Subject:
|
Re: LD's Auctions (Re: Going once, going twice, sold!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:00:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3270 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> I guess I'm breaking my self-imposed rule of not 'discussing' on LUGNET here
> - I try only post to get information out to the public and to praise
> creations - but here goes.
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Rick Clark writes:
> > Not sure I see what you find disturbing. My take on it is that it's a
> > more fair way to distribute a one-of-a-kind, collectible model. The
> > alternative is that some Joe Schmo randomly receives number 0001. He
> > either gives it to his 7 year old, who promptly loses the numbered tile;
> > or he never opens the box, and we never find out who has #0001; or he
> > opens it, destroying the collectible value of it. I don't really like
> > any of those options.
>
> I totally agree.
>
> > The auction method gives everyone a fair market chance to purchase what
> > many feel is a highly desirable set. Additionally, it gives LEGO Direct
> > some additional hard data that it can show to LEGO Corporate, showing
> > that they are doing things right (the fact that in the first twelve
> > hours of a ten day auction, the set has been bid to nine times its
> > original value, should prove to be quite interesting to the suits at the
> > home office).
>
>
> Yep. I think its obvious LEGO Direct is doing well as it is. If they
> weren't, we wouldn't see all the cool newer stuff like the Super Chief to
> begin with.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, I don't see it as being "obvious". One
would have to see the balance sheet to say that (I wonder who audits the
accounts?).
> If LD was doing things wrong and not right, how would they have
> gotten the funding to go out on a limb and design a totally new product like
> that? LD has their act together, IMO.
Hardly out on a limb - a limited production run set which fits in well with
existing themes and markets. In my view the early sculptures were higher
risk products for LD.
>
> I think what upsets me and offends me much more than these auctions is
> seeing members of this community slam LEGO for this. If I were the one who
> posted this announcement after working hard on the program, I'd be a bit put
> off. I have no idea how Jake or others at LEGO Direct feel about it, but
> I'm speaking from my own perspective. I hope they let it roll off and focus
> on what they do best.
...selling product.
>
> We as a community should be wanting to work with LEGO, not slamming them.
> Slamming's different than constructive criticism.
Everything I have read has been constructive criticism.
> The latter is good for
> learning from shortcomings, the former doesn't build either side up. I
> offer honest constructive criticism as well as I take it. But I see
> publicly slamming LEGO here as counterproductive and terribly embarrassing
> for this community.
Objectively considering Lego's actions makes us stronger.
Scott A
=+=
Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet?
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=scotta
"A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable
man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (GBS)
=+=
>
> -Tim (who probably won't stay in a long discussion about this, if one happens)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
38 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
