HIGH RISK POST: West Marine Apologizes...

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by Christian Van H

I aint afraid of no goat!

Shouldn't that be "No Steeenkeeng goat!"

TaoJones

[Christian Van H]

Naw, thats Badgers, We don need no steeeenkeeng badgers!

[Pblais]

As I should have understood before, but certainly do now, it’s not whether the contents of the letter were right or wrong; nor whether acidification or a congressional bill is correct or not, it’s that I allowed West Marine to cross the line from business to personal.

It seems to express the feelings here at Cruisers Forum too.

I am feverishly working on my new web site: goatbusters.com

We support entrapenuership too. Best done on your own bandwidth. I'm obliged to support the home team. We have our faults but we want to be here when others are gone or lost the idea of cruisers. We can't be everything all the time. We are realistic of our limitations though. We all want to be more than we are. If we try we hope you'll all understand if we try and can't. We will come back and try again.

[captmick39]

Originally Posted by TaoJones

I don't believe your post necessarily represents a "High Risk," Bill. Rather, it is an interesting bookend to the whole, lamentable, off-topic direction the other thread on this subject took.
-snip-
As long as posts are on-topic, which is to say "cruising- and sailing-related," and the give-and-take among posters is kept cordial and impersonal, there is no reason why this thread can't have a long life. If members will just read the Rules, moderate their own emotions and post appropriately, there is no reason to ever close any thread.
Thank you in advance, everyone, for your cooperation.
TaoJones

Tao,
Don't know all Moderators(yet), certainly learning .
It seems(based on that thread, it's length, responses to it, OBVIOUSLY response at WM's inboxes/routers/servers/t1 lines/order lines & as I understand it the over 185,000 inbound calls to BoatUS in the last 72 hrs (of members)wishing to rescind their(in many cases far longer than my 30+yrs)memberships, as well as phones@local WM stores(multiple locations here in FL)that:

1-This little "toxic thread starter" wasn't alone in his feelings.

2-When Commercial enterprises take political stands, on extremely emotional & polarizing issues, the consequences can be catastrophic.

3-When Political Lobbying .org's(like BOATUS...I know You say "NO Politics" however BOATUS has a lobbying arm which represents US AND OUR BOATING INTERESTS BEING PROTECTED/DEFENDED; Sadly, there are folks, in the political arena who seek to restrict/prevent our access to the water, which I[& probably most if not all members here] cling to as 1 of our most dearly held RIGHTS)affiliate themselves w/commercial enterprises, thereafter becoming almost an exclusive marketing arm for same, they do so at grave risk should that commercial entity(or 1 of it's principals)hop on 1 side of a political "hot potato" issue (REGARDLESS WHICH SIDE)& those "grave risks" like chickens, quickly come home to roost.

Arrived home tonight to find same email in inbox, was shocked, responded in kind(to Geoff). Seek no attendance @ any 'beer summit', however it would be nice if Moderators here held high ground rather than casting aspersions on(exceptionally "new")members, regardless their(the newbie's)opinions, BOAT NAMES, or personal/family histories, known&unknown. I doubt if a boat name of "SATAN's REVENGE" would have mustered more vile review(w/a picture of a blood red hull)by a person of responsibility & leadership here.

Leadership is by example; starts at the top & funnels downward; it just does. Now Randy(Repass)& Geoff realize both that, & that actions have consequences. The name of our boat is related to the "busting" of criminals...enjoying their shortcomings(in criminal enterprises)is a benefit we should all relish in. There are 2 sides to every story(& most boat names).

Had a workday fm h*ll yesterday, didn't visit here last night, returned this morning to find that thread closed. It would have been nice to reply to some commentary & pleasurable to ignore others'.

TAO, FTR, I never meant to open a "can of worms", & can(to I'm sure a far lesser extent)somewhat relate to both Professor Gates & Randy Repass's error in judgment of "Speaking my Mind". While never having more than strolled campus @ 'Havad' or even dreamed of owning a biz as vast as "WM", I have no regrets for Email back to Randy Repass, postings, or points made.

Glad(even if it was Another principal)West Marine retracted their public opinion, although likely irreperable damage has occurred...like retractions on last page of paper's(or 'closed' threads); also glad that BOATUS Began distancing themselves fm Randy's Position as of 0700(EDT)yesterday morning; it being diametrically opposed to their political advocacy for ours(rights to use 'our' waters), NTM losing that "free unlimited gold towing for all boats & trailers" would be a biotch.

Tao, I believe when topic relates to Our waters, is a "Position Statement by president of 1 of largest retail marine supplies stores worldwide, advocates folks both boating less & not using motors while doing so(or creating co2 in any other form or fashion)in an email to about 4.3 million people...if not "Off Topic", not sure where it should go; however can't fathom(forgive depth pun)contemplation of this not being "news" or appropriate for these boards overall?

I didn't drag politics in to boat ownership; Our Gubment's did. Freedom along WITH/responsibility is something(Hopefully)all of us advocate here; no one should expect 1 w/o the other(Especially on the high seas). An Ability to deseminate information is what blogs/discussion boards are for; this category should be EXPLICITLY for Political Issues that are marine related, or we should create 1(category), so that when either boaters, or boating/cruising/sailing Rights are being addressed(read=infringed, or attempted 2be)by legislatures, either state or national, there is a FORUM where those concerns can be voiced, "Paul Revere can make his midnight ride" & those who are interested can become more involved/or not, depending ON that Legislation;

Agreed? :kissy:

[GeoPowers]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Considering that the ten gallons per hour crowd is West Marine's bread and butter, this was probably a smart retraction.

I'd have to sadly agree. It is funny how REI, Patagonia, Mountain Hardwear, etc. all take a strong stance on environmental issues (as most of their customers would expect them to- and do themselves) yet apparently the marine industry, also intricately tied to the outdoors, does not. Apparently boaters collectively do not either..... Or is it the minority is just more outspoken than the silent majority?

I personally think WM copped out on true leadership by example (doing what is right in the face of opposition) by hiding behind the old mixing business with pleasure cliche. I would have been much more impressed if they had sent a 2nd letter stating that while they apologize for offending people, they feel that this important issue must be addressed and that their customers, themselves tied to the sea, must act now... etc., you get the idea. Apparently environmentalism is not in their business plan.

No biggie, though, they were never on the top of my favorites list anyway.

[bstreep]

Originally Posted by TaoJones

Have you seen the avatars of Christian Van H and David_Old_Jersey side-by-side? I think Christian's avatar is actually a chupacabra (that means "goat-sucker".) Here's a link: Chupacabra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe it somehow passed some dna to David's goat!

TaoJones

HEY! I'm from South Texas. We actually HAVE Chupacabras here! Well, at least they make the news a couple of times a month...

[captmick39]

Originally Posted by GeoPowers

I'd have to sadly agree. It is funny how REI, Patagonia, Mountain Hardwear, etc. all take a strong stance on environmental issues (as most of their customers would expect them to- and do themselves) yet apparently the marine industry, also intricately tied to the outdoors, does not. Apparently boaters collectively do not either..... Or is it the minority is just more outspoken than the silent majority?
I personally think WM copped out on true leadership by example (doing what is right in the face of opposition) by hiding behind the old mixing business with pleasure cliche. I would have been much more impressed if they had sent a 2nd letter stating that while they apologize for offending people, they feel that this important issue must be addressed and that their customers, themselves tied to the sea, must act now... etc., you get the idea. Apparently environmentalism is not in their business plan.
No biggie, though, they were never on the top of my favorites list anyway.

Geo, here in FL, I have to say that being a multiple blow boat owner makes the statement in & of itself. Since (in FL) about 1 in 25 boat owners is a SAILOR (IF THAT)...crunch the numbers. The GW crowd wants fuel prices HIGHER than last summer which crippled the WHOLE (not just boating) economy...we still haven't recovered. West Marine (E every Boat manufacturer, including sailing vessels, not powered by ELECTRIC Motors) might as well close their doors if Cap&Trade Passed. It's logical to conclude that businesses, want to STAY in Business. You don't do that by peeing on Your customer's heads & telling them it's raining.

GHWBush passed the "Luxury Tax"(a mere 10% federal surcharge)on boats, cars, rv's & other "luxuries" in '90...gonna "punish" them "rich folks" (of which lots of liberals refuse to consider themselves).
We all know the result HERE (in FL). See it didn't then, nor does it now take a whole lotta brand new boat length to hit that $100k threshold.
Chris Craft
Wellcraft
Donzi....between the 3, & the trickle down (supply side now dried up) economic downturn, we lost over 150,000 J-O-B-S in this state in 6 months, Charlie Morgan went Tango Uniform followed quickly by Irwin (& Ted Nailed MY BUSINESS Nice & Thoroughly), stumpknocker, Hunter pulled up camp in Jax & moved to Alachua(<-WHERE? U ask? exactly, folks willing to work for 1/2[or less]what JAX residents needed/demanded)...our state & JOBS were turned on their ear for YEARS following.
WHY?
Because common sense tells You not to give people with real $$$ the FINGER!
They WILL take their business ELSEWHERE (& they did, then).
Boat sales in the USVI (where there's NO TAX at ALL) quintupled during the 1st year of the "luxury tax". Florida's governor at the time (Lawton Chiles) all but threatened to KILL GHWBush...instead, Bush KILLED the tax, end of that year. A GIANT BOONDOGGLE.

Cap&Tax is the "luxury tax" on the biggest most powerful steroids government could ever shoot in a piece of legislation.
Read:
"Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
I wager my Life if will alter Your thought processes.
I'm not real keen on losing my life, ergo, that's a serious wager.
Cap&Tax won't affect Co2 production.
It just won't.

That's what Randy Repass didn't "get".
Even those 'dumb' RICH folks that spend $10k every time they run in to WM KNOW that, sadly he didn't. They won't FUND his (or his wife's) agenda for the gov.org to dictate whether we can in the future even OWN our boats, much less actually USE them.
No, I don't pollute, Yes I have spent a fair amount of my life installing spill booms, cleaning birds, otters, coastline, picking up trash, cutting up hulks & all of it for free. I DO know what creeps there are out there as stinkpotters, fanboaters, cruise ships, international(chinese) fishing boats, the shark finners, & until we (as a nation) GROW a SET and take on the bad guys, doing the bad things, and DEAL WITH THEM STRAIGHT Up & Appropriately (like SHOOTING PIRATES IN THE HEAD ON THE SPOT.....ALL OF THEM...it IS AN ACT OF WAR against a flagged vessel btw), we deserve exactly what we get.
Punishing the LAW abiding is just so much stinking easier than actually confronting the REAL problems.
That's the problem w/"cap&Tax".
It punishes the economy, decent people, who never broke a law.
It does NOTHING to the REAL polluters.
same song, different decade (make that century).

I'm glad Geoff took politics out of business, albeit 3 days too late.
Randy wants to donate to his wife's charity/fund, he can do so w/every cent he's worth...just keep in mind, sooner than later, they come after our sailboats, because we have "polluting" inboard/outboard engines. We don't NEED to "be" sailing, now do we? We're "wasting" valuable resources while POLLUTING no less.
Smart folks see how this plays out if we give the gov.org the keys to our freedom & rights.......voluntarily.

I just want to (be able to) KEEP Sailing.
IS That Asking So Much?

[captmick39]

Originally Posted by bstreep

HEY! I'm from South Texas. We actually HAVE Chupacabras here! Well, at least they make the news a couple of times a month...

Not doubting You for a second(oh yes I am!)after following a few of those links out of the wiki ballpark, gotta ask....

You wouldn't have a PICTURE now would You?

Sounds like a cross between snipes, hare buck pheasant, and those ever so reclusive jack-a-lopes?
-Mick

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by JimM

Eisenberg's note is nonsense. Exactly how is it good business -- for a marine supply company of all things -- to do or say nothing about the destruction of the oceans?

Eisenberg’s apology is good business because it recognizes an error in judgement, that seriously alienated a significant number of customers, and proffered an effective* apology.

* (1) it acknowledged the nature and extent of the customers’ alienation; (2) it took 100% responsibility for causing the alienation; (3) it explained the reason for the error, without over-justifying it; (4) it asked for forgiveness without expectation or demand; and (5) it promised no repetition.

FWIW: Were I in a similar position, I can see myself making similar errors in judgement, for similar reasons; and learning the
same hard lessons.
Good on them for caring, and for learning where & when it’s wise & appropriate to argue their concerns.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Considering that the ten gallons per hour crowd is West Marine's bread and butter, this was probably a smart retraction.

Absolutely! This was a business consideration and not a comment on the validity of the letters' substance.

[Endojoe]

Sounds like a cross between snipes, hare buck pheasant, and those ever so reclusive jack-a-lopes?

Yeah, you're in the right ballpark Mick! I lived in South Texas for a year and saw several stories like this on the local evening news...

And I firmly second your recommendation of Atlas Shrugged Or any book of hers actually, for those intimidated by the thickness of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, Anthem is a pretty distilled and concise overview of the general concepts. She's also got several other short books on Philosophy and Ethics...if you take a few hours to read one of them, you won't be disappointed.

[JimM]

Gord -- We may have completely incompatible notions of business ethics. That's fine - what I do not get is that someone can 1) accept acidification as fact and believe the consequences to be dire and 2) accept human causation as fact and yet 3) not believe that a Westmarine should do what it can about it. Or, maybe you believe that it is good for Westmarine to phase out the sale of chemicals it knows to be particularly harmful, for example, but not presume to educate or enlighten its customer base. Now that would be interesting and deserves discussion.

I admit that my position (in this at least) is Plato's: I believe that business (like any activity) inevitably makes something or someone good or bad. Business cannot be "good" and make the world worse. I admit too that the devil is in the details: who decides what is good or bad -- this is a huge problem for philosophers but not really when we talking the acid levels of the ocean. JimM

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by JimM

Gord -- We may have completely incompatible notions of business ethics...

I agree that each of us has an obligation to take a leadership role in improving the common welfare, inasmuch as we are able.

I believe the issue, surrounding this Email, was a matter of trust & privacy. I don’t believe that those submitting their Email addys, agreed to receive mass communications of this nature.

There are numerous appropriate ways for Randy to express his concerns, and advocate his cause(s), without misusing (abusing his access to) the West Marine Email alert system.

The West Marine Privacy Policy:
➥ West Marine: Policies

Includes the following emboldened statement:

“... Because our customers are of vital importance to us, we do not participate in bulk email solicitations which you have not consented to receiving (i.e., "spam") ...”

It's a thorny ethical issue, and I may may be wrong, or partly wrong; which is why I can envision myself making similar mistakes.

[bstreep]

Originally Posted by JimM

3) not believe that a Westmarine should do what it can about it. Or, maybe you believe that it is good for Westmarine to phase out the sale of chemicals it knows to be particularly harmful, for example, but not presume to educate or enlighten its customer base. Now that would be interesting and deserves discussion.

Jim, the problem with this is: If there is an alternative between a green product that works ok, and a non-green that works great, they will alienate folks looking for #2. For instance, if they only carried "green" bottom paint, they would push most customers to other stores, and they probably wouldn't sell any more "green" bottom paint than they would if they carried both. They would also lose the sales of brushes, rags, stripper, and anything else associated with that purchase. It just doesn't make business sense.

Frankly, I'd much rather see a businessman make a PERSONAL statement with his/her money, than to try and drive it thru the business.

[JimM]

Ok, Gord & Bill: I take your points. If a guys stands on a soapbox at Hyde Park, even though he might recite a perfectly reasonably message, he is going to be taken for an idiot and do his message more harm than good. No one is really hurt if he gets one more email he does not want, and no one here seems terribly concerned about the health of Westmarine (I suppose we have all done enough already for that cause), but the messenger may undercut his message. That would be a shame. (And I agree that Westmarine and Patagonia do not share a lot of customers, except that both have too much to spend.) But Randy is clearly a businessman too. He was once a good one and is doubtless still a rich one. Maybe he does not really care if the value of his stake in his company is cut in half. Violating conventional business sense may have a serious decision. Maybe he feels that some of the email's audience will take away a different message: that he thinks the problem is serious enough to break the rules - that the state of the ocean is less like, say, piracy (relatively familiar if annoying) and more like a huge meteor heading directly (if slowly) toward the earth. I get a lot of email I do not want; I was not delighted to get his either. But it did impress me.