| |
I'd like to extract one issue from the "LEGO and its Fans" thread. How do
we, the fan community, want to interact with TLC? And in what ways can TLC,
or parts of TLC, interact with the fan community?
Some background, for those disinclined to throw themselves into the morass.
From http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=2201 (Todd Lehmann):
> What may have confused people is if they were looking to some existing
> problem that this is supposed to be solving. It's actually not about
> solving a problem. It's about avoiding dilution of what the community is.
>
> LUGNET discussion groups were founded for fans to talk to other fans. The
> LEGO Company isn't a fan -- it is a business, and its purpose in life is to
> sell products and make money. It doesn't talk like fans, it doesn't think
> like fans, and it isn't _part of_ the community it spawned, no matter how
> seductive it may be to believe that.
From http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=429 (Todd Lehmann):
> > > Is it really a good thing if someone at TLC happens to have TLC records
> > > which allow them to answer one of the "Dear Gary" posts, and they are
> > > allowed to share that information, to not allow them to directly respond
> > > to the original question?
> >
> > They can answer the question. They just can't answer it in a fan forum.
> > Which *is* a good thing, because when you see it there will be no doubt
> > that it is 100% Official LEGO position.
>
> Yup, exactly, and it's extremely easy to post a link to the official LEGO
> response just about anywhere. It happens all the time now with web stuff,
> and it happens often in the Italian local groups that someone there will
> post a link to an English message and spawn a new thread of discussion about
> it in Italian.
From http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=451 (Todd Lehmann):
> The charter of lugnet.lego.announce includes "LEGO Direct announcements,"
> which means it is free to post to its heart's content about sales,
> promotions, anything LEGO feels is worth announcing to its online consumers
> (i.e., us).
> That's clearly a double standard because other companies (or businesses)
> don't have their very own .announce group and also stick to the .market
> areas. LEGO doesn't have to do that. LEGO is why we're all here, and that
> makes it special. LUGNET is also special in that it gets an .admin area to
> keep the admin noise out of the regular groups (as much as is reasonably
> possible). At the other end of the spectrum, LEGO is special in a very
> different way: it's not actually _part of_ the community it has spawned,
> and it shouldn't conduct business as if it is. Themed discussion groups
> like .trains and .technic.bionicle were established for fans to meet one
> another, find information, and share ideas.
From http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=464 (Todd Lehmann):
> ...Yes, they are dumping when they post about something that old in
> nontrivial quantities. No one is implying there's anything wrong with a
> company dumping its obsolete stock on its fans. Fans love it, the company
> loves it, everyone's happy. However, company business doesn't need to be
> conducted in fan-to-fan theme groups.
>
> > This is a fan created website, so I am assuming you are a fan of
> > Lego, but your actions toward the lego company (and only the lego company)
> > in no way demonstrate that you are a fan of the Lego company.
>
> I have great respect and admiration for the LEGO Company and what it has
> achieved in the past 25 years. But that doesn't make me a fan of the
> _company_. I'm a fan of the _products_ the company produces and of the
> things people make using its products.
From http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=466 (Eric Joslin):
> Everything that LEGO does has one purpose: to increase their revenue. They > are here as part of a marketing strategy.
>
> Now, we might think it's a good marketing strategy- even a *cool* marketing
> strategy (a rare thing indeed!)- after all, LEGO has lately been giving us
> things we've wanted for a long time- but it's important not to lose sight of
> the fact that it is, in fact, a marketing strategy.
>
>
> And a marketing strategy is very different than fans interacting.
>
> > If these posts harmed anyone, please explain the manner in which they
> > harmed you.
> They haven't harmed anyone specific as far as I know, but they do water down
> the purpose of Lugnet. This has been said before, so try to take it to heart
> this time: Lugnet is a website "by fans, for fans". LEGO employees are not
> automatically LEGO fans.
>
> This move doesn't tell LEGO to leave Lugnet completely. It asks them to
> restrict their activities to a certain portion of the server. They can still
> post *any* information they want to there. So, I ask you: How does this
> move harm "anyone", or the community?
From http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=476 (Eric Joslin):
> Lugnet is for fans. Lugnet is not a tool for LEGO. If LEGO wants to
> interact with fans on Lugnet, great! They can have a whole area unto
> themselves to do it. But to allow them to run rampant throughout Lugnet
> dilutes the purpose for which Lugnet was started- fans talking to fans.
From http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=553 (Mike Faunce):
> If you want to write a letter to TLC that they can read and respond to, why
> would you do it on LUGNET? Why not go to http://www.lego.com and do it
> there? Isn't that what that site is for? Why should LUGNET provide time,
> space, hardware, bandwidth, etc. to allow TLC to get feedback from it's
> customers? That is TLC's problem not LUGNET's. If they wanted your
> feedback as badly as you think they do, they'd give you an easy path for it.
Here's my summary of the views expressed above:
LUGNET has been established by fans, for fans. Postings by TLC employees, as
representatives of TLC/LEGO Direct, don't belong in the regular newsgroups,
as their contributions:
(a) are part of a marketing strategy, not fan-fan dialogue. Such postings
make LUGNET a tool for TLC, when it is supposed to be a place for LEGO fans;
(b) come from a place that is permanently and necessarily beyond the AFOL
community;
(c) represent the 100% Official LEGO Position, which is expressed in LEGO
Direct announcements, something like highly customised press releases (eg
"The LEGO company announced that as of today bulk packs of brown bricks are
available from Shop at Home...").
I've probably missed something here, and if so welcome any corrections.
I have a slightly different opinion. Not everything we might hear from TLC
is marketing. TLC employees can share with us a lot of information that is
neither publically available, particularly interesting to a non-fan nor
commercially sensitive. I'm not sure that such information needs to be
posted anywhere but the official LEGO Direct groups, although ongoing
discussion might be better suited to theme/location groups. Overall, the new
demarcation of TLC and non-TLC seems okay. However, I think it overlooks
other more exciting ways in which TLC and the LUGNET community can work
together.
LUGNET is already a tool for TLC. The company could (and for all I know
does) pay a couple of people to read every post, flag relevant issues (eg
adverse consumer response to product), and restrict their communication with
the community to the occasional flog in .lego.announce. I suppose this is a
small part of what LEGO Direct employees do.
I look forward to a time when TLC realises it can use our brains as well as
our money. When proposed themes, products and even company strategies are
actually discussed with fans, and fans' ideas and creations have an impact
on what TLC produces. I think we're already seeing slow steps in this
direction, particularly in Trains. I think there's room on LUGNET for spaces
where fans and TLC can build new ideas together. If TLC chooses to do this
through Summits with the cream of the AFOL crop, that's their prerogative: I
guess I'd like to see something a bit more democratic, especially when the
online forum would cost TLC nothing. I'd also rather take part in such a
forum on LUGNET, where I feel like part of the fan community, rather than on
lego.com, where I would feel much more constrained in the contributions I
could make.
By looking at the R&D aspects of TLC's business I think we break out of the
concept of the company as a krone-driven vending machine with a single
public face. If we can integrate our creativity and enthusiasm with the
company's experience and resources, who loses? A deeper symbiosis between
the LEGO community and the LEGO corporation could benefit us all, but it's
up to both parties to make it happen.
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Open Source Lego
|
| (...) That sounds about right to me. (...) Whoops, wait...I need to interject something: I agree with you that not everything we might hear from TLC is marketing. However, it's all part of the _marketing strategy_, including the fact that AFOLs were (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
