Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:45:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
12397 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Ken Nagel wrote:
> In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
<snip>
> > because as I see it, the phrase that was used in NO WAY referenced future runs
> > of the set,
>
>
> I'd say "LAST CHANCE" pretty much locks that up.
Why did reps form TLC state that it was 'the last chance'?
Did they do it because they were marketing a limited set as a collector item (a
la numbered Santa Fe), or was the 'last chance' only due to a limitation of
coloured Maersk Blue pellets, with no contract to make more at the time this was
stated--A situation, I remind you, that has subsequently changed with a new
contract.
Answer me that. Why did they state it was the last chance? What were their
intentions? You're playing the 'moral card'--why did the reps from TLC state
that the run was limited to 10k for consumers.
<snip>
eh, i'll focus on specifically this issue and not a 'greater moral one'
> > No. They chose to tell us that it was limited.
>
> Exactly- Glad to see you agree
We all agree that the set was stated as limited at the time. It's the 'why'
that you're not getting. THe history of TLC is the history of 'limited
runs'--all sets will eventually stop being produced. I can't walk in the store
and buy a 'Galaxy Explorer'--that run was limited. But you'd have an issue if
TLC were to bring it back as a 'Legend'. Speaking of which, why haven't you had
any issues with the Legend series? Every one of those sets was 'limited' and
they were brought back. Oh right, TLC didn't state that they were limited. Got
it.
So if TLC states that something is limited *for any reason whatsoever*, that's
it until the end of time--the company cannot reproduce that particualar set.
Hmmm...
At this time, I'm particualry thankful that TLC isn't abiding by your morals,
for we woudln't have the Legend series. Beyond that, if a run is limited due to
external factors, such as the lack of a particular colour, and is *only limited*
due to the limitation of a specific colour, and the reps state it as such, that
conditional statement becomes null and void if and when that particular colour
becomes available again, and that's exactly the case here.
One more time for the obtuse--
TLC stated that the set was limited only because of the limited quantity of the
particular colour (Maersk Blue)
TLC also stated openly and honestly that they had no contract with Maersk to
make more coloured pellets, so, again at the time the statement was made, this
was a perfectly legitimate statement to make.
Legally, ethically, morally, all of TLC's bases are covered by the simple
statement, "Due to the limitation of coloured Maersk Blue pellets, and only
because of the limitation of Maersk Blue pellets, this set is limited."
It is just like my examples that you keep deleting about hte trip to Vegas or
the Gift Certificate to buy LEGO bricks.
If you, Ken, were to state "I am broke therefore I cannot buy LEGO, and the only
reason I have to not buy LEGO is due to me being broke" I respect that.
If, however, someone gives you a gift certiicate to buy LEGO bricks, that reason
for not buying--that statement of fact, immediately becomes null and void.
There is no ethical, moral or legal reason for you not to use the certificate to
purchase LEGO sets, and you would still be able to say you're a man who always
keeps his word.
Well, my friend, TLC kept their word--the set was limited *only* because of the
limitation of colour (reiterating in case you missed it the first hundred times)
with no contract at the time to make more.
Then Maersk came to TLC (again, reiterated because you seem to like deleting and
not responding to this bit) *with the colour in hand* (one of the important
bits) and with a *new contract* (again, important 'shouldn't delete this bit but
actually try to refute it' bit) and said "Please make more".
Where in this sequence of events does TLC actually break their word to anyone?
Point by point please.
>
>
> SNIP
> > > The fact that they knew AFOL's would love the set is why they should have
> > > kept their word.
> >
> > No. A word should be kept regardless. But their word is not what they intended
> > to give.
>
> Intent or not they choose to market it as a limited set. You are right though
> they should have kept their word.
They did. They stated that the set was limited *only* due to the colour
limitation. Once the colour showed up on their doorstep, the statement becomes
null and void. Dispute this, please.
>
> >
> > > > Of course, I think that's irrelevant in this case because I don't think this
> > > > decision part of a negative trend.
> > >
> > > The trend is the point that Lego, when viewed as a company is a failure. They
> > > have lost money and market share for years and continues to fall. That is not
> > > a matter of opinion it is big news in the world wide financal comunity.
> >
> > I didn't say that there is no negative trend. I said I don't think this decision
> > is a part of one.
>
> One bad decision on top of another equals a trend. Wether you agree or not a lot
> of post out there have agreed with me. The decision has created bad feelings
> amung consumers. Consumers that an ailing company can not afford to put off.
I'm a consumer. I beleive that this decision was a good one. I believe that
there have been too many people focused on every little thing that TLC does and
are just ready to pounce on any llittle thing. All the power to these
people--checks and balances as it were. That said, this isn't, in my opinion,
one of those things that 'consumers' should have focused on or found TLC in an
'error of judgement'.
Furthermore, this decision from TLC has done well with the consumers I know and
has eased the 'bad feelings' as you put it, with these consumers. Contrary to
being 'put off', these consumers are anticipating the re-release of this
particular set.
You stating that it was a bad decision does not make it so. You have as yet to
make the point that it was a bad decision and that TLC broke their word. Your
points have been refuted but you consistently adhere to your wrongful view of
what actually transpired.
On top of which, you've been stating that TLC is an ailing company--they sold
out of the Maersk Blue boats quickly, so it's obvious that people actually want
'em. For TLC to listen to your faulty logic and not to re-release this set
would, in my opinion, contribute to their 'downward spiral'. For a person that
has stated that he wants what is best for this company, you really have a funny
way of showing it--you don't want TLC to release this set because if they
release it, it'll make them money? Good logic.
It
> is therefore by definition a bad decision. It would be kind of hard to pull one
> bad decision out of the pile and say that this one was a fluke.
> >
> > DaveE
It's difficult to see what exactly your point is at this time. If you want to
discuss TLC's 'bad decisions', again. I'm all for it. If you want to prove that
this is one, you have as yet to make a coherent or cohesive arguement, and any
points you have made thus far have been refuted (even through deletions by you).
My Pappy used to have an expression--'Put up or shut up'.
(or is that crossing the liine with these new 'time out' things?)
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) My deletions are needed as A) it's part of the TOU & B)The server wont let you repost anything as long as your replies are getting with out snipping. As for coherent & cohesive there's pleny of people who agree with me. Your twisting things (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) I'd say "LAST CHANCE" pretty much locks that up. SNIP "If" there were a way to stop Bin Laden from causing (...) I really don't get all of these u-turns in the name of whatever but since you bring it up "IF" Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
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
|
|
|
|
