Subject:
|
Re: Perhaps Lugnet can grow into something better? was: I miss the old Lugnet
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Nov 2001 00:19:07 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
1408 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.general, Joel Kuester writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> 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.
I think the main reason that some of it is so negative (and I'm guilty of
that) is that some of the products are plain and simple crap.
I've made this analogy before, but I'll make it again. Not telling the LEGO
company how bad some of their products are, is like not telling an alcoholic
that the bottle of beer in his hand is his problem.
> > 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.
But the LEGO company seems to have decided that LUGNET is a better forum for
reaching its fans than its own website. Announcements get made here before
they get made on LEGO.com. This makes no business sense whatsoever. It
sends the message that if you're not in the loop already, then why should we
bother to try to bring you into it?
> > 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.
100% agreement with you on this point! They need to see both ahead and
behind. They need to think about what made their products great at one time
and try to extrapolate that into the future.
> 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.
At this rate it may one day be nothing more than a distribution network and
not an actual manufacturing company.
> > 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.
Again, I couldn't agree with you more on this point.
LEGO = bricks
And that doesn't mean that we can't have specialty pieces. What that means
is that LEGO does not equal watches or backpacks or writing utensils.
> 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.
The fact that Jack Stone may be retired soon isn't all that comforting. What
I want to know is who was the person that gave the go ahead in the first
place for this series? I'm serious, I'd really like to know. This series
clearly looks more like Megablocks than anything LEGO represents. Can't
anyone else see the resemblance of the Jack Stone minifigs to those that
Megablocks produces?
> > 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.
Notice that I included the parents of their customers. I agree that AFOL's
simply won't financially rescue the company. The same can be said for LEGO
Direct. It won't save the company. But putting real, honest-to-goodness
bricks and fun back on the shelves of stores might just save the company.
They need to re-examine their products at a very low level. Pricing,
packaging, and for the love of Pete DESIGN! They need to design some decent
and respectable sets. I can't stress this enough.
> 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.
True enough. But it's also thought that sometimes the squeaky wheel gets
the oil. They are not in business to be our friends. Our friendship won't
pay the salaries of their employees. They are in business to make money.
They need to pay attention to all the wheels, squeaky or not, and need to do
it better than they are now. For us LEGO is a hobby - for the company it's
business.
> > > 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.
Sorry Joel. I didn't mean to imply that you'd alluded to such a thing.
That was my original thought and it just happened to land at the end of my
reply to your post. :) Sorry.
All the best,
Allan B.
> 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
|
|
|
|
