| |
Burkhard Schloemer wrote:
> How about we just call TLG's reaction BAD PUBLIC RELATIONS? I mean, the info
> has already leaked out, no matter how accurate it is, and having Todd cancel
> all posts containing a word about the sets is a really POOR idea. Either we're
> just a couple of freaks chatting about LEGO, then I don't see why TLG even
> bothers about it, or we're a bit more than that ... and TLG should probably
> treat this forum with a little more respect.
I've got to champion Todd on this one. He's in a difficult position, given that
he's admin of what is not only the most prominent fan site devoted to LEGO, but
the *only* one that handles LEGO writ large (FBTB [1] and the like are theme
sites, the former connected to Yakface (IIRC) which is one of many Star Wars
sites). That means that TLG takes a special interest in this one site, and is
going to be touchy about what appears here. Todd is walking a tightrope between
his stated goal of being as open as possible and as independent as possible about
information and his other stated goal of respecting the legal rights of TLG that,
in part, are designed to keep it in (effective) business. Any one "leak" might
not damage the market share, but over time, such lost information and
inconfidentiality might set a dangerous legal precedent and chip away at it.
Ritvik et al. may not try to rush out an answer to new SW sets (They can't,
legally, as they don't have the licence) but what about the other lines
mentioned? We don't know competitors' product development cycle time, but we do
know that their representatives read LUGnet.
As for respect: In a twisted sort of way, TLG *is* respecting this forum by
making the request. They respect it as the widest disseminator of information,
ideas, etc. to the online public--sort of the way a lion tamer respects the lion
as both beneficial to his employ *and* potentially dangerous. I'd be interested
to know what the language was like in the request--if it was friendly but
concerned, or cordial and peppered with lightly veiled threats. I'd hope it was
the former, because all it took was an email and a phone call rather than a
registered letter and a summons. But did TLG make an error in making the request
at all? I don't feel that they did. In the case of the SW sets, Lucasfilm might
have had a fit over a leak; in the case of other lines, TLG might have considered
the cost/benefit ratio to be too high at this moment in time. This is all
hypothesis, but I don't think it's a case of "heavy-handed, heartless corporate
lackeys versus honest, hardworking free-speech/free-information advocates."
Has anyone considered asking Dayton Hudson (Target Stores, Inc) if advance pricing
information is protected from open dissemination? Most corporate information is,
at some level.
Pardon the ramble, hope some of it makes sense (My train of thought is spun in the
roundhouse at about 300kph when I'm on this allergy medication).
best
LFB
[1] I believe Tim also got a legal request to remove 2001 info--correct me if I'm
wrong?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| (...) It was friendly yet concerned, and extremely respectful and gracious. There were no veiled threats of any kind. It was also cordial and affable in spots, without being genial. A large part of it was explanatory. To be sure, it was not (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2001 Set info
|
| How about we just call TLG's reaction BAD PUBLIC RELATIONS? I mean, the info has already leaked out, no matter how accurate it is, and having Todd cancel all posts containing a word about the sets is a really POOR idea. Either we're just a couple of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
176 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
