Subject:
|
Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Aug 2000 01:02:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1558 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca> wrote in
> message news:FzKGvp.5qA@lugnet.com...
G'day Tim,
First of all, thanks for your reply. As I imagine you're aware, I wasn't
trying to start up any arguments, but was just trying to put another
perspective on things, from someone who is both a LEGO hobbyist and a member
of LUGNET, but has otherwise been removed from the commotion that's got
everyone stirred up. As such, I can provide perhaps an objective view of
things (iffy at best, hehe), whereas I'm detecting in some posts (including
yours) that people are somewhat emotional on the issues. That's passion,
which is not bad. But when put together into a frenzy of posts, everyone just
kind of sheeps along in the same direction, and things escalate perhaps a
little out of proportion. Sometimes people don't want to oppose the
collective, so they go along with others' opinions. I've no fear there, so I
thought I'd be helpful in playing the token devil's advocate. I'm hoping my
input can be genuinely useful in your plans to communicate with TLC.
And while I think you know what I intended, I should clarify for others
that "just a bunch of fans" was not meant to be insulting in any way. I was
role-playing with that, trying to put myself into the shoes of someone at TLC,
who also, like me, has not been aware of the recent events. If as a LUGNET
member I could easily view things that way, then certainly someone in
corporate TLC could view things the same way.
> Right there, Brad made a direct promise to us, to listen and 'be very
> responsive to your needs and desires.' This is something he has not handled
> very well over the few months we have known about Lego Direct.
And at this point, a post has appeared in .lego.direct from Brad, so I'll
leave things in this regard with his words. It seems he's getting your
message (collective "your").
> Brad promised an increased relationship between the company and the fans.
> This is something we've been asking for for a long time, and the impact that
> these empty promises have had on the community is very negative. We're all
> on edge here and all are looking for answers.
(As an aside, lines of this sort is where I detected some emotionalism.
That's what made me decide to give some constructive feedback..., things
seemed to be getting a little wild..., I was even seeing people TYPING IN CAPS
<gasp!> :] )
> This has been weighed. I know that regarding the images on lego.com as a
> part of the contest, appropriate people will be addressed. As to Lego
> Direct, really, who knows what contacting them will do, if anything? Its
> gone much beond 'we'll go talk to LD,' its become 'LD hasn't fulfilled what
> they said they would do, which is what we're asking for now anyhow' It
> needs to go to LD, but above LD at the same time.
This I still disagree with, but of course everyone is free to do as they
wish. TLC seems to me to have been very proactive is creating the LD business
unit, with part of its mandate to interface with the consumer community. So
all the responsibilities associated with that enterprise were assigned to LD
personnel, such as Brad Justus, leaving the core execs to deal with the fiscal
business of the company at large, among other things. So practically as I see
it, any consumer issues that land on the desks of the core command is simply
going to get redirected to the LD group anyhow. That's what they're there
for. So that's my practical prediction of where any letter to those offices
would head.
Aside from that, such a letter, and its deliberate bypassing of LD, would be
implying that you are very displeased with LD and Brad Justus. That may be
so, but sending complaints up the ladder simply may not help. And turning it
into a petition (by adding a list of names) may make things worse (it likely
wouldn't make Brad very happy---you have to work *with* him, even if it is
slow going). This is where I was doing my role-playing. I'm an upper exec
(CEO maybe? sounds cool!) and I get this petition from "a bunch of fans"
ranting about this and that. "Hmmm..., looks like consumer affairs issues",
so off it goes to LD. "That's their problem. Now, back to this manufacturing
schedule I was dealing with before that interrupted me..."
If your problem is with LD, then deal with LD. Perhaps maybe just be a bit
more determined in making direct contact. Try phone calls rather than
letters. Be patient. But you have to be *specific* in addition to direct.
More an that later...
> TLC has clearly dropped the ball in their product line - even marketing
> research should have shown them that. Recent stuff such as juniorization,
> ZNAP, etc. baffle me beyond words. Thought we dont' know for sure, its been
> rumored they're losing money. I wonder why.
(I don't really want to get into this one, but juniorization is not
necessarily a bad thing. But that's a debate all in itself, and I gave up on
debating ages ago :] )
> Hope my post clears stuff up for you. From reading your response, I don't
> think you carry quite the same perspective on it - or see the big picture.
> Its much more than us trying to tell them how to run a company, and we're
> much more than a little band of fans. We're dealing with irresponsibility
> and broken promises, and the negative effects it has had upon the
> community - the confusion, lowered morale, nervousness, concern, etc it has
> caused.
I certainly do *not* carry quite the same perspective, and that was my point.
But I strongly believe I *do* see that big picture. To me, that involves a
great many more issues than things involving LUGNET. Thus my spiel about them
being a company, with the bottom line being the primary concern. All actions
are means to that end.
I am well aware of the promise that LUGNET holds, particularly with a
productive relationship with TLC. That is why I joined LUGNET in the first
place. It was one of the most unique communities I've ever seen on the
internet or elsewhere. There were real ideals and plans here, and not
simply "just a bunch of fans" splattering things up on cyberspace.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but my point is that I *am* aware of the
things LUGNET would like to accomplish, but I also think I have a good idea
about what TLC's global agenda is. What I held issue with was the implied way
in which this "formal letter to TLC" was going to be executed. Based on the
tones of the posts I reviewed, it struck me that such a letter may go along in
the same vein. And if that were to happen, I felt it would be unproductive.
Because it would land on someone's desk who, unlike yourself, others here, and
I, is not aware of LUGNET's "difference" compared to other "clubs", and of the
big picture issues that have been evolving. And with the tone (literal or
otherwise) of a petition arriving that bypassed the LD personnel, but yet
directs criticism at them, I felt things would not go over well. The
recipients would fail to understand how any of it is important. Thus my point
that you need to be able to convince people like myself of what the problems
are, and do that successfully, before taking on TLC, so to speak. If you
can't accomplish that, then your attempts to communicate with TLC to the end
of improved relations will likely fail. But that's just my opinion.
The number one thing that has to be done here is that a very specific list of
issues has to be created. People cannot act upon generalities, and companies
certainly cannot. Everyone has a duty, and they get to deal with whatever is
specific to their work. General consumer relations issues from the
perspective of the LUGNET community may be very important to us, but on the
global company scale of all issues at TLC, is likely only a very tiny
part. "Higher ups" do not have time to deal with all these little issues, and
often are simply not qualified to do so. That's why they have subordinates,
an entire company-full, each with a very specific job to do. They're the
specialists that address each individual specific issue. One such is Brad
Justus, who in turn has a whole crew supporting efforts with him.
If you can present a very specific list of items to TLC, then it can be
delegated to those that can best effect some kind of change. If you instead
present a letter with "we are not happy with communication, TLC is not
responsive to our needs, we are not having a mutually beneficial relationship,
yadda yadda yadda..." people will just scratch their heads. In general
they're willing to help, but without specific identification of issues, they
don't know *how* they can help. And it's best if people aren't left to figure
out things on their own..., undesirable things can happen. Like TLC could nix
the entire Star Wars line because they're guessing they're getting badgered
for being "too commerical". And I'd be the first going
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo!!!!..... :]
My post was not to the effect that I couldn't see where there were any
problems. It was that I couldn't see the specific list of problems so that
someone could possibly address them. So how would TLC be able to help (and
help themselves)?
This begins to approach being work, but there it is. People have to put
together a very specific list of issues to raise with LD. If something can't
be made specific enough (generally supported by example), then it shouldn't be
on the list---it's too nebulous. This list then becomes the first draft of
your formal letter to TLC. That was my first request/recommendation*****
Once the letter is all prettied up and everybody likes it, then off it goes to
LD. But it must go there, and to the appropriate people. Sending it to CEOs
or whomever is still pointless, I stongly believe. If there are issues
pertaining to very different areas (such as legal), then send a separate
letter, with just those issues, to that department. Legal doesn't deal with
customer relations..., they deal with legal. So legal issues go to them, and
not to anyone else. Ditto for the other groups of issues---each to the
pertinent department/personnel. That was my second request/recommendation*****
Having just blown an hour or so typing all that, I'm simply happy that Brad
Justus has replied, acknowledging that things not only haven't gone off as
great as we'd all hoped, but also as they'd hoped. If increased dialogue
comes from this, then perhaps we just set aside the painful formalities of
petitions, and talk to each other. If not, then we've got to go back to
preparing the list. Ultimately most of us are just casual hobbyists, and
whether or not TLC "listens" to us does not affect our lives appreciably (or
at least it shouldn't!). So I hope no one is losing a lot of sleep over all
this.
One caveat: TLC is still just a company, so protect your interests
accordingly. I see a lot of great things here at LUGNET and on other sites
(particularly in the commerce arena) that TLC probably has a great interest
in. And in general, due to that bottom line, if the company thinks it's in
their best interest to take over those things to have more control, then that
may happen. Or they may begin attempting to dictate things, through legal
departments, but leaving entities "independent". This opens a whole new can
of worms, that I don't particularly want to touch. But I raise it because the
question came to my mind of who is this formal letter going to represent?
LUGNET? All LUGNET members? All LEGO enthusiasts in general? Or just the
specific list of names on the bottom. Point being, LUGNET is somewhat
organizational, but not really. I wouldn't want a letter coming out of LUGNET
users that implies that I, as a LUGNET member, endorse it by default. That
implies that I'm a member of some kind of "voting" populace, and am
represented by the majority opinions. And as an entity, but not an entity,
what kind of legal footing with TLC do we have regarding what we do here with
LUGNET (databases, commerce, etc.)? All this effort into direct formal
relations with TLC is great, but one day they may in effect just say "okay
folks, it's our show now". Whereas if you leave it instead as a
standalone, "silent" but active community, you still reap the benefits. And
if TLC is smart they'll watch what we're doing and listen to what we're saying
anyhow, because it can affect their bottom line. Don't let frustrations with
whatever TLC does consume you to the point that it wrecks your enjoyment of
the hobby.
Whoa, that last paragraph is a real mess. Well, anyhow... :]
KDJ
________________________________________________________________
Kyle D. Jackson, P.Eng., Windsor, Ontario, Canada, LUGNETer #203
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| "Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatic...mblock.ca> wrote in message news:FzMAw4.L22@lugnet.com... (...) member (...) I would counter you and say that since you have been removed as you admit, you shouldn't be coming in and arguing to the contrary. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| "Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatic...mblock.ca> wrote in message news:FzKGvp.5qA@lugnet.com... (...) That's *not* what is happening right now, and its *not* just gripes on our part about how their company is run. Brad Justus came to us last (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
28 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
|
|
|
|
