Subject:
|
Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:26:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7796 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Christian Treczoks wrote:
> Well, the combination of non-adherence to advertised values of the
> product and the legal endowment to return an item for refund if it does
> not match previously promised core properties could really lead to a
> case here (IMHO, IANAL).
What constitutes actual advertising versus an employee stating something
incorrectly? Was the phrasing of the post on 1000steine run by Lego's legal
department, just as a paid advertisement would be? If they had instead said
"This MIGHT be your last chance to buy Maersk blue", would that change your mind
100%? Or, if after saying that the last run was limited, that there were
currently no plans to do another run, hence implying that there COULD be plans
in the future for another one?
> At the end of the Day, it is propably all down to the Good Thinking(TM)
> that is happening in the upper levels of a certain company all day and
> night.
I'll say! They're trying to save money, and rather than go through their
existing stock of ABS dark-blue, they got someone else to buy it for them!
Awesome! At the same time, fans will be happy to get more Maersk blue! Awesome!
Maybe some will be dissapointed that there's no dark-blue set coming out
(although they could still decide to make that set). Oh well. Overall: Awesome.
> The only downturn for me is that now the set returnd in that ugly
> baby-blue (my opinion, nobody is forced to share this), chances for the
> dark blue version (which I would have bought for the dark red and blue,
> despite the bley in the set, which means a lot!) are approaching zero.
See, this is the sort of attitude that I just don't get. Lego doesn't have to
tell us ANYTHING. THOUSANDS of decisions like this go on daily at Lego, which
would create THOUSANDS of depressed AFOLs at hearing their favorite ideas get
cancelled and turned down. What if they had been planning to re-release a
classic space set, but had later decided against it? People like you would be
FURIOUS to hear that. But what if they never told us that that's what they were
planning? They'd be more-or-less content. Certainly not screaming.
Having communication with Lego means hearing about decisions that later change.
Insider info that we're privilaged enough to get. Would you prefer it if Lego
just shut up and didn't tell us anything?
> Whatever you do, wether you bought ist or not, Lego managed to kick you
> right into the face. Again. And don't come again telling me that I am oh
> so negative of Lego. Events like this really leave no choice.
No choice? Then how is it that I'm happy to hear the news, whereas you're
ridiculously angry? I'd say there's a choice. You just decide to focus on the
negative for whatever reason.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) It was correct, until TLC decided to make it incorrect by consciously changing their mind. (...) I think so. Then we would have recognized it as the typical BS advert hype which we all know to ignore. (...) Are you by chance a lawyer, Dave? If (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| Well, the combination of non-adherence to advertised values of the product and the legal endowment to return an item for refund if it does not match previously promised core properties could really lead to a case here (IMHO, IANAL). At the end of (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
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
|
|
|
|
