Subject:
|
Re: 10152 Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:36:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7681 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
After reading the various whining about “broken promises” in this thread,
remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk
wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side effect
is, there’s enough left over for more sales to the public. LEGO looks at the
fact that this was a very good seller...
|
But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been
such a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased them
as collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought in mind.
|
Yes, I understand - but did LEGO position it as a collectible? Officially, on
their web site? I never read it that way. Jake’s post (I could dig it up if it
matters) clearly laid out that they were running the last of the existing Maersk
blue and they did not anticipate acquiring more of that color. I can’t see a lie
there. There was never anything stating that they would never run more - just
the aside (to AFOLs) that they were using all remaining Maersk blue. Any
assumptions of collectibility were made by purchasers, not LEGO - and I can’t
see how LEGO could’ve positioned it differently so some people wouldn’t assume
collectibility. Unless they didn’t tell the whole truth, of course, in which
case they’d be accused of lying by omission.
| |
I think the
whole matter would be solved in a nano second if TLC simply changed the
number or somehow made the new run tangibly different from the original.
This would require minimum effort and make everyone happy (except those who
were really hoping for the dark blue version, which may or may not appear).
|
Except maybe Maersk, who’s footing the major bill for the rerun, as I understand
it. You may want to have a different set, thereby maintaining the integrity of
a “collectible” but that apparently didn’t meet the needs of LEGO’s primary
customer for this product - Maersk.
| |
| |
Many people are looking at it from the standpoint of “LEGO is producing
collectibles, so they need to honor the implied promise of limited
availability.” Does LEGO look at their products that way? I don’t know, but
I doubt it.
|
If they had never said that Maersk blue would be gone forever after the last
run, I don’t think people would have any expectation of limited availability.
Therein lies the rub.
|
OK then... so the problem is the blue bricks, correct? But above you suggested
you’d be happy by LEGO changing the design or set number. Do you mean LEGO
recreating a Maersk Sealand set without Maersk blue? I wouldn’t think that
would meet the client’s need, personally.
| |
| |
Bricks are a commodity that they sell to people willing to buy
them. They don’t position them as collectibles[1] for the most part. And
even if they did, the only ones bothered are the speculators or people
looking for a reason to get upset with the company.
|
Generally speaking, yes, but in this case we are not talking about any random
set.
|
I’m not sure what the difference is between the Maersk Sealand, and say, the
ISD, or the Wright Flyer. Or any other number of sets.
| |
| |
Circumstances changed, making it possible for them to produce more of a
product that sold well.
|
Consider this scenario: BNSF now wants TLC to reissue the Sante Fe
locomotive numbered sets from 1-10,000 and they are willing to pay handsomely
for them to do so. Now, TLC never made any promises that they would never do
this. Should they?
|
Good question... I personally wouldn’t, were I the owner of that decision. In
that case, since the Sante Fe sets are numbered, there’s more grounds for an
assumption that they won’t reproduce the same number. But that’s their decision.
I’d hope they wouldn’t reproduce set numbers like that. But it’s really a
different situation from the generic Maersk Sealand set, IMO.
| |
| |
The only bad part is if they can’t produce different
colored versions of the set in the future - and at that, there was never any
guarantee that that would happen anyway. They asked AFOLs to pick some
colors out of courtesy to us.
LEGO asking our opinions is not an entitlement for AFOLs to expect special
treatment.
|
Well, I think you are on thin ice to defend TLC here. They clearly implied
that the winner of the color contest would be produced in that set. Yeah,
things change, but does that mean that TLC necessarily doesn’t have to keep
their word? It’s called integrity. “My word is my bond” and all of that
stuff.
|
What word? I don’t recall LEGO promising that, and I voted. If they did promise,
then I’d assume ALL polls are contracts that they would abide by. I’d want to
see all results tabulated, and be able to track how well they met their stated
obligation.
But they didn’t promise.
Soapbox alert, not directed at any one person, so don’t take it personally,
John... but I get terribly irritated when people (anyone) assumes that since
somebody asks their opinion, that person (or company) is then obligated to
follow the stated opinion. LEGO asking AFOL opinion on color (results of which I
heard were virtually 50/50) was a favor to us, and not something a whole lot of
companies would do. The way I took it, the poll was to help the decision-making
process on future color for the set, NOT to replace the decision-making
process.
I’m not saying LEGO hasn’t made mistakes, they’ve made plenty. But I don’t see
this as one of them.
| |
| |
What if LEGO made the decision to not release the new set to the public,
although they could’ve?
|
For what possible reason? Thinking it would be a big seller but deciding
not to offer it would be sheer lunacy. They are a business. Whoever
would make such a decision would be an idiot and should be sacked from the
company for incompetency.
| |
The same firestorm of criticism, certainly. There was
really no way for the company to please everybody in this.
|
Not so, as I explained above. The answer is quite simple, really. Actually,
it’s too bad that the first run didn’t use classic gray and classic brown.
Then the point would be moot as well...
|
Then it wouldn’t have been “Maersk Sealand” in the first place. Just “Sealand”.
| |
| |
So they made a
decision that earned them maximum profit, helping the bottom line.
|
Not “maximum” profit. Changing the set number or some such thing would
achieve that.
|
I thought it was the blue color that was the problem. If it wasn’t blue in the
first place, it wouldn’t be collectible, right?
Maybe I’m missing something that hasn’t been explicitly stated. I can’t see that
LEGO lied when they released the set, nor can I see how changed circumstances
that led to additional runs of this set implies LEGO is untrustworthy.
Kelly
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <various snippaging> (...) (URL) From the above post by Jake: "This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been such a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased them as collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought in mind. (...) I don't (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
257 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
|
|
|
|
