Subject:
|
Re: Anatomy of a Shop At Home group order
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.shopping
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:02:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1909 times
|
| |
|
|
(snip)
> > If on the other hand, after a fan did it, LEGO embraced it (via link or via
> > taking the spreadsheet on to their site or whatever), why then, they could
> > give a code and ask that people put it into their orders. Make the code
> > worth something (multiple free trucks instead of just one per order, I
> > don't know) so that people will use it, and then measure how many do.
>
> Yes. Agreed. Or, they could just set up the online form (large orders
> broken out logically by individual buyers, but still placed as a single
> order) and just see how it goes.
The only problem I see there is there may be liability issues. Multiple names
on a single order? Ok, how would someone at the company know who the main
person is? Would one person be the "primary", and when placing the order, would
have to enter each individual name into an order form. What if a name is
misspelled, would multiple people have access to the order? We're talking a lot
of security here, especially if there's a credit card being bandied around on
the order. If the primary person's credit card was being used, and one of the
secondarys accessed the order, and increased their individual order, that would
push the entire order up, and increase the primary's credit card order up--so,
would an automatic e-mail have to be sent to the primary to notify him/her that
their order is now larger? What if a secondary doesn't pay the primary? Who's
liable for that money? I can see where somone would want to go straight for the
company on that one. I heard a saying once--"Make something idiot-proof, and
the world makes a better idiot". Keep it simple. One order=one name. When you
get multiple names on one order, as orders pass from one person to another, you
have a greater chance of a mixup and/or potential problems, which just mucks up
the whole system. Best to keep the "multiple people ordering as a group"
outside the realm of the existing ordering system. Doesn't hurt the company,
doesn't hurt the individuals, and it certainly doesn't require the company to
write any coding for just such an operation.
Don't get me wrong--I understand the potential. However, I don't think it can
work on a large scale. Probably best to keep it up on a fan-type website. You
can generalize it enough to work for almost any type of catalog mail-order
operation.
> Create a link to a page describing how the form can be used
> and Bob's your uncle. I get the feeling that you are thinking that I want
> LEGO to invest millions in my little scheme. Quite the contrary. As Scott
> pointed out, now isn't the time for crazy costly ideas. But what about
> reasonably sane cheap ideas?
>
> I hope these ideas are being seen for what they are... just ideas. Just
> things to think about. I'm not suggesting they make better sets, or fix the
> colors, or reissue this classic set or that one. And on and on. I'm just
> trying to offer my thoughts on a way to _possibly_ sell a bit more of the
> product they already have. Not one of the parents who ordered with us was
> ever heard to say, "well, that's it. I'm not ordering any more LEGO for my
> kids because of the new gre...." You know how it ends. :)
>
> On the other hand we did have people ordering Advent calendars simply
> because, "hey you're getting that for your kids? Is it fun? Alright then,
> I'll order one too." That was the point of all this.
Well, that's more word-of-mouth selling than anything else. When someone asks
"is it fun", and you tell them "Oh, yeah, it's great fun!", you just promoted
the company--that's one aspect of AFOL's that Lego has realized, and what Jake
was talking about at BF when he said it was time to "awaken the sleepers", (and
let AFOL word of mouth be a very effective marketing tool for the company)
> > I read over your response to Scott, and I am afraid that what you are
> > suggesting there is more work for LEGO than this idea is.
>
> See above, but also ask yourself, "don't I have to work for the money I
> earn?" Any of the ideas I've suggested would take a bit of work. But look
> at our little group. We make it work without any direction from the company.
> Imagine if there was even a *little* direction offered by the company.
As for direction from a company--how would a company direct that kind of sale?
I think that would be like herding cats.
> Perhaps I'm much too naive about all this to be suggesting such things.
> That's another reason why I wouldn't want to offer such advice to the world
> at large, as noted above. I just thought, based on our very positive
> experience in my office, that the same sort of thing could possibly work for
> others.
I think it's already being done a lot--you just don't see it unless your part of
the group. I've seen people and AFOL's do the "combine orders to save on
shipping" quite a bit already. One critical thing--something like this works
best with people you know personally, which further demonstrates small scale
works, but not large scale.
-Scott Lyttle
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Anatomy of a Shop At Home group order
|
| (...) Multiple names on the online form, associated with the products each person ordered. The payment and shipping of the overall order are still handled with one name, one credit card. No change to the back end processing at all. This is strictly (...) (20 years ago, 10-Nov-04, to lugnet.market.shopping)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Anatomy of a Shop At Home group order
|
| (...) I do hope that other people would pick up on this type of order and have a go at it for themselves. I just think the overall direction for this type of thing should come from the company.... if they want to do it. (...) The only risk being (...) (20 years ago, 9-Nov-04, to lugnet.market.shopping)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
