Skip to comments.Targeting the Salvation Army
Posted on 12/12/2004 8:10:00 PM PST by DBCJR
The store chain Target has decided this Christmas to ban the Salvation Army from placing their bell ringers outside their stores to solicit funds for the wonderful work they do for our nation's most vulnerable. In my opinion, giving to the causes that the Salvation Army serves is a lot more about the Christmas season than the merchandise I buy from Target, so we are banning Target from our shopping until they change their policy banning the Salvation Army. If it takes them until next year, or the next, that is entirely Target's call. Join me in this effort by not shopping there, and encouraging your friends to do likewise. Then communicate this to Target at:
This is what I said:
"My family regularly shops at Target, yet the news that Target has banned the Salvation Army from soliciting donations this Christmas will change that. Like you, the Christmas season is their major source of revenues. They do an extraordinary amount of good for the nation's most vulnerable. The damage Target has inflicted upon that effort cannot be measured. I will not shop at Target until they change their policy toward the Salvation Army, and I will encourage my friends to do likewise. Please let me know when you change your policy."
Please pass this on & Merry Christmas!
I sent them a piece of my mind also. Here is what I wrote:
Sad that you folks there at Target have decided that you'd rather play the part of the Grinch who stole Christmas then to allow the Salvation Army to stand out in front of your stores and ring their bells for the needy.
Nothing I can do about it. But I can tell you that I won't spend my money in your store anymore. I will be doing my Christmas shopping at the first store where I see a Salvation Army worker standing out front. And I will "NEVER" shop at Target "EVER" again!
Merry Christmas! Oh! That's right! You don't believe in The Christmas Spirit anymore! So Baa Humbug to you too!!
quit making excuses for hypocrisy.
And I love how some freepers think they have the right to tell a business how it should run and put itself at risk of litigation - hell, it's not their money or their business, so they can be as brave and magnanimous as they keyboards let them, because they don't have anything at risk.
Target should do this, target should do that, blah blah blah - hey, if they get sued I don't lose anything - they can spare the millions in court costs fighting for a cause *I* believe in...
'"hypocrisy" ... I do not think you know what that means.'
yes, I do.
In this case, it means expecting target to put themselves at risk and spend their efforts to not just donate money or merchandise to the salvation army, but open up their property to them as well.
That compares to many freepers who think that just tossing a few quarters into the SA kettle is 'good enough' for them, and gives them the right to criticize target for not doing everything they want them to do.
Come on, boycotters - put your feet where your mouth is - stand outside in the cold for a shift or two ringing the bell. The SA needs your help!
That's strange, because our local Walmart Supercenter allows the SA bell ringers! I've seen them! This is in Ogden, Utah. Many Kroger's stores, like Smith's, have them this year too. There's a smaller, local store called "Acres" in North Ogden (my town), that has bell ringers too! I was saddened to see that Target doesn't have them.
If there were a serious lawsuit threat Wal*Mart and the other stores would all ban them. There isn't one.
What has motivated Target is political correctness. They'd rather have the money of pixies and fairies than mine.
BTW, your motivation is certainly suspect, flash.
Who ever mentioned "litigation"??? Even Target didn't come up with that one. What are the claimants going to sue for? A private business chose to let a religious organization, one that has secularized to the point it received federal grants BEFORE the "faith-based initiative", solicit funds on its premises. There is no cause of action there. Would one claim assault due to the infliction of bell-ringing harassment? Your post is tangential and irrelevant.
Off Target with the Salvation Army
by: Joseph M. Knippenberg
Ill miss the Salvation Army bell-ringers in front of "my" Target store this year. They wont be there, or at any other Target store. Target management has decided that it will no longer exempt the Salvation Army from its "no solicitation" rule.
For the record, shoppers put $94 million into the red kettles last Christmas season, $9 million in front of Target stores. While a few other retailers have stepped into the breachincluding B.J.s Wholesale Club and Michaels, to name two new local participantsits not clear that the Salvation Army will be able to make up the difference.
Of course, Target, which has a well-deserved and assiduously cultivated reputation for being a good corporate citizen, could write a check to cover the shortfall. But for me, its not just about the money, which (by the way) stays in the communities in which it is donated, helping to provide food, clothing, and shelter for the destitute.
Its about another way in which the spirit of commerce is crowding out the spirit of Christmas. The bell-ringers help to remind us that our generosity is reflected not just in the gifts we give to our loved ones, but in our willingness to reach out to hungry and homeless strangers. And, according to studies cited by the Salvation Army, roughly 90% of us take the hint.
Well, well have to get the hint somewhere else now, because Target wants us to have a "distraction-free shopping environment in which to shop," as someone from customer relations wrote (not very elegantly) in response to my impassioned protest email. Target wants me to concentrate on spending money in their stores, not on "the reason for the season."
Target is also apparently concerned that if they say "yes" to the Salvation Army, they cant say "no" to any other non-profit that wishes to solicit in front of its stores. While it of course requires less thought to say "no" to everyonein the name of the high principle of a "distraction-free shopping environment"its not all that hard to say that there is a long-standing American tradition, quintessentially represented by the Salvation Army, of encouraging holiday good cheer to extend beyond family and friends. Respecting and upholding this holiday traditionmore august even than the Budweiser Clydesdales and Burl Ives as Frosty the Snowmanwould be good enough for me. After all, holidays are all about traditions, about celebrating stories handed down from the past and preserved for the future.
The Salvation Army here is the victim of two forcesthe tendency of the marketplace to be no respecter of traditions and the growing pluralization of the culture, with an ever-increasing array of groups, all claiming to be worthy and all clamoring for our attention. In a homogeneous society, the uniform authority of the culture could stand up to the forces of commerce, either taming them or moderating their effect on our sentiments. In a pluralistic society, the multiple cultural bases of authority are individually too weak to resist the marketplace. Out with the bell-ringers, in with wardrobe malfunctions and desperate housewives! Merry Christmas, or should I say, happy shopping!
Joseph M. Knippenberg is Professor of Politics and Associate Provost for Student Achievement at Oglethorpe University.
As a business owner myself, keep up the good work...clean stores, friendly employees, quality merchandise...everything that Wal-Mart can't offer. I boycotted Wal-Mart some time ago! Thank you for your stores Target! Where else is there to shop?!!!
PS. A quieter store entrance at Christmas time is alright too. Thanks again!
Do some research before you spout off. You know nothing of the issue you are talking about. Malls and stores have been sued because because they allowed access to some groups for solicitation and not others. Courts have (wrongly) ruled that such spaces are quasi public spaces, and that stores and malls must allow equal access for groups - or none at all.
That is what I'm talking about. If you've followed any of these target threads (about 50 so far) or done any research AT ALL into the subject, you'd know that litigation on the part of parties who didn't get the exception from the target 'no solicitation' ban is a BIG issue.
To say that it lawsuits are 'tangential and irrelevant' is idiotic. It is the main reason target is no longer allowing the SA at their stores!!!!!!!
Maybe santa can get you a freaking clue for christmas and then you won't make such a fool of yourself.
Take a valium & calm down. It's Christmas. I have noticed your blood pressure gets way high flaming everybody. Chill a bit & people might take you a little more seriously.
You bounce around between threads getting all worked up & forget which thread you're needling (er, maybe that's the other way around???) Anyway, no one was talking about litigation in this thread, and there really is not any cause of action. Before you flame me with name-calling, be prepared to cite case law.