Dear Readers:
After yesterday's post, not only did I call Target, but I also emailed Target's CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, to complain about the Bullseye's move to demote 8,000 employees. [His email address has been pusblished on The Consumerist blog numerous times, in case you're wondering how I got it.] Pictured above is the response allegedly from Gregg himself. And below is the email that I wrote to him this morning:
"I am a loyal Target customer for over 12 years, and I am extremely distressed by the news that you are demoting over 8,000 employees to part-time status in order to get out of paying their medical benefits.
Shame on you, Target! Not only will the effected employees suffer, but all of us (your Target guests) will as well. No more Team Leads = diminished (if any) customer service. You are on the road of RiteAid, Circuit City, and all the other retailers who have tried this approach and now are bankrupt. It's not just about low prices, Gregg; it's about the CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE, which you are killing!"
So what do you think, folks? Is this a genuine reply from Gregg, or just a canned response from Target's PR machine? And does a one-sentence rebuttal really cut it, or should I just be glad that they bothered to respond at all?
9 comments:
Seems way to flip for a response from a CEO concerning a potentially damaging PR disaster.
To be honest, I hope it is true.
There is no way that is a canned response from their PR team. A PR message would include some sort of a message saying, "Thanks for your concern." And probably a stat or two saying refuting the 8,000 demotion claim....if it's untrue. Or else, some reasoning behind the change.
The fact it is so short, and to the point, makes me think it's the real thing. I worked as a corporate lawyer for many years, and my lawyer bosses would never say something so too the point. A businessman, absolutely.
Besides, why wouldn't it be authentic? Who would bother to spoof a response?
and there are no "weasel words" in there at all.
Of course, things can change in the corporate world pretty quickly, so while it's not true now, who knows about tomorrow. I think we made our point, though. We, the loyal customers, would not be pleased.
Its probably authentic...I agree with the previous commenter. Short, to the point with no room for any inference makes me think it came from the boss. Besides, his secretary or his public relations people would know that whatsoever is one word, not three. ;o)
hmm. we need to get to the bottom of this!!!
It looks like a strange response, for sure. Not from a PR firm, definitely.
It'll be interesting to see if the Target PR firm reponds to your blog post. I admire you for putting the spotlight on this. Its penny wise and POUND foolish if its true.
I wonder how much they paid Jean-Paul Gaultier to license his stuff to them?
If it isn't true, they need to make their case to Consumerist pronto. Consumerist is shall we say, not exactly pro-business/pro-capitalism and will run wild with any story that paints yet another business as Eville Exploiters of the Worker.
What a crappy response... no matter who it was from.
What is "it" that he is referring to. Your comment is a lie? The future bankruptcy of Target is a lie? Or that they are demoting 8,000 employees is a lie? Or just a piece of that is untrue?
I think that he may have chosen his words wisely, because they are a bit ambuguous and could mean many things.
Post a Comment