Follow
RSS
ContactI've served tours of duty in gaming retail. I've written for several different websites in the past. I own two world records. I listen to game soundtracks.
When not gaming, I'm a karaoke DJ with a decent singing voice.
That's me, in a nutshell. Welcome to my blog.
Steam:
Battle:
PSN:
Mii:
Gamertag:
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
|
Comment with FacebookClick connect and comment instantly! |
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds |
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Living the dream since March 16, 2006
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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 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.