Lego Reverses Policy On Block Orders For Political Projects After Public Shaming
from the blockheads dept
Late last year, we relayed the story of Ai Weiwei, an artist who had previously used Legos to create political art in the form of portraits, being refused a bulk order of Lego blocks by the company. At issue was a long-standing company policy prohibiting its facilitation of blocks being used for political speech. As a result of Weiwei going public about the refusal, the story was Streisanded into the public consciousness, resulting in condemnation and shaming from more of the masses than would have ever been aware of the project otherwise.
And, in a classic example of how the Streisand Effect often culminates, Lego is now reversing course -- not only regarding Weiwei's project, but it's nixing the entire policy.
On Tuesday, Lego announced that it would no longer ask what the "thematic purpose" of a project is. Instead, customers who intend to display their creations in public will be asked to make clear that Lego does not support or endorse them.It would have been too much to hope for to expect Lego to come out and flat out admit the policy it had previously adopted was simply wrong on a moral level. Still, this is a lesson in the power of public shaming, particularly in an era where the internet has fostered wider connections than had been possible previously. Would Lego have revised its policy if Weiwei's story had not gone viral? I think we know the answer to that question, given that this isn't the first time the question over Legos being used in political artwork has come up, but is the first time the policy has been revised.
Asked whether it was in response to Ai's case, the toy-maker said it had been asked whether it supports human rights and freedom of expression. In an email, spokesman Roar Rude Trangbaek wrote: "We always have and continue to do — this is at the heart of what Lego play is all about. ... We hope the new guidelines will make it more clear what we stand for."
Oddly, after Lego had initially refused Weiwei's order, he turned to a Chinese competitor instead. This was done as many speculated that Lego had taken its actions in order to appease the Chinese government, as Weiwei is a Chinese dissident.
The Melbourne exhibition, which opened in December, was to feature 20 portraits of Australian pro-freedom figures made from Lego bricks. Instead, it used similar bricks from a Chinese company, Ai said.And now the Streisand Effect has multiplied to include the greater exposure of a Lego competitor. Perhaps that's the reason for the policy change.
"I couldn't tell much difference and the price is much, much lower," he added.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ai weiwei, art, china, cutlure, free speech
Companies: lego
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyway the patent on Lego has ended so calling the new ones by the Chinese company a 'knock off' or 'fake' is wrong no matter what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LEGO has always made it clear that it does not want to be seen as a supporter of any political idea. Not because some ideas are not worthwile, but simply because LEGO is a toy company and doesn't want to pick a political 'side'.
Before, it did so by not allowing politically inspired projects (amongst others) to benefit from their discount program because that could be interpreted as an endorsement. Now they explicitly demand that these clients make it clear they are not endorsed by LEGO when they use that channel to buy LEGO bricks.
Maybe the new policy is more clear and will avoid negative publicity for LEGO because political artists can no longer pretend to be discriminated because of their beliefs. They never were. They were simply not allowed a discount when they wanted to use the LEGO brand in their political fight since the discount could be interpreted as endorsement.
Remember: Weiwei is not banned from using LEGO. He could have bought it without the discount, no problem, even directly from LEGO. Just like everyone else. For whatever purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
no.. LEGO asks them nicely. The purchasers can STILL refuse to state whether Lego endorses them or not. There is NOTHING Lego could do to the purchasers if they refuse to make a statement.
As for the discount.. Well LEGO is being looked at closely by the Consumer law powers that be in Australia for restriction on trade having an arbitrary structure on who can and cannot purchase at a discount. As for LEGO's politics?? Have you actually researched the History of LEGO and the Company behind it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(As for the history of LEGO: yes, I have. Which episode or actions are you referring to?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yo, moron...
He was blocked from using the discount. A discount that anyone else could use. He did nothing wrong to cause denial of that discount. It's no different than a store saying "Everything 25% off today, but not for you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I get the feeling you are under the impression that Ai Weiwei was the only person to ever get denied access to the discount program. You may want to get informed first.
The discount program was NOT available for anyone. Sure, anyone could apply, but there was this policy about who got access and who didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Brick Joke: Particularly when failing to end comments with 'Not Endorsed by LEGO'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, all the examples you give are quite different from the LEGO story: LEGO never refused to sell Ai Weiwei any bricks. How could they with their extensive retailer network?
LEGO did, however, deny him access to a discount program for direct bulk orders because that could have been interpreted as endorsement for his political views.
See the difference?
Buying a box of Crayola crayons at retail is not exacly the same as asking Crayola to sell you 100,000 crayons at a discount so you can print the name of your political party on those items next to the Crayola name and logo and then hand them out during a rally. The first is a simple sale, the second could be seen as an endorsment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If anything giving lower prices to some speech and higher prices to other speech, as was the case here, is endorsing the speech with the lower price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given That You Don’t Personally Know Mr Ai ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Earnest wellthinking
What they created: A thematic input field. Policies. Procedures. Employees to review requests. Committee to review refusals...and appeals. Communication policy. Form letters. Lawyers to fight cases.
What they needed: "We're not responsible for what you make."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barbara
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous
Now you have a company refusing to allow anyone to utilize a discount when the product is intended to be used in a project that has a political message. The intent and the outcome is to distance the company from being seen as supportive of any and all political messages.
Tomorrow you're going to tell me that if you belong to $CURRENTVICTIMGROUP, it's against the law if you don't get a discount at the deli when you buy your sandwich and gas stations should be sued if they don't give you a discount for being a gold medalist in the oppression olympics.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now you have a company refusing to allow anyone to utilize a discount
You think it should have stood by its “principles” in this case? In which case, please tell us what those “principles” should have been for a large, profit-oriented multinational corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ridiculous
Tomorrow I'll tell you that a deli offering 50% off Reubens to everyone except parapalegics because the owners don't approve of the 'filthy cripple lifestyle choice' might want to be prepared for a bit of a PR problem. Then again, this is a distinct issue from that raised by the LEGO policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]