Superb Business Move, Groupon (Page 2)

Aren't boycott's intended to draw down revenue?  And If you believe that a reduction in revenue is probable, why would you wait to lose the money before you made the change?  Wouldn't you make your change BEFORE losing any revenue?

DanielG - 2013-01-22 7:59 AM

powerman - 2013-01-21 10:20 AM What I find more funny is all I keep hearing is how there is not enough training and instruction.... and Groupon cancels sales for instriction and training.... it's not like it was buy one gun get the second half price.

Exactly. All those "There should be more training" types should be aghast that safety training is not as available to low income people now. Considering how low groupon's stock has fallen I guess they had to do something. I do believe this is not the something they should have done. If their stock drops further due to this, it would be amusing to see the stock holders sue for groupon using business practices that were not in the best interest of the business.

This just goes to show the real agenda and mindset of the the majority of "anti firearm" proponents.

They want one thing and that's for law abiding citizens to be disarmed, plain and simple.

My favorite is the one comparing gun owners to slave owners.

So it would be ok if they stopped selling gun related deals because it was pulling down revenue, but it's not ok to stop selling gun related deals because of "consumer and merchant feedback"? Just trying to see what the real issue here is. 

Well you might want to stay away from Dick's Sporting Goods and check out Cerburus Capital Management to see who they own too.  You won't want to give them any of your business, that's for sure.

crusevegas - 2013-01-22 3:21 PM

DanielG - 2013-01-22 7:59 AM

powerman - 2013-01-21 10:20 AM What I find more funny is all I keep hearing is how there is not enough training and instruction.... and Groupon cancels sales for instriction and training.... it's not like it was buy one gun get the second half price.

Exactly. All those "There should be more training" types should be aghast that safety training is not as available to low income people now. Considering how low groupon's stock has fallen I guess they had to do something. I do believe this is not the something they should have done. If their stock drops further due to this, it would be amusing to see the stock holders sue for groupon using business practices that were not in the best interest of the business.

This just goes to show the real agenda and mindset of the the majority of "anti firearm" proponents.

They want one thing and that's for law abiding citizens to be disarmed, plain and simple.

My favorite is the one comparing gun owners to slave owners.

Love the spin in this thread. I don't care one way or another if Groupon sells gun related deals, but I'm not naive enough to think the lack of these deals is having a serious impact on the availability of gun safety classes. In fact, it looks like most of the deals were for shooting ranges, skeet shooting, and conceal and carry permit classes. Not quite the same as basic firearms safety training.

It's not guns the OP is concerned about, supposedly. This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. He purportedly says the problem is that the company isn't doing what it wants, whatever that means.

So also, OP, you should make sure you don't have any Apple products...

http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/24/pop-is-back-cancelled-kickstarter-campaign-back-on-after-apple-changes-policy/

... or Verizon ...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-57350348-266/verizon-caves-to-public-pressure-and-dumps-$2-fee/

... or the 10 or so companies mentioned in this article ...

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/02/when-exposure-forces-organizational-change-sincere-transformation/

... or the hundreds of other companies who have made decisions in response to public pressure.

Or maybe this really just is about guns.

Among other things.

I'd hope you'd agree that CHL classes are not the same as basic safety classes. If they are what's the point of having different classes?

But they weren't OK with it for years. Did you research this? For years, in fact, they did not have any gun deals on the site. They began testing them out in early 2012, and pulled them recently.

So in fact, this decision means they are going back to their true corporate values after all.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/22/groupon_gun_deals_daily_discount_site_halts_all_gun_related_deals.html

I'd hope so, and I'd hope the folks who want a basic safety classes don't get a TON of conceal and carry info. But you knew that was my point. Thanks for playing.

Dick's and Cerurus are not gun related other than these companies sold guns/owned gun manufacturers and changed their positions based on perceived public pressure, not on bottom line "reduced revenue".  No money had been lost prior to their change in position.  It's VERY similar to what the OP is complaining about Groupon.

My question is this (and for other similar situations).

Are you mad and will stop using Groupon because they CHANGED their policy?  Would you have used them if this was their policy from day one?

Sort of a made up idea:  If Walmart stopped selling guns in light of this, you get mad and stop going there.   Meanwhile, you shop at Target even though they NEVER sold guns - why not stop shopping there?

So stop using groupon because they stop allowing discounts for gun related stuff.  But probably would have used groupon if they NEVER allowed discounts for gun stuff from the very beginning?

ETA:  Just remembered a REAL case.  Sports Authority used to sell guns but then stopped.  Would you be more mad at them than Sports Chalet that NEVER sold guns?  Now they are doing EXACTLY the same thing, but one quit and the other never did.

I respect your stance. 

Please recognize, though, that when a business incorporates, they do so primarily to make money. They are free, at their will, to figure out how. If that means changing products, changing marketing, changing position, so be it. 

And please recognize, as well, that there are well-meaning folks that change their minds. I can point at a thousand Congresspeople that have, based on pressure for one side or another, that have changed stance. I'm using your words deliberately, as there are exact parallels. 

They won't have your business, that's your call. To try to cast a moral, or 'right' blanket on them as to how it should be, is overstepping. Where you spend your money is your call. How businesses run isn't. 

And I'll insert my own opinion (everything above was fact, mostly)...the discourse shows you to be a gun honk. It's hard to be objective when you're trying to make a reasoned argument and you share, somewhat snidely, that you "may have a 9mm in my console". It makes whatever you shared hollow arguments. Arguments are built on the credibility of the speaker, and your credibility was compromised by that statement, as it's clear you're a card-carrying, pro-gun citizen. In this thread, and many others, it's clear.

Don't hide it under that guise of companies "sticking to what they feel is right". That's very thin veneer. 

I appreciate the heads up. I will let my wife know.

Isnt that exactly what coke did?

Released new coke which tasted better in blind taste tests.  Customers complained.  Re-released classic coke.  New coke is no more.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1913612_1913610_1913608,00.html