Subject:
|
Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:21:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2613 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Knoot writes:
> So could they *really* use us? Any more than we would want to be used? Many
> people here actively promote and advertise for Lego for free by setting up
> public displays.
I think the initial intent was to keep from being "strongarmed" by Lego into
actually being a real commercial force. IE, ad banners, ONLY pro-Lego
propaganda (no flames on TLC's business decisions, etc, like juniorization
qualms), etc. Also, it was to prevent TLC from being to strong a hand in
what they wanted code-wise. So Lego shouldn't really be able to use their
weight to provide them with some sort of special interface for Lugnet, etc.
Maybe Lugnet might WANT to do any of those things, but it shouldn't be
forced to, is the idea.
Now, I don't think that it was ever Lego's intent to DO any of that, but
suffice to say, the Lugnet administration wanted to make sure to protect
themselves from that possibility, "just in case". Kinda like how you sign
waivers when you go skiing. The company's just protecting themselves. 99.9%
of customers won't ever need to have signed them, but they're there just in
case.
I'm not sure, however, what's to be lost on Lugnet's part if Lego employees
post in non-Official-Lego groups. Certainly from TLC's standpoint, I
understand it. They might want to make sure things aren't construed as
"official" information. And perhaps the only drawback for Lugnet in that
respect would be the fact that TLC would construe it as a drawback.
Ooo, a good example:
Back for the 2000 line-up, I think, (so actually would be Fall of '99),
someone published scans of a year 2000 merchandiser's catalog. And posted
it. Lego saw it, and promptly asked that the post (and all links to it) be
removed from Lugnet's site. Why? Because the catalog was seen (by Lego) as a
non-finalized document, not fit for public viewing. The retail prices might
not have been final, the sets may not have been released in particular
areas, etc. Now, as it turned out, I think Todd removed the post. It
resulted in a similar discussion. IE should Lego have the power to ask
Lugnet for that favor? Should they be able to use their sway to that effect?
Food for thought,
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why the absence of LD in their own newsgroup?
|
| (...) Todd, isn't the very existance of Lugnet a de facto advertisement for Lego, and isn't that a good thing? I mean, everyone here is a Lego consumer, by definition. AFOL: Adult Friend Of Lego. We all buy Legos. We all like building with Legos. We (...) (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
|
|
|
|
