Subject:
|
Re: Lego direct for castle ...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:31:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2389 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:26:46 GMT Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote
concerning 'Re: Lego direct for castle ...':
> It's interesting. When writing about the historical way TLC has ignored AFOLs,
> people tend to make two rants:
>
> 1. There aren't enough AFOLs to make a financial impact on TLC.
> 2. TLC won't offer direct parts ordering, because then nobody would buy the
> sets.
>
> I never really thought about it before now, but these two positions are mutually
> exclusive. So which is it? Do we make a difference to TLC, or not? I'm
> guessing we do. Perhaps in indirect ways (primarily, we influence other people
> to buy more LEGO sets), but we do have an impact.
heh, that's a very good point, and I think you're right. The two
positions are mutually exclusive. IMO, AFOLs do not make an impact on
TLC with the sets we buy (though it does seem like a lot of money to
us), but we do create a noticable amount of advertising for LEGO and
TLC, thus generating more sales. I wish we could see if there was any
surge in calls for S@H after the GATS show this weekend - we gave out
100s of S@H cards there...
:)
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lego direct for castle ...
|
| [x-post and FUT lugnet.general] (...) It's interesting. When writing about the historical way TLC has ignored AFOLs, people tend to make two rants: 1. There aren't enough AFOLs to make a financial impact on TLC. 2. TLC won't offer direct parts (...) (27 years ago, 29-Feb-00, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.general)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
