Subject:
|
Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:56:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8250 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
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;-)
|
Perhaps I just read all statements from Lego as possibles, whereas others read
them as 100% definites. Let’s look at Jake’s post:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
| |
As many of you have seen from the leaked pictures online, we have released a >
new set: 10152 – Maersk Container Ship.
|
Interpretation: Fact. It’s been released at that point.
| |
To clarify, this set will be available through Shop At Home in both Europe
and North America.
|
Interpretion: Not fact. Projection. If portions of the warehouses blew up, the
set was recalled, Maersk changed their mind on licensing and pulled the set, or
some other catastrophe happened, the set WOULD NOT have been available through
S@H Europe or NA.
| |
The sets are on their way to North America, and we should beginning shipping
them in late June.
|
Interpretation: Fact. The sets ARE on their way. Whether or not they make it IS
in fact questionable. “... we should beginning shipping ...” (skipping the
grammar) Also fact. They SHOULD have. And they did. But also potentially
incorrect in the event of a calamity or drastic change in policy.
| |
They are currently available in Europe.
|
Fact. Whether this is via S@H isn’t clear, but they ARE available.
| |
I do know, however, that there will be 5 set limit per customer on this set
(Troy, are you listening? J). Why you ask?
|
Interpretation: Not fact. Verifying this limit is very difficult (in fact, we
strongly suspect it was incorrect, due to at least one seller who claimed to
have obtained hundreds), and at the time was simply projected. The limit may
have been upped for various reasons. For example, if the set didn’t sell well,
limit may have been increased to 10 or have been unlimited.
| |
This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue!
|
Fact.
| |
In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have
left.
|
Fact.
| |
That means that there is literally no Maersk blue ABS left.
|
Fact.
| |
Even the parks can no longer get Maersk blue.
|
Interpretation: Quasi fact. Parks “can not” get Maersk blue, but may be able to
get it someday, if Maersk decides to do another promo with Lego (which
happened).
| |
This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At
Home.
|
Interpretation: Quasi fact. While I expect these numbers were accurate to with
95%, it’s possible that in the process, some were bought by employees or given
as gifts here and there, and that probably the run was not EXACTLY 14,000.
ANYTHING regarding the future I would expect to regard as a conditional.
Anything difficult to enforce or to get precise numbers on, conditional.
Anything easily verifiable and in the past? Fact.
| |
You forgot: Can’t trust anything they say-- Brutal.
|
True. I don’t. The difference I guess is that I don’t get in a huff when Lego
changes its mind. If it’s a bad decision (like, if they had said long ago that
grey would never change), I’ll voice my objection to that decision, but whether
or not they lied is different.
The fact is, they didn’t lie. At the time, it was the truth. But the future
didn’t meet with their expectations. I’m willing to forgive them. Certainly on
something like this. Now, if instead we heard that dark grey really WAS changed
to save money, and that they TOLD us otherwise, even KNOWING the truth? That’s a
lie I would resent.
| |
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!
|
That’s true insofar as I’d rather they said things as though they were
projections rather than facts, but I’d also recommend that you take their
‘facts’ with a grain of salt and a dose of common sense. IE, saying a set will
be available at S@H? 99% probable. A set will never be released again? 75%
probable. New colors will never be changed back? 95% probable. Or whatever. Some
things are surer than others. But they all have an element of chance until
they’ve actually happened.
| |
BINGO. Just the facts. And no deceptions. Is that too much to expect?
|
I think so. The only way to get around that would be to replace the current
community liasons with lawyers. Good ones. No communication with the outside
world until it’s been given careful scrutiny, as few details as possible,
listing everything, even almost definite assurances, as though they were only
50% likely to avoid legal liability at all costs.
I’d rather keep Jake.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
