Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:40:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
9139 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Good to know you know what I know and want but as I see it you can't seperatet a
> > decision this poor, that has angered so many from the fact that they are
> > failing.
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > Ken
>
> TLC's failings are directly related to this issue?
No as I said this is only part of the puzzel. This decision on it's own would
mean nothing
> TO their 'poor decision making?'
Absolutly. You have to be making a lot of poor decisions to be loosing money for
as long as they have been.
> Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a
> poorer quality product and therefore able to sell it cheaper,
While this is the view of the average AFOL it is not the view of the average
consumer. Parents find clones to be an excellent value. Many who grew up with
Lego would rather buy their kids Mega Bloks. Kids like the sets that Mega Blok
is putting out. I've personally witness a number of times a kid searching for a
particular set and choosing to leave empty handed rather than take the Legos.
There's no need to argue this I as an AFOL don't agree with them but that dosn't
change where there dollars are being spent.
>
> Seriously, you keep mentioning these 'many'. I'll likewise mention that the
> 'many' that I chat with about our chosen hobby are all optimistic about hte
> direction of TLC,
In the world of AFOL's most things are rosey if you discount bley. However Lego
has mentioned we are insignifigant and they are failing worse with the general
public.
SNIP
> And the 'many' I know trumps, in my opinion, the many you know for mine seem to
> take into consideration all sides of the issue, and know when to leave things
> alone (unlike me, obviously).
>
> Dave K
> -my moral integrity is still intact--hows yours doing?
Except what I know is that Lego is by definition a failure as a company. That's
not even debatable. A company exists to make a profit. As for me if I promiss
something I still keep my word. Thank for asking.-Ken
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) Lego is by definition a failure as a company? An interesting assertion. (...) I think it might be... (...) No... a company exists to pool resources and to protect shareholders. A company will often (but not always) seek to give a return to (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote: <snip> (...) TLC's failings are directly related to this issue? TO their 'poor decision making?' Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a poorer quality product and (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
257 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
|
|
|
|
