Posted on 11/23/2004 11:16:59 AM PST by FairfaxVA
Some consumers and advocacy groups are upset that retailers including Target have banned the Salvation Army's Christmas tradition of bell-ringing volunteers who solicit donations for the poor.
The bans have touched off controversy among retailers. Some top sellers seem to be catering to the charity to win over consumers ticked off at other stores for kicking the bell-ringers off their property.
"The Salvation Army has a remarkable history of providing year-round service to families, and Big Lots is proud to continue our tradition of helping with their fundraising goals," this Columbus, Ohio, retailer said in a statement after Target's announcement it would ban the charity.
They were followed by auto parts chain AutoZone and the nation's No. 3 bookseller chain, Books-A-Million Inc., the Boston Globe reported. BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. has also stepped in to help by allowing the kettles at its stores.
The nation's No. 1 retailer, Wal-Mart, has also welcomed the bell-ringers, but with restrictions: They must stand outside stores and are limited to 14 days, the Globe said.
The bans by Target, Circuit City, Best Buy, Home Depot and others come amid the Salvation Army's 113th year of doing what it can to fend for the poor and unfortunate.
Shoppers "are coming here for a reason, and the reason is not for solicitation of any kind by a third party," said Steve Mullen, a spokesman for Circuit City.
Target's decision "was a huge shock and a huge source of discouragement for us," Lt. David Grindle, a spokesman for the charity, told Fox News Channel.
The retailer pointed to its corporate policy forbidding solicitation.
"Like many nationwide retailers, Target Corporation has implemented this policy in order to be consistent with all the groups that request access to our stores and to provide our guests with a comfortable, distraction-free shopping environment," the company says in a statement posted on its Web site.
"Target does not permit individuals (including political candidates and/or their campaign organizations) or non-profit organizations to solicit donations, distribute literature, sell merchandise, or hold events on our premises.
"Our company has many other means by which it can support organizations whose charitable programs fall within our corporate giving guidelines." Target says it gives $2 million annually to "neighborhoods, programs and schools across the country."
The policy will no doubt be a blow to the charity, which last year collected 10 percent of its $93 million in holiday collections from Target shoppers, Fox News said.
'A Lump of Coal'
It's unclear whether the kettle-kicking retailers dislike the Salvation Army or are merely acting out of concern for customers. What is clear is that not all customers like their decisions.
"It's a disgrace," South Boston resident Phyllis McElaney told the Globe. "The bell ringers remind you of the meaning of Christmas, that it's about love, caring, and giving."
"Call it a safe bet - maybe even a bright-red, bull's-eye, fashionable, smartly priced bet - that American life has become too corporate or complex when Target banishes the Salvation Army's bell ringers," Indianapolis Star columnist Ruth Holladay wrote.
Others say they'll take their business elsewhere.
"I thought it was wrong because the Salvation Army is a good cause. They take care of lots of good people around the country and in our community. I won't be supporting Target this year, at all," once-loyal Target shopper Jeffrey Trimm told Christian World News.
Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America told CWN, "Millions of Christians give Target millions of dollars in their Christmas shopping, and what they've gotten from Target in return? A lump of coal.
"We had one tangible aspect of Christmas, beyond the commercial reason. We had the Salvation Army out there, a Christian charity collecting money for the poor at Christmas. What a great counterweight to the all-mighty dollar which is being worshipped in these stores," he added.
The opposition has even produced a Web site called bantarget.org, calling on all shoppers to spend their money at businesses that support bell-ringers.
Grindle says if the charity can't replace its losses, it will have to cut services.
Um, don't get ahead of yourself, because my post wasn't just about you.
Besides, you got yourself into this by saying your donation of time wasn't necessary because you gave money. So maybe you were just trying to make a statement without saying anything about the issue at hand.
well, I have had my fill of hatefull sarcasm for today. buh bye now, continue on someone else.
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
I don't speak for all or any other FReepers...and you shouldn't either.
Did it ever cross your mind that there are many folks, including myself, that do not wear their charitable contributions on their sleeves - and choose NOT to list what they do in terms of monetary or time or in-kind donations?
I understand what you are saying about Target's position, however you are really going about it the wrong way. You are making blanket statements about a group of people, most of whom you do not know. You should not talk about hypocrisy when you do not have all the facts.
Just don't boycott. Go in to Target. Fill the basket. Go to the checkout to ring it all up. When it's time to pay, say, "Sorry no money, I gave it all to the SA." Then walk out.
I'm not talking about all freepers- just the freepers who have jumped in on every target thread (there have probably been at least 20 in the last few weeks) and cry boycott first, facts be damned.
I'm making 'blanket' statements because there is a lockstep mentality that the minute a business does something they don't like, the first step is to announce that they are going to boycott, and any attempt to inject facts into the situation is met with derision and worse.
Go back and do a search for target threads- you'll see the same behavior over and over and over from them. The boycott brigade has earned their blanket well.
I don't know where you live, but I haven't EVER seen a TARGET as part of a MALL. So the public space thing is of course puff.
Sears manages to survive just fine with Kettles, even to this day and they are PRIMARILY in malls. As do hundreds of retailers across the country.
Yes, I have no doubt some lawyer on their executive staff has said, guys you know you could get sued... but this is america if you are afraid of being sued go out of Business NOW! Cowardice is cowardice, not matter how you sugar coat it.
If Target doesn't want the ringers, then why not do the whole "ROUND UP" concept used by grocery stores with the proceeds going to a corporate selected charity, that just happens to be the Salvation Army? This is bulletproof legally, and would have been a killer PR nullifier in terms of their fear of being branded in the press for kicking the ringers out.
Sorry, just not buying the line Targets still cares and is a good corporate citizen. Hard line to buy when they are selling sexualized clothing to prepubesent kids, even harder to buy when they shut off one of the most efficient charity on the planet.
FlashBunny is just Targets Bush2000....
I am! I signed up yesterday with my local S.A. I will start next week on my post.
"I don't know where you live, but I haven't EVER seen a TARGET as part of a MALL. So the public space thing is of course puff. "
1. Go back and read. I said "like malls" Thinks like malls, both strip and regular, In which there are MANY targets - especially at strip malls. Just because you haven't seen one of target's thousands of stores in a strip mall doesn't mean they don't exists.
2. Go do a little research on the court cases.
So do you volunteer to pay target's court costs should they be sued? It's really easy to demand a business take a tough stand when it's not your money at risk.
"
If Target doesn't want the ringers, then why not do the whole "ROUND UP" concept used by grocery stores with the proceeds going to a corporate selected charity, that just happens to be the Salvation Army? This is bulletproof legally, and would have been a killer PR nullifier in terms of their fear of being branded in the press for kicking the ringers out. "
Again, try a little research first. Target doesn't need to 'Round Up' for the salvation army - they already give money and merchandise directly to the salvation army.
But I guess that isn't good enough - only if target donates in the manner you specify will it be good enough for you. Sheeesh.
Nice- name calling because your lame arguments can't stand up to the facts.
Everything you've thrown up has been shot down with the facts. So you have to resort to calling names like a child. Makes your cause look really good with you at the helm.
Good for you - your ahead of most here - actually doing something to help instead of just complaining.
You seem to be missing the point here. Who Target donates to is not the issue. In fact, few would care if Target dropped its donations to the Salvation Army, but Christmas bell ringers are the public image of the Salvation Army. It is how they raise their funds, and it is also their once-a-year public visiblity for the organization. They are never vocally soliciting nor intimidating.
By banning the Salvation Army bell ringers, Target is making a very public statement, that the Christmas season if for buying only, and not for giving. They are choosing being PC over maintaining tradition, commercial profit over caring about sharing with the less fortunate. Of course these values are indeed what the corporate spirit in America truly is, but it is not the image they want to portray.
IMHO, Target is making a serious mistake by banning the Salvation Army. It will cost them many millions in lost sales, and I am not alone in feeling this way. Why do you think other retail chains are going overboard to publicize their willingness to have the Salvation Army in front of their stores?
The true Christmas spirit is one of giving of yourself. No amount of playing Christmas carols over the loudspeakers in the store will replace the lost sales caused by this misstep. I hope Target quickly alters its policy for their own sake.
see my post #54 as to why the salvation army was banned.
If you want to blame someone, blame activist judges making bad court decisions. Target has been holding out for years and putting their business at risk. They are not the villians here, but some wish to make them the villians, because they are an easy target.
Sorry, I don't buy it. And I don't buy your attitude.
I don't shop in Target anymore because the nearest one is 50 miles away. But before I moved I had one practically around the corner from me........I went in there only if there was a sale on something I needed. In general I found them to be over-priced and with a lousy selection on things I need, like kids clothes. The exception was kid's shoes. And trying to find a clerk for assistance was pretty darned impossible.
Target has not been putting its business at risk by having bell ringers. In fact, if they truly wanted to get rid of the Salvation Army, the best way to do it was to just wait for a suit. They could quickly settle and agree to ban all solicitations. That is not what is happening.
What is going on is that Target is beginning to think that their very public support of the Salvation Army may be costing it customers, hence their decision to end the exception.
Other retailers disagree with them. I find it interesting that Target made its decision in January, well before the election of 2004 and the sudden realization that Christian America is indeed alive and well. The other retailers now publically calling for bell ringers have the benefit of seeing the reelection of President Bush.
The whole issue here is one of public relations, and Target is blowing it big time.
BTW I did not blame anyone, but if I did, it would not be liberal justices, it would be an America that refuses to stand up to their excesses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.