Subject:
|
Re: Let's be realistc
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:37:34 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
[johnneal@uswest.]AvoidSpam[net]
|
Viewed:
|
649 times
|
| |
|
|
Very eloquently stated, Tomas! Thanks you:-)
-John
Tomas Clark wrote:
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Let's be realistc
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
