Subject:
|
Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Aug 2000 07:22:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1846 times
|
| |
|
|
"Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca> wrote in
message news:FzMAw4.L22@lugnet.com...
> 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.
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. First you should
study the entire history of these events and then state your opinion.
> 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.
While this might seem emotional on Lugnet, I and some others who have
discussed these issues offline are taking a lot of care in being responsible
and constructive, and keeping this all in perspective. No rash decisions or
actions will be made as a result of these feelings or postings on Lugnet.
We all want good relations with Lego Direct, and we won't do anything to
jeopardize that.
> 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.
I don't (and this is my opinion) find your musings helpful in fostering
communication with TLC. It would be more helpful if you (again) had studied
the history of what has led up to this, thought it over carefully, and then
posted a solid opinion on the matter.
> 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.
Granted, there are certain people in TLC who aren't very aware of LUGNET -
I've talked to some. But on the other hand, I've talked to many who do know
what LUGNET is. Mostly those people are _product designers_ and employees
of entities such as _LEGO Media_. I have talked to people face to face from
both of those categories and more, concerning LUGNET, the online fan
community, and even LDraw, which I went to represent in Legoland California
this summer.
I believe that most people who are in TLC who have either a high position or
a position of producing product do know who and what LUGNET is, or at least
that it exists. And I believe that's a fairly educated assumption.
> 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").
I'm very pleased with Brad's post. It was good for him to come out and say
something to us. I think its positive, but I'm still left with questions
and with the desire to dialogue to continue to develop the relationship he
speaks of, and to get on the same page for the future of both sides.
> (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!> :] )
Yes, people have become upset. Basically, this is because of the extreme
excitement created last winter by Brad's original announcement, followed by
almost nothing. A sense of excited expectation was in the air, we saw some
things come out of Lego Direct, such as the bulk parts, but not the dialogue
which was expected. And then we saw the 2001 sets and LEGO.com picture
issues go unhandled. It was disturbing, and IMO we have every right to be
on edge and upset. Not to quote Brad by any means, but I believe he
acknowledged that sentiment as legitimate in his post today.
> > 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,
If they were as proactive as you claim, we would see a lot more action on
the part of LD. This is not the case. Though they're moving in the right
direction, Brad himself said sometimes things move pretty slow. Yes this is
to be expected, but no this shouldn't go without explanation to a large
community of people who have been given something concrete to hope for with
no fulfilled substance.
> 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.
It is my belief that the corporate execs we would target - Peter Eio, Kjeld
Kirk Kristiansen, and additional heads of large divisions of the executive
team - would be responsive. Maybe they wouldn't respond themselves, but I
believe that they would ensure that the approprate measures are taken within
the appropriate timeframe. And if a timeframe couldn't be met, I believe
they'd take steps to ensure us that we aren't being ignored.
> 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.
I would say that up until today and Brad's post, I could have been
classified as 'very displeased.' Now, I'm happy that Brad came forward and
offered an explanation, and I'm eager for answers and a dialogue to work out
the many questions we're left with. Yes, I'm leary, who isn't? I think
that Brad himself would understand that, and hopefully work to reassure us.
> 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..."
I don't view any potential letter as a complaint in the least. I view it
more as a heads up, and a proposal for working together. The key is as I
have repeated, a positive relationship. It appears, because of his
position, this does involve Brad Justus. I agree that we will be working
with him, and its important to have a solid connection with him and a solid
understanding between us.
> 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...
Yes, I agree with this. Its something that will have to be weighed as we
work out these issues. I know Brad is accessible, because I have spoken
with him before. And I know that Brad has the intention of working with the
community because I have worked with him (albeit somewhat indirectly) for
Kidvention. I've had considerable experience with Lego Direct and staff at
Legoland California setting up that event for our group(s) LDraw and GMLTC
to go and represent our individual interests and LUGNET as a whole.
> > 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 :] )
(an aside, adding my .02)
Juniorization *is* a bad thing, if its not coupled with the same classic
products we've seen for years. Replacing nice, realistic models with over
simplified sets designed for 5 year olds is not good management of a product
line. I believe System sets were marked 'from 6-12 years' a while back (I
don't know offhand what it is now, but its changed) - but I can hardly
imagine any normally developed 12 year old eager to go out and buy a Town
Jr. set. As someone said, Town Jr. is good for younger kids, as a
transition between Duplo to Lego. But Town Jr. should NOT be a toy for
older kids (8-12+), and as one parent has reported, their 7-8 year old has
put Town Jr. down in favor of non-Lego toys for that very reason. So,
juniorize only as an ADDITION to the product line, not as a REPLACEMENT to
quality toys.
> > 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.
You may see the big picture as it comes to _a_ company, but I doubt
seriously you do see the big picture as it relates to TLC specifically, and
certainly don't as it regards LUGNET. I'd encourage you to read EXTENSIVELY
discussions which have come about because of LD's presence on Lugnet, and of
things that Lugnetters have taken issue with. Analyze it from the
perspective of Lugnet (as a group of people) with the desire for better
selection, more input, and more possibilities for cooperation, and then come
back and contradict this.
> 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.
If you have a good idea of what TLC's global agenda is, by all means, take
the lead here. I say that extremely sarcastically because I doubt anyone
outside TLC has a good understanding of that, nor is in the position to
remotely make that claim.
> 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.
I assure you, that this possible letter and whatever other attempts made to
communicate with TLC will be made most respectfully and positively, and not
emotional, accusionary, or demanding. I realize that those tones are
counterproductive, and don't desire to do so because of the possible
negative effect it could have on LUGNET. I certainly have no desire to hurt
the community which I have worked hard to help and build up over my years
involved. And I'm sure that others who I've been discussing with feel the
same way. I firmly believe that something positive will come out of
whatever contact is made with TLC. Whether it takes a long time or it
happens tomorrow, the precedent has been set by them. It will take positive
dialogue to have a mutual understanding of what is going to happen between
us.
> 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.
I agree. Before contact is made with TLC there will be specific issues
drawn up and discussion on how to present it. We won't be emotionally
flying off at silly generalities.
> 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!!!!..... :]
That's the most absurd comment I've heard from this whole thing (and that's
hard to believe). TLC has a licensing agreement with SW, and I believe
firmly it won't get cancelled. And if this is the TLC we all know, they
won't respond to badgering, at least that quickly.
> 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*****
This will be done.
> 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.
I don't believe its pointless in the least. If they're above LD, and they
see something is lacking, they'll do what they can to ensure its corrected.
They obviously established LD for a reason, and that reason has to go back
to their bottom line. Their bottom line is somehow tied to these CEOs
salaries, and they're very protective of that. I also think that there are
a few good CEOs in the company who care about the product enough to see
something like this through.
> 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.
This would be the most desireable option - to just sit down together
(whether in person, on the phone, or online) - and talk to each other. I
think that's what we're shooting for ultimately - communication.
Communication would have stopped this mess, percieved or real, in the first
place.
> 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.
I think you're underestimating how serious of collectors some people on
LUGNET are. If you realized the people who spend thousands on Lego products
at a time, whether for MOCs or to make a business of selling parts out of
it, Lego is the lifeblood of many people, and its something they do care
about, and for some, they probably are losing sleep over it. This is not
just a little walk in the park, to me the brick is a way of life. And we're
ensuring that way of life is made better for all of us in the future.
> 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.
I would hope, for the sake of the (few) who differ in opinion here, that the
letter would represent the desires of those who sign it, and be seen as
representative of what we believe would be for the common good and ulitmate
betterment of Lugnet as a whole in the future. But, seriously, do you think
that TLC would care if you, Kyle Jackson, were represented in a letter sent
to them or not? Would they care if anyone else by name was represented??
They're looking at a community of hobbyists. You shouldn't make a big deal
out of it, but take it on good faith that those making contact and those
writing letters will do so in a manner which will prompt positive change.
We're (Lugnet as a community) not out to do anything rash. I (Tim) don't
believe that you (Kyle) have anything to worry about.
> 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.
I can't comment on Lugnet's legal standing with TLC - 1) IANAL, and 2) I
don't run Lugnet, Todd does. If anyone could comment on that, it would be
him, probably in conjunction or after discussion with TLC's internet IP
attorney.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114
AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| In lugnet.dear-lego, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> Whew. Go have fun with Lego for a weekend and you can miss a lot around here. I won't take any position on whether a letter is a good idea or not because I haven't thought about it enough. However I (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| (...) <Whew!> That was huge. Okay, I'll be brief(er) this time..., just don't take it for terseness :] (After typing the post..., okay it I lied, it wasn't brief!) (...) [snip] (...) I take issue somewhat with the fact that you think I have not (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| (...) 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, (...) (24 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
