Subject:
|
Re: Open letter to the CEO of the LEGO Company / Call for your signs! (no discussions here please)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.color, lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:31:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
361 times
|
| |
|
|
I didn't snip anything, so this whole post is rather long...
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> _________________________________________________________ February 2005
>
> To Mr. Jørgen Vig Knudstorp
> CEO of LEGO Company
> Billund
> Denmark
>
> Dear Mr. Knudstorp,
>
> we are writing to you, the highest authority of LEGO Company, in order to
> express a matter of utmost importance for our community. We, the signatories of
> this letter, form the group of Adult Fans Of LEGO® (AFOLs). Some of us have
> children who play with LEGO® toys but most of us build models with LEGO® bricks
> ourselves. Until recently, we have been the biggest fans of your products. Now,
> however, our enthusiasm for your products has been put extremely at risk because
> we are calling a decision into question that was made by the LEGO Company which
> is of great importance for us.
>
> The issue that has stirred up anger over the past year, is the fact that within
> LEGO Company a wrong decision has been taken, namely the break of a tradition
> which had existed for the past 40 years - the continuity of the
> SYSTEM colours.
>
> New tones e.g. grey, dark-grey and brown, as well as some other, less important
> tones have been added to the product range at the beginning of year 2004. This
> measure has caused great offence through the fact that long-established colours
> were abandoned at the same time and are now no longer used in new sets. From
> this decision, countless problems for collections and self-created models occur.
> These problems have been discussed in detail at www.Lugnet.com. You can find
> extracts of these discussions at the end of this letter.
>
> Through the change of the colours we find ourselves extremely restricted in
> exercising our hobby as we are used to and thus are even more annoyed about this
> - in our eyes - unnecessary and quite badly thought-out decision. This topic has
> been troubling us for more than one year now and has lead to strong negative
> emotional reactions.
>
> The relationship of LEGO Company to its fans has never been as good as today,
> the same holds true for the model palette. The possibilities we, the AFOLs, have
> today - be it the buying opportunities or the participation in
> product development - are simply incredible ("Bulk-order", "S@H",
> "pick-a-brick-wall", "My Own Creation", "Community development team"). We had
> never thought all this possible just a few years ago. And we are extremely
> grateful for all these opportunities, but unfortunately these praiseworthy
> achievements turn into almost nothing through the decision of stopping the
> production of the important colours. Even the most beautiful set that is
> achievable on the market now is completely useless for us as source for building
> an own model of it as our partly huge brick collections are full of bricks of
> the old colours which do not match with the new colours.
>
> We found out that LEGO Company still produces sets which were introduced before
> 2004 and which accordingly contain the "old" SYSTEM colours. At present,
> production machines run parallel and produce the same elements in both colour
> shades (old and new). We are therefore of the opinion, the time would be right
> to stop the further application of the new colours now since these are widely
> not accepted among customers. We agree with the decision to limit the colour
> palette to prevent it from growing to infinity. We find that the time is right
> to stop the production of the new colours and to reactivate the production of
> the old colours. It would cause LEGO company no trouble at all since all
> resources are available until today: production machines, stocks and granulate.
> By the discontinuation of the new unloved colours, resources would be set free.
>
> Through the measure of taking back the colour change, you would earn our
> greatest respect which would be mirrored clearly in our purchase behaviour and
> our picture we have of the brand LEGO!
>
> We call upon you, Mr. Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, to take action now!
> Give us back our SYSTEM of grey, dark-grey and brown!
>
> Signature (age), place (state), approximate annual budget before 2004,
> approximate budget for 2004, (optional data)
> (example for sign)
> LEGO®-Fan A. Smith (33), city, (state), much money in 2003, less money in 2004
>
>
>
>
> APPENDIX (some statements from the LUGNET-discussions):
>
> Main arguments against the colour change:
> "weakening of the LEGO® SYSTEM through such a drastic alteration is bad"
> "incompatibility of warm, old, and cold new colours"
> "restricted use of the new colours because of incompatibility"
> "new part shapes are not available in old colours, old part shapes are not
> available in new colours"
> "new colours are too similar to the ones of cheap competitors (Megabloks)"
> "old colours appear yellowish beside the new (bluish) colours - this makes them
> look worn"
> "unnecessary alteration, as the questioning of teen LEGO®-Fans has shown"
>
> Minor but still serious problems:
> "sorting"
> "hard to see differences at bad light"
> "contradictory communication about the purpose of the changeover"
> "it seems that LEGO Company itself is not convinced about the change towards
> bluish colours as it does not promote it in public"
> "rejection of the new grey because it appears to look military-like"
> "exactly the clearness of the new colours is their disadvantage: steel-grey is
> not suitable for building rocks, reddish brown is not suitable for most shades
> of rust and wood"
In essence, your objection is simple; you do not care for the new colors. Your
reasons may be complex and numerous, but if your intent is to communicate your
displeasure, then an 850+ word letter will seem more like a rant than a reasoned
request for change. You would be better served by a concise expression of your
dissatisfaction than by an extensive enumeration of your individual grievances.
Beyond that, there are a several stylistic points worth considering.
Your claim that this is an issue of "utmost importance" seems bombastic and will
likely cause the letter's subsequent arguments to be ignored. The phrase
"extremely at risk" has the same effect and only amplifies the hyperbole,
especially considering that you use the word "extremely" three times in the
letter. Additionally, you should identify your specific grievance in the
opening paragraph (traditionally but not always in the last sentence of that
paragraph).
I don't think that Mr. Knudstorp will buy (or care about) your argument that the
new colors restrict AFOL creativity. I held a similar view regarding Bionicle,
yet many AFOL's have since made remarkable use of what I would previously have
called single-use pieces. Based on this precedent alone, your complaint will
seem weak and certainly won't inspire a massive change in production.
Your inclusion of extracts from LUGNET discussions is problematic. IIRC some
people in those discussions expressed approval for the new colors, and your
omission of these voices creates a sense of dishonest communication. This will
undermine the credibility of your complaint. You also speculate that the
palette of colors might increase to infinity; this is clearly an exaggeration
and undermines the sincerity of your complaint.
It's a mistake of presumption to advise Mr. Knudstorp re: the proper course for
the company to take. Your opinions may be strongly held, but they grant you no
particular authority, even if bolstered by many signatures, when Mr. Knudstorp
can look at overall increased revenue and thereby ignore your plea.
If you intend to go through with this, then I suggest that you pare the letter
down quite a bit, certainly to fewer than 300 words or so. Since this is at its
root a business proposal, you should take care to use proper grammar (a decision
is not generally "taken," for example, as in paragraph two) and avoid non
sequitur. For example:
"The relationship of LEGO Company to its fans has never been as good as today,
the same holds true for the model palette."
In addition to being a run-on (that comma should be a semicolon), the sentence
doesn't really make sense. Do you mean that the relationship of the LEGO
Company to its model palette has never been as good as today? Or the
relationship of the model palette to the fans? Such a lack of clarity will not
aid your case.
You should also shun colloquialism and excessive listing of products or
policies, and by all means avoid hyperbole. Your tone should be formal, polite,
and non-demanding. Steer clear of the terms "wrong," "bad," and "anger," all of
which are negative and argumentative.
I don't mean to seem overly critical of your writing, and I'm not trying to be
nit-picky. You feelings about this issue are obviously strong enough to inspire
you to draft a letter, so it would be unfortunate if those strong feelings
worked against your goal.
Dave!
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
