I typically don't ever post in this section of the forum, but this story caught my eye this morning and caused much laughter and guilt. The laughter should be obvious after a quick read, but the guilt comes from knowing that I live in a country where something like this actually takes place. The old saying: "Read it and Weep," truly applies to this funny, yet so sad story. Enjoy this story, but have a handkerchief nearby as you realize what a _ _ _ _ _ _ up country we have created for ourselves. (fill in the blanks yourselves)
Source: Wal-Mart bans man for life for matching ads- MSN Money
Copy:
If Walmart makes savings to its customers available through such advertising and PR campaigns and then calls the police merely because customers get good at playing their marketing game, then that's Walmart's problem not the customers who play the game well. Poor ole Cantrell, can no longer do what he likes to do: Beat the stores at their own game.
Here's what I propose since this is after all a politically driven forum: Americans should place a LIFETIME ban on Walmart and its immoral business practices. That way, Walmart can no longer practices its hobby of selling crappy products to American Customers! And, did you notice the embedded link from MSN to Investor Place, showing Walmart being sued for selling crappy gas cans?
The hit parade of insanity, greed, slave labor and customer-hate never seems to end with Walmart.
I want to know why the store has a policy they don't honor. Sounds shoddy to me.
Well, you know the saying: "someone's always gotta ruin it for everyone else."
It doesn't surprise me that you cannot understand the association. If there were no demand for cheap prices, the Wal-marts of the world world not exist. It is the consumer that allows Wal-mart to thrive...
The problem with Wal-Mart is not that it has low prices, it's that it has "low prices" at the cost of low wages, dumping people on the federal government, destruction of local businesses, destruction of community shopping. That's not the kind of capitalism we want to encourage. In short, Wal-Mart embodies what happens when the government gets in bed with businesses. They get to destroy the environment, set up slave shops in China, pay their workers a pittance all because they have the backing of federal governments around the world.
This business of preferring small stores where the prices are higher over big boxes where the prices are low? It must be religious thing. Or a snob thing. In any case a lot of people can't afford the luxury.
Meanwhile, you seem to be under the impression that small businesses don't dump their low scale employees on federal programs and try to out-compete their competitors. I can assure you that your impression is false.
Across both sectors, this translates into about 2.6 times as many local jobs created when spending is directed to independent businesses instead of chains. The study concludes that a shift of just 10 percent of the market from chains to independents would produce 31,000 jobs paying $940 million in annual wages to BC workers.
The study found that the local retailers return a total of 52 percent of their revenue to the local economy, compared to just 14 percent for the national chain retailers. Similarly, the local restaurants recirculate an average of 79 percent of their revenue locally, compared to 30 percent for the chain eateries.
By comparison, $100 spent at a chain store in Portland yields just $33 in local economic impact. The study concludes that, if residents of the region were to shift 10 percent of their spending from chains to locally owned businesses, it would generate $127 million in additional local economic activity and 874 new jobs.
The study found that only 16% of the money spent at a SuperTarget stays in the local economy. In contrast, the local retailers returned more than 32% of their revenue to the local economy.
This study concludes that if residents of Grand Rapids and surrounding Kent County, Michigan, were to redirect 10 percent of their total spending from chains to locally owned businesses, the result would be $140 million in new economic activity for the region, including 1,600 new jobs and $53 million in additional payroll.
very $1 million spent at local bookstores, for example, creates $321,000 in additional economic activity in the area, including $119,000 in wages paid to local employees. That same $1 million spent at chain bookstores generates only $188,000 in local economic activity, including $71,000 in local wages. The same was true in the other categories. For every $1 million in sales, independent toy stores create 2.22 local jobs, while chains create just 1.31. The final part of the study analyzes the impact of a modest shift in consumer spending. If residents were to redirect just 10 percent of their spending from chains to local businesses, that would generate $192 million in additional economic activity in San Francisco and almost 1,300 new job
Actually this is the original reason I didn't go into Walmart, before I learned of it's generally deplorable behavior. When the first one opened in Boise, a couple of friends went and as far as a I know still go. What I noticed is that after Walmart opened they began having money troubles, which didn't really make sense since it was supposed to be so cheap to buy there. So during one of those financial complaining sessions, and me being an accountant at the time, I asked to see if I could figure out why... at the time I expected we'd find that contrary to their claims, they'd been nickle and diming themselves with lattes or something. Nope, what I found was that prior to Walmart, they went to the grocery store and bought groceries weekly, and things like the electronic, toy, and such stores rarely and only to buy what they "needed". When they began going to Walmart, they were buying everything in one place, yeah, but they were also buying things they hadn't "realized" they "needed" or better said, they didn't need at all but there those things were, tempting them into buying more than they needed or really wanted (since we also found many of the items purchased had been used once maybe twice and then shelved as not as useful/desireable as they had imagined.)Cheap prices are available. Wal-Mart creates the possibility of getting your shopping done in one place. For the overwhelming majority of people, it's convenience. Not pricing.
Actually this is the original reason I didn't go into Walmart, before I learned of it's generally deplorable behavior. When the first one opened in Boise, a couple of friends went and as far as a I know still go. What I noticed is that after Walmart opened they began having money troubles, which didn't really make sense since it was supposed to be so cheap to buy there. So during one of those financial complaining sessions, and me being an accountant at the time, I asked to see if I could figure out why... at the time I expected we'd find that contrary to their claims, they'd been nickle and diming themselves with lattes or something. Nope, what I found was that prior to Walmart, they went to the grocery store and bought groceries weekly, and things like the electronic, toy, and such stores rarely and only to buy what they "needed". When they began going to Walmart, they were buying everything in one place, yeah, but they were also buying things they hadn't "realized" they "needed" or better said, they didn't need at all but there those things were, tempting them into buying more than they needed or really wanted (since we also found many of the items purchased had been used once maybe twice and then shelved as not as useful/desireable as they had imagined.)
I decided right then that places like Walmart, are just not safe to shop at unless you have extremely good self-control, which few Americans have, because of buying things not on the list and not really needed.
Except that the only reason any possible confrontation took place, if in fact it did, was because they refused to let him AdMatch his items. Seems to me he ought to have a law suit against Walmart for banning him under false pretenses as well as false reports to the police, depending on whose story you choose to believe. I for one don't trust Walmart and am more likely to believe the man. I wonder if there were any witnesses.
even if we assume that the employee wrongly informed him he couldn't "ad-match" either through a personal mistake or directions from management, that doesn't grant him the right to threaten people
I typically don't ever post in this section of the forum, but this story caught my eye this morning and caused much laughter and guilt. The laughter should be obvious after a quick read, but the guilt comes from knowing that I live in a country where something like this actually takes place. The old saying: "Read it and Weep," truly applies to this funny, yet so sad story. Enjoy this story, but have a handkerchief nearby as you realize what a _ _ _ _ _ _ up country we have created for ourselves. (fill in the blanks yourselves)
Source: Wal-Mart bans man for life for matching ads- MSN Money
Copy:
If Walmart makes savings to its customers available through such advertising and PR campaigns and then calls the police merely because customers get good at playing their marketing game, then that's Walmart's problem not the customers who play the game well. Poor ole Cantrell, can no longer do what he likes to do: Beat the stores at their own game.
Here's what I propose since this is after all a politically driven forum: Americans should place a LIFETIME ban on Walmart and its immoral business practices. That way, Walmart can no longer practices its hobby of selling crappy products to American Customers! And, did you notice the embedded link from MSN to Investor Place, showing Walmart being sued for selling crappy gas cans?
The hit parade of insanity, greed, slave labor and customer-hate never seems to end with Walmart.
That's a pretty big IF... WTF?
even if we assume that the employee wrongly informed him he couldn't "ad-match" either through a personal mistake or directions from management, that doesn't grant him the right to threaten people
The employee said he "felt threatened" not that he was threatened......
Why is it without fail you supply nothing but uninformed rants?
"When I left, he turned around and called the Pinal County Sheriff's Office and said he felt intimidated and threatened," Cantrell told WXYZ. "I was upset, but never once did I say anything to the gentleman."
Walmart's are privately owned companies.
As far as I am concerned, they should be able to ban anyone for any reason from their stores.
Just as we should be able to do that in our homes.
Ever saw one of these signs?
Like I said: "he said she said."
Either way our statues are screwed, cops are crazy and these little ******s that "feel threatened" belong in their parents basements where they will be safe from the world...
The cop should be fired, the employee should be fired and the customer should sue Walmart, the employee and the cop...
You cant blame some guy for exploiting Walmarts shortsighted policies.
Does anyone realize that any store can ban anyone from it's premises for any reason at any time?
Ever saw one of these signs?
I completely understand where you're coming from and agree, however this guy did nothing wrong except exploit a Walmart policy and they can't ban him for that...
This guy has a valid lawsuit against the employee for slander, Walmart for libel and false advertising....
I hope this guy sues...
BTW, I usually defend businesses, however in this case Walmart and their idiot employee is absolutely WRONG! That's not an opinion either that is a legal fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?