| |
In lugnet.color, Mark Jordan wrote:
> In lugnet.color, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
> > You're confusing the philosophy for a product line with the principles of a
> > company, and those are very different things. It's more accurate to say:
> > "changing a 20-year-old core color goes against the philosophy of the LEGO
> > product". I imagine the company's principles are quite intact, with profit
> > being a primary one. They chose what they felt was the best decision for
> > their product line in order to respect that principle. I doubt any of us
> > have real evidence that the net effects of that decision were poor.
>
> TLC is what it is today (for better {and} worse) by having more than just
> profit as a guiding principle. I am sure they made the change because they
> seriously believed it was an improvement, and I don't see how the change
> conflicts with their guiding principles.
I didn't say profit was their only principle, I said it was a primary one.
A company doesn't make changes just because they think it's an improvement.
That improvement has to cut costs or increase revenue (via increased
customer satisfaction thus increased sales volume and/or market share).
Money is always at the bottom line. Changes cost money, initially. Some
changes may pay back many times over what they cost. LEGO wouldn't make a
change just for "improvement" if it didn't have a good business case.
They'd be idiots if they did.
I'll say it again: LEGO can make all kinds of changes to the product
line(s), and still be true to their company principles. You can accuse them
of altering a long-standing philosophy for the product, but you can't be sure
they've changed/ignored their company principles. That's the point I was
trying to make.
KDJ
______________________________
LUGNETer #203, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
