Subject:
|
Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Aug 2000 07:55:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
905 times
|
| |
|
|
"Brad Justus" <legodirect@lego.com> wrote in message
news:FzLt90.25M@lugnet.com...
> It *is* ages later (in Internet time); but whether you like it or I like • it,
> there are still parts of the world that move in regular old analog clock • time
> (actually, most of the world does). We try not to be one of those parts.
> Believe me, I was as anxious as you all to explain why we acted as we did, • but
> in order to do so we needed to understand more completely exactly how this
> situation occurred. And the truth is, it takes time to find things out - • more
> time than I would have liked, but there you are.
Brad,
Thanks for this post. I am encouraged by your words, but obviously it
doesn't leave me personally, and us collectively, without questions. Thanks
for explaining that these things do take time, I feel that we often forget
that. As you stated in the paragrah after this, it would be a lot better to
have "nothing yet, but we're working on it" announcements from tiem to time.
This would be a great encouragement to the group and almost essential in
building trust, where on the contrary we've seen your silence lose the trust
of fans.
[snip]
> OK, so after all this, why are we allowing essentially similar information • to
> be published now? (Some of you are aware of the "new" set lists now on • FBTB
> and rebelscum.com.) It is true that Tim Saupe wrote to me and requested
> permission; I wrote back to say that while we would not comment on the • list,
> we had no objection if he wish to publish it. I told Philip Wise over at
> rebelscum.com the same thing. This might, I admit, smack heavily of
> inconsistency (if not insanity). But we said yes this time for two main
> reasons. First, the list was regarding Star Wars product only (not • anything we
> haven't yet introduced). It's no great secret that we're making Star Wars
> sets; the chance of a competitor coming out with a Star Wars construction • set
> is zip (we've got the license); and there was no pricing information • included
> in this list.
Though this is very confusing as to why you have done this, for now I think
we'll have to trust your judgement on it.
> But the second, and more important reason, is this: we're getting it. Not
> perfectly, not 100%, and it'll take a while to get all the way through the
> Company. But in the places where it counts the most, we're getting it. • I've
> been pushing for a while to move up our announcements of new product to • take
> advantage of the positive buzz a committed community of enthusiasts can
> produce, and this incident has served as a catalyst to get many here at • LEGO
> to realize we should do just that.
Good to hear.
> Hence the publication of the new material
> (we're not commenting on it just yet. but keep your eyes open). We have to
> balance such announcements, of course, against competitive considerations • and
> the need not to cannibalize sales of product currently in the market. I • hope
> that you will find in the coming weeks a loosening in terms of our • willingness
> to talk about what's coming (in the near term). LEGO is not a particularly • old
> dog, and we are quite capable of learning new tricks at a rather breezy • pace.
> And we do greatly appreciate the assistance of the LUGNET community and • others
> in acting as trainers.
Hmm...though a neat perk, IMHO I'm not sure if product leaks are what
everyone's seriously dying for. Though this can be seen as a good step, the
real meat of the issue is cooperation, communication, and allowing serious
input from people at Lugnet to effect what gets put out. I've seen some
pretty solid POVs on the product line discussed here on Lugnet, and its not
all juniorization bashing. I'm glad people can step back and seriously give
objective consideration to the products.
(but, from my POV, I'll be frank, juniorization sucks. I even spoke with an
8 year old today about the product line who agreed with me that it was
degrading - except for SW, of course)
> We're aware of the situation with the Builder's Gallery and Theme Gallery • on
> LEGO.com as well; steps are being taken to address the current images at
> issue. As you might imagine, it's difficult to ensure certainty that the
> person who submits an image of a creation is indeed submitting his or her • own
> work. There's no sure way of doing this. It's absolutely objectionable if
> someone is representing another person's work as his own (particularly for
> LEGO, as a company which prizes imagination and creativity.) But we're • now in
> the final stages of revamping LEGO.com, and we'll soon change the • Builder's
> and Theme galleries as well - so it's a great time to implement some
> corrective measures. If you've got suggestions on ensuring "truth in
> advertising" when it comes to sending in news of your LEGO creations, • please
> let me know. (We're thinking of requiring multiple pictures of a creation, • as
> well as a picture of the builder with his/her creation.)
Good steps, in the right direction. I don't know how much room for
improvement there is, given technology available.
I would SERIOUSLY hope that the internet IP attornies would write respectful
letters to the offending kids about their actions, explaining the ethical
problems with it and explaining the problems TLC and the model authors have
about what they did. I would also hope to see a press release about the
site, the contest, etc, and the company's disappointment in what occured.
> I'm sorry that these situations -- particularly the one regarding the 2001
> product info -- have produced hard feelings on the part of some (I • certainly
> don't enjoy being painted as some heavy-handed corporate ogre). And we're
> sorry to have put Todd and the other sites in a difficult position
> (accusations of censorship, bowing to corporate pressure, etc.). At no • time
> was Todd acting in anything other than the best interests of the community • he
> founded and stewards.
Again, thanks for coming out on this. I can't tell you how much I
appreciate it myself, and how much I believe everyone else does too. I
would encourage you to make it a point to post regularly and even possibly
participate in discussion if you have the time - it would hopefully guard
against you being painted as 'some heavy-handed corporate ogre' in the
future. And I believe it would build our trust in you and in Lego Direct.
I understand that Todd was acting in the best interest of the community, and
acted very appropriately despite the awkward situation he was placed in.
Again, I encourage you to step up communication to ease Todd's job and to
ensure him and all of us that everything's OK and everything's moving in the
right direction.
> But confidentiality was breached, and we could not simply fail to act. And • it
> is not because we "just don't get" the Internet that we acted as we did; • it is
> precisely because we do get it -- because we understand the power that
> information has, and the power that the Internet gives consumers to
> disseminate that information -- that we acted as we did. Some of that
> information was just plain wrong, or was represented as being "legit" when • it
> was not. And we'd rather people have and circulate the right information • than
> the wrong. We'll be doing our best to get that "right" information out • sooner
> than we ever have before.
Good.
> But I hope that you all can understand the position that we are in as • well. We
> welcome open discourse and the sharing of information regarding our • company
> and our products, but we must protest when that information is privileged • and
> not yet meant to be shared. We take great care in how we manage our • product
> introductions; obviously, this is not the way we prefer to do it!
I understand that you guys carry trade secrets and you have to weigh what
comes out carefully. I have respect for that because I love the product and
would like to see the product managed in the best way possible. Also, part
of this openness comes putting oneself in the other parties' shoes and
seeing it from their perspective. I certainly am attempting to understand
(though I cannot because I'm not actually in that position) what you and
your colleagues are dealing with.
> We know that we manner in which we handled this whole episode was not • perfect;
> we simply did the best we could. But if you have suggestions as to how we • can
> handle such situations in the future, I would be happy to hear them. It
> certainly doesn't please us to be seen as "bigfooting" the situation; we • must
> of course be protective of our business and conduct it in the best way we • see
> fit, but not at the expense of the goodwill of our enthusiasts and
consumers.
My biggest suggestion would be for you to come out and discuss, in whatever
manner possible, the future relationship you hope to create, and be serious
about taking input and respond to suggestions. Your post here reassures me,
but still leaves me with conceerns (mostly from private discussion). It'd
be great to talk or to see the results of conversations based on this
situation, and clearing up the smoke surrounding Lego Direct. I hope (and
believe) you do want to see this work, but its something that needs to be
acted upon.
Maybe this should be taken to the point of outlining a relationship with
Lugnet and the fans. TLC needs to understand that the people here in this
community don't intentionally want to endanger them. We're just fanatics
for the brick, and want to play with it and want to see our large want lists
addressed. I hope you can see how future cooperation in events (like
Kidvention) would be mutually beneficial.
I would hope that you would give SERIOUS consideration to LTCs and their
MAJOR impact throghout the US at the numerous model railroading shows.
DON'T drop the ball on this one - work with them and cater to them materials
so they can improve their setups, and give them materials to promote Lego at
the same time. Because of the limited availability and the huge cost of
train equipment, LTCs can't usually perform to their greatest potential.
The model railroading community LOVES Lego trains, and it would be a shame
if TLC didn't support what they were doing.
I think the PNLTC world record train is a great start. Keep it up!! I
really enjoyed GMLTC's layout at Legoland, and want to see more of it. I'm
a spacehead, but I'd join an LTC in a heartbeat to play with the bricks, and
to have fun with others from Lugnet.
> Finally, Tom - and others who have made the same observation - you're
> absolutely correct that our participation here has not been as promised. • The
> blame for this lies entirely with me, and I will make no excuses. I will
> simply have to let our actions going forward (from this moment on) • demonstrate
> our commitment to you and all LEGO enthusiasts everywhere.
We're all willing (and eager) to go forward from this. I believe we're all
willing to forgive and move on. Please continue to take us seriously and
move in a positive direction with this overall vision for Lego Direct. And
if you can't do it in a timely manner, let us know, so we're not in the
dark. I'm sure we'll understand.
> Here's a promise: I'll be posting by the end of this week. And it'll be • news
> that I think everyone is looking forward to.
I'm looking forward to this.
Thanks again for posting this, and renewing your promise for a positive
relationship and communication. Please don't let us down.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114
AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| (...) Perhaps they can start with something simple like letting the LTCs give out Shop @ Home business cards at train shows? SO many people don't realize that LEGO makes trains - we get comments like that all the time. What I would *really* like to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| (...) Tom, you're right -- on all counts. It *is* ages later (in Internet time); but whether you like it or I like it, there are still parts of the world that move in regular old analog clock time (actually, most of the world does). We try not to be (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct) !!
|
22 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
|
|
|
|
