Subject:
|
Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:03:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7967 times
|
| |
|
|
David Koudys wrote:
> I wonder if the car companies go thru this when they released the PT Cruiser or
> the (hopefully upcoming) Dodge Charger
> "You promised me that this was the last model year of this vehicle!! I invested
> all my money into it and now, 20+ years later, you re-released it!! All my
> money was for naught!!"
Wrong end of the line. Imagine what car (or other companies) go through
when they promise something in their advertising, and don't keep it.
E.g. if the any car company advertises a car to run 100km with 3 litres
(The task of calculating the MPG ratio is left up for the eager student,
as long as the pre-metric countries cannot agree on how much a "mile" or
a "gallon" is) of gas, and it turns out to use twice as much, legal hell
breaks loose. Same with Lego. The limitedness of the set was one of the
big sales-pushing factors. This factor did not hold true. Thats all I said.
I am not badmouthing Lego in particular here. If a company sells
anything and it is not up to the advertised/announced specifications
(even if they did not know it initially), they get in trouble, and
rightfully so. This is what a normal customer expects. Truth in Advertising.
> I hope to high heaven that LEGO re-releases the Galaxy Explorer and any other
> set that some folks who still have dozens MSIB so they can watch the "collector
> value" plummet.
Only that the Galaxy Explorer was never ever sold on the promise to be a
limited, absolutely final production run. Never to return. Ever.
> TLC is not here to make your 'collector' lives easier. They are here to make a
> fine quality product for kids and adults that still appreciate the fine quality
> product.
Could you help me with that? Lego left the camp of quality product
producers some time ago, if a lot of concerned people are not totally
mistaken.
> Again I say, if you're so upset by what is probably a sound business decision fo
> the company, but not a sound business decision for whiny collectors who have
> little respect for the product beyond the market value of 'collector sets', then
> stop with the LEGO already.
I don't consider breaking the law on Truth in Advertising a "Sound
Business Decision". Thats my whole point. I'm not a collector of sets. I
didn't even buy one of the ships, because I don't like the Maersk blue
as a colour. It is just that Lego kicked their most devoted customers
rigt in the face, again, but this time they made a real mistake with
that, which might even lead to legan implications.
> This also factors into those that really hate the colour change as well--"I've
> invested hundreds (or thousands) of dollars into collecting 'old grey' and now
> that collection is worthless!!" If you can't find the real worth in hundreds or
> thousands of dollars worth of previously purchased LEGO bricks, no matter what
> the company does today or in the future, then you obviously have missed the
> point of LEGO in the first place.
So what is the point of Lego if not keeping to the company values like
compatibility? Agreed, nobody really promised that the old grey would
stay forever - this was just taken for granted after a 40+ years
history. The case with the ship is different. It might be a legal case,
depending on the strength of consumer rights in the respective
countries. (IMHO, IANAL)
> Since I've actually started keeping track of my LEGO purchases in 1999, I've
> 'invested' more than $10,000.00 into my LEGO collection (small by some standards
> of those around me), and i'm not including the bricks I've acquired from 1969
> thru to 1999. My LEGO collection, to me, is worth far in excess of what I
> bought 'em for 'cause of the hours and days and months and years of me creating,
> building, hhaving fun, talking with buddies, doing shows, whatever. As far as
> hobbies go, it's one of the best that I've ever partaken in, and, even if the
> company folds tomorrow, my collection will keep me happy for the rest of my
> life--37 years of proven happiness so far and there's nothing that TLC can do
> that can take that away from me.
About the same with me.
> Life's too short to dwell on things that make you unhappy.
I am just concerned about how many stupid decisions Lego can stand and
survive. I like the Lego brick, it is my favourite hobby, and I just
fear that decisions like that might drown the company that supplied me
with the raw materials.
Yours, Christian
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) I seem to recall General Motors making a promise that they were going to release the new Camaro by "x" date....well, turns out that they didn't make it. The result? An advertising campaign featuring the "human caring factor" of a manager who (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
| (...) I wonder if the car companies go thru this when they released the PT Cruiser or the (hopefully upcoming) Dodge Charger "You promised me that this was the last model year of this vehicle!! I invested all my money into it and now, 20+ years (...) (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
|
|
|
|
