-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Should they have honored the $1 season pass glitch?
- Thread starter manhattanskier
- Start date
Seems like a pretty obvious programming mistake to me.
The dude got offered a gold pass for like 40% off as an apology and he's still whining. I think that was a more than fair gesture by Squaw.
The dude got offered a gold pass for like 40% off as an apology and he's still whining. I think that was a more than fair gesture by Squaw.
AdironRider
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,504
- Points
- 63
In New Hampshire its law and they would be mandated to do so, but IME NH is relatively unique in that regard compared to most states.
On a moral note, its pretty lame but they did throw them a bone with still a better deal than it would have been, but certainly not a buck. Its hard to feel bad for any skier, given even the minimum expense to ski.
On a moral note, its pretty lame but they did throw them a bone with still a better deal than it would have been, but certainly not a buck. Its hard to feel bad for any skier, given even the minimum expense to ski.
skiNEwhere
Active member
If I was the skier, I would be pissed. If I was the owner of Squaw, I'd be even more pissed. But what I don't get is why they honored the pass for his roommate. If they aren't going to honor to pass, then don't do it for anyone. Honoring for some and not others just creates more animosity.
The article doesn't say how many people bought the $1 ticket, but it doesn't sound like a lot. If I were Squaw, I would've honored it for this reason alone, the PR backlash.
The article doesn't say how many people bought the $1 ticket, but it doesn't sound like a lot. If I were Squaw, I would've honored it for this reason alone, the PR backlash.
AdironRider
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,504
- Points
- 63
There really isnt a PR backlash though. Its more like a couple butthurt dudes who thought they landed on Free Parking in Monopoly.
skiNEwhere
Active member
I still don't get why they honored some but not all. That's what would irritate me the most if this happened to me.
bobbutts
New member
Some malicious companies offer too good to be true stuff just to collect people's personal information. Surely that wasn't the intention here, but it's one reason to police this kind of thing.
Savemeasammy
New member
That guy is a tool. It was too good to be true, and he knows it - and so does everyone else. I don't blame the guy for trying to cash in on the deal, but he shouldn't whine when the plug gets pulled. Any reasonable person knows this was a mistake.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My reading of the article is that ALL passes that they issued for $1 are void and that they offered a refund. So sucks that some got a pass initially, but it sounds like all ended up with no pass, an apology, and a significant discount for the trouble.
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Exactly. It was an honest mistake, but sadly people have to swoop in and play disingenuous "vulture".
Not Sure
Well-known member
This one is my favorite loop hole vulture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
VTKilarney
Well-known member
He needs to get over it.
Yep that was a hilarious case. Read it in law school.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
That's hysterical, I never heard of that.
My favorite part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.#cite_note-2
If plaintiffs had to pay for failed court cases my guess is nonsense like the above lawsuit would drop dramatically.
abc
Well-known member
Can't read the article because it's obscured by some "free subscription" offer banner!
That's pretty ironic for a paper to report on someone who try to get an "almost free" deal, but the report isn't readable without subscribing to their own "free" deal!
But that's the point, isn't it? Nothing is free. But nothing is too good to be true either. It's all about marketing. Squaw got some free marketing exposure with their "glitch". So the guy who didn't get the "deal" has every right to give Squaw as much negative marketing as he can dish out!
That's pretty ironic for a paper to report on someone who try to get an "almost free" deal, but the report isn't readable without subscribing to their own "free" deal!
But that's the point, isn't it? Nothing is free. But nothing is too good to be true either. It's all about marketing. Squaw got some free marketing exposure with their "glitch". So the guy who didn't get the "deal" has every right to give Squaw as much negative marketing as he can dish out!
VTKilarney
Well-known member
I've always thought that the positive PR is worth honoring the mistake if just a few people jumped on it. But that's up to the business. The law is not on the purchaser's side. It was clearly an error - and he knew that when acting upon it. I'm not sympathetic to someone who gets pissed off when they can't take advantage of somebody else's mistake. People get fired over these things, after all.
Full disclosure: I have been the beneficiary of a glitch like this. Many years ago I stayed in a hotel room in Paris for 24 cents per night because the French person who uploaded the rate put a period (per French custom) where Americans use a comma. When the rate got picked up by Travelocity, the period was assumed to be a decimal point. The company told me ahead of time that they would honor the rate - but I was fully accepting of whatever decision they chose to make.
Full disclosure: I have been the beneficiary of a glitch like this. Many years ago I stayed in a hotel room in Paris for 24 cents per night because the French person who uploaded the rate put a period (per French custom) where Americans use a comma. When the rate got picked up by Travelocity, the period was assumed to be a decimal point. The company told me ahead of time that they would honor the rate - but I was fully accepting of whatever decision they chose to make.
trackbiker
Active member
I'm thinking this guy worked for Coke. :wink:
MadMadWorld
Active member
The bullet point observations are pretty damn funny.
drjeff
Well-known member
The best bit of business advice I was ever given was when I was told in a business management seminar one time that the true test of how well and smoothly your business is running isn't how you handle day to day things when all is going well, but how you handle things when they're not going well/as planned!
This could of been an easy way to get some good press, as well as increase their customers e-mail and social media awareness of their content had they just honored those $1 "mistakes" and then put out a press release saying something like, well due to a computer programming mistake AND some great vigilance from some of our dedicated customers, x number of people got $1 season passes. Well the error has been fixed, but its still a great deal at the actual price of $Y! Just keeping checking our e-mails and social media sites regularly as the season rapidly nears as you never know what quick deals may show up!
This could of been an easy way to get some good press, as well as increase their customers e-mail and social media awareness of their content had they just honored those $1 "mistakes" and then put out a press release saying something like, well due to a computer programming mistake AND some great vigilance from some of our dedicated customers, x number of people got $1 season passes. Well the error has been fixed, but its still a great deal at the actual price of $Y! Just keeping checking our e-mails and social media sites regularly as the season rapidly nears as you never know what quick deals may show up!
Similar threads
