Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:55:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2234 times
|
| |
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message
news:384F3A51.4FCDDF5D@vfaq.com...
> Richard Franks wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> >
> > > Yes, and until I see otherwise from TLC, I consider the "illegal 2000 • scans"
> > > to be "restrained and respectful use". I really DO want to hear from • TLC
> > > about it, one way or the other.
> >
> > What do you think they will say, bearing in mind that these are secret, • not for
> > public use documents?
>
> Oh? - PROVE IT! Quit shoving it down our throats as gospel, and PROVE IT. • SHOW us
> the documents proving these are "secret". Are they limited
> production/circulation? Yes. Secret? PROVE IT.
Tom, I mean absolutely no offense here (and I've already brought this up in
response to another post), but how do you resolve the fact that this page:
http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/catalogs/2000/c00am-100dpi/c00am-20.html
in the AM in-box catalog merely hints at the fact that there is a new line
of Adventurers sets coming out in July, while the dealer catalog explicitly
lists these sets and pictures, without concluding that TLG was at least
somwhat planning on a little surprise for us?
Legality completely aside for a moment, isn't it unwise to spoil their fun
(and perhaps dissappoint them, even if "them" is just one guy or gal in the
marketing department somewhere), given that we are at a place now where we
have finally gotten TLC's "corporate ear" (at least a tiny bit, anyway)
regarding AFOL <-> TLC relations?
No, these are not TOP SECRET documents. But clearly TLC had a marketing
strategy in mind here, and it's now at least a little bit foiled. The
Adventurers Theme example is just one example, really. The point is, this
literature (the dealer catalog) does not fit into their "for the masses"
marketing plans. Why deny that? And if we aren't arguing that point, then
why are we arguing at all?
My 5 cents (I don't carry pennies),
Mark K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
