Subject:
|
Re: NDAs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:00:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
839 times
|
| |
|
|
"Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message
news:G8nxyB.FC4@lugnet.com...
> A priviledge, yes. A gift? No.
>
> LEGO got just as much, if not more, out of the meeting than you did.
And that's OK.
> It's important to remember that LEGO is a company. LEGO is not your friend,
> it's not your enemy, it's not Santa's workshop. They don't do things out of
> the goodness of their hearts- nor should they be expected to do so.
True for the company - but my experience with the individuals in the company is
that they are good people and they do do things out of the goodness of their
hearts. They're subject to the greater agenda of the company because they work
for them, but that doesn't discredit the individuals. Quite frankly, this
weekend some new friendships were made, and I'd venture to say the same for last
weekend.
> Yes, I do know that LEGO was soliciting ideas about how to better service • their
> customers, and how to better get realtively cheap advertising out of LTCs.
> Nothing wrong with that, certainly.
>
> Still doesn't constitute a "gift".
Its not a 'gift' from LEGO in the true sense, no. And I believe all of us
involved understand what went on this weekend. The whole time was very busy and
we're all exhausted - we all need to let our brains rest before moving on to the
next phase of discussion.
> Well, frankly, I think you're underestimating how important your opinions as
> hardcore LEGO consumers is to the company. Let's not forget, they've been
> floundering lately. Sales flagging, layoffs, etc. They are in desperate need
> of figuring out a way to better their product offerings and maximise sales.
> And as consumers, you know what you want.
Yes.
> I think you're mistaking my trying to point out that this was not a "gift" for
> meaning that I somehow think the whole thing was flawed.
Ok. I was mistakening that at first too, and I'm glad you clarified. Be
assured (everyone) that this is not a giant conspiracy - LEGO Direct is acting
in its own best interest and that's to be expected but the LDraw people who
attended are also acting in what we feel is the community's best interest. For
now, people will have to take our word for it until more can be revealed about
the specifics.
> Far from it! I think that both of these meetings- train and CAD- are • excellent
> moves on LEGO Direct's part. I think it's an awe-inspring step closer to the
> consumer community, and clearly they value your input, or they wouldn't waste
> their time and money.
Glad to hear it. We feel that way too.
> However, the important thing to realise is that they *do* value your input, • and
> that's why you were there, not because LEGO was trying to do something nice • for
> you (or anyone).
Yep. We gave em plenty of it too ;-) We also had a good time and came to
understand LEGO Direct and the product offerings better (including a lot of AFOL
complaints were discussed casually).
> > > Frankly, even if they did pay your room and board, in my mind you would • have
> > > done well to ask for a consultant's fee as well, and made *them* sign NDAs
> > > about the direction that the LDraw community is going to go in.
> >
> > This isn't about money, it's about our love for the brick.
Well said.
Though the NDA for TLC is kinda an issue of hindsight, as they trust us we trust
them - them that is the employees who we met with. We did not openly discuss
the majority of our plans in the meetings, but in our separate LDraw.org
meeting, which only Tomas Clark from LEGO attended (and half the time he was
grabbing fries for all of us from the counter at Wendy's). Tomas was there out
of a genuine interest (non-LEGO motivated) and also to answer questions if they
came up about LEGO.
> Once again, I think these meetings are a good business move for LEGO. I think
> it's smart for them to solicit fan/consumer feedback in such a serious and
> meaningful way. I'm excited by the possible outcomes in the consumer
> fields.
The same here.
> But the meeting, while a great thing, was not a "gift". It's an important
> distinction, and a lot of the realisation that LEGO is a company, and acts • like
> a company, is getting lost around Lugnet lately. I think everyone's
> expectations would be better filled if we all managed to remember what LEGO • the
> company is, and what role LEGO Direct plays in that company.
Yes.
Realize that the fan community got a lot out of this meeting, even if you take
away everything we discussed with LEGO. The fact that a lot of major LDraw
contributors were able to meet together face to face and discuss LDraw issues
was an amazing feat - one we couldn't have done all on our own. We talked about
a TON of business related to LDraw, and organized and prioritized some action
items for the organization, parts updates, cooperation between software, etc
etc.. But anyways, that's off topic for lego.direct. Most of what we
discussed in the LDraw.org meeting can be public info, I think a couple tidbits
are a bit low-profile though.
I hope this helps. I'll be posting less on the subject, because I think I've
made my point (and others have done a lot to clarify too). Dealing with the
public is tricky, as I think all of us in both summits have learned. Hindsight
is 20/20, and at least for the CAD group we might have chosen to break this
differently were we able to do it all over again. But... everything's ok :-)
This is abso-tuta-lutely a positive thing for the community! :-)
-Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: NDAs
|
| (...) A priviledge, yes. A gift? No. LEGO got just as much, if not more, out of the meeting than you did. It's important to remember that LEGO is a company. LEGO is not your friend, it's not your enemy, it's not Santa's workshop. They don't do (...) (24 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
