Subject:
|
Re: Bad Policy #2 (Why all the secrecy, LEGO Direct?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 May 2001 15:44:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1601 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Marc Nelson, Jr. writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tony Priestman writes:
> > Marc,
> >
> > I'm getting bored now.
>
> You're bored? I have to listen to the endless drumbeat of "like it or lump
> it", "you should feel lucky LEGO sells us anything" talk.
I think that's a bit of an absolutist portrayal, don't you?
The point is that people have been trying to explain *why*
it is the way it is, not trying to defend it or say it's
necessarily the right way of doing something, given infinite
time and money to restructure the system.
> > > [big ol' snippination]
> > > What makes me grumpy is the overly apologist (IMO) attitude that seems to be
> > > so common around here, which leads to any suggestion that LEGO might
> > > actually be doing something wrong being slapped down (especially if it comes
> > > from a know-nothing, non-summit attending young whippersnapper like myself).
> >
> > No-one is apologising. TLC isn't doing anything wrong. It's just not
> > doing what you want it to.
>
> A company not satisfying its customers is doing something wrong.
That's just the point. LEGO *is* satisfying its customers,
on the whole. They're just not satisfying you in this one
particular instance (and likely a minority of others). Think
of all the UK and European buyers, however, who would *never*
have had a chance at these if the floodgates were wide open--
then you'd be hearing European Legofans shouting about how
the deep-pockets, wired-up Americans have been making off
with "their" stock. For every unsatisfied customer in a
limited-stock offering, there's someone else who's delighted.
> > And hey, give us in the UK a break. In the past, the US has had all
> > sorts of stuff that we haven't, like the Forestmen's river crossing and
> > the original Space Shuttle set (1682), not to mention all those value
> > packs.
>
> This is a great case in point. Were you happy about not being able to get
> those sets? I bet there were people in Europe would have liked to get their
> hands on the Space Shuttle, even if it meant paying more for shipping and
> customs. This isn't a Europe vs. U.S. issue. I have no problem with the
> costs being passed on to the consumer. People who want something shipped
> across the Atlantic should expect to have to pay for it. There Ain't No Such
> Thing As A Free Lunch.
Well, I can agree there. But in a sense, isn't this already
being done, with the transoceanic AFOL community, and more
cheaply than the implementation and operation costs of an
entirely new level of operation at the point of shipping?
It's more than slapping a label on and charging the shipping;
it's knowing in advance how much to quote the customer, it's
making sure all your Ts are crossed and Is are dotted (lowercase,
that is) legally and internationally, and it's making sure your
rear is covered with regard to liability and fraud. Verifying
those things takes time and money. Who's to say it's not in
the pipeline right now? It might very well be, and it may yet
take years to get all of the incorporation issues sorted out.
What's easy for you or me--putting the label on the package
and charging shipping--is automatically more difficult for a
corporation, which has law and inertia working against making
a turn. Companies don't start from zero every time they begin
a transaction.
> Obviously, people wouldn't pay to have something shipped from another area
> if they could get it from their own S@H, so this would only happen in the
> case of highly desirable items like the Lost Service Packs. And if people
> don't wan't to pay those shipping charges, that is fine. But the people who
> are willing to pay them to get sets they really want should be able to do that.
I think Larry's numbers weren't too far off the mark, IMHO.
If you offered to European AFOLs at large to pay a $60 bounty
to order you things, I think they'd come running--it worked
for me (and would work now, except that my shipping window is
now closed). As with individuals, to companies it must be
worth their while. Why go to all the extra trouble when the
fans in Europe are buying the sets at a nice, fast clip?
I mean, if it were a point of making money, why wouldn't S@H
just sell the Lost Service Packs on eBay and make nearly four
times as much as they would through S@H? It would make sense
for them financially, but the system just isn't designed to
do it. We don't usually look at the inertia when it operates
in our favour; nobody has asked the vital question "How could
this many service packs from 1987-1993 possibly been forgotten
or miscounted? Don't they know how to keep inventory?" It's
inertia of the corporate sort, inefficiencies that have their
own reasons for being and are slow to be corrected.
> Sorry for boring anyone. I guess I didn't realize how unpopular questioning
> official LEGO policy would be. I guess this horse can be pronounced dead.
Dead and buried. But I can't disagree with your basic point
that it sucks and it should be addressed and *fixed* if possible.
I don't think anyone's arguing that. They're just trying to
explain why it can't unfortunately be done right now.
Ungrumpily,
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
79 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
|
|
|
|
