Subject:
|
Re: 10152 Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:11:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8521 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
<snip>
| |
Sorry, have to disagree. The set was run with existing color inventory, which
was anticipated to be exhausted.
|
No, it was exhausted. They are mixing up more (at the expense of Maersk).
| |
If it were to be positioned as a
collectible, it would’ve been positioned differently. More like the Sante Fe.
|
This has nothing to do with marketing per se. If it had never been mentioned
that this was the end of the line for Maersk blue, there wouldn’t be an issue at
all.
| |
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.
|
It is TLC’s decision to accommodate Maersk, and, as I mentioned, I have no
problem with that; in fact I welcome it. All I am trying to say is that TLC
gave the impression that Maersk blue would no longer be available after it ran
its course through the 10052 sets. That made the 10052 collectible, based on
that assertion, and that assertion alone.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Perhaps you don’t recall the circumstances:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=2080
It seems pretty clear to me that TLC didn’t care which of the 2 choices they
offered was the winner, but whichever was “elected”, that would be the one
produced.
Now I grant that they are under no legal obligations to do anything, but that
logic of such a campaign is totally lost upon me (assuming that they had no
intention of following through and running with the winning color).
| |
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.
|
But don’t you see-- they stated that they would produce the winning color.
How is this not clear? It seems to me that they should make every effort to
keep their word, if not for PR’s sake alone.
<snip>
| |
| |
This is irrelevant in my view. It is about PR.
|
Not exactly sure how to respond to that...
|
Of course they didn’t “promise”. Who cares? They said that they were going to
do something, made a big deal about it, and may not follow through. We didn’t
ask them to hold the contest. Is it unreasonable to expect that they will do
what they say they are going to do?
| |
| |
| |
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 this wasn’t data collection. It was, “Hey, we saw how popular the 10052 was
but we’ve run out of Maersk blue ABS, and we’ve decided to produce the 10052 in
an alternate color-- either dark blue or dark green. Your vote will decide
which one it is. Go to LEGO.com and vote!” The fact is that it really didn’t
matter which color was chosen, only that one actually was!
<snip>
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
|
|
But Kelly, the decision to keep running the 10052 had already been made. The
color choice was obviously not an important one as they were allowing the
decision to be determined by external forces. The decision-making process of
TLC elected to allow fans to make the decision for them.
| |
| |
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.
|
The decision to choose either dark green or dark blue was left up to a vote.
Whether or not to make another run of the 10052 in either of these 2 colors
wasn’t. That decision had already been made.
| |
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.
|
I think it is if the expectation of limitedness is based upon claims TLC made.
| |
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.
|
But my point is that people would never have had that expectation in the first
place had they not stated that it was the end of the line for Maersk blue. So
many people who bought that set did so believing that they were purchasing the
last of the Maersk blue, possibly forever. So TLC decides to make more. Okay,
fine, but at least acknowledge that many people may have purchased those 10052s
with the idea that they would be valuable some day, based on TLC’s admission),
and that they may have been misled.
My simple solution would be to change the number of the set, and I believe
everyone would be happy because the value of those initial sets would be
preserved (even parts sellers, because I doubt that the value of Maersk blue
elements will be affected by that much, given the limited run).
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| Hi John! (...) This, In my not at all humbly opinion, is the core-question in this entire thread. Unfortunately it seems the answer is "It is." (Not only in respect of TLC but in respect of every public statement/promise/warranty/ect. these days, (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) To clarify: "collectibility", by your explanations, is based purely on your own *speculation* (and others who share your thinking). TLC's "assertion" (as you call it) had nothing whatsoever to do with making the set "collectible", since, as (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) 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. (...) At the risk of belaboring a (...) (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
|
|
|
|
