Subject:
|
Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:12:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2678 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 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 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.
> I thought you were looking for a no_strings_attached partnering.
As I understand it, it has always been important to TLC that it not sponsor
unofficial sites, for legal and other business-related reasons. It's a
delicate walk if they choose to do it, so I don't blame them if they aren't
interested in a sponsorship-style arrangement. But policies aside, TLC clearly
benefits from the services LUGNET provides to it. Though it doesn't legally
owe anything in return for the services is uses, it still confuses me some that
TLC doesn't seem motiviated to recompense LUGNET in any way. Perhaps LUGNET
should charge TLC a monthly fee and TLC could account this as a business
expense which is clearly not sponsorship in any way.
> 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.
There are cases of dashed hopes, yes. There are also occasionally other things
going on behind the scenes which add to frustration levels from time to time.
For example, it came to our attention a few weeks ago that LEGO Direct was
using the LUGNET name in a coupon code[1] on the LEGO website. First instinct
was to become angry, but after calming down for a few hours, we figured it was
probably just a well-intentioned faux pas, and that we should approach the
situation delicately.
We wrote to LD the first week of May, expressed our concerns, and kindly asked
that LD not use the name again in future coupon codes without our approval.
Our concern is that we don't want TLC using the LUGNET name in its marketing
done so without remuneration; it's certainly not unreasonable for someone to
assume that LUGNET was receiving remuneration for the use of the code when it
fact it wasn't. Jared wrote back quickly and said that Brad would be
following up.
Three weeks passed. We asked Jake for help, and we also asked that someone
from TLC please post a public clarfication that (a) the coupon code did not
benefit LUGNET in any way, despite the fact that it contained the LUGNET name,
and (b) we were not notified of its creation. Jake took the lead and, although
he has been active in trying to understand our request, the issue still isn't
resolved to our satisfaction -- although Jake is definitely trying.
Now, I'm sure everyone at LD is overwhelmed with more imporant things, but it
has _felt_ as though LD just doesn't really care one way or the other and isn't
truly interested in clarifying the issue. Again, that's a _feeling_, not
necessarily a statement of reality.
We also suggested early on that it seemed like an excellent opportunity to
discuss how LEGO Direct could benefit from compensating LUGNET financially for
the use of similarly named coupon codes in the future (for example, via
click-throughs from the LUGNET set database to the LEGO Shop-At-Home website),
but that suggestion seems to have fallen upon deaf ears, which also feels sad.
Anyway, sorry for the tangent/detour. Just a taste of some of what goes on
behind the scenes. There have been a greater number of pleasant experiences,
I think, than unpleasant ones, so don't let me sound too sour.
--Todd
[1] http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=3998
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
