Subject:
|
Re: Perhaps Lugnet can grow into something better? was: I miss the old Lugnet
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Nov 2001 02:36:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1330 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> True enough. Since this is essentially a site whose content is driven by
> its users, then change should be anything that any of us can imagine.
One of the more untapped ideas I think we could try and play with more is to
think of it more as a database, and bring those aspects forward, like what
Jon Palmer did with .space discussions on his Galactic Shipyard. I thought
that was a great idea. Maybe the main theme pages could host links to major
or re-curring threads? I'd love to see a lot of ideas get revisited from
time to time, but going back and tracking down old threads isn't easy unless
there are enough 'tagwords' involved.
> The main reason I post so many critical posts about the LEGO company is that
> I dearly love their products and am nearly brought to tears by some of the
> fluff that they are trying to pass off in the last few years.
*snip*
Me too, I wasn't trying to say 'I think anyone who disagrees with Lego is a
baby and should shut up', I just think that a select few take it too far
sometimes, and the overall posture is feeling very negative lately.
> The main reason that I post so many critical comments here on LUGNET is that
> this seems to be the place that the LEGO company has chosen to listen to
> their customers. At least this is the only place they seem to make direct
> contact. Is there a similar user-based chat forum on their own website?
> No.
Actually, I think the new interactive changes to their website are a great
step that almost no other company has taken. From about 6 or 7 years ago up
until recently, I was an active Transformer collector, and I must say that
if Hasbro/Kenner made the kinds of open contact with fans that Lego has
taken, peoples' heads would have imploded with sheer glee.
> I've been a LEGO fan for more than a quarter of a century. That fact
> doesn't mean a lot, until you try to think of other companies that consumers
> continue to support for that length of time. When I was younger I always
> wore Levi's jeans and Nike shoes. I don't wear either anymore, but I still
> buy LEGO bricks.
And they need to realize that their success is not based on fad-related
concepts, but by mining their own unique paradigms. I was excited when I
heard they were starting a partnership with Lucasfilm to produce Star Wars
merchandise because it was like an impossible dream come true, but they have
taken on too many liscenses and are losing their own personality. This is
going to damage their reputation more than they probably want, and I hope it
is profitable enough to make them a force again, but I wonder how long it
can continue before the name Lego is watered-down so much it means nothing.
> They are indeed people. But if they don't work harder at being a solid,
> money-making company then they may someday cease to exist. Then it won't
> matter whether or not we were nice to them.
I still believe that the reason they were losing so much was not from poor
sales of their base product, but from trying to get their fingers into too
much silly fringe stuff that had nothing to do with actual construction bricks.
They seem to be cooling off on that stuff, and they have an amazing classic
line running, with more and more high-end master level sets. I think they
know what they did wrong, and while Jack Stone may suck *really* hard, I
doubt we'll have to suffer its presence long.
> We are the customers and the parents of the customers who keep the company
> in business and keep its employees working. We should be treated like gold;
> much more spoiled than a spoiled child.
lol... I agree with the concept, yet I think that Lugnet AFOLs still
overvalue themselves a bit sometimes. Lego has been making some great
efforts to acknowledge our worth, but they have also made it clear that
everyday kids are still the vast percentage of their market and sales.
I'm not saying we don't matter, in fact if they handed over the company to
us, I bet they would see much better profit. Honestly. But that isn't
going to happen, and it just seems like some people forget that.
> fail to make money, and eventually fail to exist as a company. If I was
> running a company like that, and my customers weren't happy (even a few of
> them) then I'd want to know.
Sure, that's smart. I really was not focusing on everyone who disagrees
with decisions Lego has made. I was just saying that I have seen some
pretty vitriolic attacks against them, and we should keep in mind that we'll
win more bees with honey. Lego should listen to us, yes. Do they have to?
Nope... and if we come off as jerks it makes it harder for those in the
company who know they should to justify it to those that don't.
> > Is that the public image we want Lugnet to have?
>
> We do want LUGNET to be realistic don't we? We don't just all want to
> dislocate our elbows congratulating each other about how much we love the
> new sets from LEGO each year?
No where in my post did I even allude to such a thing. Its a funny mental
image tho.
cheers!
Joel "The goose-stepping Legonazi" Kuester
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
