Subject:
|
Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:00:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7917 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
> > LEGO gave a promise and broke it.
>
> Wrong.
Sorry to correct you, Dave, but they did. Go read Renes posting. They called the
set limited. And they announced it to be the very last chance to buy Mearsk
blue. There are not 2 last chances in life.
> TLC stated that they had old Maersk Blue pellets and 'wouldn't it be nice to
> give the AFOL a really cool set and use up the pellets at the same time'.
>
> Why should that negate future contracts? It was a business decision made at the
> time using the data at the time. No one here has a crystal ball for what might
> happen in the future.
If I call a product limited and give a limitation number - that is an absulute
value. Just to give another example: LEGO has auctioned the number 1...10 Santa
Fe engines at eBay (for highest prices! have those been toys or collector
items?!). Would you think it to be unfair if they again started an auction with
the same numbers again and again? Some would laugh about the "idiots" who bid
for the first ones - I would not. Same is what they now do with the Maersk ship.
> > Now I do wonder: WHAT EXACTELY has TLC to do to make these people criticize the
> > companies decisions? Change to metric system and make the brick size 1 cm
> > instead of 0.8 cm?
>
>
> TLC could disappear tomorrow and I'd still be happy. Not as happy as I am
> knowing that they're still around, but happy anyway. Why? Because I still ahve
> my collection. I still have my hobby. I bought the sets willingly, without
> threat of coersion nor entered into a binding contract with TLC stating that
> they must adhere to what I want in the future. I bought what I want and am
> happy with my purchases.
Agreed. Same with me here.
>
> > This is a question I really have at the hard core fans of TLC: What could make
> > you unsure in your fanatic love to the company and their decisions?
>
> > I am somewhat fed up about drastically decreased quality.
>
> I have pieces from the '70's that would shock you with the apparent lack of
> quality--differing heights of bricks, variable thickness walls, really bad
> stuff. In my own opinion, TLC has increased the quality of their bricks.
I think this is just valid for the samsonite era bricks. Danish made bricks have
had perfect quality from 1968 ... 1990. From then on the quality may have
decreased. Especially recently it is quite obvious.
[Blay, Pigs, doorless cars]
> Don't buy them
> Don't buy 'em
> Then don't buy them.
> no one is forcing you to purchase products produced by TLC. "I hate this" or "TLC
> sucks for changing that and they should listen to me!"... Nope. Really, why
> would they?
They should listen to me because I spent partly over 10000 bucks per year and I
have been praising TLC and its products over years on my homepage and at public
events. This has stopped now. I advice parents to by PLAYMOBIL if they ask me.
LEGO makes losses. Maybe they should better listen to their (formerly) best
customers.
> Again, in my opinion, I think that when TLC hears something about the AFOL
> community these days, they think of a bunch of ranting fanatics, because that's
> what you demonstrate with posts like this--Rabid fanaticism, and you're not
> helping your cause one iota. This attitude, again in my opinion, decreases the
> chance of some executive taking you seriously. I'm fed up listening to the
> rants--why wouldn't they be? And the only reason that I'm spending effort on
> this is because I also realized that bad things happen when good people don't
> speak up against the fanaticism.
Nice said. But you do not help LEGO by praising any stupid action they are
doing. And recently they are doing not too well. Have you heard about increased
sells? Rumors mention over 30% less than in 2003 instead. Had TLC listend about
duplo-explore renaming they could have saved millions of $. They did not.
And this is not jsut because of gameboys and children becoming "adults" with 14
years. Playmobil makes big wins without war themes, without potter licences,
without changing core values and with 99% of production in Europe. The only
"licence" they have, are a few Bible themed figures. They have vikings,
airplanes (made by more pieces than the Jack stone ones - and the airplane from
Playmobils has actually windows AND it looks better AND it costs half the sum in
comparison to the LEGO set). Based on this information: which company seems to
be better run?
> And I'm fed up with your spin of the situation. There were no lies. At the
> time, the decision was based on all available information. In a business, that
> decisions made like this do not negate future contracts.
There has been a contract. There has been a promise. (go and read Renes
posting!) That cannot be taken back. Everything else is a lie and very bad
style. I would not care if Microsoft did it that way, but I thought LEGO had
higher ethic values. I was proved to be wrong.
> Vote with your pocketbook!
I do! And I even try to convince others to do so as well.
I have been a big supporter of LEGO, but for now there is just the old system
(disconinued in colour in 2004) which I still love. Even the community breaks
into pieces and I have no longer the will to work for a more united community. I
write e-mails with old time friends and with new ones. But just because someone
is a LEGO fans does not mean (any longer) he is a kind of friend of mine.
Play well?....Playmobil!
Ben
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
