Subject:
|
Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:11:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2011 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Tim Courtney writes:
> "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...
<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!)
> 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. • [snip]
> 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.
I take issue somewhat with the fact that you think I have not rendered a solid
opinion. In my first post, a response to your open call for input, I gave a
preliminary assessment, and stated it as such. But importantly I requested
more info on specific events of late. After that I did go off and "do
research" as you say. I combed though several hundred posts to get more info
on the specific events (image theft, set list, etc.), and also to get a
general flavour of what's been happening. Based on that, I cemented my
original opinion, adjusting it as I felt necessary in light of the info I
found. I then put that into my second post, certainly after I "thought it
over carefully"..., I never post anything otherwise.
The fact that some of my opinions (and it really is just *some*) differ from
yours does not mean they are not "solid" or "thoughtful". They are my
opinions, based in large part upon experiences I've had in life to-date. I
have no problem with your opinions, or those of anyone else, differing with
mine. I put my opinions out as just another resource of useful input that
people can look it.
> 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.
Understood.
> 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.
And I agree here. Communication is, of course, key. I fully expect things to
move "slowly", that is the normal way of things in companies. I actually feel
really bad for Brad and others reading from TLC who were getting badgered
about having taken so long to explain their actions regarding the post
removal. Based on daily events I've encountered at virtually everyplace I've
worked, I think they ultimately responded to us in pretty decent time,
considering how serious and "high up" the issue seems to have extended. I
think its easy to get overzealous when you check the newsgroups twice daily
for a week and see no response from TLC, but there are 100 posts from
LUGNETers demanding a response. But yes, I agree, a simple "we're working on
it, we'll get back to you ASAP" would have gone a long way.
By the same token, I wish the traffic weren't so high in the
formal .lego.direct group, particularly of the "where's your answer?!"
variety. People being displeased or not, I think we should cut the TLC people
a little slack. They're trying to do a good thing, but their attention is
easily divided within the company, and they are learning..., just as we are.
But they are still a Good Thing(tm) for LUGNET. (This is thinking out loud,
BTW, and not directed at any specific post in particular).
> 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.
Maybe I can re-phrase my opinion on this point, FWIW. Going just to the
specific people responsible for each area of your concerns, versus
going "higher up"..., either one could bring good results. Whether that
happens depends on the person in question in each case. But my experience has
been that dealing with the people you have to work with most directly works
far better in the long run. It fosters cooperation and trust. Going "around
people" to those with "more power", no matter how well-meaning, can have a
negative impact, and even really tick people off. I've done both approaches
many times in the past. On average, "going up" doesn't work out as well. So
it's an approach I've used less and less of late (even when things are in
pretty bad shape), and I am very pleased with the results. Again, my opinion,
based purely upon experience. And I feel this is really the only *major*
thing on which we disagree.
But hey, here's an idea <insiration!>. I've also seen cases where I don't
seem to be getting anywhere with people, and think about "going over them".
But instead, I ask them if *they* are having any struggles with anything. And
you know what? Very often they are just as frustrated within their own
heirarchy. So try this. You're thinking of writing a formal letter. And you
have a general idea about what it would contain, etc., etc. Ask LD (Brad)
what he thinks both about the letter and about your intended list of
recipients. Who knows what he'll say, but I think it's worth finding out. At
the very least, it's a courtesy to him to let him know that you're planning to
contact these people. He may already be aware, but I won't presume to think
that he's enough time on his hands to spend combing the newgroups as we! :]
Hmmm, yes, I do think this is a really good idea. Thoughts?
> 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.
I don't think your letter is intended to be a complaint either..., just that
it could be perceived as such. Written words can be treacherous! :] But
yes, work with Brad..., and I think my suggestion above helps in that regard.
> (an aside, adding my .02)
> Juniorization *is* a bad thing, if its not coupled with the same classic
[snip]
Agreed. Thanks for expanding on your beliefs too. All I saw
was "juniorization is bad". I thought you meant "in any case", but clearly
now you did not.
> 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.
Well, again, I've done that "research" and reinforced my opinions. I think
I've put myself on both sides well enough to make a judgement call. I don't
spend forever at it anymore than I do considering a decision in my daily
business. And I can see we're talking 2 different "big pictures" here.
Your's includes TLC, but largely as it relates to LUGNET. Mine was thinking
of TLC globally, and what significance *some* of LUGNET's issues have in that
scope, and then flavoured with the practicality of it being a large company
with limited time to focus on *everything*, so they have to prioritize.
(Great run-on sentence). Either way, we have different thoughts about it.
Mine are probably just tempered with a more business-oriented view of things,
and with LUGNET's importance in the greater scheme of things in life not being
as high on my personal list as it is for others.
> 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.
And that's what I wanted to hear (as someone who *would* like to put my name
on the letter after getting to review it).
> 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.
Well, I don't underestimate the seriousness of collectors at all. I've only
approached this hobby hap-hazardly, as I've stumbled back to it just last year
for the first time since I was little. But I now have over US$4000 of LEGO
sitting in my apartment right now just from purchases this year! (And I'm not
certain I'm particularly proud of that fact...) I've been following and
participating on LUGNET long enough that I've seen the full spectrum of LEGO
fans out there, from the person who's just gathering some fun things to share
with their kids, to the full blown entrepreneur who's out to combine their
livelhood with their favourite hobby. You don't need to justify this hobby's
existence or your interest in it to me. Just because I disagree with you on
some aspects of bringing that hobby closer to the real business world (TLC),
doesn't mean I'm against you or it or anyone else. Remember, just opinions.
However...
...I would counter your reasoning of "Lego is the lifeblood of many people".
C'mon, in the big scheme of things?? No way. On LUGNET, yes, there are
probably quite a number. Are they in the majority, I dunno (anyone want to do
a survey?). But on the planet? Absolutely no way. Miniscule percentage.
Not necessarily insignificant, but certainly very tiny. And even in sales
dollars, with waaaaay disproportionately higher spending on LEGO than most
consumers (including my own lunacy), it's still tiny. Those people who make
money from the hobby (and I'm bordering on being one of them, BTW) do so at
their own risk. You can make some suggestions to TLC, that in the long run
may both improve your enjoyment and your profit. Slowly, they'll implement
some (bulk ordering) and things will get a little better. But if they are not
going at the pace you want, or just simply disagree with your ideas, then you
can't badger them. They have a far, far bugger market to worry about than
yours (there's my global scope again). Yes that "serious collector" market is
very important, and certainly worth listening to, and taking input from. But
ultimately the company is free to do whatever it pleases, for better or worse
on either side. (They're purpose is not to serve a hobby market..., they're a
toy company. But they're probably only just now coming to realize that the
hobby market is indeed a very important aspect of their business. They're
just a little unsure how to handle it.)
I've just said all that for one purpose, to put things into perspective: life
is too short <duh!> Losing sleep over things like this is, IMHO, silly...,
for me. That's not a judgement call against anyone else here, just my own
personal valuation. Yes, work with TLC, and I'd like to help as much as I
can. But please, don't let it get you so riled up that it affects your life
that much. In my opinion, the only people who should ever do so are the
actual employees of TLC. They're the ones with the real stake in things, as
their job hangs in the balance. Passion is good..., just don't lose grip on
the reins, kay? :]
> 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.
Well, again, (and I'm hearing echos from others), don't presume that only "a
few" differ in opinion..., or that by being only a few, they don't matter so
much. And thus don't presume that a letter can be delivered as representing
LUGNET, and/or all its members. I think all of your efforts and intentions
are a good thing. But you asked openly for feedback, and I gave my opinions,
some of which differ from yours. Hey, what can ya do.
I'm more than happy to "sign" something once I get to see it, and if I agree
with it for the most part. And at the risk of sounding hyprocritical, it
actually doesn't really matter to me at all what you choose to send to TLC,
and how you choose to send it. Because yes, it *is* all meant in good
intentions. But also because, good results or not, my enjoyment of this hobby
is not affected appreciably, and my life goes on happily one way or the
other. As you observed, some people will be more heavily affected. My
opinions were merely my bit-part in helping, by responding to your call your
input. Largely all of this has been for me a presentation of "well, if it was
*me* going to do this, here's what *I* would do". Maybe you really didn't
find it that useful, as you say. Shoot, I can't help that really, but I still
wish you nothing but the best with it.
Anyhow, I think I'm finished with this thread..., I've got too many things to
get caught back up on now :] (Do you realize I've had the M-Falcon for
almost 2 months and *still* haven't opened it!) Again, I wish you luck.
Please keep us all posted. Hopefully improved direct dialogue with Brad will
negate the whole requirement for the letter, but in the (unfortunate) event
that it doesn't, please keep us all informed. I'd certainly like to have the
opportunity to put my name to it.
Thanx, Tim,
KDJ
________________________________________________________________
Kyle D. Jackson, P.Eng., Windsor, Ontario, Canada, LUGNETer #203
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| "Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatic...mblock.ca> wrote in message news:Fzo378.B5@lugnet.com... (...) Ok, I apologize that I did claim that, it didn't appear to me that you were seeing the entire thing, and I made a misjudgment. (...) has (...) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| (...) I have to agree with Kyle on this one, Tim. And I think my sample set of [Fortune 1000 sized company VP's and above] that I've personally had to deal with is a bit larger than yours, Tim. Going up without involving the person you're going up (...) (24 years ago, 22-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: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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
