Debate : 2703


Off-Topic / Debate / 2703	2702 \| 2704

Subject:	Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
Date:	Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:15:56 GMT
Viewed:	1780 times

I could reply to most of the post, but I'm hoping to get this entire thread to die down until we hear from TLC. Todd Lehman wrote: > > Again, until I specifically see something from TLC saying NOT to distribute > > the pics, I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. > > You don't see anything wrong with defecating all over a company's publicity > and intellectual property rights regarding information which was, up until > two days ago, a trade secret. Wonderful. There is no way you will convince me that MegaBloks or many other competitors HAVEN'T already seen those pics, not if their spies are doing their jobs properly. That no longer makes it a trade secret to me. I've been in too many situations where competitors knew MORE than me about something in a company I worked at, in positions where I SHOULD have the info very early on. I fully EXPECT TLC to EXPECT the competition to have the info early (because if they aren't that paranoid, they are TRULY doomed). If they thought having these pics out on the net were that detrimental *at this date*, they most likely would have delayed the catalog even further. If they have a clue, anyways. The only damage that can be done (in my mind, anyways) - competitor's finding out- has happened long ago, I'm sure. And I'm hoping at least someone there has a clue about the web, so that Lego is still around in a few years. They SURE are getting a TON of free publicity in this flap. I'm sure their Marketing dept is just crying over the NON-money they had to spend to get their sets posted all over the globe and pored over by rabid fans. I'd love to work in Marketing for TLC - just "leak" stuff "ahead of time" (right on the schedule YOU want, but make it seem early), and BAM, publicity on a shoestring budget. -- Tom Stangl ***http://www.vfaq.com/ ***DSM Visual FAQ home ***http://ba.dsm.org/ ***SF Bay Area DSMs

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
(...) I read somewhere that the brain makes a decision on something then rationalises afterwards, that a whole part of the brain is dedicated to thinking up excuses to arbitarily made decisions. But maybe someone more knowledgable can help me on (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)

		Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
(...) Which we won't, which ought to (at the VERY least) lead some to believe that TLC is no more concerned about this than they are brickshelf.com Am I comparing the two? No. But I think a nice healthy dose of silence on this current issue should (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
(...) Oh, gee, yeah, that certainly justifies it. :-/ First, the retailer catalog was never "released" (to consumers). Retailer catalogs are sent to retailers for retailers to use for their businesses. Second, to the best of my knowledge, this (...) (25 years ago, 8-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)

116 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

Custom Search