Quote:
Originally Posted by taustin
I note that you have not yet managed to actually admit that you believe it's OK to go in to a store and tie up their sales people with no intention of buying anything, costing them the opportunity for that sales person to sell something to someone else (and possibly make a commission of their own), but that seems to be your position. Is that correct? Do you, in fact, think it's "bonkers" for the store and the sales person to find that less than desirable?
|
I can see you're hoping for a "gotcha" moment here, but I fully admit what "seems" to be my position.
If a store sets up their business in such a way that they provide sales people to assist customers, on the assumption that an assisted customer is one that is more likely (but not guaranteed) to buy, then I don't have a problem with someone getting the offered assistance. A person not buying, even after someone has helped them, is the cost the business has chosen to pay in setting up their business in the manner they did. Any time a salesperson helps anyone, he or she is taking a risk that there's a better customer somewhere in the store that he or she is missing out on.
The salesperson might be annoyed at a browser, but being annoyed at someone doesn't equal that someone having acted unethically. And just as an aside, I like how you shifted the goalposts in the above from "unethical" to "less than desirable".
I also like how you've limited your example to
commissioned salespeople. So do we agree that, in the case of a bookstore, which probably doesn't have any commissioned salespeople, it's not reasonable to say someone with no intention of buying has acted unethically, even if they "waste" a salesperson's time?