Subject:
|
Re: Reply 6: Issues vs. Mistakes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.color, lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:40:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6076 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.color, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> David Eaton wrote:
> > In short, both apologies are the same. They're from the company. Not
> > individuals. Jake's apology (which I don't directly recall) wasn't
> > intended (I don't think) to resemble a *personal* apology, but one
> > from the company. Same with Jorgen's, I imagine. Would a personal
> > level apology from everyone directly involved be somehow better?
>
> We're still not in Japan here. An excuse without remedy is of low value.
I don't get it. How has the situation changed since Jake stated that the company
wouldn't be switching back? We knew (unless Jake was flat-out-lying, which I
seriously doubt was happening) that the people responsible for the color change,
and the higher-ups in the company all knew about the problem. But despite that,
the word from them to us via Jake was "sorry, we have to stay with the new
colors". Is Jorgen somehow more responsible now that he's personally apologized
than before, when he (really the company in both instances, not Jorgen
personally) sent out that document? How has Jorgen's apology changed anything,
besides perhaps some people feeling slightly more satisfied at the apology?
> > They also put the new colors on the universal "never-change-again"
> > list, to make sure that other colors like tan aren't changed. Is that
> > immediately external?
>
> Well, lets see how long this list holds. There is a new CEO, they still
> have to cut tight corners, so it might be only a piece of paper after all.
I doubt it. From what I understand, the color change *cost* lots of money, and
probably made just about (if not exactly) zero increase in sales. And on the
AFOL side it made for a good chunk less sales. As far as I can see, the color
change did nothing but hurt the company, and they've acknowledged that it was a
bad judgement call. I expect they won't be changing colors anytime soon, since
my guess is they wouldn't save that much by changing a color slightly, and the
money it would cost to re-adjust it would make it unprofitable, not to mention
the AFOL reaction.
MORE likely is them switching to a lower-grade plastic. THAT I could see. I
don't know anything about plastics molding, but I expect the only direct
financial reason not to switch to a lower-grade plastic might be if other
plastics wouldn't work as well with their existing molds. And re-casting
thousands of molds isn't cheap. But my uneducated guess is that the molds
probably don't need to be recast-- so the only reasons NOT to switch plastics
are probably wanting to maintain part quality and to keep customers happy
(tradition-wise, etc).
> Are you really sure that the tan we know is on the list?
No, but I'd bet you good money it is.
> That was one of my more important points about communication - Jan was not in
> a position to confirm this when I asked him, and Jake did not answer this
> question despite several people asking for clarification.
I agree I'd like verification as well, although it's not an easy question to
answer. I can't speak for Jake, but I'm not sure if he's got a color palette
handy when answering emails asking for clarification. Plus, it's not just Beige.
If he verifies one thing, the expectation is really to verify them all. And that
gets REALLY tricky because I'm not even sure what some of the colors on the list
mean in AFOL terms. Nougat? I'd have to print out something with that CMYK value
and compare it to bricks, hoping I even have a "nougat" element. And going
through the universal list, comparing to *verified* Peeron inventory colors is a
pain. I can easily imagine that Jake or Jan didn't 100% know that "beige = tan"
when asked, and hence didn't want to say something that might turn out not to be
true.
Maybe if there were an effort on the same scale as the CEO letter for something
like universal list clarification, you'd get a response that would satisfy you,
rather than an apology. And hey, I'd probably sign that.
> > > Well thats the way I see it. (TLC) owes (the customer).
> >
> > Nah. They owe us just as much as we owe them. They do something dumb?
> > They pay for it financially. Not ethically.
>
> Indeed they do. Just look at the list of signatures under Bens letter.
> And they will pay for this in the future, as the brand as such has lost
> a lot of credibility.
And what's the price for loss of credibility and loyalty? Financial.
> Well, these two talks with store owners were quite early last year,
> shortly after the change became public, and there were two instances at
> one shop, and one at another.
Huh! I guess I'm glad to hear it. 3 instances probably isn't much considering
the amount of sales that *didn't* get returned, but it's more than I would have
expected-- at least from kids/parents. From AFOLs, I'd expect more, I spose.
Nice to know at least that some people other than AFOLs noticed and disliked the
change.
> > > This is a matter of perspective. I do not care much for "civil",
> > > actually. I consider "rational" to be more important.
> >
> > Noble, but dangerous. Emotions easily get in the way for many people.
> > They often cloud the issue. If by being civil you are able to acheive
> > the same results, I see no reason not to be so, short of attempting to
> > humiliate.
>
> The more icing on the cake, the less you'll be able to see the cake
> itself.
Bingo.
> I try not to drown information in words (like politicians do).
I try not to drown information in emotion. Not that I always succeed, but I try.
But, take this here:
> > > > > Oh, how would we love to see a real reaction to the bley fiasco! That
> > > > > was why we were signing the CEO letter in th first place.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Exactly how is Dave K not entirely correct? [...] But really, is there
> > something else other than bringing back the old colors that would
> > satisfy you? If so, what?
>
> Like, bringing back the old colours?
Why did you tell Dave K that he was not entirely correct? We've cited several
"real" reactions that you've acknowledged existed, but apparently don't qualify
as "real". However, you've implied that a "real reaction" would be to switch the
colors back.
Personally, I think you said "not entirely correct" because you were emotionally
involved in the situation, not because Dave wasn't entirely correct. Your
instinct reaction was (I think) to show how he was wrong. Maybe I'm wrong in
this instance, I dunno. But in general, I think many people DO react out of
emotional involvement rather than objective analysis. Someone says "you're
wrong", the instinct is to say "no, I'm right", rather than examine the
possibility of being wrong. And the more angrily you state your case, the more
likely you are to incite an equally angry response, even more out of emotional
reaction.
If your aim is to incite a riot or to humiliate, by all means, behave uncivilly.
If your aim is to discuss a subject objectively, then leave that emotional icing
off.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Reply 6: Issues vs. Mistakes
|
| David Eaton wrote: > 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 (...) (20 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
