Subject:
|
Re: Who Lied? (was: Halving the colours in the palette - Lego Life Sept 2004)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.color
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 2004 06:34:50 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1335 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.color, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
| |
Reading the LEGO Life article, I thought back to Jake McKee’s
original explanation for the color
change back in May. I noticed some discrepancies.
Contrast this passage from the
article:
Reducing the number of used colours is part of the Sourcing for the Future
project, which aims among other things to cut the Company’s raw material and
plastics costs.
with this statement by Jake McKee:
This initiative led to a revised color palette. This new color palette
included some deletions of low-use colors, additions of new colors, and some
tweaks to the existing colors. The goal in all these changes was completely
and totally focused on creating the absolute best set of LEGO colors
possible.
There has been a great deal of assumptions posted about the reasons we made
the changes. Everything from trying to copy MEGABloks, to trying to save
money on recycling parts. I know it seems hard to believe (unless you really
think about the long-term history and attitude of this company), but it
really is as simple as trying to create a sustainable and consistent color
palette for the future.
Jake went through a lot of trouble to get the “real” story on why the color
change happened:
My goal here is to simple share the real story of how the color change to
be. Sorry for taking so long to get this out to you. In an effort to be 100%
accurate, I wanted to fact check like mad before posting. I know that some
people won’t believe this is the “real” story, but if you have a stack of
Bibles, I’m ready to swear on them.
So my question is: who lied to whom and why?
|
Wait-- how are these in contrast? Do you know that these came out of the same
initiative? Do you know that something hasn’t changed in the meantime? It’s been
over a year since the color change actually HAPPENED, and as far as I can tell,
this change is only now in the final stages of planning.
But regardless, I still don’t see the difference. The colors were CHANGED for
the exact reasons that Jake stated. The extra colors are being ELIMINATED for
completely different reasons. It’s not like they’re changing colors again, and
even if they were, these could be part of a totally different project.
Now, Jake did admittedly say some low-use colors were removed, do we even know
which ones? From Jake’s comments it sounds like a low number of colors were
removed. Not half their palette. Sounds to me like two completely different, yet
somewhat similar projects.
| |
Did Jake cover up the real reason for the color change and give AFOLs a tale
that focused on TLC’s desire for the best product rather than its need to cut
costs? Or did Jake’s bosses decide it was a good idea to give their spokesman
a bogus explanation instead of the real one?
I think we deserve an explanation.
|
I think we got one. And I can’t say I’m terribly happy about it or that I agreed
with it, but it’s fair and I think it’s the truth.
As for this color elimination thing? I can’t say how ridiculously relieved I am.
As much as I like a lot of the color variety, I absolutely HATE the fact that
there’s not a lot of PIECE variety in the less-common colors. The new blueish
purple in the Knight’s Kingdom? Awesome color. But I hate it. I wish they just
went with regular blue.
So not only is this decision what I’d WANT from the company, it looks like it’s
also best for them monetarily. I’ll only be disappointed if they remove colors I
really like (and I think all my highly valued colors were on the new “permanant”
list, so I’m fairly contented that they’ll still be around).
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
43 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
|
|
|
|
