Looney Labs Rabbits Mailing list Archive

Re: [Rabbits] *sigh squared*

  • FromMarnen Laibow-Koser <marnen@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateFri, 6 Jul 2007 13:59:26 -0700

On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:47 AM, David Artman wrote:
Whether or not Poor Old TRU.com can keep their stock levels synchronized between (what? four?) distribution warehouses is, to me, a mere side issue--they could do better; and I could put them in touch with folks who would sell them the system that WOULD do better.

Perhaps, then, that is a more constructive thing to do than simply boycotting.

The more relevant points remain unrefuted and are sufficient for me to remain incensed: 1) They could honor their sales, once holding funds for completed orders. They have cost me (a trivial amount) of buying power.

Yes, if they did not lift the hold immediately (or nearly so) on canceling the order, that was poor practice, and to me, that -- and not anything else you mentioned -- might be grounds for boycott. However, note that a lifted hold may not translate into available funds immediately; see below.

2) It's simply false that a hold can't lift immediately: I've see holds appear and disappear while I was paying a tab (i.e. they update the tip amount and, in seconds, the hold is modified). As far as I know, my bank does not continue to hold funds after they are released by a requester--after all, they can begin to loan customers that money again, once it's off hold!

As far as I am aware, you are incorrect. I recently had this same experience with a car rental. The rental company informed me that while they would release the hold on my debit card immediately upon return of the car, my bank might not process the release immediately.

This makes sense. Banks don't generally update available balances on retail accounts more than once a day, at least in my experience, so the held funds will not become immediately available. And I can well believe that some banks would have longer lead times than this on requests to lift a hold: think about how long it takes some checks to clear once deposited, even though Check 21 guarantees much faster availability of funds than before.

Those of you who would defend a company with a $85M net earnings on 61.15M shares in 2006 (in spite of--or because of?--66 store closures) then be my guest.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not so much intending to "defend" TRU as to point out a somewhat flawed argument.

Anyway, your bringing TRU's profits into the picture is a complete red herring. If they are "good", then they are "good" regardless of their bottom line. Likewise if they're "bad". Likewise if they're (as is most likely) somewhere in between.

I am sure they appreciate it AT LEAST as much as they feel remorse about my frustrations.

I don't care in the slightest whether they appreciate it or not. I have no particular axe to grind one way or the other with respect to TRU. However, neither do I want to see TRU (or LL, or you, or me) getting screwed for doing the best they could have done.

As for LL "cutting its throat": uh... their ONE product at the retailer was on sell-at-a-loss clearance and there's no promise of restock or backorder.

Sure. One product today. But if it sold faster than expected during this sale (as it indeed seems to have done), then a purchasing manager will see that and perhaps get interested in other products.

Looney Labs isn't even listed as a brand on their site! Some "partnership".

I didn't say it was a partnership. I said it was a (hopefully mutually beneficial) business relationship. That's not necessarily the same thing.

And really, who looks at lists of brands on websites? To me, at least, it's more important that someone buys EAC from TRU, thinks it's a cool game, thinks "where can I get more?", looks at the logo on the box, and find LL that way.

But if they like being a part of that "action" then, fine, I wish them well

As do I.

(I always have their best interests at heart, FYI).

I'm sure all of us on this list would say the same.


And finally, to be as PC as possible, let me amend my request in my second e-mail: "Let them know how you feel, if you agree with me *or if you love them all the same*."

I don't love them. I don't agree with you either. These are not the only two possibilities.

TRU might like to hear how you stand beside them through thick and thin, defending their honor against wild-eye internet demagogues....

But they will hear no such thing from me, because it is not the case.

This is starting to sound perilously close to mob thought to me, and I had really hoped that *this* group, of all people, were above that.

Maybe they'll send you a misplaced EAC that's holding down a corner of their hand-tallied inventory tracking sheet next to the carrier pigeon cages at headquarters....

Well, I could try... :)


Marnen Laibow-Koser

Current Thread