Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
According to a German organization article (https://www.dfg-vk.de/unsere-themen/anti-militarisierung/friedensorganisation-kritisiert-lego-kooperiert-mit-rüstungskonzernen)
and LEGO themselves the impressive Rescue Osprey is the latest in the ongoing world of cancel culture, you might recall that LEGO reduced advertisement for certain sets in the wake of the US protest for the horrific treatment of George Floyd (that people from all over the US political spectrum cried against), there were rumors they were simply removing all the sets and hence the LEGO community outrage until the company said it was only reducing advertisement. The Osprey is a wonderful aircraft and this particular set is clearly marked as a Rescue with six stickers.
The other thing that angers me is that there is already an example of Osprey in the LEGO City line being hilariously used by the crooks in a robbery (60209) and as a civillian cargo helicopter (60021). Perhaps the collaboration with Boing is their problem but are we going to renounce to Passenger planes in sets as well?
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions •
If you’re right @560Heliport, this could be a hell of a collector’s item!
That was a really well thought out and reasonable opinion. I don’t know how this passed review - I doubt that LEGO is just now finding out that the Osprey is a primarily military vehicle. I’ll be interested to see if this applies to Germany only or is recalled worldwide...
One of the larger points the group makes is that license fees are likely being paid to Boeing and Bell... that in effect if you buy this set you will be funding (indirectly) the 2nd and 27th largest global arms companies in the world. Although, taken to that extreme, I will have to swim to Billund for the Inside Tour to avoid supporting Boeing...
Companies and governments should show more balls imho. Surprisingly, someone like the US president can get away with anything and still stay in place. It's a strange world...
funnily enough, as I’m not particularly into aircraft or military vehicles the link worth this set would have gone completely over my head without it being bought up. While the “air race” planes flirt with the line of the rules and have quite obvious real world inspirations that have links to military aircraft they can easily be handwaved away with the LEGO universe not having military. Ironically I think sets like #60206 or #60208 which have police in high power jet aircraft are a bit of a worse situation as although they may lack military weapons on them have a closer purpose to real world military aircraft.
Ultimately I think it’s having the specific branding on this that made it an issue, had LEGO put this out without the Bell & Boeing branding it would have gone under the Radar with no real issue.
1. How this set got so close to release without anyone seeing the potential issue with their brand guidelines.
2. Consider updating the brand guidelines in full as an exception to sets marketed 16+ not having to conform to such rules - this I think is especially relevant as LEGO are clearly reaching more and more for the adult market and there’s likely to be more stuff like this that they might want to consider as part of that market.
Either they knew it was military and thought they would get away with it but caved at the first barrier or they did no research whatsoever.
It would not surprise me if other groups attack Lego in future given how they crumbled so quickly here and have given publicity to this group.
It was prematurely released by a vendor in Vietnam. I wonder how many other distributors will release it rather than return them. The retailers can probably double the RRP and people will still buy them, and those customers could double the price they paid and still flip them.
It was an accident that they got put on the shop floor and sold.
They were returned to you but seem to have been lost on return.
If LEGO can accidentally design, produce and distribute a set that goes against their own policies, then a store accidentally selling what was sent to them seems quite minor. More so if there is only one distributor of LEGO in that region.
If that is so, it makes them look even worse than just a company that doesn't know what the other hand is doing.
I don't expect to know the actual contract between the two companies but is there a way companies deal with situations and relationships like this?
I've worked in a company where dozens of people might be working on a project, and elsewhere in the company dozens of others are completely unaware of it. Sometimes this leads to annoying violations of company policy, like when one department signs a contract to buy a piece of tech without first checking that that tech meets the company's ISO certification, data security, privacy, or other requirements.
The most likely story is that Lego's no-military policy doesn't apply to made-up aircraft even if they're similar to military planes, as long as they're not military colours - this explains the various jets and osprey-look-alikes. Here a team of people thought they had a strategy that would meet the requirements: design an osprey-alike that is rescue-themed. But someone somewhere got the idea to license the plane, and it's the combination of the license with an arms-maker of a plan that's only used by militaries that breaks the deal. There are really several pieces that have to be connected just right for this problem to occur, if past kits are any indication. Various decision makers obviously had not put all the pieces together to form the chain, and the rest assumed that some aspect of this kit made it okay (the rescue branding, for example).
Why this has to be some sinister plot, I don't know. Lego is a big company. They have many business units that don't cooperate that much. They make mistakes. This one just got closer to market before being found.