Harry P.

I don't see where you explained how a suggestion box would be unworkable.

Exactly. It could be another tool to collect customer input. I'm not saying how they should react to the information, I'm just saying it seems like a pretty good way to directly gather customer feedback. If they actively monitor online forums for customer suggestions, wouldn't it make more sense, and be easier to do, if they solicited consumer wants on their own websites?

The '32 Ford thread wasn't mine... that's why I started the thread about the suggestion boxes. It was a related idea, but didn't really belong on the '32 Ford thread. I don't understand your attitude. Is nobody allowed to have an opinion that may not mesh completely with yours? I really don't see where all the animosity is coming from. Hey, if you disagree with anything I've said, I welcome your input. That's what a "forum" is all about. My opinion is just that, my opinion. Nothing more. It's not carved in stone anywhere. You're welcomed (and encouraged) to disagree if that's the case. Just make sure your comments accurately reflect what I said, not what you think I said. This place has a lot of members... there's no way we're all going to sing Kumbaya all the time. Disagreement is part of the deal, but it's nothing personal... it's just part of the normal give and take.

Ken, you obviously missed the point of my original post about online suggestion boxes. Go back and read it again... you're reacting to things that I never said or even implied. It's fine for us to disagree on things, but let's at least be clear on what exactly we disagree on. Again, read my post. You'll find that I mentioned nothing about what kit should be produced, or how the kitmakers should respond to our requests. All I suggested is that they offer an online suggestion box as another way to gather information on consumer desires. Nothing beyond that. What's with the dismissive attitude?

Ken, I understand marketing as well as the next guy... maybe better, seeing as how I create marketing pieces, corporate ID, etc. for companies all the time. Spare me your explanations, please. I've been in the marketing business for most of my working life. My point is simple: the kitmakers, as part of their "fact finding," could add a Suggestion Box to their website and use it as a centralized source for buyer feedback, in addition to monitoring web forums. It's a no-brainer... next to nothing in additional cost, and a very simple and effective way to directly gather customer feedback. Much easier and more direct than "monitoring" dozens of websites. And believe it or not, I also understand that just because 12 people want a model of xxxxx, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be produced. That's not what I suggested or implied. I simply suggested that an online suggestion box, on the manufacturer's own websites, would be a valuable tool to gauge buyer's wants.

The kitmakers get their marketing info from various sources, and in various ways... but it seems to me that one of the most obvious ways to get customer feedback would be to get it directly from their customers! Wow, what a concept! That's why I proposed a "Suggestion Box" be added to all the kitmakers websites... so that they could gather customer desires directly from the customer, and in one centralized location (their website). See the "I'll tell you what I Want" thread for more...

That's another way to do it. But it's also very easy to limit an online vote to "one per email address"... it's all in how you set up the "back end," the part behind the curtain that the viewer doesn't see. The point is, the manufacturers could be collecting "what we want" data directly from their customers, either via an online suggestion box on their website or via a postcard included in every kit. The question is, why aren't they doing it?

BTW... I got the idea from Posh Spice... :lol:

There are ways to limit responses. You can put a character limit in place, for instance. If the character limit was, say, 25 characters, they could keep all responses to a sane limit. You could also set it up as a series of drop-down menus... "What model kit would you most like to see from us? Select year, select make, select model" or something like that. That way there's no actual "message" from the customer at all, just a selected year/make/model, and the data could be very easily tabulated. Another benefit of a suggestion box is that the manufacturers collect email addresses, and can add each email address to their datadase... and send out email newsletters to all who respond. I know that most sites already have a "contact us" link, but I think if they added a specific "Suggestion Box" or "Tell Us What You'd Like to See" or "Which model kits Do You Want to See" tab or something specific like that, they might get a stronger response instead of a generic "contact us" link... because a "contact us" link has all sorts of messages in it... rants, raves, questions, general bloviating, etc. A dedicated "Suggestion Box" would be limited only to suggestions from customers for new products.

There has been some good commentary here lately from a couple of hobby "insiders" (Tim and Art, to be specific), as well as some pretty good insight from "civilians" like Ken and Mark and others regarding which kits the manufacturers produce and why they pick those certain subjects. Obviously if a kit sells well, we may see re-issues or revised versions ('32 Ford, anyone?). And obviously the kit makers do their homework as best they can regarding market research. But it seems to me that they get their information, such as it is, from a lot of scattered sources. Joe Smith writes in and tells them he'd like to see a new XXXXX, Joe Blow writes in or posts on a modeling forum that he'd love to see a new XXXX, etc. All this scattershot information doesn't seem to carry too much weight. Every kit manufacturer has a website. And I would guess that most of us model builders spend time online. Maybe the manufacturers should collect data directly from their customers via an ongoing online "suggestion box" on their own websites. That way, they could easily collect data in a central location, and use these "suggestion boxes" to really take the pulse of their customers, instead of relying on incidental, secondhand information or "shots in the dark" and "educated guesses." Print up a little 3x5 card telling the customer to go to www.xxxxx.com and let them know their wants and desires, add the card inside each and every model kit shipped, and collect the results. The cost to acquire this info would be next to nothing, and they could get immediate buyer feedback in one centralized location (their website) instead of monitoring the internet chat rooms and model forums and trying to gather information and opinions scattered about dozens, maybe hundreds of sites. Hey model kit manufacturers... use the internet to your advantage. Open up an online suggestion box, make it prominent on your site, and hear directly from your customer base.

Revell knows what you want. Yeah, you're a happy camper. The industry has obviously catered to your specific interests very well... they've given you a bazillion different versions of the same car so you can build '32 Fords from here to doomsday. And that's great... enjoy them, build them to your heart's content. I'd say that Revell and the others have accommodated your interests pretty darn well. But step back and look around beyond yourself! There are many people who like to build kits other than '32 Fords, if you can believe it! And their opinions as to what they would like to see are just as valid as your opinion, no? Why is it that talking about what new version of a '32 Ford you want acceptable, but talking about what new kit you want other than another '32 Ford is nothing but bitching and moaning? Explain that to me. Let's not label everyone who would like to see a new kit of a never-before done subject a complainer or a whiner.

Seems to me that if the '32 Ford bunch can tell Revell what they want, it would be just as appropriate for the rest of us to maybe state our opinion too. And like I said, I'm not intending this to be another "why don't they make" rant, I was just stating an opinion regarding the choice of kits issued (or not issued) by Revell and the others. I guess if you talk about what new stuff you want from Revell as far as another '32 Ford, that's perfectly fine... you're not complaining or whining, you're just letting Revell know what you want. But if anyone tells Revell what they want other than another '32 Ford they're guilty of being a whiny malcontent... is that it? Interesting point of view you have there.

I don't want to upset you '32 Ford guys, so I thought I'd post this as a stand-alone topic. No offense to any of you who like '32 Fords, but let's face it guys... there are enough '32 Ford kits already out there to keep all of you Deuce-lovin' model maniacs building '32 Fords for the rest of your lives! I mean, really... we're talking about yet another reissue of a car that's already been kitted in more different variations than maybe any other kit in the history of the hobby! How many versions of the same basic car do we need? We've heard from all the '32 Ford guys... how about a little heads-up to Revell (or any other manufacturer) as to what some of us who don't happen to worship at the altar of the Deuce might like to see? Where are the mid-thirties Chevies and Plymouths? A Tucker? A mid-50s Buick or Pontiac? A late model pickup? A late model VW? A first gen. Barracuda? These are just a few random ideas off the top of my head, maybe some of these have been done, but you all see what I mean. I don't intend this to become another "why don't they make" thread, we've seen those too often before... I'm not necessarily asking for specifics here. My point is this: '32 Fords are great, I have nothing against them or the guys who like to build them... but wouldn't the hobby be better off if instead of spending money on endless variations of the same car over and over and over, some money might be spent on filling in some longstanding holes in the car-modeling world? I realize that the resin guys cover some of the gaps, but it sure would be nice to see a NEW kit of a never-before offered subject instead of yet another rehash of a '32 Ford. Just my opinion... all others welcome

So somebody puts up a website talking about how a group of anonymous "executive types" are going to save Pontiac by building Pontiacs in an idle GM assembly plant in Tennessee. Let's see... Problem 1. "Pontiac" the brand is owned by GM. Are they just going to give away their intellectual property to this group of "executive types?" Problem 2. The idle plant in Tennessee is also owned by GM. See Problem 1. Problem 3. These "executive types" have a donation page where you can send them money. To WHOM is that money going, and HOW will it be spent? Gee, I was just about to click on the "$1,000" donation button when I suddenly remembered that there's this Nigerian prince that I already promised to send $50,000 to, and he told me he will send me a few million bucks in return.

I nominate you!

I still say there's no '95 Cadillac that gets 30-37 mpg highway when the Cadillacs of today don't get nearly that much... I think that on-board computer is a little overly optimistic.

Ok, man... enjoy your magic Cadillacs...

I have to agree with Jim. Another '32 Ford? Really??? There are so many subjects that have never been kitted. Wouldn't the hobby be better off in the long run if we saw a kit of a car never before offered instead of yet another variation of one that has been done to death? I'm just sayin'...

I'm not the authority... I'm just posting EPA numbers. And EPA numbers have historically been higher than the real world numbers, so actual mileage is actually less than the EPA estimates (they have recently revised their testing procedures to more accurately reflect real-world conditions). You can't seriously expect us to believe that a 15 year old Cadillac gets better mileage than a brand-new one? Are you saying that technology has gone backwards the last 15 years? Come on, man, get real...

I really doubt that there are any '59 Chevies still left in GM's warehouses... You can't just go making claims like you did without any basis in fact. You have no idea what the actual condition of the '59 was, so how can you claim that it was a "rotten car" and "structurally compromised?" That's pure speculation on your part–you have no factual evidence whatsoever to back that up. I don't want to pick a fight here, but let's at least try and stick to the facts as we know them, and not make unsubstantiated claims.

These are the EPA numbers for all 2010 Cadillacs: Cadillac CTS 6 cyl, 3.6 L, Automatic (S6), 17, 26 Cadillac CTS 6 cyl, 3.6 L, Manual 6-spd, 16, 25 Cadillac CTS AWD 6 cyl, 3.6 L, Automatic (S6), 17, 26 Cadillac DTS 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Automatic 4-spd, 15, 23 Cadillac Escalade 2WD8 cyl, 6.2 L, Automatic 6-spd, 12, 19 Cadillac Escalade AWD 8 cyl, 6.2 L, Automatic 6-spd, 12, 19 Cadillac Escalade ESV 2WD 8 cyl, 6.2 L, Automatic 6-spd, 12, 19 Cadillac Escalade Hybrid 2WD 8 cyl, 6 L, Automatic, 20, 21 Cadillac Funeral Coach / Hearse 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Automatic 4-spd, 12, 16 Cadillac Limousine 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Automatic 4-spd, 12, 18 Cadillac SRX 2WD 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Automatic , 13, 20 Cadillac SRX 2WD 6 cyl, 3.6 L, Automatic, 15, 23 Cadillac SRX AWD 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Automatic, 13, 20 Cadillac SRX AWD 6 cyl, 3.6 L, Automatic, 14, 22 Cadillac STS 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Automatic, 15, 24 Cadillac STS 6 cyl, 3.6 L, Automatic, 17, 26 Cadillac STS AWD6 cyl, 3.6 L, 17, 26 Cadillac STS AWD 8 cyl, 4.6 L, 15, 22 Cadillac STS-V 8 cyl, 4.4 L, Automatic, 13, 19 Cadillac XLR 8 cyl, 4.4 L, Automatic, 14, 23 Cadillac XLR8 cyl, 4.6 L, Automatic, 15, 24 Apparently you own a 15 year old "magic Cadillac" that gets better highway mileage that today's Cadillacs get. Maybe you should write GM and tell them about it...

I bought and built this kit back when it originally came out. Very nice kit in all respects. There was an issue with the interior depth being "squashed" a little, but whatever the problem was it didn't bother me! I'd post photos but my paint job isn't exactly "post worthy"... I wish Lindberg would put out some new product on a par with this kit.

And how exactly do you know that?

Don't know about pix, but it's a very nice kit, originally came out back when Lindberg was really coming on strong to challenge the other model manufacturers. This was the era of the Lindberg Color Me Gone kit, the Chevelle, the '61 Impala, etc. All terrific kits, all worth buying. Whatever happened to the Lindberg resurgence???