Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey 42113 Petition

[damian_kane_iv]

Not sure whether this has been posted on here, but here is a link to a Change.org petition for LEGO to reintroduce the V-22 Osprey set to its line after the recent controversy surrounding the nature of the product: http://chng.it/KHK9sbSbrY

Thought I'd share this here.

[niknarjc]

I really want them to release this set, but I don't know if anything like a petition is going to sway them.

[jensrodi]

We are the customers, not the anti-war group i Germany that got this canceled. We, as customer, where not heard before the decision was made. We are going to pay for a set like this and provide income for LEGO, opposed to LEGO scraping all the produced sets. If enough people sign and show their support for this product, LEGO have to listen. But it will take a lot of pressure. They may never release it as originally intended, but even a modified version, for instance with different branding, will make at least me happy. And I guess a lot of other LEGO entusiasts. So let's keep the pressure on LEGO to find a better solution that just scrapping this.

I have signed and hope many other AFOLs will too.

[damian_kane_iv]

10 minutes ago, niknarjc said:

I really want them to release this set, but I don't know if anything like a petition is going to sway them.

My take is that even if they don't bring the set back it's important that we as a consumer base let LEGO know our disappointment with this decision. If we're silent about it, then it means that other groups could see what the German Peace Society did and apply similar pressure tactics to LEGO. The least that LEGO can do is listen to us as loyal customers- we just have to make our voices heard in any way we can. 

I would also suggest contacting their customer service and sending an email about this issue as well. I hear LEGO is renown for its customer service.

Edited July 21, 2020 by damian_kane_iv

[Rudivdk]

2 minutes ago, damian_kane_iv said:

My take is that even if they don't bring the set back it's important that we as a consumer base let LEGO know our disappointment with this decision. If we're silent about it, then it means that other groups could see what the German Peace Society did and apply similar pressure tactics to LEGO. The least that LEGO can do is listen to us as loyal customers- we just have to make our voices heard in any way we can. 

I would also suggest contacting their customer service and sending an email about this issue as well. I hear LEGO is renown for its customer service.

The petition originated from these forums, was already shared here and signed by a lot of EB members.

While I appreciate the enthusiasm, it will most likely not matter anymore. The LEGO Group stated today that they WILL NOT release the set (period). They acknowledge there are fans who want the set (I guess they have seen the petition), but they say they value their longstanding identity more (which I can actually relate to).

Personally I think the DFG-VK statement was not the real reason for pulling the set, it was just what pushed TLG over the edge. TLG was probably already about to cancel the set anyways and had their press releases already written.

While I would have liked to see the set on the store-shelves, I think shouting at TLG to abandon their beliefs and motivations is not really helping them. But a lot (enough maybe) has already been said in the 42113 topic. Let's not start a second discussion on the same thing.

[1gor]

10 minutes ago, Rudivdk said:

The petition originated from these forums, was already shared here and signed by a lot of EB members.

While I appreciate the enthusiasm, it will most likely not matter anymore. The LEGO Group stated today that they WILL NOT release the set (period). They acknowledge there are fans who want the set (I guess they have seen the petition), but they say they value their longstanding identity more (which I can actually relate to).

Personally I think the DFG-VK statement was not the real reason for pulling the set, it was just what pushed TLG over the edge. TLG was probably already about to cancel the set anyways and had their press releases already written.

While I would have liked to see the set on the store-shelves, I think shouting at TLG to abandon their beliefs and motivations is not really helping them. But a lot (enough maybe) has already been said in the 42113 topic. Let's not start a second discussion on the same thing.

If this is final decision (TLG canceling the set), then it would be time to think about locking topics to stop any unnecessary discussion (hm after @Ngoc Nguyen publishes instructions)

[damian_kane_iv]

27 minutes ago, Rudivdk said:

The petition originated from these forums, was already shared here and signed by a lot of EB members.

While I appreciate the enthusiasm, it will most likely not matter anymore. The LEGO Group stated today that they WILL NOT release the set (period). They acknowledge there are fans who want the set (I guess they have seen the petition), but they say they value their longstanding identity more (which I can actually relate to).

 Personally I think the DFG-VK statement was not the real reason for pulling the set, it was just what pushed TLG over the edge. TLG was probably already about to cancel the set anyways and had their press releases already written.

 While I would have liked to see the set on the store-shelves, I think shouting at TLG to abandon their beliefs and motivations is not really helping them. But a lot (enough maybe) has already been said in the 42113 topic. Let's not start a second discussion on the same thing.

I'm not so sure releasing a set like the Osprey constitutes abandonment of beliefs and motivations given the current standard (multiple licensed themes with real and fictional military vehicles, historical military vehicles being marketed as such, etc.). The main controversy was started specifically because of the licensing with Bell-Boeing, which is a military contractor for the US government. I agree that this was cutting it close for TLG and I question why they decided to license this of all things. I think the product was made in good faith and I doubt that a company would go through the trouble of doing market research, securing licensing, designing the set, marketing it, and finally producing it while also being unsure about where the product stands on their values scale. More likely it was the criticism coming from an angle that they didn't anticipate that triggered them to pull the set. 

That being said, I would never underestimate the power of public pressure to sway the positions that companies hold- especially if that pressure is directly from a major source of income for that company. The question is whether we as consumers want to exercise our power and tell LEGO what we think about the situation. Something like this could influence the types of product lines that they develop in the future, and that alone is good enough reason to support this petition. LEGO is a highly values oriented company and one of their chief values is serving the customer well. 

[bonox]

I can already hear a legion of fans reverse engineering it....

[deraven]

I'm in a similarly split position on this.  I fully support their general stance to not promote military ("real world") violence, and as a company that is their decision to make, but the problem with this specific item does seem a little odd as others have noted given other products they produce.  It's strange to draw the line here when they have superhero sets that prominently feature war machines (including real world ones like Humvees), and things like the Creator Blue Power Jet (31039) that is clearly based on real fighter aircraft.  They've also made the City Cargo Heliplane (60021) which is very obviously an Osprey.

If the real issue here comes down to the licensing with Bell/Boeing as damian_kane_iv noted, I can understand that.  In that case, however, I would like to see a very lightly re-worked version of this released as "Tilt-rotor Rescue Aircraft" or something.

[Dylan M]

I'm signing a petition... 

That lego technic group has owed  us a pre-Flagship set next year 2021 (eg.42110 alike) 

[Bartybum]

@Dylan M They don't owe us anything

[damian_kane_iv]

58 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

@Dylan M They don't owe us anything

I'd say they at least owe use something if they want our continued business

[Bartybum]

Just now, damian_kane_iv said:

I'd say they at least owe use something if they want our continued business

Such as?

[Dylan M]

1 hour ago, Bartybum said:

@Dylan M They don't owe us anything

They are... especially if you Pre-order it in their store... they must fulfill that , dont cancel an agreement w/o giving "Something" in return... its a business protocol 

And I'm sure Lego will Hit back next year 

So see you next info (Technic 2021 set)

[damian_kane_iv]

13 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Such as?

It's normally bad business practice to market something to a potential customer only to retract it and say something along the lines of "sorry not sorry". An analogous situation would be when LEGO made ball-socket joints for constraction figures that broke or even more recently the lime green irregularities in the lambo set. LEGO's historical ability to retain market share has been tied to its standards of high part quality, superb customer service, and loyalty to customers- a relationship that often spans generations for some families. These instances where LEGO fails their customers only serve to erode brand loyalty and the competitive edge that LEGO still retains in Europe and US.

LEGO is competitive in spite of multiple companies offering more diverse product ranges at a fraction of the cost. In a sense they at least "owe" their consumers what they promised if they want continued business and loyalty to the brand. You're right, nobody owes anyone anything in this type of relationship, but that's the beauty of the free market. If LEGO doesn't respect our loyalty to them as a brand, we don't owe them any of our money. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by damian_kane_iv

[Bartybum]

2 hours ago, Dylan M said:

They are... especially if you Pre-order it in their store... they must fulfill that , dont cancel an agreement w/o giving "Something" in return... its a business protocol 

They return the money you spent. The only thing I agree on is that their response could have included a small apology for any disappointment caused. Any stuff beyond about brand loyalty is just flat out alien to me. My relationship with TLG is purely utilitarian.

[JaBaCaDaBra]

11 hours ago, niknarjc said:

I really want them to release this set, but I don't know if anything like a petition is going to sway them.

Are you aware that Lego staff reads this forum?

[Collibosher]

Ole Kirk Christiansen wouldn't have approved sets like this and based on that, Lego designers shouldn't have made it in the first place. I'm sure many people would have wanted this set, but I really don't get who are we to "demand" the Lego to release it, let alone feeling like they owe us it? I would understand this, if people pre-ordered it without getting the refund or something...The Lego already made the decision to take a financial hit by scrapping the set, so I don't think any petition with a message like "See how many of us would be willing to give you money for this set!" would really matter, since this situation is not about the money. TLG knew this was going to upset many fans and of course they will come up with a similar aircraft set in the near future.

No one signs this petition, because they want to abolish TLG's moral policies, let alone glorify war with a Lego set obviously, but despite how "adult" fans we are and how vague and hypocrite TLG's anti-war policy currently is, I wouldn't want to sign petitions, that would urge TLG to neglect their noble policies for profit. I would rather support TLG on this and wish for another VTOL aircraft, that never needed to be a licensed set with military affiliations in the first place.

[Bartybum]

6 hours ago, Collibosher said:

I would rather support TLG on this and wish for another VTOL aircraft, that never needed to be a licensed set with military affiliations in the first place.

Bang on. Give us a civilian tiltrotor pls TLG 

[Polarlicht]

Do such petitions actually work? Even when 1 million people sign it, it's still in TLGs hand to do what they want right?

[Bartybum]

27 minutes ago, Coolusername said:

Do such petitions actually work? Even when 1 million people sign it, it's still in TLGs hand to do what they want right?

Well... yeah? That's kinda the whole shtick with living in a free society. If someone tells you to do something you can tell them to piss off and ignore them. These petitions aren't in any way legally binding

Edited July 23, 2020 by Bartybum

[Polarlicht]

Yeah...

 

Is it possible for TLG to stop resellers selling this on ebay and such now, and say that they have to turn it back to the shop or something?

[doug72]

See this Lego bad/good news release for Osprey 42113 set.
https://www.change.org/p/lego-fans-urge-the-lego-group-tlg-to-release-the-lego-technic-set-42113-bell-boeing-v-22-osprey/u/27367047?cs_tk=At6GkL-IJhCOQ4tAHl8AAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvMt-wuqT_STnRN1WkolOHEE%3D&utm_campaign=605ca86be78c49249d963b86d248bdf9&utm_content=initial_v0_4_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs

[anyUser]

By postponing the cancellation - which should have been obvious from given arguments - the collectors market now has been well served.
I wonder if that is proper aim of a toys company that once had the slogan: "What will you build today?".

I am missing the 42113 technic set because of exclusive parts. I was planning the build the aircraft in white and orange colour scheme similar to these:

That would be difficult now.
I wonder if I would assemble as a statement:

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by anyUser

[Polarlicht]

2 hours ago, Doug72 said:

See this Lego bad/good news release for Osprey 42113 set.
https://www.change.org/p/lego-fans-urge-the-lego-group-tlg-to-release-the-lego-technic-set-42113-bell-boeing-v-22-osprey/u/27367047?cs_tk=At6GkL-IJhCOQ4tAHl8AAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvMt-wuqT_STnRN1WkolOHEE%3D&utm_campaign=605ca86be78c49249d963b86d248bdf9&utm_content=initial_v0_4_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs

Is that official?