Subject:
|
Re: Open Source Lego
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:05:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
779 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> > [...]
> > Here's my summary of the views expressed above:
> >
> > LUGNET has been established by fans, for fans. Postings by TLC employees, as
> > representatives of TLC/LEGO Direct, don't belong in the regular newsgroups,
> > as their contributions:
> >
> > (a) are part of a marketing strategy, not fan-fan dialogue. Such postings
> > make LUGNET a tool for TLC, when it is supposed to be a place for LEGO fans;
> > (b) come from a place that is permanently and necessarily beyond the AFOL
> > community;
> > (c) represent the 100% Official LEGO Position, which is expressed in LEGO
> > Direct announcements, something like highly customised press releases (eg
> > "The LEGO company announced that as of today bulk packs of brown bricks are
> > available from Shop at Home...").
>
> That sounds about right to me.
>
> > I have a slightly different opinion. Not everything we might hear from TLC
> > is marketing.
>
> Whoops, wait...I need to interject something: I agree with you that not
> everything we might hear from TLC is marketing. However, it's all part of
> the _marketing strategy_, including the fact that AFOLs were hired by LEGO
> Direct and that LEGO Direct showed up here at all. [... snipped]
In the same way that operating a Customer Service Department or releasing
new desirable products is part of a marketing strategy, right? So if you
read "pure" non-spin information from a TLC employee, while it might not be
"marketing" per se, the act of posting it here on LUGNET as TLC gospel is
part of the "marketing strategy". Is that right?
> > I look forward to a time when TLC realises it can use our brains as well as
> > our money.
>
> I agree, and I'm sure TLC has realized that. Brad Justus gets it. He
> understands it well and he has said that he has worked hard over the past 18
> months since LEGO hired him to drive that point home to upper management.
>
> However, let's not lose sight of the fact that the reason they'd want to use
> our brains as well is our money is to make more money. (Not that there's
> anything wrong with that.)
>
> > When proposed themes, products and even company strategies are
> > actually discussed with fans, and fans' ideas and creations have an impact
> > on what TLC produces. I think we're already seeing slow steps in this
> > direction, particularly in Trains. I think there's room on LUGNET for spaces
> > where fans and TLC can build new ideas together. If TLC chooses to do this
> > through Summits with the cream of the AFOL crop, that's their prerogative: I
> > guess I'd like to see something a bit more democratic, especially when the
> > online forum would cost TLC nothing. I'd also rather take part in such a
> > forum on LUGNET, where I feel like part of the fan community, rather than on
> > lego.com, where I would feel much more constrained in the contributions I
> > could make.
> >
> > By looking at the R&D aspects of TLC's business I think we break out of the
> > concept of the company as a krone-driven vending machine with a single
> > public face. If we can integrate our creativity and enthusiasm with the
> > company's experience and resources, who loses? A deeper symbiosis between
> > the LEGO community and the LEGO corporation could benefit us all, but it's
> > up to both parties to make it happen.
>
> Well said, Dave.
Thanks! I'm looking forward to more news in the year ahead!
I'm interested in how LUGNET users can help improve this relationship, and
I'm concerned about ways that the lugnet.lego restriction could distort
information flow.
The point that John Hansen makes here
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=678
is fairly strong IMO, particularly the following comment:
> > Can you imagine Brad Justus making
> > official statements from a yahoo.com mail account?
>
> My imagination is apparently bigger than you imagine. Sure. To me, content
> is everything. If the message contains an official statement it is official
> whether it is written on toilet paper or official Lego stationary. Content
> totally trumps conveyance.
I think the recently imposed restriction _could_ lead to an increase in
semi-official information posted by TLC employees under their AFOL
identities, which seems fairly undesirable to me.
Thomas Garrison outlines the cross-posting mess here:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=683
I think running parallel threads in .lugnet.lego.direct and .lunet.favetheme
would really hinder dialogue. Would restricting all threads to ..direct make
too much clutter there? ..direct.favetheme would be an unfortunate
duplication IMHO.
I'm also unconvinced by some of what you say here:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=679
focusing on:
> Targeted droplets of official information taste good but aren't what give the
> community its strength.
Agreed. But does this really mean that they don't belong in the community
forum at all?
I don't have any programming skills, so I don't know if this is possible,
but anyway here goes. Could you set up the .lego.com address filter so that
if a non-lego.com address cross-posts between .lego.direct and .favetheme,
with follow up to .favetheme, a lego.com address can reply to .favetheme
within the thread? Or would that undermine what you're trying to achieve
with the new restrictions?
--DaveL
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
