| |
Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Koeberl writes:
> > I've been thinking about a way to communicate our wants to LD that would be
> > concise and convenient. • [...]
> > If Brad or someone else at LD is curious about what we are interested in,
> > they would need to look only at the subject line to get the message. I'm
> > sure they're interested in our thoughts, but who has time to read hundreds
> > of messages?
>
> In theory your idea is a good one -- and ideas are important in any community.
> But I must point out that proposed changes to LUGNET have their own forums in
> lugnet.admin.
I didn't consider this a "change" to lugnet.lego.direct. I read Todd's first
post to the group:
> Second, there's a Brad Justus & LEGO Direct group, lugnet.lego.direct, for
anything and everything having to do with LEGO Direct -- questions, rants,
raves, suggestions, in-depth discussions about offerings, etc. -- anything
which would be helpful to Brad and his team at LEGO Direct. (Brad and
others
at LEGO Direct will certainly help shape this group over time.)<
My impression was lugnet.lego.direct was intended as the place that Brad &
LD people would look for suggestions. I also got the impression there was
concern about too much information, opinions, suggestions, and too many
messages flooding the group. Nothing malicious, but enthusiasm could be
detrimental. Just keeping up with a couple NG's can be daunting, but if
things picked up in here many messages and thoughts and suggestions could
easily get lost in the clutter.
What I stated in my original message was intended to focus on a method to
get our messages across to LD, even a large volume of messages, in a way
that would be effective even in high volume. It doesn't have to be my way,
and I don't think the group has to change for this to occur, but as a group
it would be to our benefit to agree to how best to express our thoughts in a
uniformed way that LD would understand with a minimum of effort.
>
> > I was thinking maybe a lugnet.dear.lego group be needed(a take off on Dear
> > Santa), but if this is the right place to express ourselves it would be in
> > our own interest to figure out a standardized way to express our wants in a
> > way that will get noticed. A special NG might not do that much good if it
> > seems cluttered/unorganized.
>
> (this directed at all readers, not just Mark):
> lugnet.dear-lego already exists. It was put in place long before Brad's having
> posted here. It is still meant as a place to vent frustrations (one-way), point
> out pleasing product characteristics, relate experiences, daydream of new
> elements, etc. But no reading by the LEGO Company should be expected.
I knew I had thought I had seen a "dear-lego" group somewhere.
>
> lugnet.lego.direct is for true communication between LEGO Direct and us. It is
> not a place for want/wish lists or for answers to questions which have never
> been asked. Speculation is not for this area. I hope to find only:
> - solid facts
> - reasonable questions
> - and answers to those questions
I apologize. It seemed to me the optimum place for want/wish lists, since I
felt that Brad had implied just that:
> I and other representatives of The LEGO Company will now be
participating in LUGNET on the order of once a week or so. We'll be
happy to answer questions - and we'll be asking some of you as well.
Please understand, however, that we can't address such juicy (yet taboo)
topics as upcoming but thus far undisclosed products and other such
"confidential" areas. We will however, be pleased to engage in dialogue
with you about your passion for the Brick, and to welcome your
suggestions for how we may offer better service and products to you, our
consumers. (I'll be looking for you in lugnet.lego.direct.)<
I can only repeat myself. I appreciate concerns about a flood of messages
and so much clutter that lugnet.lego.direct could become unable to serve its
purpose. Brad/LD may not have any interest or be unable to respond or even
read hundreds of messages a week. Keeping "want" messages compact to the
point that Brad/LD wouldn't have to read the message, just scan the subject
line, seemed a reasonable suggestion.
>
> I realize that Todd mentioned "rants & raves" in his initial post about this
> area, but I believe he meant those to be in reaction to something LEGO Direct
> had or had not done (past tense).
>
> I know that the idea of buying bulk elements is very exciting. In fact, I don't
> know anyone who isn't looking forward to it. But please remember that Brad has
> never asked this community what it would like.
And >>if<< he does ask, how do we express our wishes without generating
information overload? I agree Brad hasn't asked what we would like, but I do
believe LD is interested in selling us the bricks we want. I think they want
to know what we are willing to spend our money on. I believe there will be
polls and focus groups, but why would LD be interested in a dialogue through
Lugnet if it did not in some way allow it to develop products we want to
buy?
>
> I don't mean to be a party pooper. I just want everyone to understand very
> clearly what the facts are thus far. It should never be assumed that LEGO Direct
> will produce any specific element, no matter how badly we want it. I will feel
> everyone's pain if there are disappointments regarding LEGO Direct.
>
> -Suz
That isn't being a party pooper, it's just a real possibility. Even if they
offer the pieces we want, there is the possibility that the price might be
prohibitively expensive. I still feel, however, that we can and should
express our interest and thoughts effectively to help in the development of
Lego Direct. Many of us have want lists, and I think all of us would be
interested in seeing those list get noticed and taken seriously.
I apologize for disagreeing with some of your points. LD could still evolve
into something none of us can imagine at this time. Time will tell.
Mark K.
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
