Subject:
|
Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Dec 1999 00:14:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2099 times
|
| |
|
|
Ok, I haven't read the whole thread yet, though I've gone to the site,
looked at the pictures, read a little more... looked a little more..
tell me just how is this any different than the pictures of the catalog
we've already gotten a look at? the pictures in some cases are almost
identical.. So what's the big deal? he's not showing us the whole page
from the catalog, just the set pictures. We aren't getting any
information other's haven't already compiled.. There's already been a
thread on prices from TRU. So we are just getting prices for all the
sets, No biggie, we'd find it all out anyway.
I'm behind Huw here, I don't see any reason why they should be pulled.
If that's the case, then the 2000 catalog on Brickshelf should be
pulled. How far do we want to take this???
Just my .02 cents worth...
Tamy
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Jeremy Rear writes:
> > 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.
>
> 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 contain private information
> intended for retailers only and are quite different from consumer product
> catalogs.
>
> > I don't think
> > that our reputation as LEGO® users is, at any degree, in jeopardy due to
> > the release of information.
>
> You don't think it makes fans on the net look bad when something like this
> happens? Illegally leaked scans on the net? What then, do you think it
> makes fans look good? All the net-enabled employees at LEGO sitting around
> all impressed by how quickly fans can amass and distribute information? Is
> that how it looks?
>
> No. Again, the retailer catalogs contain private LEGO Company information,
> shared under certain conditions with retailers.
>
> Retailers aren't even supposed to show these catalogs to customers. In fact,
> employees at the MoA LIC have said in the past that they could even lose
> their *jobs* for showing a retailer catalog to customers. Obviously, these
> are things that TLC does not want wide out in the open, much less prior to
> product delivery and launch.
>
> Perhaps a lurking TLC or ex-TLC employee who has worked retail could shed
> some light on this debate if it didn't involve divulging any TLC-confidential
> 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.
>
> c /effect/affect
>
> The adult fan base may be insignificant compared to the total number of
> purchasers of LEGO products, but it certainly isn't insignificant in the
> realm of the Internet. Not when potentially any number of people can come
> visit a site. In any case, even if it had no impact, does that make it
> right? (Again, Huw deserves benefit of the doubt that his correspondent
> neglected his/her responsibility to inform Huw that the information passed
> along was confidential.)
>
> In my *personal* opinion as a fan (and not as a representative of LUGNET),
> I think that seeing these appear is truly wonderful for fans. But in my
> professional opinion -- for what it's worth -- this is NOT a good thing
> to jump the gun like this.
>
> --Todd
--
Keep on Bricken'
-Tamy
Follow the bouncing boxes!
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/jambalaya.html
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/
http://mookie.iwarp.com/ (mirror site)
Lego isn't a toy, it's a way of life!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) Maybe they shouldn't; I don't know. Suzanne's really the expert in this area, not me. But I certainly trust her opinion 100%, given what I know about what she knows. At any rate, my original point anyway was that scans of a retailer catalog (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: COMPLETE LIST OF NEW SETS FOR 2000
|
| (...) Did you look at the site BEFORE or AFTER Huw pulled out the scans of sets that are NOT in the 2000 catalog scanned by Kevin Loch? Yesterday afternoon when Huw first uploaded his scans there were pictures of dozens of 2000 sets that have not (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
