| |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.dear-lego, Ray Sanders writes:
> >
> > > Yep. If the instructions were on TLCs site, there would be much more exposure
> > > and probably more utilization. 100GB/day ? Who knows.
> >
> > Isn't that a good thing? Wouldn't it be better to have them available to
> > anyone who wants them? Exposing them to more fans would result in more
> > folks renewing or embracing an interest in LEGO bricks, wouldn't it?
>
> Yes, and if that were the only issue then it would be a good thing. But like
> I said in my post in response I fear two very serious things that out weigh
> that.
>
> - ALL the 'lesser quality' instructions would be removed since it's a
> corporate 'image' thing to have everything just so. Some exec (above Brad)
> somewhere would force it because it "makes us look bad to have tattered
> instructions... and who cares that those are the only ones available"...
> LEGO(r) does not, to my knowledge, have a full archive of all instructions
> ever produced. In some cases, the BrickShelf instruction currently available
> is the best extant, until someone actually came out of the woodwork with a
> better one.
Companies have every right to protect their public image. This is part of
the trademark issue and has been thoroughly discussed on this site
previously. Suffice to say that I feel LEGO has to make sure that they
project the image they want people to see.... nothing less.
That said, I think that a reasonable company would see the overall benefit
of having as many instructions available as possible. Perhaps they could
offer an incentive for folks with old instructions to provide scans to help
complete the database. How about a $10.00 Shop At Home gift certificate for
every *complete* scan provided that fills a gap or greatly improves a poor
existing one?
> - The development process is so cumbersome that it would be very labor
> intensive for someone (coming out of the woodwork as above) to submit
> instructions, have LD personnel approve them, have them get propagated to
> the site, etc... also chances are (given how the bulk items are
> "searchable") that the interface would be terrible.
Perhaps they could hire someone like Kevin to do these very functions.
Though I agree with you.... it could take a significant amount of time and
effort to synch this content with the existing LEGO site.
> No, (and I'm not just blowing smoke here, I've talked to a lot of the
> players and am drawing my conclusions based on what they've said to me about
> this) the BEST solution would be for TLC to pay for the bandwidth at the
> BrickShelf site consumed by this but let Kevin's current excellent process
> handle updates.
Correct me if I'm wrong. (and I hope I am this time)
You want LEGO to pay for the bandwidth for Brickshelf, but you want the
control of its content and structure to remain outside of the company?
> To address your concern, which IS valid, wide exposure is a good thing...
> the lego.com site could well heavily advertise that BrickShelf is a (non
> affiliated but SPONSORED) resource available at "this URL"...
Normally I'm against too much corporate consolidation, but in this case I
think it would be wise for LEGO to bring this in-house. Not only would it
strengthen the impact of the LEGO.com site, but it would provide a basis
upon which the company could reconstruct their own history. I'd love to
read some of the stories behind the old sets. How they were developed? How
many prototypes there were? Who designed it, and what else did that same
person design? How well did they sell originally?
I think the instructions could provide a way to help tell this story, along
with providing the service they already fill.
> A side note: One downside of posting tattered instructions is that in some
> cases, that has discouraged others from submitting better copies. After all
> "why bother, there's a good enough one up there already". I wish Kevin
> posted a "Here are replacements I really really want" in a more public way.
> But I digress. At present it's a moot point.
See above for possible solution to this problem.
Regards,
Allan B.
- Expert Builder website
- http://www.apotome.com/builder
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
