 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure the duck wasn't marketed as a "limited edition of 10,000". It really matters not what their excuss is if they changed their mind they could have changed the model. Their move was compleatly unethical and problably leaves them (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure that the 10152 wasn't either. This whole thing seems to turn on a mistranslation more than anything else. That's pretty funny at one level, actually. Most of the rest of the difference appears to be cultural, we seem to have a (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Hmm. More sweeping statements, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Again. (...) If you're aware of the ratio between LEGO soliciting opinions and acting on opinions, then you must have some data to back it up. Show it. Put up or shut up. My (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Well I haven't financed a study however the financial news is rife with news on how Lego continues to loose money and market share while it's competitors continue to grow. Not even Lego argues this point. Every day I cross paths with kids who (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) It was in Jake Mckee's own words as well as press releases and marketing through SHO (...) SNIP I too however it strikes directly at fundemental honesty and respect for the consumer that Lego would do this. SNIP (...) Not really I'd welcome it (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
