Subject:
|
Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:36:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8045 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Paulo Renato wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> Hey Ben,
>
> I think you know my feelings about crap bley and all of those silly excuses
> surrounding it. As you might have read elsewhere I didn't buy any new sets this
> year (except for bulk bricks at S@H), so you may have a clue of how I feel. In
> fact, browsing your wonderful site I read your position about that issue and I
> have to tell you I fully agree with you.
Dear Paulo!
Thanks for your posting now! -And I remember you once answered in a very
friendly way, when I explained, that I feel nearly expelled out of my hobby due
to the bleys. It was possible your posting which kept me here at Lugnet. I
appreciate lots of your opinions and the way you utter them friendly but
destinct.
> That said, regarding this Maersk Ship issue I don't feel betrayed or like a
> 'promise' has been broken -- I see an oportunity for TLC to make money and an
> oportunity for all of those people who wanted to buy this ship and didn't buy it
> yet. I only think it is bad for the collectors or/and the moneymakers. But then
> again, even if between two bads, I think tLC hadn't many choices and choosed the
> less bad one. (Do you think they should say NO to Maersk company Ben? Put
> yourself in their shoes.)
Let me repeat a really well written analysis from the 1000steine board (in very
free translaton):
Lego did 14000 ships in the first limited run. 4000 for Maersk, 10000 for
basically AFOLs. Mearsk will surly have paid less than the AFOLs per set.
Which part of the deal might be more important? Mearsk or AFOLs?
We can even assume, that Maersk might have gotten the ships for less than
manufactoring costs. As a compensation for TLC they allowed TLC to sell the set
to the public and use the MEARSK logos and colours for theses sets as well. That
is usual marketing and known as mixed calculation.
So who paid and who took most profit out of the situation?
Now Mearsk asks for more ships. How much more? More than 10000? And for which
price? Who pais the bill for this and who will take profit this time? I guess
that again more ships will end up at S@H than at MEARSK.
Is the deal with MEARSK bringing so much profit for TLC that they can risk to
get scratches in their brand name and the worth of their brand? Can they omit on
all those buyers that now feel betrayed?
I have not bought a single set of the MEARSK set because of bley. I am not hurt
by any loss of my collection. I am not sitting on 10 sets and waiting for profit
for myself.
But I always thought LEGO had higher ethical standards. But for a handful
dollars they kick us AFOLs in the face. Next they might produce in China and
take profit out of children working in dark basements sorting bricks into boxes.
That will be more cost effective than danish adult employees. I would dam that.
Even if the LEGO management feels forced to do so for profits sake.
Leg Godt!
Ben
My favorite author Hans Henny Jahnn wrote:
"Everybody is open to bribery - only the sum that has to be spent determines the
character."
TLC's character is not more worth than the character of the average street
whore. For a handful money they both will do everything.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
