Quote:

---

Actually JR -- it isnt that hard.

As an IT person myself -- here are the steps:

Since Snowshoe required the purchase of Coke products with a kroger plus card, every single receipt has the Kroger plus ID @ the top.

The person issuing the lift ticket goes to an access database ... or any other database product you would like and attempts to enter that kroger plus ID into the system. If it has already been used -- denied. Quite simple, would require about 15 mins of work to do.

Snowshoe does not have to maintain ANY database of "all" Kroger customer IDs. They only have to manage those that turn in a voucher (which, would be quite a small size).

Since all of the data they need is on the Receipt -- this is not really hard for them to do. Snowshoe did not do it and now acts like the victim?

---

Ok, I have to step in one last time. Consider it a case of dueling IT people.

I think you are grossly underestimating how "easy" it would be to set up a system similar to what you describe. First off, Snowshoe's various ticket windows (in at least four separate locations?) probably do not have generic PC's sitting next to them that can run an Access, MySQL, etc. database. They have proprietary lift ticket-printing machines and credit card processing systems. So Snowshoe would have to pay for its IT department to install networked PC's throughout all of the ticket window facilities. (There probably isn't physical space for them, so that could be another problem.) Appropriate software and OS's would have to be licensed for each system. All of these systems would have to be tied to a central server, with real-time communications so all PC's have a synchronized view of the database. All of these computers would need to be maintained; the server would need to be backed up; employees would have to be trained in the use of the system; etc. The software would need to be developed, tested, deployed, and supported. And Snowhsoe would have to be prepared for contingencies (what if the server is down? What if employees make typos?)

I could set up a database on my Mac here in a few minutes that kept track of unique ID's and counts, but that's a far cry from rolling out a system across an entire mountain resort. Deploying a system in any large business -- no matter how small that system is -- is costly. The key detail you leave out is that Snowshoe would need to purchase many PC's, install them in the ticket window facilities, and network them together. I don't think they could do that in 15 minutes.

And why should they? The ticket vouchers have no cash value and are non-transferrable.

If you carried your argument all the way -- that Snowshoe is making money on lodging anyway, so no harm done -- then you would have to argue that Snowshoe shouldn't sell lift tickets at all, and should hand them out free to everyone. But Snowshoe derives a large percentage of its income from the sale of lift tickets. That's what keeps the slopes groomed, the ski patrol employed, etc. You also say that Snowshoe doesn't lose out because there's no realized revenue for the free vouchers whether or not they're resold, but that's not right either. I don't live near a Kroger, so I'm not able to take advantage of the promotion. If I buy the lift ticket voucher from you for $20, that means Snowshoe isn't getting $50+ from me that they would have otherwise got. That's clearly unrealized revenue. The majority of the folks purchasing these vouchers are undoubtedly folks who couldn't take advantage of the promotion on their own, because they don't live near the Kroger stores offering the special.

So, clearly, you're not going to convince all of us that there's nothing wrong with doing this.

You are right that Snowshoe could take steps to prevent this type of thing from happening. But there is a cost to any steps they could take, and unfortunately, that cost might simply convince them not to offer similar specials in the future.

Quote:

---

>> If you carried your argument all the way -- that Snowshoe is making money on lodging anyway, so no harm done -- then you would have to argue that Snowshoe shouldn't sell lift tickets at all,

Incorrect, because this was a voluntary action by Snowshoe. You are still trying to connect selling lift tickets with selling FREE lift tickets. The huge difference here is that anyone using a free Snowshoe lift ticket was not going to buy a ticket.

---

Quote:

---

Additionally, you mentioned before it was okay to give it to someone for free but not to sell it? As far as Snowshoe is concerned, there is no difference. Giving a ticket to someone that did not get it through the process is the same as selling it to Snowshoe -- in either case according to your analogy they are losing revenue.

---

Quote:

---

Whether or not people sell the vouchers, it generates revenue for Snowshoe. People buy lodging, etc. (which I do believe was one of the goals of Snowshoe's promotion, since Blacksburg is quite a haul to Snowshoe).

---

Quote:

---

The "Bottom Line" here is really that Snowshoe discontinued the promotion. What WP thinks is right was wrong because of Snowshoe's reaction to the situation.

WP, Why don't you try to GIVE these to friends, or take a newbie up, promote the sport. Just my opinion, I'm usually wrong.

jimmy

---

Quote:

---

Can we talk about global warming for a while?

---

The Kyoto Protocol went into effect today. But since the U.S. is not a signatory, its okay. Besides, its up to the rest of the world to catch us over-emitting greenhouse gases anyway . . .

Quote:

---

I urge listers, in the interest of accuracy, to Google for "mcdonald's coffee burn"

---

For those that do not want to go outside the forum to research this, the woman did sue, but on the grounds that McDonald's served their coffee too hot. They had received a number of complaints and testing did show the coffee to be hotter than typical (although there is no enforceable industry "standard"). The plaintiff did win initially, but the case was appealed and eventually settled for an undisclosed sum.

Here is more on the case from a mythbusters website:

Quote:

---

The "McDonald's coffee" case. We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald's coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Here are the facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood case:

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car having purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000. However, McDonald's refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald's callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck's attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;


Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;


Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;


The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;


McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;


From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;


Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;


At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;


Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;


McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;


McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: "No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;"


McDonald's admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;


Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior "callous." Moreover, "the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict." Id.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Can we talk about global warming for a while?

---

The Kyoto Protocol went into effect today. But since the U.S. is not a signatory, its okay. Besides, its up to the rest of the world to catch us over-emitting greenhouse gases anyway . . .

---

The US sticking it to the planet by not signing kyoto is almost as bad as WP screwing snowshoe with his profitering.