Subject:
|
Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Dec 1999 21:36:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1600 times
|
| |
|
|
Suzanne-
I acutally have to disagree with your comment here.
If they wanted to keep this information confidential, then they would not have
released ANY of the information given to us, by means of a thrid part
correspondent, or by someone directly within the company. I don't think that
our reputation as LEGO® users is, at any degree, in jeopardy due to the
release of information.
Besides, the adult LEGO® user group arena is so insignificant to the number of
children who use their product, that it probably would not effect their
marketing goals or strategies.
My 2 cents worth.
-jeremy
In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> In lugnet.announce, Huw Millington writes:
> > A correspondent has sent me this list, taken from the international
> > retailers catalogue.
> >
> > Scans of interesting pages showing new sets can be seen at:
>
> [confidential internal LEGO Company info snipped]
> >
> > Huw
>
> Huw,
>
> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your correspondent
> (name?) neglected their responsibility to inform you that the information
> passed
> along to you was meant only for retailers and then only for ordering purposes.
> The retailer catalog is traditionally a closely guarded item, never meant for
> public (including competitor) consumption.
>
> As a truly good intentioned LEGO enthusiast, I am asking you to remove these
> illegal scans from internet publication and also ask Todd to delete your
> previous post. This is in response to my desire to keep the delicate
> relationship between adult online enthusiasts and the LEGO Company intact. It
> also is protective of smaller retailers and of the LEGO Company itself. I could
> go into a discussion of why what you have done is against the interest of the
> company, but I'll save it -- assuming you agree with the above.
>
> Please excuse my curt reaction, but I am quite stunned and alarmed.
>
> -Suz.
>
> These words are my own and in no way represent the position of MIT Media Lab.
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) I'll echo Jeremy's position. I know that TRU in Victoria has the retail catalog out on the end of the shelf. All it is is a full description of what a retail outlet can order from lego. The price sheet is -not- part of it, and that is the only (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) And I with yours, at least the last part... (...) I've purchased more LEGO in the last 6 months as an AFOL, than I did in 15 years as a kiddy. AFOLS _are_ a sizable portion of the market share. Afterall, who else is going to steer the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) Jeremy, with all due repect, you're missing the point. If heads of the LEGO Company wanted their retailer catalog to be publicly available, they most certainly could publish it online all by themselves. But first, I think they would distribute (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) There are layers of confidentiality, obviously. I believe this is a breach of the layer between the retailer and the customer. BTW, I wouldn't assume that sending out retailer catalogs qualifies as "releasing" information. Retailer catalogs (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) I aggree with this. the hollywood news sites regularly post "insider gossip" on the latest hollywood films so why shouldn't we post pictures of this dealers catalog. If someone has scans then that is ok. -- Jonathan Wilson (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) [confidential internal LEGO Company info snipped] (...) Huw, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your correspondent (name?) neglected their responsibility to inform you that the information passed along to you was meant (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
