Subject:
|
Re: From the first LEGO(r) Train Summit: LEGO(r) Trains are alive and well
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains, lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:47:21 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2586 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
44 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
|
|
|
|
