch writes:
> LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
> that the things we want are different than what
> kids want. I hear just about every day from
> a very reliable source that parents and kids
> hate juniorized sets. They want sets with more pieces.
> They want sets with more "bricks" rather than special pieces.
> They *really* want "girl sets that you can build like
> the boy sets." Even parents buying Duplo want more bricks,
> less tubes. They want mid-sized Technic sets so they don't
> have to buy Mindstorms or Silver Champion to get some Technic
> parts. They want sets they can build the main model, the alternate
> models and their own ideas using all of the pieces in the set.
>
> I'm not making this stuff up, this is what actual parents
> and kids say every day while making LEGO purchasing decisions.
>
> If LEGO is going to include the adult demographic in their
> target market that's great! I hope they also realize that
> most of the rest of their target market wants the same things.
>
> They want sets that are fun and challenging to build. They want
> pieces they can re-use.
>
> My guess it that their current strategy focuses more on playing
> than building. The problem is that LEGO is a building toy. It
> inspires the creative mind through the building process. This is
> because it is only a coarse representation of reality. The mind
> must fill in the gaps. Play-focused toys are much more articulate,
> but infinately less configurable. LEGO should return to focusing
> on the building experience. Playablility still plays a minor role,
> quite naturally after the building is complete, but it should
> not be the primary focus.
>
> KL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Kevin Loch wrote in message ...
> LEGO would be making a huge mistake if they assumed
> that the things we want are different than what
> kids want. I hear just about every day from
> a very reliable source that parents and kids
> hate juniorized sets. They want sets with more pieces.
Larry and Todd were specifically referring to the Lego.com *website* in
those messages though. From the kids I used to do "Technic class" with, they
really loved the Lego website and visited it *a lot*. Between what kids and
adults want from a website is a much wider gulf than what kids and adults
want from sets.
Kevin (another one :-) )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Craftsman Lego Kits & Custom models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
Brickbay Lego parts store: http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
eBay Lego auctions: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/kevinw1/
The Guild of Bricksmiths: http://www.bricksmiths.com
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Kevin Wilson writes:
> ...
> From the kids I used to do "Technic class" with, they
> really loved the Lego website and visited it *a lot*.
> ...
I feel very strongly that:
Effectiveness is not the same as Quality.
Popularity does not equal Elegance.
Appreciating a fine wine for example, takes much experience and taste
development.
I thought The LEGO Company believed that "Only the Best is Good Enough."
-Suz
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> I feel very strongly that:
>
> Effectiveness is not the same as Quality.
> Popularity does not equal Elegance.
Agreed.
> I thought The LEGO Company believed that "Only the Best is Good Enough."
Evidently, they changed their minds...
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G891Jy.AqG@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > I feel very strongly that:
> >
> > Effectiveness is not the same as Quality.
> > Popularity does not equal Elegance.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I thought The LEGO Company believed that "Only the Best is Good Enough."
>
> Evidently, they changed their minds...
Think they finally realised that having a the best product does not mean you
automatically get the best sales.
Marketing strength will be product quality every time.
regards
lawrence
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"lawrence wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesfamily.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:G891v5.BHJ@lugnet.com...
> Think they finally realised that having a the best product does not mean • you
> automatically get the best sales.
>
> Marketing strength will be product quality every time.
sorry.
Marketing strength will BEAT product quality every time.
regards
lawrence
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> Marketing strength will BEAT product quality every time.
But do they have to be mutually exclusive?
--Todd
[followups to .general]
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Shiri Dori writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > I feel very strongly that:
> >
> > Effectiveness is not the same as Quality.
> > Popularity does not equal Elegance.
>
> Agreed.
Apple Computer, Inc. understands this!
> > I thought The LEGO Company believed that "Only the Best is Good Enough."
>
> Evidently, they changed their minds...
TLC should hire Steve Jobs!
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Frank Buiting writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
> > > say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> > > first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit.
> >
> > Great stuff! Are there plans to have such meeting again someday? It's great
> > to hear that Lego is _really_ in touch with their community!
>
> It was the *first* *train* summit.
>
> >
> > I guess the NDA covers future products, or does it also cover other things?
> > Please tell us for a rough indication about what questions we don't have to
> > bother asking.
>
> I can't talk about future products, about demographics or web usage or sales
> figures, or about costs/numbers/successes for various marketing, sales or
> production activities, for example. There are other things that I probably
> *could* talk about but that I would prefer to let LD reveal in the way and
> fashion that they choose to. It's their thunder, they ought to get to make it.
>
> > I was wondering if the folks from Lego all are reading Lugnet and what their
> > feelings are about how the community reacts to things. Did you also talk
> > about that kind of stuff?
>
> Yes indeed. The following is all my opinion and inference, not an official
> LD statement, because I am not an official LD spokesperson. I think it is
> very very very close to the sentiment within LD though.
>
> The answers are what you might expect. Communication is a core part of the
> LD mission. Communication TO consumers, communication FROM consumers,
> communication AMONG consumers. LUGNET is an important part of that
> communication, because we are influential out of proportion to our numbers.
Yes, while the number at Lugnet may be small, each of us has a wider reach
than might be first thought. I buy for myself, and my daughter. She goes
to 10-12 birthday parties a year. These children get Lego from her as
presents, for some it has been their first. We give our neighbor's
daughters who are much younger, Duplo and primo for birthdays and Chanukah.
It is my hope that once Lego is experienced that all these children's
parents will continue buying Lego. Why? Because,I want my child to have
others to build with... Many are parents here, most will be eventually.
Each has this if not more of a reach ...
Then there are the LUGS and LTC shows...
> But in absolute numbers LUGNET is dwarfed (orders of magnitude) by the very
> effective communication that lego.com is achieving with the primary LEGO
> target market.
Lego.com is mainly "Communication TO consumers" not really from or among
consumers?
> The numbers on usage of lego.com are proprietary but they are
> stunning blowouts in areas like satisfaction, number of visits, number of
> repeat visits, stickiness, etc, *among the target market* for lego.com. That
> target market is not us, except peripherally.
<snip>
>
> Clearly the original communication expectations that LD set were optimistic.
> I expect some clarification on what communication expecations are reasonable
> to happen "soon". But remember what "soon" means, please. It does not
> necessarily mean "overnight".
>
> All of the above is my opinion and my opinion only.
>
> > > The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
> > > that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and
> >
> > Did you talk also about the general feeling that sets are ...uhm..
> > 'different' than 5 years ago?
>
> The following is my opinion and interpretation, not official. I think it's
> very close to LD opinion but it was a controversial topic, not everyone in
> attendance agreed with LD.
>
> Yes, sets are different.
>
> Kids are different too.
>
> There is a continuum of targets for sets. Primo, Duplo, Creator/Town Jr.
> start things out. But there is a big gap between Jr. and Mindstorms, for
> instance. LD is trying to fill some of the gaps. But the process is a bit
> out of the normal way that products get created. Way out. So it has to
> happen incrementally, LD cannot wave a magic wand and get everything changed
> instantly. And each increment has to prove itself against stiff IRR/ROI
> targets. The standard LSI product development process is well known, well
> understood, happens internally, happens in Billund, takes a long time, and
> is within everyone's comfort zone. What LD is doing is none of those things.
> It is totally new ground and has to prove itself step by step.
>
> So LD has work to do before big changes happen. Small changes come first and
> have to prove themselves.
>
> But even in that context, LD shouold not instantly make Jr. go away, as Jr.
> fills an important role. Tell me what 6 year old could handle a set with the
> complexity of my PCC streetcar, to pick an non LEGO example?
I am encouraged to hear that the talk was not only on the high end of what
an AFOL wants. Some/many? present at the summit are parents. In regarding
trains, I hope that at some point someone suggested or will suggest at
future summits, that it would be nice to have a new train idea book. What
to do after 4561. Bulk is fine for some, but for others it is too large a
leap. A book and a carefully thought out expansion package or two
containing a wide variety of parts and some alternate model pictures as
leaping off points would be very nice. The train car contest may be a lead
in to this. Perhaps this is where Lego is already going...
> > > ways to
> > > leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
> >
> > Can you tell a bit about what was discussed on this topic?
>
> Clubs are not, and should not be, a marketing arm for LD. Clubs are not, and
> should not be, a recruitment arm for the NMRA. We do stuff in clubs because
> it is fun and one should never lose focus on that. Fun is the primary focus.
well said.
> LD does not exist solely to make clubs successful, LD exists to move
> product. That means moving the product that exists and doing what it can to
> grow the market by developing products that do that.
>
> But there are things that LD can and will do to help clubs,
> in areas like
> formation, ongoing support, better contact points, etc. And there are things
> that LTCs can do to help LD as well. This discussion, in depth, took up a
> substantial part of the day.
>
> ++Lar
thanks to all!
remember the children! - girls in particular!
sheree
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
> say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit. We have just spent Friday evening and all
> day Saturday meeting with folks from Lego Direct including Brad Justus,
> Peter Andersen, an LD product manager, Jorn Kristian Thomsen the lead Lego
> trains designer from Billund, Jake McKee, producer, and Steven Hawco, in
> charge of the Shop at Home operation.
>
> ++Lar
That's in fact the best news concerning TLC and the Lego train line I've heared
during the last weeks or even months....
After the very dissapointing news from the toys fair in Nuremberg this makes me
hope I will be able to spend money into new bricks and sets. (And if not in
2001 I will have even more money on my account in 2002). ;-)
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
> say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit.
[snip]
Larry,
This is great news, I can't wait to see the new sets and I hope it's soon!
Long live LEGO Trains!
Robin Werner
Greater Florida LEGO Train Club
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
lol The rest of the attendees have barely arrived home and the thread has
already burned out;-)
We did have a great time with the LD personnel and amongst attendees
ourselves. I really enjoyed renewing old acquaintances and meeting others F2F
for the first time. What a quality group of individuals!
We do have reason for optimism because the trains theme has not been
forgotten. Neglected maybe, but now more than ever we need to direct our focus
towards the future. Although we are under NDA, I would say that we know a lot
less than many of you probably suppose, so asking for any kind of details
really is fruitless. What is most important is that there is definitely a
dialog in place. And it is ongoing.
-John
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
> say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit. We have just spent Friday evening and all
> day Saturday meeting with folks from Lego Direct including Brad Justus,
> Peter Andersen, an LD product manager, Jorn Kristian Thomsen the lead Lego
> trains designer from Billund, Jake McKee, producer, and Steven Hawco, in
> charge of the Shop at Home operation.
>
> The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
> that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and ways to
> leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
>
> I am terrifically pumped up about this and very happy to have been among
> those selected to attend. While it was impossible to have every single train
> fan attend, we worked hard to make sure it was a representative cross
> section of US train fans and that many viewpoints were represented.
>
> The attendees included
>
> John Neal ? GMLTC
> Steve Barile ? PNLTC
> Conan Collopy - GMLTC
> John Gerlach ? GMLTC
> James Mathis - PNLTC
> Dan Parker ? PNLTC
> Larry Pieniazek ? poly-LTC
> Mike Poindexter - BAYLTC
> James Trobaugh - NGLTC
>
> More will be forthcoming from us in days to come but I was so excited I had
> to use LEGO connectivity (We're in NYC) to get this out in front of folks.
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> Although we are under NDA, I would say that we know a lot
> less than many of you probably suppose, so asking for any kind of details
> really is fruitless. What is most important is that there is definitely a
> dialog in place. And it is ongoing.
Fine with that.
I've read everything that's been said, but here's my question:
While the future is probably unknown...
Did you come away with more of a sense that
a) LEGO will be responding to the things you are interested in, or
b) LEGO is far more focused on the future of the company - IRR, ROI, etc. and
they will continue to try new things, but only in so far as they produce the
bottom line results.
We already know the answer to that: b).
So if we want to get what we want, we'd better help them get what they want.
And there are ways we can, and probably ways we have yet to think of.
(scary, isn't it - I didn't even go, yet I'm pretty confident about the
conversations)
-Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jon Kozan wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> > Although we are under NDA, I would say that we know a lot
> > less than many of you probably suppose, so asking for any kind of details
> > really is fruitless. What is most important is that there is definitely a
> > dialog in place. And it is ongoing.
>
> Fine with that.
> I've read everything that's been said, but here's my question:
>
> While the future is probably unknown...
> Did you come away with more of a sense that
> a) LEGO will be responding to the things you are interested in, or
Oh yes! As an AFOL and an LTC member.
> b) LEGO is far more focused on the future of the company - IRR, ROI, etc. and
> they will continue to try new things, but only in so far as they produce the
> bottom line results.
>
> We already know the answer to that: b).
Yes, we do, but LEGO Direct is changing the bottom line, if you will. LD has
much more flexibility and has different constraints than LEGO directed at
retail. Packaging costs, for instance. Look at the box for the Statue of
Liberty set-- no need for flashy, eye catching graphics to grab attention on a
store shelf. As an aside, the story how that set came into being is a cool one,
but I'll let Brad share it. For me, though, it typifies how LD can and will
work.
LD sells to consumers-- kids, you, me. TLC sells to its customers-- Target,
TRU, Wal*mart, etc. While this might not be a revelation, its distinction will
be more and more obvious. LEGO mosaic is a good example. Can't really sell a
set like that retail.
> So if we want to get what we want, we'd better help them get what they want.
> And there are ways we can, and probably ways we have yet to think of.
Getting back to trains, Brad is very excited about what LTCs are doing and wants
to support their efforts (obviously, or he wouldn't have gone through the
expense of inviting some of us to NYC).
> (scary, isn't it - I didn't even go, yet I'm pretty confident about the
> conversations)
lol, we met and discussed for over 8 hours-- you'd be surprised what (and *who*)
came up in the conversations!
-John
>
>
> -Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> LD sells to consumers-- kids, you, me. TLC sells to its customers-- Target,
> TRU, Wal*mart, etc. While this might not be a revelation, its distinction
> will be more and more obvious. LEGO mosaic is a good example. Can't really
> sell a set like that retail.
John, I think you got those backwards. If I remember correctly, Steven H.
(Vice President in charge of LEGO Shop at Home) described the difference
between a 'consumer' and a 'customer'. He described the 'customer' as
having a "relationship" with the seller, where as a 'consumer' doesn't
really care where they buy something. (And that relationship goes both ways!)
For a real world example: A customer might shop at the same gas station
every week, where a consumer would shop someplace else if they could save a
penny per gallon. A customer feels loyalty to the retailer, and the
retailer has the same loyalty to the customer.
LEGO Direct is going to try to turn us *all* into customers! :-)
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Neal wrote:
snip
>
> lol, we met and discussed for over 8 hours-- you'd be surprised what (and *who*)
> came up in the conversations!
>
> -John
Who, who, who?! Behind whose back were you talking? Anyone's ears burning?
Chris
--
See my LEGO creations at
http://cmasi.chem.tulane.edu/~lego/
Public key available upon request.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
To All,
Well, I have my own thoughts on this meeting, and I think it
was a wonderful move for TLC & LD, and whatever is
discussed, I am certainly glad there was an opportunity to
do so.
As someone who has been here since the beginning, I am
hopeful that good will come out of this. And I am sure the
parcipents, such as Larry P. and John Neal, do an excellent
job of representing what most of us want. And I want to
thank LD, and Brad Justus for hearing us LEGO Maniacs.
That being said, I am going to sit back, and see. I am very
glad I have a good supply of blue and light gray train doors
to expand my Metroliner, and maybe build some new train
creations, one day, far away, or at least until this summer,
where some things will occur!
Go get em, Lar! :)
Scott S.
--
************************************************************
Please visit http://www.cleanweb.net
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry,
Thanks to you and other representatives of the train clubs for your work on
this. And thank you Lego for keeping the communication channels open. I'm
absolutely thrilled with the news. Keep up the good work.
Bryan Kinkel
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G87D35.EpA@lugnet.com...
> The attendees included
>
> John Neal - GMLTC
> Steve Barile - PNLTC
> Conan Collopy - GMLTC
> John Gerlach - GMLTC
> James Mathis - PNLTC
> Dan Parker - PNLTC
> Larry Pieniazek - poly-LTC
> Mike Poindexter - BAYLTC
> James Trobaugh - NGLTC
>
> More will be forthcoming from us in days to come but I was so excited I • had
> to use LEGO connectivity (We're in NYC) to get this out in front of folks.
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hey Larry,
nice post, I wish that the same would happen with the Town Theme...finding out
what kind of direction that Theme is headed in 2001/2002...
Isn't it great to have a nice big organization of AFOL's (in the train
clubs) to organize a big meeting with the guys from the Lego Group....
I hope they bring out some more kick-butt train sets....I have several that
I have bought this year via E-bay, and I am liking them more and more...
(user name MEDIB - Lar: used your service for one transaction!! -
and really loved your train page...)
that's it...just wanted to emphasize (as always) about the lack of sets
put out in the town theme this year (at the moment!!)
thanks, and keep posting Lar!!!
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I am under NDA so cannot go into a lot of detail, but I did want to post to
> say that and several other Lego Trains stalwarts have just completed the
> first ever LEGO(r) Train Summit. We have just spent Friday evening and all
> day Saturday meeting with folks from Lego Direct including Brad Justus,
> Peter Andersen, an LD product manager, Jorn Kristian Thomsen the lead Lego
> trains designer from Billund, Jake McKee, producer, and Steven Hawco, in
> charge of the Shop at Home operation.
>
> The conversation was wide ranging and very productive. We discussed things
> that LD is going to be doing, the future of the product line and ways to
> leverage the productive relationship between LTCs and LD.
>
> I am terrifically pumped up about this and very happy to have been among
> those selected to attend. While it was impossible to have every single train
> fan attend, we worked hard to make sure it was a representative cross
> section of US train fans and that many viewpoints were represented.
>
> The attendees included
>
> John Neal – GMLTC
> Steve Barile – PNLTC
> Conan Collopy - GMLTC
> John Gerlach – GMLTC
> James Mathis - PNLTC
> Dan Parker – PNLTC
> Larry Pieniazek – poly-LTC
> Mike Poindexter - BAYLTC
> James Trobaugh - NGLTC
>
> More will be forthcoming from us in days to come but I was so excited I had
> to use LEGO connectivity (We're in NYC) to get this out in front of folks.
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | |
