| |
In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> > Regardless of informed AFOLs' opinions, this sort of
> > thing seems a very real threat to LEGO's market sovereignty. That, plus the
> > fact that MegaBloks has demonstrated an ability to respond to customer
> > desires more quickly than TLC.
>
> Yes, this is a very real threat to their market sovereignty. But do we
> *want* it to happen? Answer that for yourself. I'm loyal to the brand and
> the company and by no means want to see MegaBloks come in and take away
> LEGO's market share. By this statement are you stepping back and saying
> 'who cares?' and not staying loyal to TLC? It seems that you are...but
> you're not clear by it.
I certainly don't want MegaBloks to take over the whole market, but I just
as certainly don't mind their presence in it, if only as a warning against
complacency. In addition, my brand loyalty (or anyone else's) shouldn't be
taken for granted, as TLC has apparently done for several years. By what
arrogance could TLC ask customers to remain loyal despite endlessly
disappointing product lines (not that they have asked, per se, but
hypothetically...) It's unfortunate that consumers might adopt a "what have
you done for me lately?" stance, but it's not unexpected. Yes, TLC has put
out countless fantastic products in the past, but the current lines just
aren't that great overall. And, considering that the downward trend has
been in development for several years, arguably worsening as we go, there's
no solid basis for continuing to purchase LEGO sets in the hope that someday
things will get better.
Put another way, if MegaBloks could consistently deliver a hands-down
better product, I would unquestionably purchase their product in preference
to TLC's. Why would anyone do otherwise?
By the bye--I understand your Lionel/American Flyer analogy in principle,
but I'm not a train hobbyist so I'm unclear on the particulars. If one
company put out a demonstrably better product, how could anyone be expected
to stick with the other brand? And to what end? The end result seems to be
a pyrrhic victory in which the consumer gets the shaft.
Elsewhere in the thread people have discussed the necessary lag in
response time, in terms of development costs, projections, implementations,
et al. Understandable, certainly, but not encouraging, either; if it takes
X number of months to implement a rudamentary online ordering system of
already-existing parts, how much longer will it take to reverse the firmly
entrenched, theme-spanning juniorization campaign?
> TLC has some things to learn from this and I think that parts of the company
> are learning. But those parts of the company need to teach the other parts
> to respond quicker if they are going to survive. As an informed AFOL, I
> want to be giving TLC appropriate feedback so they can make decisions which
> will help them. I'm sure there are others who desire to do the same, and
> there are some people here with some very good ideas on things that TLC
> should be doing on a long term basis.
That's definitely a good goal, and one that we might actually be able to
hope for, given the somewhat more approachable corporate presence TLC has
demonstrated recently. Before Brad's debut, the only sort of feedback we
were able to give came in the form of reduced revenues for TLC and idle
ranting to an apparently deaf audience.
> I hope they learn, and I hope they're able to hold their head above the evil
> MegaBloks.
Yikes! Whatever your opinion of MegaBloks themselves, Ritvik as a company
has some good points, at least in terms of market awareness and
responsiveness. Perhaps in years to come TLC will learn from them and
harvest the good from amid the evil.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
66 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
