I must have a knitted minifig, but fuck-all if I want to take my hand at knitting, lest I want something akin to a LEGOland aborted fetus. I think I may have to shmooze some old lady to knit this for me, but I don't want to sink as low as Max Bialystock did in The Producers....
Ever since I read about Lego threatening to sue Spinal Tap because they were going to include this indy lego stop motion video in their movie, I am no longer a fan. If Lego is going to sue its fan base for making movies, or even claim that they hold a "copyright" or "trademark" that allows them to limit the distribution of those movies, they have lost all the good will they had accumulated through my (prolonged and some say continuing) childhood.
@weatherman: While your sentiment is understandable, it's sort of weird to associate a commercial entity with goodwill to consumers. Lego's purpose is clearly to enrich its stockholders. Any goodwill that it generates has the purpose of instilling brand loyalty in its consumer base. I interpret this lawsuit as behavior consistent with Lego's purpose as a self-serving entity.
@Hello Mister Walrus: I don't think it's weird at all to think that a company, especially one that produces toys, should be able to do well by doing good, or at the very least do better by not being bad. I'd say that principle is one of the most dominant trends in marketing right now, actually.
@weatherman: Any company does good by providing a product that people enjoy and are willing to pay for. Lego is an example of this sort of company. While some companies also do good things that are unrelated to their businesses, such as donating to charity, such acts are motivated by good public relations rather than altruism. Why would a business give up resources to do good if they were not aware of any public relations or other benefits? Conversely, bad things they do, like torture their workers, will generate negative sentiment that will hurt their business.
To illustrate, the large bank that I work for donates millions of dollars to charity every year. In fact, it is the largest donating entity in the area in which I live. These donations are immensely important to the proliferation of non-profit entities in the area. However, why should a bank care about this? The reason is that its helps generate a positive perception of the bank that helps it in its retail businesses. You can bet that very little of this charity is truly selfless. Reputations are very important to banks, which is why they spend money doing good things to establish good reputations.
It should not matter that Lego is a toy company. Like banks, Lego has great stake in its reputation as a "family-friendly" company and its association with wholesome fun. Your initial post demonstrates this point - you said you would not buy Lego products because the company did something that you did not approve of. This is not related to their products in any way. Instead, it illustrates the importance of Lego's reputation to its business. With this in mind, how can anyone possible conclude that Lego does good solely for the purpose of doing good, given that its business is so dependent on its reputation, which is bolstered by acts that people perceive to be altruistic?
Our entire generation has been sold on the Lego experience - the belief that buying and assembling Legos is a way to participate in an element of good in society. There is nothing wrong with this belief, and it is true in a way. However, it is naive to assume that Lego (the company) generates this perception for reasons other than profit. There is a difference between doing things altruistically and doing things for public relations benefits.
@Hello Mister Walrus: I never said that they were doing anything for any reason other than profit, or that they do good for the sake of doing good. I was simply suggesting that their spurious lawsuit threat is antithetical to their profit motive because it harms their brand image, at least in my eyes.
@Hello Mister Walrus: Or to be more explicit, for companies like Lego, a good reputation is the same as money. We don't say Microsoft is truly benevolent for giving us software since they get something in return - money. With this same logic, even if Lego does something good for us, we cannot equate this to being benevolent since Lego gets a good reputation in return. Lego is certainly aware of the commercial importance of its reputation.
@weatherman: But that is irrational. Once you accept that even Lego's good deeds are motivated by profit, lawsuits like this should not change your perception of them, since these are also motivated by profit.
@deliciousburglar: There are 205 outstanding shares of Lego company stock owned by various individuals, board members, and investing interests. There is 1 share of Class A Lego stock with controlling voting interest, owned by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen.
@Hiphopopotamus: i work at LEGO actually. what i think you are referring to is a tax scheme Kjeld works under. make no mistake in that its a private company.
Wait, Wait. A live Tom and Jerry? HOW could that ever work? Tom and Jerry is a purely physical comedy cartoon. You start hitting real looking cats with shovels, and it becomes imitable.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
or do I?....
10/01/09
......and one for me.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
Also, why isn't there a Hula Oola? You know - to put on the dashboard.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
You ALWAYS have bad feeling. You had bad feeling about morning food-nipple!
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
Aside: Why does editing remove my hyperlinks?
08/13/09
Stop motion video in question:
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
To illustrate, the large bank that I work for donates millions of dollars to charity every year. In fact, it is the largest donating entity in the area in which I live. These donations are immensely important to the proliferation of non-profit entities in the area. However, why should a bank care about this? The reason is that its helps generate a positive perception of the bank that helps it in its retail businesses. You can bet that very little of this charity is truly selfless. Reputations are very important to banks, which is why they spend money doing good things to establish good reputations.
It should not matter that Lego is a toy company. Like banks, Lego has great stake in its reputation as a "family-friendly" company and its association with wholesome fun. Your initial post demonstrates this point - you said you would not buy Lego products because the company did something that you did not approve of. This is not related to their products in any way. Instead, it illustrates the importance of Lego's reputation to its business. With this in mind, how can anyone possible conclude that Lego does good solely for the purpose of doing good, given that its business is so dependent on its reputation, which is bolstered by acts that people perceive to be altruistic?
Our entire generation has been sold on the Lego experience - the belief that buying and assembling Legos is a way to participate in an element of good in society. There is nothing wrong with this belief, and it is true in a way. However, it is naive to assume that Lego (the company) generates this perception for reasons other than profit. There is a difference between doing things altruistically and doing things for public relations benefits.
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09