Subject:
|
Re: LEGO is listening! (was...are you listening?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:00:56 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1208 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Mike Timm writes:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:01:57 GMT, "Ben Gatrelle"
> <ben@yellowcastle.spam.com> wrote:
>
> > While I do not work for TLC as Ashley does, I wonder if you would be
> > satisfied if they had an auto reply system setup to automatically send a
> > message like, "Thank you for contacting LEGO Direct. While we value your
> > comments and questions we are unable to respond to each email personally. Be
> > assured we do read each email and want to thank you for contacting us."
> > whenever any email was sent to legodirect@lego.com ?
> >
> > It would be pretty easy to implement something like this. Of course the
> > question is, "Is a form letter response better than no response at all?"
> >
> > BEN GATRELLE
>
> I don't work for LEGO either, but until the time that Brad J. showed
> up it was impossible to find a publicly acknowledged EMAIL address AT
> ALL, let alone get a reply. So this is already a step in the right
> direction.
I have to correct you and others reading this part of the thread. The
*FIRST* person with a Lego repliable email address was the manager of the
Potomac Mills Lego Outlet store. According to what I've heard (first hand
mind you, and when it happened,) Mr. Justice lost a gasket when Buffie (MS.
Shervington) posted to Lugnet in response to questions about the store. This
apparently *forced* Mr. Justice into posting to Lugnet, and thus history is
as we see it.
> I assume that this was partly to avoid getting sued over
> "I sent this idea in then a year later here's this theme that I sent
> in on the shelves" type lawsuit. The other part I suspect is lack of
> desire/reconition of the need to interact with us on the 'net. Well
> this is *MY* take on the whole deal. So would a auto-responder even
> BE a good idea? I sure don't know, that's for LEGO to decide, so far
> it hasn't been implemented.
As far as I know, TLC still is a little fuzzy/hesitant about having a
*relationship* with AFOL's. They are an independant company that has kept
it's independance without stocks or market shares, and concievably wants to
stay that way, let alone have to listen to a small percentage of consumers,
(that is TLC opinion of us AFOLs, not ours).
Am I happy Mr. Justice has corrispondence with us? Sure am. But Mr. Glennon
is correct in his assessment of the situation; no one is sure who or how TLC
should respond in this forum. It appears to be harder and harder not for
someone who works for TLC not to respond. But then, it's just as hard for
them to respond correctly (and not risk termination), and thus time and
point are lost, and ultimately the post goes unsent.
<snip>
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (My views do not necessarily express the
views of my employer...)
BRICKFEST 2001 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER... START MAKING PLANS TODAY.
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.wamalug.org &
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/1334
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
*****
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LEGO is listening! (was...are you listening?)
|
| (...) Thanks for the correction Richard, you have heard of "fuzzy logic"? I sometimes have "fuzzy memory" :^) (...) That is pretty much the point I was trying to make, more or less, well the hesitant part anyways. (...) I am also happy that Mr. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LEGO is listening! (was...are you listening?)
|
| (...) I don't work for LEGO either, but until the time that Brad J. showed up it was impossible to find a publicly acknowledged EMAIL address AT ALL, let alone get a reply. So this is already a step in the right direction. I assume that this was (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
