According to everything I have heard here, and PMs, and email, choice 2 is more likely to be the result of any letter that I wrote, while choice 3 is merely good business sense kicking in.terryg wrote: 2. Lets say the signs were removed because they recognized they were invalid and they plan on posting proper 30.06 sign in the near future. Contacting them with positive affirmation for the sign removal may be short lived, but still offers an opportunity to convey the message. Group 1 is still unaffected as the proper signs were coming anyway.
3. Signs removed because they were invalid and they don't plan to fix (jimlongley's supposition). Again, Group 1 is unaffected. Group 2 can offer positive affirmation that, regardless of the reasoning, it was still a good fiscal decision.
t
Search found 2 matches
Return to “30.06 AMC Theaters”
- Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:28 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: 30.06 AMC Theaters
- Replies: 61
- Views: 15071
Re: 30.06 AMC Theaters
- Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:05 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: 30.06 AMC Theaters
- Replies: 61
- Views: 15071
Re: 30.06 AMC Theaters
Nowhere in the thread have I noted any consideration that their decision to remove the non-compliant signs might be in response to one or more letters pointing out that such signage is ineffective and might just as well be removed.Purplehood wrote:I agree. I applaud the action and hope that they notice a slight upturn in revenues as a result. But I will not bring it to their attention.
On a side note: I wonder if the recent election had any bearing on a Corporate decision to remove such signs?