Did baseball cards cease being a piece of cardboard when they started going for lots of money?
I didn't say it stopped being a toy. I said it stopped being
just a toy.
Also, this is a good time to mention that I don't necessarily agree with or support all the examples I brought up. Which should have been clear from the post and other things I've said in this thread.
I feel all fans are doing now-a-days is complain. You can't get something, they complain, Lego doesn't do exactly what they want, they compalin. They don't like it don't buy LEGO anymore.
If you don't like complaining, don't connect to the Internet. Same deal. That kind of discussion gets us nowhere. I really don't understand why people come to discussion forums if they don't want people to discuss things.
Lego will only change if they hear their customers. If nobody complains or gives them feedback, nothing ever changes. I also think that I and others are doing more than simply "complaining" -- we're offering suggestions, solutions, and other constructive (heh) ways of doing things differently than they are being done now.
That's not to say all complaints/arguments/whatever are the same. Some are clearly insane.
Most of the people complaining about Comic Con will never go to Comic Con, will never meet anyone who will go to Comic Con. They are just complaining because they didn't get something for free.
If I had paid for tickets, stood in line, and done everything according to the rules and conventions, I think I would be justified in being upset that Lego pulled the rug out from under me.
Lego can do
whatever it wants to promote its brand and can choose
whatever kind of promotion it wants for Comicon. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea. It also doesn't mean that people should not give them feedback. Including people who weren't there because it affects them, too.
Finally, I don't care that I didn't get a free Green Lantern. I care that I
can't get a Green Lantern. At
all, without spending a ridiculous amount of money. I think Lego needs to hear that. I also think it becomes much more likely for them to release it someday if they hear people discussing it. There are many options here that are better than what Lego is currently doing at events like Comicon.
There is a market for Green Lantern, Green Arrow, etc. It is a good idea to sell to markets that support you and not piss them off. It is also a good idea that, if you're going to promote yourself with collectability and exclusivity that you make those items available to collectors in some reasonable fashion. Otherwise, they eventually get upset and find something else to collect. Lose, lose. You don't want that. You want win, win.
Mr. Gold is an ugly, shitty mini figure that can easily be ignored, and if you are collecting all the minifigures in the series of mini figures than aren't you just feeding into what you said LEGO shouldn't me doing? If you don't want LEGO to make things collectable than don't collect LEGO.
Hey, remember the part where I said I didn't
care if they did a Mr. Gold kind of deal again? Clearly I am
not in the group of people that needs a "complete" collection.
For those people who are completists, it
doesn't matter if Mr. Gold is ugly or shitty, any more than it matters that every series of minifigures has its set of losers. I read one board today, which had several posters who said pretty much the same thing: they liked the minifigures, until Mr. Gold made it impossible for them to have a complete set. Since it was no longer reasonably possible, why should they bother?
Now,
I think this is silly. But it's not about
me. How many customers did Lego lose? How many
good customers -- i.e. people who bought entire sets of figures -- did Lego lose? How many did they gain with the Mr. Gold stunt? Did it even out? Is this a strategy that is going to work over the long term.
Why should
I care? I care because I like the minifigures, and I don't want them to go away. If Lego pisses off enough regular, volume customers to chase the fly-by-night crowd and the speculators, eventually it will go bad. It
always does. The short term crowd always finds a new thing, and if you don't have your long-term base, you're screwed. I really don't want to see that happen.
In short: I live a happy life without Mr. Gold, but I can still think the idea of Mr. Gold sucks.
Also, you may want to consider that there are customers who are not like you but are still longtime Lego fans and good customers. It is in Lego's interest -- and yours -- that Lego does not drive away longtime, volume customers for short-term marketing.
LEGO is not your friend, they are not your buddy, they are here to make money and that is it. I think the people on Eurobricks and Brickset need to rememebr that. You don't like what LEGO is doing? Ignore it and then buy the sets you like and biuld your own things.
I agree that Lego is not my friend. They do not owe me anything. Their primary job is to make money. I support that. I like giving them money.
Where we differ is that I think it's important to discuss things that they do. If I simply do my own thing and never talk about what could be better, they'll never know, nor will other people just like me. Just as Lego is not my friend, I am not their lap dog or yes man.
How is LEGO Simpsons not for kids? Simpsons is more family friendly than PotC, Star Wars, Super Heroes and LotR.
I totally agree with you.
I brought this up because it is an example. Some people's worldview is that Lego is a toy for kids. This is one reason why people can complain about
both Mr. Gold and the Simpsons, because they see neither of those things as good for kids. Then, you'll have very different people complaining when they do things like they did at Comicon. Lumping them all in one bucket of insanity doesn't really describe what's going on and conflates things that should be separate.
I think complaining about the Simpsons is, frankly, nuts. And I said that before.
Comic Con one year had the black bad guy from Spider-Man, he was later added into the Spiderman set from this year. Just because they are exclusive doesn't mean Green Lantern will not get a minifigure in the future.
Actually, they didn't. The giveaway was Black Suit Spider-Man. That's different than Venom.
And that may sound nitpicky, but that comes with the crowd Lego is courting here. Personally, I think they made the right call here -- I would think that many more people would want a real Venom figure as opposed to a Black Suit Spider-Man figure. That makes Black Suit Spider-Man a better choice for an exclusive.
Again, we're getting back to what Lego
could be doing here. You want Spider-Man? Great! There have been several. Black Suit Spider-Man is a recolor, which makes it a good candidate for an exclusive. You may not be ecstatic that you can't easily have a Black Suit Spider-Man, but at least you can still have Spider-Man.
But there is no Green Lantern or Green Arrow minifig available. At all. What they
could have done was make the exclusive a Brightest Day/Blackest Night Green Lantern and then made the original available in a set. Or an Emerald Dawn Hal Jordan. Or a dozen other possibilities.
This is so
easy, because there are often costume changes or variants or special events. All of these things maintain the uniqueness and collectability of the exclusive while still making some version of the original available to everyone who would like to buy one.
Why wouldn't Lego want to do both? Everybody wins and Lego makes a bigger boatload of cash, without having to change very much at all.