Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Dec 2004 05:34:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
11203 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
| |
And on the other side of the coin many want to defend the company no matter
what they do.
|
Ha! Clearly you haven’t been reading all my posts. I think I get the most
annoyed with people who leap to conclusions about things they shouldn’t. They
said that ONE phrase that was incorrect, and you and others jump down Lego’s
throat. They didn’t repeat it ad-nauseum nor stress it ridiculously. It’s clear
that the intention was NOT to make this a collector’s item, but to give the
community something it wanted. And you treated it like their *intentions*
changed. They didn’t.
I’m equally quick to jump on the Lego-defenders when they do the same thing. The
color change was NOT good. There’s only one trivially good aspect to it and none
other.
On the other hand, some people seem to react because of their predisposition to
a certain belief, and take the quickest opportunity to do so.
| |
This is not bley or click hinges. This is basic morality.
|
Being a relative moralist, I judge by intent. Lego’s intent was to give us as
much as they could of the remaining Maersk blue. Because they wanted to make
money from us. If they could’ve found a way to make more without spending
additional money on Maersk blue at the time, they would’ve. Their intent was NOT
to make a limited collector’s item. All of a sudden, presto, they got their
wish. Their intent never changed.
If their intent before had been to make a very-limited-quantity set, just to
watch us fall all over each other grabbing for sets, and now they decided to
make a second run to try it again, then yeah, I’d be on your side. Although
admittedly not as vehemently as you seem to be.
| |
I’m with the “nay-sayers” because the company is on a destructive path and if
they go down so does the hobby I love. If you’ve paid any attention to the
financal news you know which direction the company is headed.-Ken
|
Oh, I know alright. For every step forward, they’ve been taking one back. And
meanwhile MegaBloks is eating up more and more of the market share. Ditto
Best-Lock and probably others. If they don’t start developing a better eye for
what products and decisions will do better and which will do worse, they’ll
continue to ride the slow train of decay that they started on in 1998 (I’d
actually argue 1997).
But decrying this particular decision is useless. I think the correct thing to
do in this situation is to do EXACTLY what they’re doing. The color change on
the other hand... That was a decision (I think) that only served to hurt them.
“Violent” toys? Same deal. I’ll continue to urge them to go ahead and make tanks
and fighter jets and the like.
But this? Seriously, this is not only small potatoes of a downside, but the
upside FAR outweighs it, IMHO. They save money by getting “free” ABS pellets,
they give AFOLs more of a chance to collect a dearly loved color, they get to
make more of a set they liked making, and Maersk probably is giving them extra
money on the side to make the deal happen! Only downside is the AFOLs who knew
about the possibility of the new dark blue ship are saddened, and those who
bought zillions of Maersk ships will need to wait a while before their sets are
worth as much as they wanted. Boo hoo. I’ll continue to support this decision
because I think it’s the right thing to do.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) SNIP (...) The end justifies the means? (...) If their intent wasn't so then why did they present it as so? (...) If this wasn't part of a trend I have nothing to say. I find the color a curiosity, nothing I love. Nor am I an investor. The (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) And on the other side of the coin many want to defend the company no matter what they do. This is not bley or click hinges. This is basic morality.I'm with the "nay-sayers" because the company is on a destructive path and if they go down so (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
