Subject:
|
Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 07:21:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1141 times
|
| |
|
|
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:FzJ048.I8r@lugnet.com...
> I dunno. Bulk has actually been a disappointment to me -- there were • maybe
> three items I wanted in the initial offerings (tiles, foliage, and those • teeny
> windows), the rest was overpriced and pointless to me. I have made many • deals
> of late that were far more advantageous by just buying stuff at deep
discount.
Yep - at least the current round of bulk is a disappointment, but it can be
looked at as a step in the right direction. I have not ordered anything
from that selection yet, mostly due to a lack of cash.
> Brad's presence here has been in many ways more hindrance than help. We • are
> not Lego insiders as much as we are part of a ready-made marketing • technique
> of which TLC can avail itself.
>
> I don't want to discourage what might be a very worthy idea, but do you • REALLY
> have something to say that hasn't already been said a cajillion times • before
> to the point of total tedium? I think its fair to assert that TLC knows • the
> score. But go for it -- maybe the manner in which you might express your
> ideas will do the trick this time!
Yes, I know that most of my words tonight have been ground into us
previously so much that every additional post saying the same thing is a 'me
too.' But, that's all been done here on Lugnet. What I'm saying is, we
would probably get a better response if it was written out in a well
documented letter with the names of as many Lugnuts (or Lugnetters,
whichever you prefer) as possible. I think they'll listen to a serious
formal request by a large group of people. We *know* they read Lugnet - and
we *know* they take Lugnet seriously (to an extent) - if not, they wouldn't
have requested the removal of the 2001 set information.
[el snippedy doo da]
> So if they lose money, whose fault is it then? If they shoot themselves • in
> the foot by bullying us around over trivialities rather than garnering our
> respect by open communications -- we should care?
I think we should care, because afterall, we're the ones who are ga ga over
their product, or at least, the philosophy behind their product. Look at
the number of people here on Lugnet, and I'd venture to say the VAST
majority of people here really do care - because its their hobby that TLC is
effecting. This is a place where both sides can benefit TREMENDOUSLY. With
our clubs, LTCs, etc, we're a HEAP of free advertising for them - what
better arrangement could there be?? There's a group of people who are Lego
fanatics, eager to just play with bricks, and even more eager to show it off
and tell people about the hobby! There's a lot of revenue TLC could gain
just by working with us on the club front and plugging their product that
way.
We care because we love the brick. We care also becasue we love our
pocketbooks. They should care because they love their pocketbooks.
> You want to extend the hand of friendship, yet again, to a company one of
> whose products you helped destroy with LDraw? Isn't Creator being dumped • as a
> cereal box promotion? Yeah, they want to talk to you -- you probably cost
> them hundreds of thousands of dollars.
>
> =)
I can't help but get a kick out of that paragraph :) I think that LDraw has
done more to help the hobby than hurt it. Note - I said the hobby, not TLC.
TLC could benefit from LDraw, etc, if they would learn from it and make a
program which is better, or if they embraced LDraw 100%. I doubt that TLC
is frowning upon LDraw, especially after we pulled together the LDraw
display at Legoland California for Kidvention.
Obviously the legal entanglements of any possible embracement by TLC would
be a headache.
I'd like to see the realm of LCAD expand to its greatest potential. Its a
very powerful tool and I think in the end a very positive reflection upon
TLC and the product. We've already come VERY far because of what has been
done - its very easy to share MOCs online and archive them for future
construction. People have compared the stuff available for free for
download to ultra high-end CAD software retailing for thousands of dollars.
In all honesty, CAD is something that TLC could have done well from the very
beginning. Afterall, they have the financial resources and the prestige as
a company to make the necessary business deals. I'd say that the 'hundreds
of thousands of dollars' was something that they cost themselves, because
they didn't make a good enough product. So really, they destroyed it all on
their own...
> And for what it's worth, I didn't even care about the leaked info (SW is • just
> the most reasonably priced theme to me, I use the bits for castle • creations).
> I am just annoyed that they got so heavy-handed over it when I know other • fans
> DO care about it a lot. I think in this case, "loose lips" equaled free
> advertising. But whatever...
I don't care much about the leaked info, in and of itself, either. But what
I DO care about is the lack of respect that the company has shown us by not
explaining themselves as promised, and their hipocracy in not dealing with
the stolen images on their contest. That there is a serious slap in the
face to a group of people who truthfully want a healthy relationship with
the company. This is only the most recent layer on the cake too - remember
their broken promises of communication and the negative effects it has had
on this community?
> I like the bricks, I like the fans, I like Lugnet -- TLC I am not so sure
> about...I just want the bricks, they just want their money.
That's the truth, and you can't blame them. They're a company, and that's
what companies do. I'm glad that I know a few good people in the company
who do have an interest in us, and I wish that more people in the company
felt the same way. I know that the last couple days I've seen a few posts
complaining about this treatment, and its a sign that TLC is losing the
trust of their consumers, FAST. I know I want to be able to trust TLC, but
right now I don't. So, I want to encourage building trust and building a
working relationship by approaching them directly about it.
I like the bricks too, a LOT. Unfortunately, on a limited student's budget
I can't afford to buy the vast amounts of it that I see some other AFOLs
doing. I want to be able to have bricks disposable to make projects I've
only dreamed about, and I'm sure that many echo this feeling. A good
relationship with the company would probably allow this, as more requests
are met. I'd also like to see an improvement in their product line - I'm
almost embarassed to talk to people about LEGO if it relates to their
current products!! But I'm very eager to talk about Lugnet, LUGs, LDraw,
etc! This is where its at, and if TLC doesn't see it, its their loss, and
ours. Its a mutual gain thing, it really is. The potential cool stuff
coming out of cooperation is ENORMOUS, believe me, I've tasted a little of
it :)
> -- Richard (Just call me Mr. Sunshine)
Hehe :) Well, no worries - it does look glum right now. But, everything
can change! In this case, I just feel that us AFOLs need to act on our
words and our desires.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114
AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| I dunno. Bulk has actually been a disappointment to me -- there were maybe three items I wanted in the initial offerings (tiles, foliage, and those teeny windows), the rest was overpriced and pointless to me. I have made many deals of late that were (...) (24 years ago, 19-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
