thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 What's to stop a company from being selective in how it applies its policy on returning merchandise. Nothing illegal as far as I know. But companies rise and fall on customer service. If it is seen as arbitrary or capricious word soon gets around, and results in lower sales.
Analytics Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 What's to stop a company from being selective in how it applies its policy on returning merchandise. A company should give its customers the benefit of the doubt. LL Bean has that reputation. But there is a point when any fair-minded person would see abuse. When it gets to that point, the company shouldn't be expected to subject itself to abuse, and the legal doctrine of consideration means they wouldn't be legally required to.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 I'm as LDS as they come. I think she is busybody.I'm reserving comment on her specifically, but I wholeheartedly support reasonable efforts to curb the encroachment of pornography into a community. Considering the alarming statistics I quoted, I think many people would say that makes me a busybody. If so, I would wear their contempt as a badge of honor. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 A company should give its customers the benefit of the doubt. LL Bean has that reputation. But there is a point when any fair-minded person would see abuse. When it gets to that point, the company shouldn't be expected to subject itself to abuse, and the legal doctrine of consideration means they wouldn't be legally required to.I agree with this in principle.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 Nothing illegal as far as I know. But companies rise and fall on customer service. If it is seen as arbitrary or capricious word soon gets around, and results in lower sales.If it only happened in rare instances -- as Analytics has suggested -- I can't see the company being so branded.
strappinglad Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 You may have noted the efforts of ' buzybodies' with regard to LULULEMON and Calvin Klein products and ads. Public opinion still has some effect on corporate America. Most of the time ,however, it is a case of " man stretching out his puny arm to change the flow of the Mississippi"
mormonnewb Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 Now, I'm not endorsing the behavior of our activist in Orem. But if disapproving of and opposing the encroachment of hard-core and soft-core porn means the Church and its members are going to be viewed as "moralistic busy-bodies" in an ever-increasingly permissive society where what was once widely regarded as indecent is now widely accepted, I would only say that there is sometimes a price to be paid for championing what is right. That doesn't mean one should back down.I agree that there are principles for which we must take a stand, even if they make us unpopular. I just wish that "sexual purity" wasn't the only issue for which we are ever known to take a stand. For once, I'd like for someone to complain about "those darn Mormons" and our opposition to war, concern for the poor, civil rights activism, etc.Once again, I think we have all the "Puritan cred" we need. Maybe good PR would be to reach out to those not already in our tabernacle. 1
ERayR Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 I agree that there are principles for which we must take a stand, even if they make us unpopular. I just wish that "sexual purity" wasn't the only issue for which we are ever known to take a stand. For once, I'd like for someone to complain about "those darn Mormons" and our opposition to war, concern for the poor, civil rights activism, etc.Once again, I think we have all the "Puritan cred" we need. Maybe good PR would be to reach out to those not already in our tabernacle. Why is "sexual purity" such an uncomfortable issue to be "known for"?
why me Posted February 22, 2014 Author Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) Now, I'm not endorsing the behavior of our activist in Orem. But if disapproving of and opposing the encroachment of hard-core and soft-core porn means the Church and its members are going to be viewed as "moralistic busy-bodies" in an ever-increasingly permissive society where what was once widely regarded as indecent is now widely accepted, I would only say that there is sometimes a price to be paid for championing what is right. That doesn't mean one should back down.One problem with advertizing is that it has been influenced by porn both in style and dress. These shirts are a symbol of blurred lines between advertizing bodies and porn. But there are also more cases where clothing lines have used porn concepts in adverts. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-american-apparel-descended-into-pornography-a-study-in-pictures-definitely-nsfw-2011-1?op=1 Sex attracts and young women in sexy positions modeling clothes also sells the brand. The above link takes us on a history of sex advertizing in one clothing company. We can see a steady progression of porn influence. Edited February 22, 2014 by why me
thesometimesaint Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 I'm reserving comment on her specifically, but I wholeheartedly support reasonable efforts to curb the encroachment of pornography into a community. Considering the alarming statistics I quoted, I think many people would say that makes me a busybody. If so, I would wear their contempt as a badge of honor. Is it really reasonable for her to impose her ideas on what is acceptable clothing on the general public?See definition of busybody http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/busybody As I've already said you'd be hard pressed to tell me apart from my Bishop by what we wear. I don't support pornography. I just don't agree with her way of not supporting it.
Tacenda Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 One problem with advertizing is that it has been influenced by porn both in style and dress. These shirts are a symbol of blurred lines between advertizing bodies and porn. But there are also more cases where clothing lines have used porn concepts in adverts.http://www.businessinsider.com/how-american-apparel-descended-into-pornography-a-study-in-pictures-definitely-nsfw-2011-1?op=1Sex attracts and young women in sexy positions modeling clothes also sells the brand. The above link takes us on a history of sex advertizing in one clothing company. We can see a steady progression of porn influence.I took a class once, where I learned that the curvy line on a Coke can is supposed to be sexy. Crazy, but true.
ERayR Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 As I've already said you'd be hard pressed to tell me apart from my Bishop by what we wear. I don't support pornography. I just don't agree with her way of not supporting it. And it is OK for you to disagree with her methods. Yours or my approbation is not required.
ERayR Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 I took a class once, where I learned that the curvy line on a Coke can is supposed to be sexy. Crazy, but true. So much for art classes.
Garden Girl Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 I took a class once, where I learned that the curvy line on a Coke can is supposed to be sexy. Crazy, but true. Tacenda... you are exactly right... one of my Psychology classes dealt with the advertising of products... and such concepts permeate the advertising industry. I recall that an example used to illustrate this was the liquor industry... they (and numerous others) use a form of subliminal advertising to impact their sales. In this case it was the way the ice cubes were placed in a glass of liquor... the colors used, how the ice was stacked, the reflections on the ice... all sorts of underlying factors that would make that particular product appear desirable. We'd be very surprised to know the lengths to which advertisers go to make their products appear desirable. My sis was dept head in one of the stores of a large well-known chain in So Cal, in charge of all the displaying/windows/mannequins etc. They would have sales campaign meetings on how to promote certain lines and products that employed all sorts of tactics to grab the attention of the customer the minute they walked into the store. From how and where the merchandise was placed, for example... to promoting/changing public opinions (fads/styles), etc. As far as this woman buying up all the shirts, that's kind of fruitless... organizing a group to meet with store managers would have an impact... don't you recall the group of LDS mothers who went to the local dept store and complained that they couldn't find modest prom dresses for their daughters... The store listened and responded by bringing in more modest gowns. GG 2
ERayR Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 As far as this woman buying up all the shirts, that's kind of fruitless... organizing a group to meet with store managers would have an impact... don't you recall the group of LDS mothers who went to the local dept store and complained that they couldn't find modest prom dresses for their daughters... The store listened and responded by bringing in more modest gowns. GG I agree that it may very well be fruitless but she did what she knew how to do.
Tacenda Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 So much for art classes. No, it was a class about advertisements!
thesometimesaint Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) I took a class once, where I learned that the curvy line on a Coke can is supposed to be sexy. Crazy, but true. From Coke to cars to refrigerators sex sells always has.http://perrya.hubpages.com/hub/Car-TV-Commercials-From-the-1950s-and-1960s http://americanmemoryofthe1950shousewif.bgsu.wikispaces.net/Stereotypes Edited February 22, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 No, it was a class about advertisements! Some would say advertising is an art.
Tacenda Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Some would say advertising is an art.For sure, and it would be a fun job at that!
Hestia Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Drive-by offensive comments will be deleted.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Drive-by offensive comments will be deleted. Thanks Hestia. I was going to make a comment about engaging in defamation while cowering behind a screen name, but now I don't have to.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 I agree that it may very well be fruitless but she did what she knew how to do.And she did it within the law. She reminds me of a mother bear protecting her cubs. I can't condemn what she did.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 I agree that there are principles for which we must take a stand, even if they make us unpopular. I just wish that "sexual purity" wasn't the only issue for which we are ever known to take a stand. For once, I'd like for someone to complain about "those darn Mormons" and our opposition to war, concern for the poor, civil rights activism, etc.Once again, I think we have all the "Puritan cred" we need. Maybe good PR would be to reach out to those not already in our tabernacle.Since the 1930's the welfare plan of the Church of Jesus Christ has been a model worthy of emulation by governments and charitable entities in that it seeks to abolish the evils of the dole and to enthrone work as the ruling principle in assisting those in need. And the Church has long maintained active and consistent efforts for providing humanitarian service at home and abroad without regard to religious affiliation. Now, if our way of caring for the poor and needy does not accord with how some liberal politicians or pressure groups think it should be done -- and hence does not garner the right kind of "creds" to suit some segments of the populace -- well, that doesn't make it any the less valid or praiseworthy. As to whether or not to take a stand on sexual purity, one of the good sisters in our gospel doctrine class put it very well yesterday when she said if we back down on that, we cease to be in a position to bless the lives of those who need it. 1
Tacenda Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Sorry to resurrect this old topic, but tonight's news just blew me away. I had to get some feedback, is this alarming or have I gone off the rails that much? http://fox13now.com/2014/05/28/students-at-utah-school-upset-to-discover-yearbook-photos-were-altered-before-publication/
Storm Rider Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 I find the idea of editing the pictures a bit creepy, but listening to the newscast the District warned the students that their pictures could be edited if their clothing was not in compliance with dress standards, but apologized that the application of the edits was not uniform. So we have a school with a dress code and some students chose to ignore the dress standards for their picture. After ignoring the dress code they want to be angry that their pictures were edited. Simple correction - observe the dress code and there are no problems.
Recommended Posts