Wal-Mart lost a sale today
No Soliciting
The link is to a picture of what was going on earlier in the day at the
entrance to the store on Monterey Highway, San Jose. Every person who
enters or exists the store is aggressively approached, all under the guise
of being friendly. Usually there are 3 people at the desk but they
scattered when they saw the camera. The real purpose is to solicit funds
for "Child Protection Education of America." The BBB gives this
organization a negative rating, saying "does not meet Standards for Charity
Accountability." Basically the organization spends 51% of what it collects
towards its stated goal, where the standard is at least 65%.
Notice that to the upper left of the table is a sign in the window that
says "No Soliciting." But enforcement is zero. This is a free-standing
store, the table is setup on Wal-Mart property. And yet this is tolerated
by management who prefer to look the other way and do nothing while their
customers are subjected to a shake-down at the entrance. Well they lost a
sale today, I spent my money at a different store. Wal-Mart lost a sale
because of the soliciting. And if anybody in Wal-Mart management doesn't
think this is a big deal, they should get out of retail, because it's
ALWAYS ABOUT THE SALE! WAL-MART LOST BUSINESS TODAY!
Rod Speed
windows like lemmings as soon as they read your post.
Michael Black
Of course, you lost our caring and sympathy when you posted your rant
to a newsgroup that's about being frugal.
Whatever your rant, you yourself are pretty clueless for posting here
rather than where it belongs.
Michael
Shawn Hirn
et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote:
Yup, and that sort of thing isn't even worth ranting on an appropriate
newsgroup when the simple solution is to just keep walking.
Bill
the regional manager and president of the company.
This does two things.
1. Sometimes stores have a policy to allow groups which fit a certain
criteria to set up tables at the entrance. And they tell them they can and
can't do certain things. If they get complaints about certain groups, then
they can do something. They can tell them to go away. Managers do not have
as much power as some people think. Sometimes they need documentation to
back themselves up before they can do anything. (For legal reasons many
times).
2. When the manager sees the regional manager's name cc'ed on your letter,
it will motivate him to take action. And same thing with the president's
name cc'ed on your letter and the regional manager.
"No Soliciting" wrote in message
max
No Soliciting <nob...@mixmin.net> wrote:
> I'm tired of being panhandled and solicited to at the entrance of Wal-Mart.
> The link is to a picture of what was going on earlier in the day at the
> entrance to the store on Monterey Highway, San Jose. [...]
>
> http://i18.tinypic.com/6b386k6.jpg
I'd be more concerned with the guy running around the parking lot spray
painting over people's license plates -- someone could get a ticket!
.max
Chief...@hotmail.com
Just say NO..it's so easy...NO!
Anthony Matonak
> On Jul 10, 8:04 pm, No Soliciting <nob...@mixmin.net> wrote:
>> I'm tired of being panhandled and solicited to at the entrance of Wal-Mart.
>
Remember to keep repeating it at higher levels of volume as they
continue to force themselves on you. If they attack you or otherwise
molest you then you should be allowed to defend yourself. This varies
by state so be sure to check to see that you are allowed self defense
in your area. Sometimes you're obligated to run away screaming.
Anthony
--
"I gave at the office."
Shawn Hirn
Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Chief...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 8:04 pm, No Soliciting <nob...@mixmin.net> wrote:
> >> I'm tired of being panhandled and solicited to at the entrance of Wal-Mart.
> >
> > Just say NO..it's so easy...NO!
>
> Remember to keep repeating it at higher levels of volume as they
> continue to force themselves on you.
Really? In those situations, I just say "no" once and keep walking. Its
never been a problem, ever.
PaPaPeng
wrote:
I have transited through San Francisco's airport twice in the past few
years and twice I had been suckered punch by a very similar trio as
you described. As I walked from one terminal gate to another there
was this tall black guy who shouted at me to come over to his non
decript (no signs as to ID or function) kiosk as if he was a security
person who was doing a personal check. It was only after he got me at
his desk then he started the spiel about contributing to his "charity"
and he only became more polite only after I came across as quite
familiar with the English language and bearing. Since I was leaving
the US and not likely to be back anytime soon I dropped a few bucks.
But as I continued on my way I had this bad feeling of being had. So
I turned around and watched from a distance. Sure enough this guy
targeted only ethnic minorities who didn't look "American" and
therefore not likely to be familiar with what constitutes acceptable
and unacceptable soliciting. They would be passing through and easily
bullied/shaken down for a contributions. Furthermore people like me
were usually in a rush to make the transfer gate and would pay
something just to be on our way. The second time this happened a
few years later I told them to FO. Since they hit only foreign ethnic
minorities the airport or chartiy regulatory authorities probably
won't get too many complaints. But frankly the presence of this same
"charity" group for years in the same spot is disgusting. I can't
recall what charity they claimed to represent but it was one of those
obscure ones, probably about "abused women".
Bob F
"PaPaPeng" <PaPa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3i6c9316o5essqojj...@4ax.com...
You did, of course, notify the airport operators of your concerns?
Bob
George Grapman
The profiling reminds me of the Scientology recruiter on the street.
They seem to be targeting those who appear to be getting by week to
week,ignoring the well to do and the poor.
When they ask if I anyone has ever administered a personality test
for me I say ,"yes, but there were trained professionals". No reply.
George Grapman
donot violate laws the airport in powerless.
Seerialmom
It took solicitors to lose your business? They never lost my
business...they just get it "rarely"...but not because of solicitors.
I feign deafness as I walk past those tables in front of the
stores....what are they going to do? Grab me? Talk smack behind my
back? Do I care what this stranger begging for money thinks? No.
But Target will be glad to know they have a potential customer; they
don't allow soliciting in front of their stores.
Bob F
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:v9sli.25548$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
And as long as people don't let them know the scam, they are even more
helpless.
Bob
Julianne Doctor
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> The profiling reminds me of the Scientology recruiter on the street.
>They seem to be targeting those who appear to be getting by week to
>week,ignoring the well to do and the poor.
> When they ask if I anyone has ever administered a personality test
>for me I say ,"yes, but there were trained professionals". No reply.
I was once approached by a Sc****logist who asked if I'd like a
personality test.
I replied, "no thanks, I already have a personality."
He seemed baffled.
j
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
jool...@gmail.com says...
I once got accosted by them, and actually went inside took their
test. Just to see what it was like. A few of the questions were
a bit odd, although it's been so long that I can't remember any
exact ones. And it generally seemed to be lifted from the kind
of tests used by regular psychologists and some pre-employment
screening systems.
They put the results into their computer, which then displayed a
chaotic looking line graph.
I asked, "So, is that good or bad?"
And the drone replied, "Does that look good to you?!?" As if it
were obviously indicative of some severe problems. My guess is
that everyone's results are interpreted likewise.
Anyway, I guess they didn't like my attitude, because they didn't
invite me to their next weekly free seminar thingy. Although
they were inviting some other person who happened to be taking
the test at the same time. I guess I didn't seem like an easy
enough mark.
That actually seemed to be the function of the test. To see if
you were a good prospect to be invited to a more detailed sales
pitch lecture.
--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/
George Grapman
If you want to get them upset mention the movie "Repo Man". For those
who have not seen it part of the focus is on a handbook called "Diuretics".
PaPaPeng
<sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> Basically as long as they remain in small cordoned off areas and
>donot violate laws the airport in powerless.
1. Who should I compalin to?
2. As a matter of airport policy there should not be any
solicitations allowed, charity or not. These solicitations catch
strangers in a very vulnerable position as to time constraints, the
need to avoid tangling with authority and of course unfamiliarity with
airport and police regulations. How would a foreigner have any
interest in donating to a local charity in the first place? In the
SF airport case, if it is impossible to ban that "abused women's"
kiosk then at least the airport authority should limit their, and any
other charity's, presence to one week per year.
George Grapman
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:55:07 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Basically as long as they remain in small cordoned off areas and
>> donot violate laws the airport in powerless.
>
>
> 1. Who should I compalin to?
The federal courts have given them this right thereby limiting what
the authorities can do.
>
> 2. As a matter of airport policy there should not be any
> solicitations allowed, charity or not. These solicitations catch
> strangers in a very vulnerable position as to time constraints, the
> need to avoid tangling with authority and of course unfamiliarity with
> airport and police regulations. How would a foreigner have any
> interest in donating to a local charity in the first place? In the
> SF airport case, if it is impossible to ban that "abused women's"
> kiosk then at least the airport authority should limit their, and any
> other charity's, presence to one week per year.
See above.