Subject:
|
Re: Question: Why allow postings of lego.direct on lugnet at all? (sarcasm warning)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:53:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
634 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Stembel writes:
> 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?
Objectively, not much, but at the same time what's the benefit? How many
"what's this part from" posts currently go unanswered without the input of
TLC employees? In addition, a reasonable concern is that Employee X might
say "sure, that Green 1x1 brick is available in the fantastic new Galidor
Uberdude set for only $79.99. Check it out on Lego.com using code word
'LUGNET'". I think TLC employees might be helpful pools of information, but
they're ultimately required to serve The Bottom Line. That's not a
guarantee of heavily sales-oriented posts, but it's a legitimate concern.
> > 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.
The difference is that the the average LUGNET poster isn't representing a
multi-national brick seller and are not employed for the express purpose of
advancing the profit margin of that brick seller. I suppose we could
establish an "admin's fiat" allowing a LUGNET admin to cancel a
marketing-related post by a TLC employee in a non-marketing group, but that
would require a lot of housekeeping.
> I'd say you'd have a point if Lego Direct was run by the advertising division,
> but it isn't.
Until a company demonstrates otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that
every part of the company that has contact with the public is, in essence,
run by the advertising division.
> 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.
It seems that you're questioning Richard's views on the basis that TLC has
never participated in an online forum like LUGNET before, and therefore
Richard can't base his conclusions on past practices. However, since TLC is
a profit-driven company, and since (as Richard points out) LUGNET represents
a tempting and FREE advertising forum, it's simply not reasonable to expect
that TLC won't consider taking advantage of it in exactly the way Richard
has described. Since there is no precedent for LUGNET-style interaction, on
what do you base your conclusion that TLC won't act in this way? It would
be great if we could assume the best of our favorite company, but that's
certainly not realistic.
> 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?
Now that's not a bad idea! But the privilege might need to be entirely
contingent on their behavior, even after the "testing" phase.
What would be the repercussions of a LUGNET.MARKETPLACE.LEGO-DIRECT
posting group to which TLC employees could post freely? It could even
appear in the skip-filter settings by default so no one would have to see it
unless they wanted to.
> 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.
I think it's wrong to speak of "certain employees," since these employees
would presumably be posting in an official capacity and would therefore
represent TLC itself on LUGNET. If "certain employees" mess up and post a
string of forbidden advertisements, then TLC itself has thereby messed up.
> 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.
What customers would they lose, really? Anyone loyal enough to stick it
out through Jack Stone and Town Jr. and Galidor and the post-3033 era and
feeble bulk sales and Lego-Direct-Silence and lousy piece:price ratios (etc.
etc. etc.) isn't going to be chased away by a stray "check out Lego.com"
post here and there. With that in mind, TLC has everything to gain and very
little to lose by trying to sneak advertisements in non-marketplace groups.
Even if they lost their LUGNET posting privileges altogether, so what?
Would TLC really care if they weren't allowed to post 2 or 3 message per
month on a site catering to a teeny tiny demographic?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | TLC participation here part of LD marketecture
|
| (...) Indeed, TLC's presence here is not simply a fortuitous by-product of the reinvention of LEGO Direct in 1999, but part of the very _marketecture_ of the new LEGO Direct. Acknowledging and participating in fan events -- and hiring people from (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
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
|
|
|
|
