Subject:
|
Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:47:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7953 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
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?
|
It was correct, until TLC decided to make it incorrect by consciously changing
their mind.
| |
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%?
|
I think so. Then we would have recognized it as the typical BS advert hype
which we all know to ignore.
| |
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?
|
Are you by chance a lawyer, Dave? If not, maybe you have the mind to become
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.
|
You forgot: Can’t trust anything they say-- Brutal.
| |
| |
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.
|
Fine. So don’t say “it’s limited”, or “last chance to get Maersk blue” or “the
winner is dark blue, the next color of the 10052”. I would rather they DIDN”T
SAY ANYTHING than say things that may or may not be true!
| |
Having communication with Lego means hearing about decisions that later
change.
|
Then they should say that! “This might be the last chance to get Maersk blue
because we have no more Maersk blue pellets left and no plans to create more!”
| |
Insider info that we’re privilaged enough to get. Would you prefer it if Lego
just shut up and didn’t tell us anything?
|
BINGO. Just the facts. And no deceptions. Is that too much to expect?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) Uh, John. That *is* what Jake said. Well, he certainly didn't say claim anything *stronger* than that -- actually, what he said was more low key, if anything. (URL) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) Perhaps I just read all statements from Lego as possibles, whereas others read them as 100% definites. Let's look at Jake's post: (URL) As many of you have seen from the leaked pictures online, we have released a > (...) Interpretation: Fact. (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| snippage (...) more snippage (...) John, I hate to be nitpicky here (oh, wait, half the posts on this thread are about being nitpicky), but I thought the color of set 10052 was yellow.. (URL) a different story... Scott (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
