Subject:
|
Re: Sept/Oct LEGO Magazine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:36:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1121 times
|
| |
|
|
Jake,
I think it is disappointing and a bit sad that Lego would reply to letters
from children in such a manner.
In your post you mentioned this -
> Children are intelligent and naturally able to assimilate information
> quickly. I would venture to suggest that Lego-playing children and those
> from within that group who can put together a very coherent question and • ask
> it of TLC are even more so.
>
> Sure, we can, but where's the fun in that?
You are correct - children are extremely intelligent. (I'm often stunned at
what my two year old does!)
But you also have to remember that the little boy or girl who took the time
out from play and carefully prepared a letter to Lego did it in all
seriousness. From their point of view, they are writing to the big company
that makes the best toys in the world.
It may have been "fun" for the child to write the letter, address the
envelope, stamp it and take it out the mailbox. Helping a child write a
letter is fun and it is a great activty for a parent and child. But the
child still did it with all sincerity and with the expectation that they
would get some kind of reply.
Not a silly reply, but a reply that sounds like the big Lego company cares
about their letter and who wrote it. The replies to those two examples from
the latest magazine are almost demeaning.
I have not received my copy of the magazine yet, so I don't know if the
children's name and city are published below the questions. If they are, I'm
sure the children were at first thrilled to see their questions and names,
then disappointed when they read the "silly and fun" replies that brush off
their questions. And I bet the children did not want to look at the rest of
the magazine or play with their bricks.
> I hope that I am not fanning the fire on this issue, but I think it is
> important to remember that we aren't kids.
I'm 32, but I remember how I felt when I was a kid. I wrote many, many
letters to Susan Williams in the late 70's and 80's. No matter what my
question or request was (1), I _always_ got a polite, respectful letter and
catalog back from Susan. Of course, I always thought Susan was a real
person. And I was thrilled whenever I received an envelope with the big red
Lego logo on it. The big Lego Company cared about me.
It makes children feel special and appreciated when you, being a parent or
an adult or a company, treat them with respect.
If a child approaches you or writes to you about something serious to them,
even if it is about a toy, they deserve a respectful reply.
If you cannot answer the question, it is still better to explain why rather
then dismiss the question/request or give an obviously silly answer.
I still have everyone of the letters from Susan Williams. Those letters
helped make me a life long customer. (2)
TLC is smart to use marketing research to put together a great kids
magazine. But letters from children are something TLC should treat very
carefully.
I hope this feedback helps.
Bryan Kinkel
(1) "My mom and dad went to Europe and brought back this great Lego train
catalog.
http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/catalogs/1980/c80eutr/index.html
Can you please sell these sets in the United States?"
(2) They are all in a shoebox, in their envelopes, in pristine condition. I
should scan them and post them to Brickshelf.
"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message
news:H2opB4.Gww@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Simon Bennett writes:
>
> > This is appalling.
>
> Now hang on... I think "appalling" is a little too strong.
>
> > When did this patronising of children start? When I was
> > young I don't remember suffering this sort of thing. I remember reading • my
> > dad's Eagle annuals from when he was a child (60's) and they had
> > fantastically detailed information about science and technology subjects. • I
> > have no idea what age group they were aimed at except to suspect that the
> > concept of 'aiming' them would be completely alien to the writers but I • had
> > no problems with them at the age of 7 or 8.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree that the copy in question is "patronising". We • do
> a lot of testing with the magazines (nearly every issue if I'm not • mistaken)
> and fun stuff like the Redini spots come back with positive marks. Sure, • we
> adults think it's a little silly. Sure, we might not remember our favorite
> activities as kids including silliness like this. But I guarantee if you
> were to go back in time, you would find that we all had some amount of • this
> that would seem dumb today. I recently found some old Spiderman comics • from
> my childhood... talk about "appalling" dialogue! I could barely make it
> through those issues! Does that mean that the comics were inappropriately
> pandering to children? No! It means that they were appropriately targeted
> and appropriately developed! (I don't think you can argue with the success
> of the Spiderman comics over the years)
>
> > Children are intelligent and naturally able to assimilate information
> > quickly. I would venture to suggest that Lego-playing children and those
> > from within that group who can put together a very coherent question and • ask
> > it of TLC are even more so.
>
> Sure, we can, but where's the fun in that? Sure kids can soak up info like • a
> sponge. This is the reason why kids only a year apart in age can be worlds
> apart in mental development. Kids don't have to "learn" every second of • the
> day. Playing can be learning, as much as reading a book. But more
> importantly, non-serious, educational activities have to be balanced by a
> freedom to have fun and just be silly.
>
> I hope that I am not fanning the fire on this issue, but I think it is
> important to remember that we aren't kids. Asking our own kids, or just
> guessing what kids like isn't marketing research. For that matter, • anything
> outside of our own age range is hard to assume. At several past jobs, I • have
> worked on projects targeted to Senior Citizens, for example, and was
> continually surprised how much my mid-20s mindset didn't mesh with their
> issues. I could guess at what they wanted, but I certainly could judge for
> certain until I asked a true representative sampling. (My own grandparents
> for instance, didn't represent the opinions of the majority!)
>
> > As I say, appalling.
>
> One last thought: How many times has a parent or adult thought something
> their kids were into was dumb? I know my parents thought my interest in • punk
> music was pretty silly, since they knew for a fact that it "wasn't real
> music". (But I still disagree with them on that front!)
>
> Again, I hope this doesn't add fuel to the fire, but rather helps explain
> where the Magazine team is coming from.
>
>
> Jake
>
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Sr. Producer
> LEGO Direct
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Sept/Oct LEGO Magazine
|
| (...) <snip> (...) At 30 now, I have the same memories of being thrilled seeing the Lego logo on letterhead sent to me. I still get a thrill whenever I come across those letters (which I also have stashed away somewhere). Getting the kind of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sept/Oct LEGO Magazine
|
| (...) Now hang on... I think "appalling" is a little too strong. (...) I'm not sure that I agree that the copy in question is "patronising". We do a lot of testing with the magazines (nearly every issue if I'm not mistaken) and fun stuff like the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
24 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
|
|
|
|
