First of all, if you haven't read the source article already...
Read it now.
GameStop manager Brandon Scott has taken education enforcement into his own hands and is refusing to sell video games to minors without verification from an adult that the student is doing well in school.
That's a very noble gesture that Mr. Scott has begun; too bad that it should and probably will cost him his job.
See... in retail, your job is to sell. You may not like your customer base, but you're not paid to like them. You're paid to sell merchandise, pull in revenue, and (in the case of GameStop) sell magazine subscriptions and encourage trade-ins. It doesn't matter if the customer can't read a lick, reeks of marijuana, or is of a different race or religion than you. Your job description is very clear... and refusing to sell merchandise to anyone is akin to theft; it's basically stealing revenue from the company, based on your beliefs, stereotypes, or whatever else.
I understand that Mr. Scott's intentions are pure. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, and his decision to buy games for students that achieve a perfect report card is commendable. However, robbing potential revenue from his store-- and thusly the company-- is wrong.
Mr. Scott's policy is, in a way, discriminatory... and opens dangerous options for not selling.
There are other ways to get this message across without endangering the bottom line... and, at the very least, Mr. Scott should have consulted with his DM (District Manager) before embarking on such a course of action.
GameGuyPete's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
Retailers have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose.
He's also got a policy where if you verify that you're making A's with signatures from your parents, you get a free game on him. That's a great policy if you ask me.
This is something I'd expect from an indie store rather than a chain. Plus it would likely drive customers away from Gamespot to somewhere else. We have a few places to buy games where I live, and I live in the middle of nowhere.
I'd do it. I'm a fantastic student.
I did mention the free game in my post, and I agree that it is commendable... as is his intention.
However, if I am Mr. Scott's District Manager, he is disciplined at the very least-- if not terminated. He is not acting in the retailer's best interests, and his decision not to sell to these kids has zero support from his corporate office. He made no attempt to notify anyone of his intent or policy. That is where he's wrong.
There are better ways to prove a point, in my opinion.
So with his education he's a manager at a Gamestop. Thats like the bum across the street telling me to go to school.
Kif wrote:
"This is something I'd expect from an indie store rather than a chain."
If this person owned and operated his own independent video game store, I'd have a different viewpoint. He's be working for himself, so if he doesn't mind losing some revenue to prove a point... that's fine by me. No harm, no foul.
Unfortunately, he is employed as part of a corporate entity that pays him to generate revenue... not to turn it away because certain customers might be less-than-stellar in school.
Even though I agree he's probably going to get bitched out by the corporate offices once this gets out, I honestly think he's doing the right thing.
He's hired to manage the store, he can call the shots in that location and refuse to sell to someone. If the district manager doesn't like what he's doing, then they can relieve him of his job. If they did though, I can see it being bad PR for GameStop. "The suits care more about money than about encouraging children to get good grades", etc.
Most likely he'll amend the offer if Gamestop wants him to cut it out. Like it'll end up being a "test program" and will end after a few months. I can't help but think that this will help his sales, since the majority of games that are for kids are bought with a parent's money anyway.
Unless you're 16 or older with a job, your mom and dad are your largest source of income and this doesn't affect anyone without a job one bit.
I can say I like the intent; I also agree that it should be run through his DM.
I live in the Ozarks, tho; we're lucky if kids have teeth, let alone good grades. If I'm married to a dentist, should I reward the kids that do have teeth?
It sounds to me that he was put up to it by his wife, the teacher.
This is a consumer discussion - if one has the cash - one should own the goods. Just another man under the thumb of his wife.