 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, "Brad Justus" <legodirect@lego.com> writes:
> To LEGO enthusiasts everywhere:
>
> We hope that we are the bearer of some holiday cheer for you all. For those of
> you who have felt that your love for LEGO was unrequited, this is a new day.
> With this missive, the LEGO Company asks to open a dialogue with you, our
> consumers. Whether you are an AFOL, or a parent purchasing a first DUPLO set,
> or a KABOB (Kid with a Bunch of Bricks – we just made that up), here are some
> words that should gladden your hearts: We are listening. And more than that,
> we will endeavor to be very responsive to your needs and desires. We want to
> have the best possible relationships with all of you who want to have a
> relationship with us. That is what LEGO Direct – our new direct-to-you
> communications and commerce channel (which I am heading) is all about. LEGO
> Direct embraces all the company’s direct-to-consumer efforts on a global
> basis, both on- and off-line: Shop@Home, our Internet presence(s), e-commerce,
> LEGO clubs worldwide, community building activities, and more.
>
> In creating this new enterprise for the company, we take one more step towards
> reaching our strategic intent: we want to be the strongest brand in the world
> amongst families by the year 2005. It’s a very bold goal, and one that we
> believe we can reach – but only if we are capable of listening and responding
> to the people who buy our products. You. Hence the creation of LEGO Direct.
Brad and colleagues at LEGO Direct:
Wow! 8^) Not sure where to begin...
Reading through the flood of positive responses, it seems that with one
single post you have given hope to thousands of adult LEGO enthusiasts
online and to tens of thousands more down the road who will someday look
back upon this moment with much rejoicing. Your widely-scoped post is the
olive branch we have all hoped for so long would someday come.
Once again, Yes!! welcome to our little corner of the world! Take off your
coat, stay awhile -- and if we had some virtual hot mulled apple cider, I'd
offer that too. :-)
Don't worry too much about tracking any mud in. As I'm sure you've already
discovered, things can get a little crazy or crass here at times. But by
and large, I think you and your colleagues will feel comfortable having
dialogues with a surprisingly enthusiastic, creative, mature, and well-
intentioned crowd. I sincerely believe there exists no other group of
enthusiasts so truly devoted to a product and brand.
> As a first step, we at LEGO Direct want to participate actively in these
> newsgroups from now on – that is, if such participation is something that you
> want. Please realize that it will take some months for all our new efforts to
> be fully visible – we will be redesigning our entire Web operation (as well as
> our offline direct services), and intend to have the first release ready for
> you by late next Summer. But here’s a little preview that we think you’ll
> like: we are planning to make bulk ordering – albeit initially in a restricted
> format – available by then.
Wicked excellent! I've been running parts auctions for more than 5 years to
obtain certain parts in quantities, so even a "restricted format" sounds
like a delicious entrée to me. :-)
> We are right now in the process of establishing new office space in New York
> and expanding the LEGO Direct staff. It will take a little time, so please
> understand that we’re not yet able to handle a deluge of incoming e-mail – but
> we’ll be happy to engage in a dialogue with you in these forums. We will do
> our very best to respond to everything that we can in a timely manner. We want
> to be a company with whom you want to be involved. We want to be the company
> you’d like us to be. And to do that, we need your input. What do you love?
> What do you hate? How can we help you? Tell us – we want your input. We know
> you’ve got a lot to say – we’ve been reading your postings for a little while
> now. We are very encouraged by the commitment and intensity of the LEGO
> community online – and that includes AFOLs. Perhaps, if traffic warrants it,
> we ought to consider creating a new newsgroup (or simply reformat lugnet.dear-
> lego) to serve as the online communication-to-LEGO channel. It’s up to you.
Reformatting lugnet.dear-lego (by retroactively altering its charter) sounds
like a great idea to me (and to Suzanne). Anyone have any objections to
that?
I like the idea especially for the following reasons:
1. If people at Lego Direct are planning to read and participate actively
in at least one of the groups here, then lugnet.dear-lego is just as
good as any, IMHO.
2. If a group named something else were created, then lugnet.dear-lego
would probably still end up being used a lot of the time anyway by
people, since it's an inviting name and a top-level group.
3. Since lugnet.dear-lego is a top-level group, it is perfectly positioned
for additional subgroups later...if, when, and as appropriate.
4. Any additional focused subgroups of lugnet.dear-lego created down the
road would each be subscribeable via e-mail (as mailing lists) just like
any other lugnet newsgroup, which could be nice for people at Lego
Direct if the volume of traffic in the main .dear-lego group is high.
> We cannot tell you how excited we are to be working with you all. We hope you
> are equally encouraged by the renewed commitment we are making to you. We look
> forward to a very rewarding collaboration.
Encouraged indeed!
--Todd Lehman, co-founder & co-admin, LUGNET
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, admin@lugnet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> [...]
> Reformatting lugnet.dear-lego (by retroactively altering its charter) sounds
> like a great idea to me (and to Suzanne). Anyone have any objections to
> that?
>
> I like the idea especially for the following reasons:
>
> 1. If people at Lego Direct are planning to read and participate actively
> in at least one of the groups here, then lugnet.dear-lego is just as
> good as any, IMHO.
>
> 2. If a group named something else were created, then lugnet.dear-lego
> would probably still end up being used a lot of the time anyway by
> people, since it's an inviting name and a top-level group.
>
> 3. Since lugnet.dear-lego is a top-level group, it is perfectly positioned
> for additional subgroups later...if, when, and as appropriate.
>
> 4. Any additional focused subgroups of lugnet.dear-lego created down the
> road would each be subscribeable via e-mail (as mailing lists) just like
> any other lugnet newsgroup, which could be nice for people at Lego
> Direct if the volume of traffic in the main .dear-lego group is high.
How does this sound as a new charter for lugnet.dear-lego:
lugnet.dear-lego: Online communication-to-LEGO channel;
formal dialogues with the LEGO Company; suggestions,
opinions, likes & dislikes, questions, etc.
[Brad, is there anything in the text immediately above which should not be
encouraged (for example, product suggestions)? Or do you intend for LEGO
Direct to go the whole nine yards and become intimiately involved?]
--Todd Lehman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Reformatting lugnet.dear-lego (by retroactively altering its charter) sounds
> like a great idea to me (and to Suzanne). Anyone have any objections to
> that?
Not an objection, just a suggestion...
Until now, lugnet.dear-lego has been used as (to quote someone else)
essentially a "Dear Santa" group. No doubt there will still be times that
somone wants to say (scream, whine, throw) something at TLC without really
expecting a response, or feeling that it really needs the attention of someone
at Lego Direct. If the charter of lugnet.dear-lego changes to being the
channel in which people are trying to communicate directly with Lego, then
they're deprived of a place to do it (which is not, of course, to say that Brad
et al. won't *read* lugnet.dear-lego, just that people posting there aren't
*necessarily* expecting a response or to be taken 100% seriously).
If a new hierarchy is created, however, it leaves us with lugnet.dear-lego for
the purposes of railing away at the heavens or babbling about things we don't
expect to really see ("...but a James Bond theme would be so cool!") without
having to burden the good folks at Lego Direct with it. And on top of that, it
gives a fresh start to a new group where (semi-)serious communication with Lego
can begin.
Like I said, not an objection, just some points for consideration.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Lorbaat wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > Reformatting lugnet.dear-lego (by retroactively altering its charter) sounds
> > like a great idea to me (and to Suzanne). Anyone have any objections to
> > that?
>
> Not an objection, just a suggestion...
>
> Until now, lugnet.dear-lego has been used as (to quote someone else)
> essentially a "Dear Santa" group. No doubt there will still be times that
> somone wants to say (scream, whine, throw) something at TLC without really
> expecting a response, or feeling that it really needs the attention of someone
> at Lego Direct. If the charter of lugnet.dear-lego changes to being the
> channel in which people are trying to communicate directly with Lego, then
> they're deprived of a place to do it (which is not, of course, to say that Brad
> et al. won't *read* lugnet.dear-lego, just that people posting there aren't
> *necessarily* expecting a response or to be taken 100% seriously).
I agree totally :)
>
>
> If a new hierarchy is created, however, it leaves us with lugnet.dear-lego for
> the purposes of railing away at the heavens or babbling about things we don't
> expect to really see ("...but a James Bond theme would be so cool!") without
> having to burden the good folks at Lego Direct with it. And on top of that, it
> gives a fresh start to a new group where (semi-)serious communication with Lego
> can begin.
I think a new group is certainly warranted for this occasion. It would indeed
allow a "fresh start" and open a serious channel of communication. I would sugegst
a brand-new group too.
>
>
>
> Like I said, not an objection, just some points for consideration.
>
> eric
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
http://members.xoom.com/brickenplate/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Thomas Main writes:
> Lorbaat wrote:
> > Until now, lugnet.dear-lego has been used as (to quote someone else)
> > essentially a "Dear Santa" group. No doubt there will still be times that
> > somone wants to say (scream, whine, throw) something at TLC without really
> > expecting a response, or feeling that it really needs the attention of
> > someone at Lego Direct.
Like for kvetching or a whinging/whining? :-)
> > If the charter of lugnet.dear-lego changes to being the
> > channel in which people are trying to communicate directly with Lego, then
> > they're deprived of a place to do it (which is not, of course, to say that
> > Brad et al. won't *read* lugnet.dear-lego, just that people posting there
> > aren't *necessarily* expecting a response or to be taken 100% seriously).
>
> I agree totally :)
Hmm, sticky point.
> > If a new hierarchy is created, however, it leaves us with lugnet.dear-lego
> > for the purposes of railing away at the heavens or babbling about things
> > we don't expect to really see ("...but a James Bond theme would be so
> > cool!") without having to burden the good folks at Lego Direct with it.
> > And on top of that, it gives a fresh start to a new group where
> > (semi-)serious communication with Lego can begin.
>
> I think a new group is certainly warranted for this occasion. It would
> indeed allow a "fresh start" and open a serious channel of communication.
> I would sugegst a brand-new group too.
If Brad has no objections and could suggest a couple (or more, if he wants)
sub-group topic areas that he and/or his colleagues would find most helpful,
I'm all for turning it into a hierarchy and creating a new group, rather than
purely repurposing the existing group.
Can we think of some topical sub-groups of .dear-lego that we would like to
see? I think somebody mentioned a "top 10" wish-list...if it wasn't a joke,
then I'll bet at least 3 of those are common enough wishes to warrant whole
separate groups for each. I'm thinking of bulk purchases, for one. IIRC,
when Jeroen Ottens posted in February, that generated something like 400
messages across 2-3 threads, and most of that ended up being about bulk
purchases as a wish-list item. The AU/NZ inventory-scrapping thing a couple
months ago was another big deal.
Really, wow, though, it could conceivably expand to just about any number of
groups since there are so many things to talk about. Depends I guess on how
"deep" LD wants to get into things......
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I would think as a minimum we'd need:
dear-lego.bulk (requests to add a part to the service)
dear-lego.rant
dear-lego.sets (discuss what sets to rerelease, if that is ever a possibility -
by
rerelease, I mean the original set OR a remake like Metro/Retrostation)
dear-lego.legodirect (suggestions/improvement to, questions about Lego Direct)
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Thomas Main writes:
> > Lorbaat wrote:
> > > Until now, lugnet.dear-lego has been used as (to quote someone else)
> > > essentially a "Dear Santa" group. No doubt there will still be times that
> > > somone wants to say (scream, whine, throw) something at TLC without really
> > > expecting a response, or feeling that it really needs the attention of
> > > someone at Lego Direct.
>
> Like for kvetching or a whinging/whining? :-)
>
> > > If the charter of lugnet.dear-lego changes to being the
> > > channel in which people are trying to communicate directly with Lego, then
> > > they're deprived of a place to do it (which is not, of course, to say that
> > > Brad et al. won't *read* lugnet.dear-lego, just that people posting there
> > > aren't *necessarily* expecting a response or to be taken 100% seriously).
> >
> > I agree totally :)
>
> Hmm, sticky point.
>
> > > If a new hierarchy is created, however, it leaves us with lugnet.dear-lego
> > > for the purposes of railing away at the heavens or babbling about things
> > > we don't expect to really see ("...but a James Bond theme would be so
> > > cool!") without having to burden the good folks at Lego Direct with it.
> > > And on top of that, it gives a fresh start to a new group where
> > > (semi-)serious communication with Lego can begin.
> >
> > I think a new group is certainly warranted for this occasion. It would
> > indeed allow a "fresh start" and open a serious channel of communication.
> > I would sugegst a brand-new group too.
>
> If Brad has no objections and could suggest a couple (or more, if he wants)
> sub-group topic areas that he and/or his colleagues would find most helpful,
> I'm all for turning it into a hierarchy and creating a new group, rather than
> purely repurposing the existing group.
>
> Can we think of some topical sub-groups of .dear-lego that we would like to
> see? I think somebody mentioned a "top 10" wish-list...if it wasn't a joke,
> then I'll bet at least 3 of those are common enough wishes to warrant whole
> separate groups for each. I'm thinking of bulk purchases, for one. IIRC,
> when Jeroen Ottens posted in February, that generated something like 400
> messages across 2-3 threads, and most of that ended up being about bulk
> purchases as a wish-list item. The AU/NZ inventory-scrapping thing a couple
> months ago was another big deal.
>
> Really, wow, though, it could conceivably expand to just about any number of
> groups since there are so many things to talk about. Depends I guess on how
> "deep" LD wants to get into things......
>
> --Todd
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Can we think of some topical sub-groups of .dear-lego that we would like to
> see?
Just to clarify, my suggestion was meant to inspire the idea that a new hierchy
be established (ie, "lugnet.lego-direct", "lugnet.lego-direct.bulk", etc),
rather than skipping straight to segmenting lugnet.dear-lego. If the main
group in the dear-lego hierarchy were for railing/whinging/etc, would subgroups
logically be for railing/whinging/etc about more specific topics?
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > Can we think of some topical sub-groups of .dear-lego that we would like to
> > see?
>
> Just to clarify, my suggestion was meant to inspire the idea that a new
> hierchy be established (ie, "lugnet.lego-direct", "lugnet.lego-direct.bulk",
> etc), rather than skipping straight to segmenting lugnet.dear-lego.
This strikes me as a Good Idea.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
1: WAAHOO! (people have been looking at me funny since yesterday afternoon -
I just can' stop the occaisional WAAHOO! from coming out. :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> Just to clarify, my suggestion was meant to inspire the idea that a new
> hierchy be established (ie, "lugnet.lego-direct", "lugnet.lego-direct.
> bulk", etc), rather than skipping straight to segmenting lugnet.dear-lego.
> If the main group in the dear-lego hierarchy were for railing/whinging/etc,
> would subgroups logically be for railing/whinging/etc about more specific
> topics?
No, but in the case of splitting the group into subgroups, the original
charter wouldn't have to change. It's simply
lugnet.dear-lego: Open letters to the LEGO Group (not necessarily
to be read by anyone at LEGO)
and that doesn't necessarily mean that negative karma is the only thing
left over for that group after creating subgroups...there's still plenty
of all kinds of things.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Thomas Main <main@appstate.edu> wrote:
> > they're deprived of a place to do it (which is not, of course, to say
> > that Brad et al. won't *read* lugnet.dear-lego, just that people posting
> > there aren't *necessarily* expecting a response or to be taken 100%
> > seriously).
>
> I agree totally :)
Yeah, I'm usually not a big fan of "me too" posts, but this is gonna be one,
because I'm too tired for anything else. So:
Yeah, me too.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Lorbaat wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > Reformatting lugnet.dear-lego (by retroactively altering its charter) sounds
> > like a great idea to me (and to Suzanne). Anyone have any objections to
> > that?
>
> Not an objection, just a suggestion...
>
> Until now, lugnet.dear-lego has been used as (to quote someone else)
> essentially a "Dear Santa" group. No doubt there will still be times that
> somone wants to say (scream, whine, throw) something at TLC without really
> expecting a response, or feeling that it really needs the attention of someone
> at Lego Direct.
Let's make a lugnet.rant group, then, for people who feel like ranting at
nobody in particular. I think lugnet.dear-lego is just too perfect to
pass up as a channel to LEGO direct.
-Laura's 2 cents
| | | | | | |
