| |
David Koudys wrote:
> THere was a real reaction--Jake has mentioned it numerous times--meetings,
> discussuins, etc.
> And to throw the icing and cherry on the cake, which didn't have to happen, you
> got it right form the CEO--an apology. How much more real do you want it to be?
As I stated before, I consider proper, hands-on results over a thousand
meetings and apologies. When I make a mistake, my duty is to fix the
mistake and "mop up" whatever problems were caused by the existence of
this problem. I consider this the most reasonable way of handling
mistakes. Nobody really cares if I need to make meetings for that or
not. It's only the result that counts.
So what did happen in the aftermath of the colour fiasco:
- People within the company woke up to see that there are actually
people out there buying the stuff they make, and that these people are
not always happy with what they get fed. Good.
- They obviously started to rethink the way they deal with the outside.
Good.
- They implemented policies that are aimed to prevent similar events in
the future. Good.
- Jake and later the CEO apologised for the mistake that was made. Now
this is twofold: Jake was neither responsible in any way for this, nor
had he any power whatsoever to turn the decision around. His only
connection is that he communicates this to us. An apology by him
therefor is not appropriate. Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, on the other hand,
has the chance to change something here. He didn't. Instead he
apologized. This, in my (MY!) opinion, is not enough.
> Your definition of 'real' is only a 'reversal of the decision'--bring back old
> gray. That's your only 'real' option, from what I'm reading, and anything else
> the company has done, or may do in light of the 'colour camp protest' is not
> 'real'.
This is not entirely correct. You have to distinguish between internal
and external results. As I stated above, there have been a loot of good
things happened in the aftermath - all of them internal. And although
these internal changes might prevent future desasters, for me as a
customer, the problem still exists. This is what I call the lack of a
real result.
> I'm sorry, although your postings recently have been remarkably civil, you're
> adamant idea that you have to know more, that there should be more communication
> between TLC and us, that people should at least reply 'got your message' to
> non-company people... either stunningly naive or bordering on the
> self-centeredness...
Sorry to wake you up, but replying to a mail and at least acknowledge
receipt is something called "common courtesy". This may be a strange
concept to you as an American, though ;-) - This is e.g important to
show the sender that the email did not vanish in a spam filter or
similar system.
> I wonder, as an 'official' representative of TLC how many e-mails/postings to
> 'Dear LEGO'/letters and even phone calls Jake would get daily from non-TLC
> workers, just wanting to talk about their love of the hobby and offering
> suggestions.
Well, Jake said 15k in 4,5 years, thats about ten a day.
> Heck, I, as a non-entity who just runs a website that has LEGO themed pages, and
> posts a bit to LUGNET, get questions about LEGO in general, sets, instructions,
> where-to-buy, how-to-sell, what's this worth, etc. on an almost daily basis from
> complete strangers who just stumbled across my name on the information
> superhighway.
If this is too much for you, why don't you reply with an faq and link list?
> Again, I'm not speaking for anybody other than me, but the tone of your messages
> is one of 'you (TLC) owe us (AFOL)' either owe us more info, or better
> ratiuonale for decisions, or even a seat at the decision making table.
Well thats the way I see it. (TLC) owes (the customer). Not only the
AFOLs, but all customers. Even kindergarten kids noticed the change and
thought it strange. Shopkeepers got sets returned because parents
thought that bley was a packing/production mistake. We AFOLs are the
customer group with the best connection to TLC, and we were the group
that first got aware of the change.
> Anyway, at least the tone is more civil.
This is a matter of perspective. I do not care much for "civil",
actually. I consider "rational" to be more important. And if I call
someone e.g. "a complete idiot", this is a very rational decision of
mine to call this person so. Some people got so much used to the point
that every piece of communication is padded in softening words, that
they actually miss something or are even offended when the soft padding
is off.
Yours, Christian
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Reply 6: Issues vs. Mistakes
|
| (...) Actually, is that true? At the time, was JVK in a position to reverse the color change? He wasn't the CEO back then. IIRC he was a vice president of some sort? Was he even in charge of that division of Lego? I honestly don't know, I'm just (...) (19 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.color, lugnet.lego)
| | | Re: Reply 6: Issues vs. Mistakes
|
| (...) Yep, 15K in about 4.5 years...but that's not 10 a day average. That's more like 14 per day (considering holidays, weekends, and vacation time - Granted, I work a great many weekends, holidays, and evenings, but I'd rather not start considering (...) (19 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.color, lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Reply 6: Issues vs. Mistakes
|
| In lugnet.color, Christian Treczoks wrote: <snip> . (...) Oh My Goodness. THere was a real reaction--Jake has mentioned it numerous times--meetings, discussuins, etc. And to throw the icing and cherry on the cake, which didn't have to happen, you (...) (19 years ago, 14-Mar-05, to lugnet.color, lugnet.lego)
|
79 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
|
|
|
|
