In response to your “The Boot” in your March 26th issue I offer the following analysis.
Say that I am a local businessman and that I purchased from a local advertising agency (TBD, Mandala, etc.) for a full-page ad in The Source Weekly for the next 12 months. I paid this agency the invoice they presented me.
Next month, this agency declared bankruptcy. Would you still run my full-page ad for the next eleven months?
Sincerely,
Brad Rassmussen
This article appears in Apr 2-8, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Brad – nice analogy. I think using the term “victim” is a little harsh here. It is all part of doing business – lose some (hope not too many) and win some. Do I hear write-off?
that’s a pretty ridiculous analogy. that makes no sense. You pay an ad agency for creative services. And you would pay the Source separately to run the finished product.
But let’s say for the sake of argument…you choose someone to handle everything, whatever it is, doesn’t matter…and they don’t end up doing everything they promised..and go bankrupt, and the finished product never materialized. Oh yeah, you should have chosen a better business to work with and you should have protected yourself…and you DON”T make your customers pay for the fiasco and fend for themselves.
Bachelor had an opportunity to continue to build on the progress they have made this season with customers, and instead chose to send guests who bought those vouchers through hoops….pay again and try to get a refund on your own later, good luck. Goodwill, in the end, costs nothing and you have everything to gain. Sure, I don’t blame them completely for trying to recoup some losses…but they chose their poison and getting back some dollars in the short term through guests who had to pay again, will cost them those same customers for the future. Completely short-sighted maneuver.
It continues to amaze me that the Monday morning QBs refuse to place the blame for this fiasco on those responsible–the management at Joes. When they took the money from the pass purchasers–and continued to do so as the season progressed–they knew that they did not intend to perform that part of the contract that involved paying Bachelor. Even though they received nothing, the pass possessors skied at the area until a couple of weeks ago when the area pulled the plug.
‘Oh yeah, you should have chosen a better business to work with and you should have protected yourself…and you DON”T make your customers pay for the fiasco and fend for themselves.’ Dude–the law does protect them–it Joes commits fraud, Bachelor doesn’t have to participate–there is no contract. These are Joe’s customers–and if you are so concerned about their welfare–step up and help them out!
Let’s face it. Some of you are never going to be happy. It shows in your comments. The area makes progress, but they should have made more. I don’t know what you do for a living CJ, but can you afford to give your product or services away for free? The analogy you find ridiculous is spot on! The only reason you don’t like it is because it doesn’t support your view of how the ski area should do things.
When all is said and done, you will be happy only if the area fails so you can say I told you so. You will continue to be unhappy if they succeed, saying they didn’t go far enough, that they didn’t cut ticket prices enough, that they didn’t run enough lifts, that they didn’t listen to you.
Tell you what. Hike the back country and ski all you can one day. Will your vertical add up to half of what you would get at the ski area? Will it add up to one tenth? Don’t worry though, all of the amenities you enjoy will make up for it, won’t they?
If you ski–why? You have a negative vibe that must ruin the day of everyone you come in contact with. If you don’t, then you must enjoy skiing Bachelor and all of this is just a little show and tell you put on for an admiring public.
The entire anti-Bachelor cohort should get together and fund their own ski area. The industry needs a lesson in how it should be done.
the better analogy is more like food supplier gets stiffed by customer. other customer has paid for his order…oh but wait..has to pay double before his steaks are delivered because the other guy didn’t pay. and if you want your money back, get it from the guy who didn’t pay. It’s penalizing the customer, plain and simple.
oldguy–
Sure, somebody got ripped off in your analogy! Does that mean the supplier has to assume the burden of making the victim of a dishonest merchant whole? Who makes the supplier, innocent of any wrong doing whole?
There is no such thing as a risk-free victimless society. People lose sometime. If the big guy loses, it seems more acceptable to many of us because he can endure the pain–afford the loss. That doesn’t make it right.
If I go to Best Buy and purchase a refrigerator, and Best Buy doesn’t deliver, should I have the right to go after Whirlpool? WTF did they have to do with it?
Stephen Cramer…thanks or the personal attack. You show even less restraint than Kaufman. I simply think Bachelor’s latest PR fiasco is a sad, sad, shame after a good effort at making things change up there. I give credit where credit is due. As you were so quick to misinterpret…it’s not that I’m not satisfied that they’re doing enough. If you had read carefully, I actually make a point to give Mt. Bachelor credit for making an effort this season to earn back the trust of their guests. They could have done half as much and called it a success. But it’s myopic maneuvers like this that penalize the customer that erase all the hard work they’ve done on the PR front. I’ve worked in retail, and retail management and even food service for many years. And I know you don’t penalize the customer. If you piss off a customer, you usually don’t get them back. Here’s another imaginary scenario which I’m sure you will say sucks: Let’s say a customer comes in and puts money down on a special order with his credit card. We slide it through and charge the customer. Great. Product will be here in two days. in the meantime, the bank that handles the credit card transactions takes the customers money, but voila, magically goes bankrupt before we can get that money in our account (remember this is make believe). Customer comes in and wants his merchandise…Oh, sorry, the bank took your money, but didn’t give it to us. so you have to pay us again. sorry…even though the bank was acting as an agent for us to collect your money, which you paid for in good faith. Even though my business now has a dispute with the bank, I’m going to make you pay twice as the customer, even though you paid in up front..no fault of your own. Meanwhile, back to the real scenario at Bachelor, you drove all morning from the valley with your family, paid for gas, took time off from work…and your choice is to pay again, or drive back into Bend and deal with Joe’s, so decide to pay again because you have no choice even though you barely saved enough money to treat your family to a day of skiing, and then drive back down again and deal with Joe’s, either way…Bachelor is making it YOUR problem as the customer. You’re right, no such thing as a risk-free victimless society…but Bachelor apparently wants to dish their risk off onto the customer and play the victim, while making the customer the actual victim that actually pays. The season was already in the toilet and they would rather sacrifice their customers in order to try and salvage chump change, in relative terms…especially since they’ll lose many times that amount of money by not having customers return in the future. In the end, disappointingly, Powdr Corp. sees dollars and not its customers even though one leads to the other. It bites the hand that feeds it. oh yeah…I do ski. I spend money at the nordic center at Bachelor, because on that side of the mountain I enjoy the service there and it’s not a rip off. I also have a snopark pass and ski there when I want to. I tele and earn my turns, but I’d happily ride the lift if you got what you paid for. And if what you mean by amenities I’m missing at Bachelor is a $12 dollar cheeseburger(or is it $13?)…I can do without it, thanks.
The community has been a “victim” to Mt. Bachelor for two decades. Placating them and patronizing us readers is an insult with your analogy. They were not victimized at all, they dropped the ball on collecting for the months of December, January, February and March and then when Joes all of a sudden filed for BK protection, they became the victims as to gain some sort of sympathy from the community. Ridiculous and pathetic. Get a clue. The fact their Accounts Receivable office were asleep at the wheel is no ones fault other than Mt. Bachelors. Their attempt of bullying the consumer into getting their money back from Joes was just another “cheap shot” passing the buck and the blame, nothing has changed.
I find it interesting that The Source editorializes on a non-event, throws the name Mt Bachelor out there with a fiasco label, and the “monday morning QB’s” trip over each other to enlighten us all on good business practices. But, I have yet to see a post from one of the “victims,” otherwise known as a voucher holder, with the tale of pain and anguish that other commenters imply must have happened. If MtB screwed up, it’s because they didn’t slam the door shut sooner, when Joe’s missed it’s first payment. Wouldn’t want to extend any goodwill to the local community, afterall.
Mr Hank says MB is an awesome mtn to ski when the sun shines in the spring time. Mr Hank says he will go to church on Sunday (da 5th), but come Monday, Mr Hank be skiing backside in the sunshine on one of dem 300 daze of sunning dat Bend is famous fer.
They are from out of town and no doubt will never see this!
CJ
The problem I see with your analogy is that you, the supplier of the product, directly took the payment from the customer. Contract entered into and completed. Your banks failure to provide you with the funds does not involve the customer–it is a relationship between you and the bank.
Joe’s contracted with the customer–skier. Joe’s contracted with the service provider–Bachelor. It did not fulfill the terms of the contract with the service provider. There is no contract between Bachelor and the skier.
While being strung along by Joes, probably with some check is in the mail BS, Bachelor provided services to the skiers who had made the Joes purchase until it became clear that there would be no payment. It provided value to the Joes purchasers for most of the season without payment.
There is a difference. Bachelor wants to dish off their risk? WTF? What are you doing but dishing off the risk the skier has on someone you feel more acceptable? Joes is the real problem here and everyone is choosing instead to dump on their favorite local whipping boy.
If you are right, Powdr Corp will lose and be out of business as the skiers vote with their dollars and go elsewhere. It has nothing to do with Powdr, though. Local skiers have issues with the area that predate the current ownership, as Captain Reality’s ‘two decades’ comment alludes. Does anyone honestly believe that his opinion or attitude can be changed by ANYTHING that the ski area does? No. And for a large number of the critics, the constant barrage of criticism is a way of life. Ski areas make some money in good years and nothing in bad years. Lately, there are more bad years than good in skiing. It would be nice to pretend there is such a thing as ‘chump change’ but I can assure you, there is not.
In a real ‘buck stops here’ world, Joes would have stopped selling the tickets, paid the area, or advertised that refunds were available. They did nothing. I can see how that’s the ski areas fault.
Nothing against the Nordic side of operations, I enjoy a good skate 2-3X a month, but you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Nordic Center is not either wholly or mostly subsidized by the Alpine operation. I don’t how much of a “value” it would be if it was a stand alone operation.
I don’t know about this season, but it’s my understanding in years past the nordic side has been profitable. I’ve known several people who have worked there. I don’t believe it’s subsidized. Like any other dept. at Bachelor, they are under pressure to make money as well. It’s not a write-off or anything as you would suggest.
Cramer:
Bachelor is famous for dishing off risk…..famous for it so it is easy to see where people would be led in that direction. ALL ski resorts are famous at dishing off risk… they hide behind a veil of immunity – even for stupid decisions and dangers. People have a right to bitch and these forums allow it. You see, when a company provides a service to the general public, every MEMBER of the general public can go, they have a duty to provide services they say they have when they take $$. Ticket sales in this case, all I can think about was how stupid of Bachelor to let an account receiveable go for so long uncollected, whether they honor those tickets or not. It just tells me there are a bunch of knuckle heads at the top and in the finance area…. stupidity at it best! Egocentric and stupid.
Jodi
People have a right to bitch, but bitching does not make them right. The veil of immunity you mention is the assumption of risk that a skier takes when skiing. It’s a hazardous sport and as such has inherent risks that the skier assumes. If the ski area errs and creates a hazard or danger that results in damages, they pay. A court sees to that and there are always lawyers willing to pursue the case until some settlement is reached, unless there is no merit to it. But even OJ said he was innocent.
‘You see, when a company provides a service to the general public, every MEMBER of the general public can go, they have a duty to provide services they say they have when they take $$.’
If we’re still talking about the Joes situation, Bachelor never took any dollars. If instead we are talking about charging full price for a skiing experience that is incomplete because lifts are closed or runs are closed because the area has chosen to operate on only part of the area because they don’t have the attendance to operate profitably, you have a point. That’s a different issue than the one that started this. The area should do one of two things–sell discounted tickets for a discounted skiing experience or close.
They err all the time. Got to when you look at the lack of experience with alot of the staff. Accidents waiting to happen… they try, just not hard enough. Yes I was talking about the Joe’s situation re: receivables. That was a risk that MB took not collecting soon enough. But they could have been told lies and bought them, then again their risk. As far as not being able to provide what they purport they are providing through their ticket and pass sales, I guess abit of risk involved there with weather BUT mostly ethics. They don’t seem to run very deep up there.