 | | Clarrification needed
|
|
Todd, Is this section for debate about how Lego and LD are working with the consumer? Or should all that be moved to .debate? I was wondering because I posted a large opinion piece about LD and "recent events" into .debate. Bryan (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) reading (...) Ooh, mabey they'll cancel the M****** T* M*** like sets and make pirats!!! NICK #:^A (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Not to put you on the spot, but how long do you envision waiting for Brad J. (or somone at Lego) to post explaining their position before you post his email? I'm very interested in insight into (wow, three "in" words in a row) TLC's reasoning (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Uh, kinda... NICK #:^< (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Even worse, they didn't even ask us. They asked the admin of the site to remove the posts. (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Exactly. What, precisely, is the point of telling us not to talk about it? The sets might get cancelled? The prices might change? I think anyone reading this information knows that might happen. Competitors might get the info? Uh, so? I'm sure (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Either way, the problem is at Target. Once it's out, it's news. Frankly, I find it silly when companies "crack down" on things like this. It's their own fans they're hurting -- and it's the most rabid fanatical ones who *care* about stuff like (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) No, Lego asked Todd not to publish information they consider "confidential", and he agreed to not do that. You're still free to discuss it. But, if you want to *publish* it somewhere, you'll have to find a publisher that won't honor Lego's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Not if they can then push Mega Bloks more and make up for it.... (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Which again would cause them to loose sales/profit? In the UK there is a phrase "cut your nose off to spite your face" - that is what target would be doing if they even deliberatelly reduced lego sales by 1%. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) This cuts both ways, Target can't NOT sell Lego at all or they will lose sales too. However they can deemphasize it or cut shelf space for it (which seems to be happening at Target and Kmart at least) ++Lar (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) The problem here is that target is so big that they could take action against efforts by TLG to tell them how to run their stock systems or whatever (e.g. discontinuing the sale of lego) and that would loose sales for TLG. (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
However, In reality LEGO was only doing their usual pre-sale marketing prep... ie: updating retail store databases in preparation for the upcoming December release... This however should be a problem directed at Target abd its handling of said (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Apple's quiet crackdown began more than two years ago. Heads rolled, because they leaked bogus information that was planted to detect the leak. Apple may have gotten "better publicity" for last month's crackdown on photos of "the cube", but it (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Me too. But in this case, *Target* is the source of the leak. At this point, it's fair game. The only issue that comes into it for me is the one of respect for Lego. Out of respect for them, I personally will avoid posting data that I might (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Interesting question. The info is out there. It WILL be discussed. I've received numerous copies of it already. I could simply post it on my website or to RTL or any number of places (either taking credit for it or as anonymously as possible) (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) I don't really have a problem with your reasons for canceling the various posts that began this thread. My problem is that TLC seems to be asking you to replace their clothing when *they* are the ones walking about nude! If they have a problem (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Well, you know, the same exact thing would have happened if LEGO had asked the same thing a year ago. The only difference now is that they're paying attention, so they notice things like this. And they use e-mail, which makes things go faster. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) What if someone goes in to Target, asks an employee for that info, gets it, and then posts it here? (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
|
(...) Yes, I deleted as few messages as possible -- only the ones which contained references to the materials which were asked to be deleted. --Todd (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general)
|
