Subject:
|
Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:53:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
614 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Here on Lugnet, I would think that a TLC person might chime in on a
> conversation of MOC with a statement that some element or other is available
> in such and such set, or that a new color for that element will soon be
> available, etc. Sure, another *Lugnut* might make the same kind if statement
> -- but the tenor of the statement would likely be different.
Uh, plenty of individuals do that already. Not everyone checks Peeron or
shop.lego.com, and so are not familiar with everything available. I, and a
number of others then fill them in. What is wrong with a Lego employee doing
the same?
> The reason I feel sure that TLC would use greater posting priveleges this
> way is that the temptation will simply be too strong to do otherwise.
If that were the case, you'd see tons of market postings in non-market groups,
since they have the same temptation. I see the very occasional post, and thats
about it.
> No, I can't see the future nor can I be absolutely positive of this. Then
> again, it is not a bad presumption given the HUGE money paid for this
> opportunity on TV and film -- and consider too the kind of "target" market we
> Lugnuts represent. We ARE almost the perfect market -- sure, maybe we are not
> the target age group for TLC's products, but then we have more money on the
> average per capita than the correct age group.
I'd say you'd have a point if Lego Direct was run by the advertising division,
but it isn't. Also, you have no evidence other than what you've seen in movies
and TV, of which Lugnet is neither, and those were deals made between the
advertising and financial divisions of those respective companies. Finally,
what's the harm in, at the very least, *testing* a free posting allowance for
them? If they are found to be truly advertising, we can revert their posting
priveleges. Why are so many people so fearful to give them a chance?
> So you may ask -- what is so wrong with a commercial? They are everywhere
> anyway. Even statements made by other lugnuts are like adverts for this or
> that. Frankly, there is no reason to not assume that TLC already has people
> making posts exactly as I described above in a more *hidden* way. Wouldn't
> letting them post such statements more openly be preferred? To all of these
> possibilities I admit I do not have a ready answer -- I just don't like
> advertising.
You seem pretty paranoid about all this. I've seen no evidence of any such
"hidden advertisers", and until I do, I'm giving them the benefit of the (very
little) doubt.
> I am not a particularly good or loyal consumer of anything except air and
> water. I don't closely identify my own identity with any product brands. I
> take labels off of my jeans. I never wear designer identified clothing. I
> don't care about the products endorsed by bubble-headed celebrities. I am
> critical of advertising that plays off of people's vanity or fears. Etc,
> etc, etc.
All of which really has little to do with free posting priveleges for Lego
employees. If certain employees are found to be truly advertising, rules could
be added, posters could be banned, and requests to Lego for some sort of rules
or disciplinary action on their end could be made. It really isn't in their
best interest to do any such advertising though. Too large a chance to annoy
us, and thus lose customers, for a negligible gain, since we do a hefty amount
of advertising for them already.
Jeff
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
