Subject:
|
Re: Stunning new Maersk set?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 2004 07:07:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1418 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
Oh, I'll take one more swing at this one, and I promise, I'll move this to the
rtlToronto NG where we can snark privately :)
> Its not sad, its life. Or rather business. if you have a limited commodity,
> expect it. If you dodn't expect it, go back to business school. Sure its a
> toy, but a really popular toy.
Yeah, but the company is not in the business of selling TOYS. To say "its
business" doesn't excuse us from not pestering them. It's business to clean up
the shelves in a department store at night. It doesn't mean we can go and mess
up all the shelves.
> So, umm.. in this thread the only pestering of an outside company was from you
> several years ago to velum, which up until you brought it up, hadn't been
> discussed. Ranting here on Lugnet may be annoying to other Lugnetters, but I
> can't classify it as pestering Lego.
First, I'm sure it's not the first time someone has called Maersk about these
Lego sets. Whether it's this new ship, the old trucks, etc. But I digress,
it's an example.
Pestering Lego is another thing: That's if there's no one from Lego reading
these groups. But there are. Of the 95% negative comments in the last few
months, especially the ones decrying Lego in various forms like storming the
Consumer Affairs lines, returning opened sets, telling people in the aisles, do
you think that Lego staffers will see us in a positive light?
As earnest as Jake and others in the firm might be, sooner or later, someone's
gonna be fed up about it.
> If the best sest aren't made as widely available as possible than Lego is quite
> stupid. They are free to charge what the market will bear, but its just bad
> business to hold back. But probably some of these sets aren't actually the
> Lego has no god given right to annoy and frustrate its customers and expect
> silence. Again this is business. If the customer wants cool sets and cool sets
> are being deliberately kept away, than that is poor.
The best product, by whatever characteristic, isn't always the one that makes the most sense to sell. We don't know ANY of the factors of whether or not the Maersk set is profitable or popular enough to justify the cost of bringing it to market.
AFOLs make a very poor assumption that they know best for the markets Lego is
in. I for example, love the 4030 Cargo Carrier. What a beautiful set! Many
people like the exact same set for many reasons: Cool pieces, European design,
nice colours, perceived playability etc. I wanted one as a kid, wanted one as
an adult, and finally got one a few years ago. But ask a kid on the street: My
friends children think it's as boring as hell! It's a container ship!?! Why
would we want that?!
We take our own values (which we think are important) and superimpose them onto
what we want to see Lego do. Do you know, given the hundreds of thousands of
children, how many would rather have a scale accurate model of a containership
vs a Bionicle or a Clikits jewellry set? If you don't, then you can't really
say, "its bad business to hold back" the set. You only have your gut feeling.
My railing against Ben is that he nor any of us know any better.
> Its not just AFOLs. Its fans of many types of products. Apple computers. Star
> Wars and Star Trek. Harley Davidson. All have a love of the product that goes
> beyond the product's fuction. Its called brand loyalty, and Lego is damn lucky
> to have it.
I don't at all. Fans rear their ugly traits as well.
You mistake brand loyalty for rabid fandom and fanaticism. There's a
difference. I might buy a new Ford because I had good experiences with our old
Taurus. Some might always say they only trust a Toyota or a Chevy or
whatever. But I'm not decrying Bill Ford Jr to step down for not releasing any
of the show cars he introduces at Detroit etc. I'm not personally slighted when
Ford killed off the Mercury marque. (At least here in Canada)
Fans/fanatics on the other hand have something more personal, more deep. And
that's not necessarily what a company wants. Because while they're out there
promoting your product in a very personable way, they've also invested
emotionally into it. They've got religion to sell, a vision to pitch. But when
you have rational reasons to change your marketing plan, your product direction,
your overall strategy, whatever, they think of it as a personal attack on them.
They won't accept you need to make correct business decisions. And they'll go
off telling people otherwise. That's a dangerous road to go down.
Star Trek has garnered a following which unfortunately now precedes anything
they do, primarily due to the extreme "loyalists". A Star Trek movie may have
some guaranteed moviegoers due to this, but they stand to lose many more
mainstream viewers based on the stigma that a Star Trek movie is for those who
need to "get a life" (tm William Shatner) who camp out in front of the theatre
in Vulcan ears. If you read the average magazine interview with a Star Trek
producer, the first comment they usually make is "We think even people new to
Star Trek will enjoy it", as if they had to sideswipe the issue up front.
Apple's vocal core audience of creative professionals hindered them for many
years-they were never taken seriously for anything but media applications and
still aren't, mainly due to perception of who their userbase is. Even if there
are plenty of noncreative Mac applications, many critics view Steve Jobs'
greatest pressure from shareholders is still increasing marketshare beyond their
traditional demographic.
Fortunately for now, the image of AFOLs is relatively benign and mostly
positive.
> Guess what. Your still like that, only now against the AFOLs.
Yeah, because this one goes against us personally. You see, I can't be bothered about what Lego will or will not do. I can't control that. But I am concerned about public perception about AFOLs. It's the kind of thing where I feel I have to apologize for the hundred-odd people who bothered poor old Mr Velux.
Because it looks bad on us. Real bad.
The Star Wars collectors who shove aside kids and buy up hundreds of action
figures, or even cariactures like the toy collector in Toy Story 2 or Comic Book
Guy on the Simpsons are not images I want to be associated with.
> I actually went to the website, and was reading about the skylights. Can you
> believe it. Well, I happen to have skylights in a house with bad windows... but
> thats a different story. Or is it? If I even for a second considered buying
> something from Velux, than they got their money's worth.
You see, there's another assumption in there: That you're the target audience
for those little houses. I made the EXACT same assumption when I called,
because we had bought $6000 odd dollars of new skylights. In fact, those houses
are for DISTRIBUTORS. Those are the people who buy HUNDREDS of windows, or
build entire subdivisions.
Was it worth it to Velux to sell me a house? No. not at all. Remember, we're talking relative worth here. Don't equate consumer marketing with industrial marketing. If it were Velux' plan to capitalize on the strength of the Lego brand, I would be reading a sticker on the shipping box that says "Free Lego House with Every Velux Window!". Lego's brand has nothing to do with buying windows, it's a freebie meant to amuse large customers. I get piles of free golf and t-shirts every year. Does the power of the Fruit of the Loom brand make me want to buy, say, Sun workstations? No, it's because I got this nifty shirt to wear while on the golf course.
> Dude, you need to ask yourself why your in this hobby if it embarrasses you. We
> all act a little stupid some time, give this guy a break. I think he flew of
> the handle a bit, too. Especially since we don't even know if we can get this
> set or not. But you know whats worse that an unthinking reactionary? Yup. The
> guy who argues with an unthinking reactionary.
>
> And you know whats worse than that?
>
> oh.. this post..
What disturbs me more, is that there are so MANY unthinking reactionaries on Lugnet. And no one to comment on it. I'll explain why this one got to me:
Ben's post, actually made the rounds at last Friday's rtlToronto dinner, with a
whole bunch of people shaking their heads about how stupid it was.
This really isn't about Ben, who has since recanted his comments, but that sort of mindset's gonna get us in trouble someday. As you say, posting on Lugnet and preaching to the choir is one thing, but I don't want to walk into TRU one day and be painted with same brush as the AFOLs who plan on telling customers publicly their beef with Lego.
I'd rather rtlToronto be seen as a group of creative and constructive
professionals instead of a bunch of obsessive weirdos with nothing better to do
than to inform the general public about (comic book guy voice) "bley" (nasal
laugh), for example.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Stunning new Maersk set?
|
| (...) Its not sad, its life. Or rather business. if you have a limited commodity, expect it. If you dodn't expect it, go back to business school. Sure its a toy, but a really popular toy. You think Lego fans are bad, what if they had an exclusive (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.general)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
