Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:53:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1852 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> By the same token, I could ask you to prove that they aren't secret. But with
> the limited information that we have that would be fruitless.
What do you mean? There is some evidence for both sides. They do go to
the effort to restrict the general consumer flow of information - for
whatever reason - so obviously they care at least a little. There are
many cited examples of retail outlets sharing their catalogs at will, so
they obviously don't care much. So, if I'm interpreting the evidence
rationally, their concern is > 0 and < lots. This only leaves one
conclusion...they care a little about what the general consumer learns.
Unless I've screwed up assumptions or logic, we now know how they feel.
So, now what? We know they didn't intend for those pics to be released
in every set, but we don't know that they care if we (a few (or even
500) AFOLs) have them. Now, do we care what they want. Obviously this
is a personal question for each of us. I think Mike and I are clearly
on the 'no' side (I certainly won't erase them from my drive even if
they do make a statement). Tom doesn't seem to be. And you and Todd
are clearly on the 'yes' side.
Is the idea behind being on the yes side a moral one about property
rights or is it based on cultivating a relationship with TLC? If it's a
moral one, then I guess we just disagree because the only things like
morals that I have are based on contracts (in a broad sense) to which I
have agreed, and personal aesthetics (which people sometimes
over-emotionally call honor). If it's based on relationship building, I
think there's something to discuss. I doubt we (as a community) will
ever (in the next five years) have a relationship much better than we do
now with TLC. I also doubt that posting retailer scans will hurt any
chances we do have. Obviously some of you disagree.
> > > Obviously, being a company this is their goal.. but if they had the phrase
> > > "pastel = profit" on their website how many parents do you think they'd
> > > entice to buy their products with such a cynical statement??
I don't follow how this has anything to do with the argument at hand.
We aren't talking about _their_ web site. We're talking about other web
sites. I would also not be opposed to someone having a web site with
LEGO's marketing slogans. It might even be vaguely interesting.
> I'd be interested in seeing all of it, not only because I was so disturbed by
> the "pastel = profit" statement. That doesn't extend to saying that I think I
> have a right to see it, or that I think it should be displayed.
Your distaste for that slogan seems really weird. All companies (that I
would know about) have little catch sales gimmicks like that. I always
doubt that they really work to sell anything, but I guess a whole class
of para^h^h^heople are kept employed by coming up with stuff like that.
> > > And if they want it as private statement to retailers, and they wouldn't
> > > tolerate it on their own website, then why the <expletive> would they say
> > > "Sure go ahead, put it on another website" ??
I don't think it's a matter of toleration. I think it's just not
appropriate for the target audience. If they had a web site for
retailers, then it would appear there. So what? Why would they care?
I would hope that most people would be more rational than to not buy
things because they found out that the company who produces those things
wants to sell them. I mean, Duh!
> > Show me the contract, flier, document, WHATEVER, that specifically states the
> > pics are not to be released to ANYONE at all, and I may agree with you.
>
> Firstly, any such documents aren't needed to convince me that TLC don't
> want/intend customers to see retailer catalogues. They contain sets not in
> publicly released catalogues - that's enough for me.
Sure, I agree with that logic. But that doesn't mean that those
catalogs being in the possession of a consumer must be the result of an
impropriety. It's just not their mainstream marketing technique.
That's all you can know from that.
> Secondly, what shops decide to do with them is none of our concern.. and
It is our concern. We're trying to discuss the rights and wrongs of
these catalog scans and it's a related data point. It strongly suggests
that TLC doesn't _much_ care who sees them.
> The fact that no-one tells you to stop doing something, isn't a reason to do
> it. It's called responsibility.
No, the reason to do it (in this case) is to share information that is
exciting with your friends. You seem to be saying that if you don't
know (for sure) how the company (or your mum) feels about it, then don't
do it. That's silly though, because it can be applied in reverse.
So Huw gets this catalog and he's pondering whether or not to keep the
information private. He thinks "TLC has been unclear - through mixed
messages, and nothing explicitly stated - about whether or not I should.
(using your logic) Since they haven't told me it's OK, I guess I better
not hoard the information for myself...I'll just have to put it on a web
page."
And using your blue dog example, what if the dog was a plaster cast that
the child made? Why not paint it blue? The mother has still not given
any input.
<from another note:>
> > > One piece of evidence that we do have is that they would sack an employee
> > > for doing what we have done. Doesn't that suggest that "it does matter" to
> > > you?
> >
> > We have no such evidence.
>
> Apart from the statements of TLC employees.
Who? A clerk at LIC? That simply doesn't count as a reliable
representative of TLC policy. It just doesn't. That's like getting the
mildly retarded fellow who put my new tire on at Sears to explain Sears'
policy on buying linen from the third world. The result is dubious at best.
> > > Why should TLC dignify this with a response? Obviously they don't wish
> > > retailer catalogues to be shown to customers, we know that. What is there
> > > to discuss??
> >
> > It's not obvious to me.
>
> Apart from the fact that they make retailers sign agreements that they won't
> show them to anyone else?
Oh. I didn't know that they did that. In this whole thread, thus far,
I haven't seen that stated. Cool. Can you scan a copy of the agreement
and send it to me?
While we're on the subject, which (part of) retailers sign it?
Obviously Toys'R'Us can't sign it...does some lawyer sign it as a
representative? Do the managers of each TRU outlet? Does every single
employee with access to the catalog sign that they agree and understand
the terms and conditions of use for the catalog? That last would be
quite a feat.
> > > What do you expect TLC to say on the matter. "Go ahead, we never really
> > > cared anyway, we just went to all the trouble of making these secret and
> > > sacking employees who make them publically available for the fun of it."?
> >
> > here you seem to be asserting that TLG has actually fired employees for
> > this. Who? When? What are you talking about?
>
> Oops, my mistake! For "sacking", read "being prepared to sack", as far as I
> know this hasn't happened.
As far as you know, they aren't really prepared to sack anyone for
anything of the like. Probably - as with all business where teens are
the major employee - such an excuse could be used to fire an employee,
but it would really be something less documentable that got them fired.
And if they would _really_ (and I still don't believe it) fire an
otherwise good and useful employee because they got the catalog out to
help a customer look something up, then to hell with them. I don't care
what they want. Such a company will never have my respect.
long windedly,
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
