Subject:
|
Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:12:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1845 times
|
| |
|
|
"Kyle D. Jackson" <flightdeck@sympatico.deletethisspamblock.ca> wrote in
message news:Fzo378.B5@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Tim Courtney writes:
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Ok. Well, if this letter does take place (I'll explain further down), I
will definitely be careful in 'going up' of any sort, to make it positive
for everyone, even those I'm going above.
> 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 think that's a really good idea too. I'm planning on writing Brad an
email when I get done with this.
> 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.
About the letter in general - whether it will happen, be necessary etc. I
spoke with Todd today further on this issue (we've been discussing it
privately over some period of time). I will be speaking with some people at
TLC later this week (set up before this incident) and will certainly discuss
these matters and at the least get contacts and get guidance on where and
who to talk to about this. I will also be attempting to prompt dialog with
Brad and see if he's willing to open up some discussion with some of us.
So, starting to work with Brad might make the letter unnecessary.
> 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.
Right.
> > 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).
Great!
> ...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.
I never implied on the planet, but I suppose I never implied 'just within
Lugnet' or 'among AFOLs' either. That's what I meant, though.
> 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.)
Yep. Well, Brad did say 'we're getting it,' which is hopeful. I'm
definitely there to help the process with TLC learning the communication -
I'm eager to see the benefits and eager to work with them myself, and to do
anything I can to help them work with the community. I've had a good
experience working with them the little bit I already have.
> 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'll try not to :)
> 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.
Yup, I understand.
> 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.
Well, I think that I do owe you an apology for the way that I have responded
to you here. As we've both acknowledged, I, along with others here, have
been a bit emotional on this issue, and your post did spark additional
emotion in me. Still, no excuse, and I'm sorry. Thanks for offering your
perspective here, after reading this last one and understanding you more, it
has been helpful.
> 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!)
Wow! Well, then again I don't blame you, its not a very good model! ;)
> 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.
Yup. I'm definitely going the dialogue route first. I hope that from these
discussions and perhaps private emails sent by people with frustrations we
can see that Brad and Lego Direct are more willing to talk with us in the
future.
See ya...
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114
AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Formal Letter to TLC?
|
| (...) Hey, don't worry about it Tim. I can certainly understand where you're coming from. Besides, I probably shouldn't have just jumped in of the blue into a hot topic in a new group that suddenly. I've been in enough forums to know that well (...) (24 years ago, 24-Aug-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
