 | | LEGO - Small shop horror story
|
|
Hi all. As some of you know, I recently went to work for a small educational toy shop in North Seattle. I actually found the job thanks to LEGO! The owner was considering starting to carry LEGO, and was at a SeaLUG meeting. Well, it took quite some (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct) !
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) First of all, divide the company into it's respective divisions. Even though we refer to Lego as one company, it's divisions aren't necessarily managed as one company. Lego Direct is a distinct entity from the Lego Stores, etc. (It wouldn't (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) As a regular poster both here and on FBTB (I know, Ahui, you regularly read FBTB too) I would disagree with the premise that Lugnet is for adults and FBTB for children. I recently posted a poll over there as to whether people preferred (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) I'd disagree. I think we've seen a lot in the last couple of years that indicates that Lego is reaching out to the AFOL market. Bulk ordering, Sculptures, Legends, specials like the Super Chief and the Rebel Blockade Runner, involvement with (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Look up the definition of toy (a thing of little importance, trifle). Even if we limit the discussion of Lego items to children, this definition is far from adequate considering the educational value the items provide. Lego items are a (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
I don't necessarily disagree with anything Kerry said either. I guess the point is to drop the pretense that a dialogue exists -- if TLC/Lego Direct people post here at all it is 99% certain that it is strictly for the purpose of furthering some (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) I dunno, but I don't think it's too inappropriate: (URL)There really is no reason that it should "go with the territory"... FBTB (...) I don't know, I don't frequent the FBTB forums too often. I don't have a feel for FBTB readers. We're acting (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
Who knows, maybe the quiet from Lego Direct has nothing to do with real or imagined friction from AFOL's, restrictive posting policies on LUGNET, pestering questions about the product lines and corporate policy, etc. I just figured they have been (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
I think LD are often silent for some fairly obvious reasons. Firstly, we LUGnetters don't seem to agree on too many things, so I don't think we send very clear messages about what we want to Lego Direct. Some people want more re-releases of Classic (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO SPYBOTICS
|
|
(...) After watching this count down 2 days left, 1 , 0 , -1, -2, -3 it now says "5 days left". At least someone at Lego appears to have noticed, took them long enough! Deidre drb@tasmail.com (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
What Jim has stated was done so perfectly that it doesn't need any "me too"s, but here is my total agreement with his words anyway. And I think that the administrative reasons for creating this newsgroup and also limiting official TLC access to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) There is a big difference between _saying_ they can't answer a particular question and not responding at all. It's the "not responding at all" bit that seems to cause a lot of the grief here on Lugnet. Deidre drb@tasmail.com (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) WOW... and then I wonder why Lego only post 'marketing-related' stuff here (lugnet). We (adults) can WORSE than the kids on FBTB. Over there when LD says it can't answer, the general felling is okay we understand. Here, if Lego doesn't answer (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) I'll take that bet... how much did you want to lose? (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) --- (...) All good and valid points, but I do understand and sympathies with Suz. Because it really seams as though LD is simply using Lugnet as a marketing forum to test their products and promote their objectives. I may be new, but it didn’t (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
I think the reason Jake is more apt to respond to the questions on FBTB is due to the nature of that forum: it's like a reading time for the children where he is treated like Superman. The preadolescents dote on Jake. Also, from my observation of (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) Isn't it against the rules to do so, though? Or is it just against the rules for Jake to ask in his post that someone do it but OK if someone figures out that it needs doing on their own? I'm admittedly confused about it. (...) There really is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) I think you're right. Besides, quite often when someone from TLC posts something important, it's quickly forwarded to the appropriate groups (if necessary) by Lugnet readers. It's also nice to know that all posts from TLC's employees (about (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
"Jeff Stembel" <aulddragon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Gx9EIE.L17@lugnet.com... (...) about (...) official (...) anywhere, I (...) absolute (...) complaining (...) so (...) then (...) face by (...) forum (...) forums, (...) love to (...) (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
|
(...) In my opinion this is the key point moreso then limiting where TLC employees can post. I can understand the limits. I believe it was established so that it could be determinied if a person was posting AS an employee of TLC opposed to just (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
