Subject:
|
Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:49:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2642 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes:
> I know that I personally harbor a fear of LUGNET becoming a platform for free
> advertising for TLC. I don't really know what harm would befall the community
> from that, but it seems somehow wrong. I don't know how to express this fear
> succinctly. It feels irrational. I don't mean to imply that TLC would ever
> take advantage of LUGNET, but, well, business is business, and in business if
> something is free, you take advantage of that.
I think that you two have been tremendously good at thinking into the future
and setting things up right to avoid all kinds of potential pitfalls. But in
this case, what harm could crop up that you could not remedy if you just let
them post freely?
It seems like the potential for good and bad are both fairly high. I doubt
that anything terrible would happen, and if something crossed a line -- even a
line that you can't articulate right now, then policy could be ammended to
correct it. On the other hand, Jake seems to claim he would post more
interactively if posting as a LEGO rep were more free. Wouldn't that be great?
I doubt that much difference would be seen. I doubt that LEGO would spend so
much money, either on marketing to this channel or on stationing Jake 24x7 on
LUGNET to answer questions, that much difference would take place. But maybe.
I guess you guys think that the potential detriment outweighs that potential
gain, but it doesn't seem so to me given that you can address bad things
happening in the future and you have no way to address good things just not
happening. It feels like you're shooting for the horizon instead of the stars.
> Two years ago, LD made a cash donation to LUGNET. Brad projected high hopes
> for there being additional donations in the future. I personally would feel
> a lot more comfortable with TLC's long-term expanded presence here if it was
> demonstrably interested some sort of ongoing financial support.
What exactly does that mean? It sounds like you want to sell them LUGNET
powers. In the first response to your note, Benjamin Medinets wrote: "If LEGO
really wanted to dictate how it wanted it to do business on LUGNET, all it had
to do was maintain its donations." Is this _really_ what you meant for us to
take away? I thought you were looking for a no_strings_attached partnering.
> Brad's
> excellent t-shirt idea[1] also seems to have been all but forgotten about at
> TLC. It's too easy for me to hear ideas like this and have high expectations.
I agree that it was a great idea. And I agree that it's easy to get excited
and be disappointed. But is bitterness caused by dashed hopes what this is all
about? There seems like some hostility going on, not just professional desire.
I guess I just don't get what's going on between LUGNET and LEGO.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
| (...) I meant that it seems, in retrospect, as though TLC has done so much taking and so little giving. That tends to makes me feel uneasy from time to time. (...) As I understand it, it has always been important to TLC that it not sponsor (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
| (...) I know that I personally harbor a fear of LUGNET becoming a platform for free advertising for TLC. I don't really know what harm would befall the community from that, but it seems somehow wrong. I don't know how to express this fear (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
134 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
