Subject:
|
Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:27:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8004 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, Paulo Renato wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> > > In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote:
<snip a bit of my stuff>
> 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.
Dear Ben,
I'm very glad that you noticed it and I'm really touched to see that you even
recall it! I really think that you are (besides a {greatest} MOCcer, mind you!)
one of the few persons that keep me hanging around here as well.
> I
> appreciate lots of your opinions and the way you utter them friendly but
> destinct.
Now that is got to be the greatest compliment I've ever received here (not that
I've received many:)). Danke schön Ben!
<snip my stuff once more>
> 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?
Ok, Ben, I have to admit that I didn't read half of this tread and therefore I
may be missing something, but before I go further I'd like to say two things
about myself:
1. If a *promise* was made then *that promise* should be accomplished. That's
simple as that. Whoever fails a promise doesn't deserve my faith anymore. (Nor
respect for that matter.)
2. I'm not the Pilatos type, washing my hands whenever a subject doesn't
particularly hurt me. Meaning, that despite this particular issue doesn't hurt
me at all, I'd like to add my voice to the ones I think are right, and therefore
I'd like to understand who's right after all.
I confess that your post made me think, mostly because I know you are a wise
man, so if you don't mind I'd like to take a look at some of your thoughts.
(Others who may feel tired, please skip it.)
I think I understood your take on the money-talks part very well, but still,
there are two things bugging my mind.
a) Who, in your opinion, should feel, like you say, betrayed? Collectors? BL
sellers? (BTW, do you personally feel betrayed?) It seems that there are two
substancially diferents statements, one german-worded and another
english-worded. The former seems to include the *promise* (or would it be
*limited qauntities*?) word, am I right? And that's why you are upset?
b) Now forget about TLC profits/prostitution like you say (1) for a while and
tell me, how do you feel about the people that had never the chance to buy the
Maersk ship at the first run and are wholeheartedly happy with the idea of
having it now? Isn't it a bit like we were young? You see, putting myself into
their shoes, I feel really happy for them. Reminds me when I was a kid and used
to look at the stores from the outside, and look, and look, and look... -- then,
you know, some unique day in a year, my mom would offer me this special magical
box with a very distinctive rattle-rattle sound, and I knew I could not be
wrong. I know that I will never have fun like this again. So, seeing these
people being given a 2nd chance I feel a bit like that. Damn, even if TLC did
not act well, isn't it a good thing after all? Or at least, isn't it a much
better thing than a bad one? What is your take on this Ben? (Please forget, if
you will, the meanings, focus in the ends for a while -- then you're free to
go:-))
I'm sorry if I took a different approache than your perspective. You may be
right about TLC, I don't argue that because I have no available data to support
strong arguments about that, but I am much concerned with the humanistic side of
the issue. (Not saying that you are not! Just explaining a bit of the nature of
my foremost concerns.)
> I have not bought a single set of the MEARSK set because of bley.
Make it two of us :-(
> I am not hurt
> by any loss of my collection. I am not sitting on 10 sets and waiting for profit
> for myself.
That was the sentence that made me think the most, really. And that is why I ask
the questions a) and b) above.
> But I always thought LEGO had higher ethical standards. But for a handful
> dollars they kick us AFOLs in the face.
I don't get it. Not many AFOLs, I would think. This is not a permanent issue
like the bley thing; this is only a passing episode. Hope to be enlighted with
the answer to question a) though.
> 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.
If you ask me I don't put my hands on the fire for TLC. TLC, as it is, only
means for me a company that, as wisely claimed one of my favorite composers,
Frank Zappa, "We're only in it for the money" (2) and as it happens, produces a
great toy. Don't mix up things guys: The toy is great, the company is not.
> My favorite author Hans Henny Jahnn wrote:
> "Everybody is open to bribery - only the sum that has to be spent determines the
> character."
(1) Damn, I thought that line was mine! Honest.
> TLC's character is not more worth than the character of the average street
> whore. For a handful money they both will do everything.
Unfortunately, many gals with that profession just can't say no.
Take care Ben,
Cheers,
Paulo-Renato
(2) Making a parody of the (great!) Beatles' Sgt Peppers album -- sort of: "who
are you kidding guys?; Values, what values? Ah, money-values, that is". Always
sharp this Zappa guy!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
