Slashdot Mirror
360 Bundles Lead To Best Buy Housecleaning
Groo Wanderer writes "At the launch of the XBox 360, there were reports of forced and unwanted bundling by several companies, most notably Best Buy. There were things said back and forth, and the usual corporate banter. They have followed through, this time, and a good number of people lost their jobs." From the article: "We are told a manager that started the procedure is no longer employed at Best Buy. At least one senior district manager is no longer employed, and some of the nailings are rumored to have gone even higher. The big yellow inquisition did not stop there, and several other managers and assorted white collar workers were given an escorted walk to the parking lot."
I don't get it, what is wrong with a store saying "Sure I will sell you this thing you really want, but at the price I want to charge. I will even include some crap you don't really want, but you still have to pay the price I want to charge"
Seems that if you don't want to pay the price you go elsewhere or you don't buy the product.
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
It was a case of Bait and Switch. Where corporate placed certain ads and press releases, along with various guidelines how to handle matters, while people below were doing something different.
It's the classic "bad apple" tactic. Just have very stringent policies in place, but make the goals such that it's either difficult or impossible to meet without breaking those policies. If no one notices, promotions all around. If someone calls them on it, then an easy scapegoat and much haughty pointing to the policy. Either way, the organization wins. Abu Grahib was a perfect example of that and this Best Buy ploy is another. Of course, I'm not saying they are of equal importance or ramification at all, rather the technique is identical.
The bundling was "forced" on buyers. The buy itself wasn't forced.
It's a "don't be an ass to your customers" issue.
Congrats to Best Buy for at least appearing to fix the problem.
In the case of Abu Grahib, I find it hard to imagine that generic pressure from the top for better intel-gathering is what resulted in naken man-pyramids and guards snapping photos of each other mocking the prisoners.
Occam's Razor leads me to suspect that it was just plain old immature grab-assery which lead to that particular scandal. Give a bunch a 20-something idiots that much authority without enough oversight, and that's what you get, as hidden video of a typical frat hazing will usually confirm.
Those at the top still ought to be criticized for inadequite supervision of those involved, however, so this comment should in no way be read as a defense of anybody up the chain of command, including the Commander in Chief himself. I'm just saying that the situations don't appear to be as analogous as you seem to be implying.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Also keep in mind that such grab-assery was not at all tolerated under the Marines. This wasn't something that you could even attributed to the situation in general. It got out of hand only in particular conditions. Any CIA operatives mucking about would have muddied things a bit wherever they were looking about.
The general rule of thumb in Armies is to not tolerate any sort of undisciplined shenanigans in general.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I don't think Abu Grahib was just immature ass-grabery.
Someone told some inbred deliverance-manchild-like retard fucks like Lyddie England detailed instructions on how to humiliate moslems.
Dogs are unclean, Men are above women => a woman holds them down on a leash like a dog.
That's far too creative for those retards. The fact they got CAUGHT was because they are retards who took photos.