Target and TRU banning "What's in the back?"

[Galzamus]

Heh... this is news to me.. uhh being I am something of a Target lackey.

[trench]

Heh... this is news to me.. uhh being I am something of a Target lackey.

 

I'm willing to be it's an individual store rule.

 

I haven't seen what appeared to be even a district-wide implementation of such a policy since the mid-90s, when every Target I frequented had "no more than 3 per customer and no looking in the back" limitations on Star Trek figures.

[ROSEDOGGYDOG]

All this talk about scalper reminds me of this video [un-spoiler]where the woman buys the front spot in line for some absurd amount of money to buy all the iPhones in the store... only to get into the store and find out it's one per customer.[/un-spoiler] Insta-Karma at its finest. Wish that happened more with scalpers

 

Why did you spoiler that? That was posted when the iphones dropped.

 

...

 

...anyways I hope the a$$hole who pulled the knife got to see what the inside of a cop car looks like.

[Devil Mazinkaiser]

Oh please. You talk about the duty of a retail store as if you gave a crap about anything besides getting the toys you want, when you want them. Maybe people should, I don't know, BE NORMAL and get a life or something. That would also solve the problem.

 

I just think that employees of a store should refrain from becoming the moral police of merchandising, and just simply do their job - put the merchandise out so customers can buy it. If it's not out on the floor, and the handy-dandy scanners (which by the way, are intended for the customers to price check and to see if more of an item is in stock) indicate that they actually do have more in stock, then why is that a problem to put it out? If it were such an issue, why not pull the scanners entirely, or disable the indicator about having more in stock?

 

It's not about obsessiveness here... it's about specifically taking one section of the store and making a selective judgement about refusing service to a particular demographic. I have no sense of entitlement just because I expect a person to do the job that they chose to do. Truth be told, I have only been denied twice in all my years of "hunting" toys. I am always polite, professional, and courteous - even if they say that they cannot pull from the stock room. Now, I might still curse at them under my breath as I walk out of the store, but I am still respectful while I am in their presence.

 

What I don't get is that you seem to consider it to be some sort of twisted "justice" when employees prevent customers from buying products from their store, because they don't feel as though certain people are deserving enough to purchase it.

 

FWIW, the customers' "intent" is irrelevant to to the process of buying and selling products. Have product, sell product, done. Can you imagine what kind of a world that we would live in if people could be denied service, based completely on a merchant's perception of what they plan to do with it?

 

Also, do you not expect a certain level of service from a waiter or waitress who's job it is to serve a meal to your table? Why is it different, and suddenly "rude" for a customer to have an expectation of customer service from a CUSTOMER SERVICE person at a retail store?

 

That's their job, and that's what they are paid to do - help the customer. Not to make decisions on who is / who isn't worthy to purchase a specific product.

[Glue]

The customers cited in the scalper story above appear anything but courteous. And I'd question whether they can continue to be regarded as "customers" after a while. I don't see how "customers" have any right or privilege to pull stuff off the pallets, enter the stockrooms, or harass employees which is the issue. The fact that scalpers get cut off with any amount of "justice" is just a bonus.

[I'm Batman]

I've seen both the limit of 2-3 of one item, or the no checking the back room policy. It all depends on where you're at. I also figured it depends if the store has been having problems with certain customers.

 

The only time I've ever asked an employee to check the backroom for me was when the employee asked if I needed any help. I don't make a big to do about it.

[trench]

I just think that employees of a store should refrain from becoming the moral police of merchandising

 

[snip]

 

it's about specifically taking one section of the store and making a selective judgement about refusing service to a particular demographic.

 

As I pointed out above, it's probably not so much "moral policing" but stores making an effort to better cater to customers looking to buy higher margin products from the other departments.

[HolyLancer]

Here's my 2 cents on the whole thing;

 

First off, I've never personally asked for a store employee to search a back room. My take is, "if it's on the shelf, it's available to you. If it's not on the shelf, it isn't." STORES dictate when items go on the shelves, not the customers. And this whole idea of "The idea of a store is to sell items, it's stupid to hold items back" is, in general, a ridiculous statement anyway. For one, if people are already asking employees to go rifle through the back rooms for specific items, chances are good that those items are popular enough to sell out once the boxes of those items hit the shelves anyway. Refusing to search the back room for one elusive item isn't going to cause the store to lose money; it's just that the $10 are going to come out of someone else's pocket. The Targets around here all have little notes saying something along the lines of; "In order to give all guests an equal shot at obtaining a collectible item, Target employees cannot search back rooms for individual requests," or something. That's how it should be. Joe nobody, making $6 an hour to stock shelves has plenty of other crap to worry about than digging out the new stock for Fatty McDouchebag who wants to double the item's value on ebay.

 

The way I see it is, all special requests to search the back room should be denied. This gives a first-come, first-serve basis to everyone. If the scalpers are there first? Tough luck, they beat you. If if that kid who's been saving his allowence for three weeks beats you? More power to him. I do like the idea of stocking some of those items randomly, though.

 

Secondly, I've only waited outside of a store once (a Toys R Us), and there were probably two-dozen people waiting; Some were obvious scalpers, others were with kids, probably buying for them. I went to the TF section (Was looking for an 08 Bee, and an Arcee, the latter being for a trade with someone on this site to begin with.) There were probably a half-doezen 08 bees, and I could have bought them all up, if I had wanted to. And this was back when they were still going for triple their retail value on ebay. Anyway, a couple of scalpers (though not after TFs) RAN though the store to the Star Wars figure displays (At the time, there were two; One in the main Action figure aisle, and a large display up front) fingering through all of the pegs.

 

Also, I'm sure there are some times where the store does have cases in the back room, but like over last summer, for instance the output from hasbro just couldn't meet the demands. Stores were bare for months, and in some cases, you STILL can't really find some things. That being said, I think many times it's out of employees hands. Usually, the item isn't there, and you're just wasting their time.

[Devil Mazinkaiser]

I do get what you are saying, trench...

 

If say, a soccer mom come into the store at noon to buy $500 worth of items from several different departments, what you say would make perfect sense. It would prevent the "frothing at the mouth" OCD collectors and scalpers who wait by the doors at 6 a.m. from buying what they want, and running out with the store's inventory of Hot Wheels (and nothing else).

 

But I wonder how much of that applies to your argument, and how much of it is the simple fact that it hasn't occurred to the employees to restock the TF shelves when they go bare?

 

However, I still take issue with the store taking a stance on a "no back room policy" for toys only - just to prevent what they perceive to be scalpers buying up the items. Why should it even matter to the store in the first place?

 

I mean, the price of a deluxe stays the same if a scalper, OCD collector, or soccer mom buys it, so why should it really matter when the item is put out on the shelves? If anything, they should be happy that the inventory rotates as quickly as it does... it allows more inventory to take it's place, which means profitability for the store.

[Czarcher]

Oh please. You talk about the duty of a retail store as if you gave a crap about anything besides getting the toys you want, when you want them. Maybe people should, I don't know, BE NORMAL and get a life or something. That would also solve the problem.

 

I just think that employees of a store should refrain from becoming the moral police of merchandising, and just simply do their job - put the merchandise out so customers can buy it. If it's not out on the floor, and the handy-dandy scanners (which by the way, are intended for the customers to price check and to see if more of an item is in stock) indicate that they actually do have more in stock, then why is that a problem to put it out? If it were such an issue, why not pull the scanners entirely, or disable the indicator about having more in stock?

 

It's not about obsessiveness here... it's about specifically taking one section of the store and making a selective judgement about refusing service to a particular demographic. I have no sense of entitlement just because I expect a person to do the job that they chose to do. Truth be told, I have only been denied twice in all my years of "hunting" toys. I am always polite, professional, and courteous - even if they say that they cannot pull from the stock room. Now, I might still curse at them under my breath as I walk out of the store, but I am still respectful while I am in their presence.

 

What I don't get is that you seem to consider it to be some sort of twisted "justice" when employees prevent customers from buying products from their store, because they don't feel as though certain people are deserving enough to purchase it.

 

FWIW, the customers' "intent" is irrelevant to to the process of buying and selling products. Have product, sell product, done. Can you imagine what kind of a world that we would live in if people could be denied service, based completely on a merchant's perception of what they plan to do with it?

 

That's their job, and that's what they are paid to do - help the customer. Not to make decisions on who is / who isn't worthy to purchase a specific product.

It's like this doof dude. Do you know what 'cherry-picking' is? well so does everybody else in this country. So (from Target's stand point) why would somebody pull a fresh case from the back so you can pull out that 1 figure you gotta have,when all the pegs are full of the exact same line of toys?

Also,there's this. There's a process known as 'Sweeps' in which product that has been sitting in the backroom for an extended amount of time,gets sent back to the manufacturer for money back. This can only happen with SEALED cases. Nothing that has been opened can be sent back.