| |
In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> All of us have had our own unique experiences with TLC. [1] The volume
> and variety of contact I've had could lead me to "know more," as you
> say, than some folks about the actions of TLC and LD. (but I certainly
> don't assume that's the case.) There's a certain type of less experienced >AFOL I worry for. And it's their feelings I worry about.
Honestly, I think that many of us who are still "inside" TLC can relate to
this worry. It's a very good point and I'm glad you brought it up. With any
company -- from a restaurant to a multinational corporation -- it's a little
difficult to understand exactly what's going on inside when you're on the
outside (heck, with large companies it's often difficult even on the
inside). IMHO, it's practically impossible to make guesses about why
business decisions are made without being privy to the numbers, facts, and
theories that are used to make those decisions. If you're not well-versed in
the ways of commerce, some of those decisions may seem personal --
negatively or positively. But Suzanne is right: businesses, almost by
definition, are not in the habit of getting personal. They don't like or not
like you, and they don't become emotionally attached to things.
But I would also submit that businesses are made up of human beings, not
robots, and human beings do have emotions, attachments, and so forth. I
haven't worked at LEGO Direct all that long. Suzanne, for instance,
undoubtedly has a lot more experience with the company than I do. But by
this point I have collaborated with a large number of LEGO-employed human
beings from all over the world. I find that most of them care about the
brick, the sets, the themes, the characters, and yes, the community -- on
our own sites and on sites like Lugnet. If they weren't working for LEGO,
they'd probably be AFOLs. (Although not all would own a literal ton of
bricks...) There are a lot more "lurkers" from TLC reading Lugnet posts than
you guys might imagine -- and I don't just mean LEGO Direct.
These people are not looking solely at the bottom line -- if they were, LEGO
as a company and a product would be vastly different. Certainly, the bottom
line is always a factor that has to be considered. Sometimes, it even
precludes projects and forces decisions. But there are always other factors
besides money, including love of the brick, and that's often where the
original ideas and effort comes from.
I've worked for more than one company where the bottom line really was the
only concern -- some companies are proud to say that, and in some cases it
makes sense. But I don't think LEGO would have gotten as far as it has if it
had been one of those companies. On the other hand, I don't think LEGO would
have gotten anywhere at all if it had ignored the bottom line. As a
business, LEGO is interesting to me because it's one of many companies
trying to balance financial concerns with quality, creativity, and a set of
values. I may not always agree with the values, and I may wince sometimes at
the financial concerns, but I still have to admire the balancing act.
All companies have an obvious public image, and a private image. The private
image consists of the stuff that isn't openly shown to the public, for
whatever reason -- the things that are only discussed inside, and with
partner companies. Lugnet may occupy a zone in between the public and
private spheres of LEGO. Sometimes posts here have been very formal, almost
like press releases or announcements, while others are informal and
conversational, or give Lugnet members info that's not presented to the
general public.
I hope that LEGO Direct could consider Lugnet to be a bit closer to home
than say, an interview with a newspaper reporter or an audience of a
thousand kids. But this is a public forum, and Lugnet is an admirably
diverse community -- from the "less experienced AFOLs" that Suzanne
mentioned to the very savvy; the technically minded and the
not-so-technical; fans and detractors of various products, divisions of TLC,
etc. To avoid misinterpretation (willful and otherwise), we have to watch
our words carefully, which can end up as a more formal, public presentation.
Also, I doubt it would be a good idea to detail of Direct's future plans on
Lugnet, for various reasons -- legalities, competetive secrecy, avoiding
premature "promises," misinterpretation, and outright LEGO-bashing amongst them.
I've gone on long enough -- I have to wake up and meet some of the
lugnet.cad/ldraw.org guys in a few hours. But to sum up -- yes, LEGO is a
company. But we're also people, and we really, really like bricks. Don't be
crushed and dismayed if LEGO, as a company, makes impersonal business
decisions. LEGO being a company is no reason to lose hope, to stop being
excited or interested -- after all, it was that profit-motivated company
that designed and made all of those neat bricks. Hopefully, even in this
world that's chock-full of companies, we can still be idealistic, push for
our dreams to be realized, and express our opinions. Thanks again to Todd
and Suzanne for a place where we can do all of that.
Tomas Clark
LEGO Direct
The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of my employer.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Let's be realistc
|
| (...) And let's face it: profit has to be a primary motive in any company. It doesn't matter how altruistic you are, how much good you do, or how right you are-- if you don't turn a profit, you only get to do it once. Even though LEGO has no (...) (25 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
19 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
|
|
|
|
