Subject:
|
Re: 10152 Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:47:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8331 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<various snippaging>
| |
| |
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.
|
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
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 there
is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even the parks can no longer get Maersk
blue.
This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At
Home.
I believe this implies “limited quantities” with the implication “get them
while they are still available because it will be the last we see of Maersk
blue”.
|
That’s a fair assertion. Being somebody who collects sets to build them, I don’t
have the mindset that “limited quantities” = “collectible”. Again, though, at
the time that was written, that was accurate.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Ideally, yes, but not necessarily so. Even changing the number on the set
would have the same effect of preserving the collectibility of the original
run.
|
At the risk of belaboring a point, renumbering a set is something collectors
want, not necessarily something LEGO would want or need. In fact, adding a new
number for the identical set would probably be counterproductive in the long run
for the company.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
No, the problem isn’t the blue bricks. I am glad that more Maersk blue
bricks will be available via this second run. My problem is that the
collectibility of an original run MISB 10052 has taken a severe hit due to
some (however unintended) misdirection on the part of TLC.
|
I agree with that except for the word “misdirection” which implies wrongdoing.
Changed circumstances, with no wrongdoing on anyone’s part.
<snip>
| |
| |
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.
|
I don’t think so. In either case specific promises weren’t made, but there
was clear implication of the intention of TLC at the time.
|
Sorry, have to disagree. The set was run with existing color inventory, which
was anticipated to be exhausted. If it were to be positioned as a collectible,
it would’ve been positioned differently. More like the Sante Fe.
If Maersk had not wanted more, and been willing to spend to get it, then this
wouldn’t be an issue; from all accounts, LEGO didn’t intend to purchase that
color of granules in the future. Again, I don’t see how Maersk’s decision at a
later time makes LEGO liable.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Come on, Kelly, you are bending over backwards. Would you have even bothered
to vote if you knew that TLC had no intention of following through with their
plan? What sense would it make to hold a contest if they had no intention of
following through with the results. It makes no sense.
|
No, this makes perfect sense to me. In fact, it’s one of my core belief sets.
Just because a vote on LEGO.com might indicate AFOL preference once way or
another, I’m certain that’s not the only factor that influences set production.
Take it to an extreme: say I was the only one to vote. Poll results would have
been 100% dark green. But I take that as no guarantee that this is the only
factor in deciding that color. If the resulting set had come out in dark red
instead, I’d be understandably curious - but I wouldn’t be upset with LEGO for
not listening to me. My vote is only one factor of many, and doesn’t entitle me
to any ownership in the final decision. I also have confidence that Jake would
be able to get some sort of brief explanation, which is again not something I
expect from many other companies.
In fact, I trust my vote on LEGO.com more than I trust my vote to make a
difference in the recent US presidential election. Because I have a greater
trust that LEGO will at least consider my opinion, where I have zero guarantee
the government will. But at no time did I ever consider my LEGO vote for a color
to be a binding contract for LEGO. I made a suggestion, they were free to take
it as they saw fit.
| |
This is irrelevant in my view. It is about PR.
|
Not exactly sure how to respond to that...
| |
| |
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,
|
??? Seems like providing input is more like US providing a favor TO THEM.
|
In many ways, sure. They definitely get a valuable amount of information from
our exertion. But it works both ways. I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to
interact (in minor ways) with LEGO on various things. It’s a fair amount of work
in some instances, but the feeling that I have some small voice in the direction
of something more than makes up for it. Because I still have that naive optimism
that whispers, “I can make a difference with something I care about.” I can’t
say that in my job, or many other areas of my existence. Ooh, getting a bit deep
here...
| |
| |
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.
|
Tell me how which color scheme a particular set should be (from a choice of 2
given colors) has anything to do with the decision whether or not to rerun
the set in a particular color. It is a non sequitur.
|
?? Not understanding.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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”.
|
I don’t follow you there. All I’m saying is that if the set had been
produced a year or so ago, it would have used the old gray and brown, and
that would have been enough to differentiate it from a newer run that will
use the new gray and brown, thus preserving the original collectibility of
the first run. But it’s a moot point.
|
True, that’s a bunch of “what if’s” that don’t have much to do with the subject
now, which is whether or not LEGO has lied or otherwise been misrepresentative
in re-releasing the Maersk Sealand set.
<snip>
| |
What I am talking about is the value of an MISB set that was implied to be
limited. Even if TLC makes a new run as they have stated they are going to
do, they could still preserve the limitedness of the original run by simply
changing the number on the set of the new run. Does that make sense?
|
Yes, I see that it’s important to you to have a valuable MISB set. But I don’t
agree that that should be LEGO’s priority as well. Your values and needs don’t
seem to match LEGO’s needs (or Maersk’s) in this instance. At the risk of
sounding cavalier (which I’m not), I’d say it’s a “tough luck” outcome, nothing
more; I don’t think LEGO’s mission statement is to increase AFOL collection
value. That came out sounding harsher than I really intend... I do feel the
unhappiness, I just don’t agree that it’s LEGO’s responsibility to avoid
situations where people are unhappy for one reason or another.
Kelly
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Multiple numbers for same set (was: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) Well I guess they have an example they can use as a test case now: [LEGOSet 8460] [LEGOSet 8431] [LEGOSet 8438] As far as I know, there is no difference between these sets except the number. I don't own 8438 so can't say definitively. ROSCO (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) No, it was exhausted. They are mixing up more (at the expense of Maersk). (...) This has nothing to do with marketing per se. If it had never been mentioned that this was the end of the line for (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (20 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
|
|
|
|
