terryg wrote:This is an interesting development. Brings the question of: Should we write to confirm the wise decision and let them know that they will gain our business?
Even if you did not avoid the theater because the old signs were non-compliant, they don't know that you avoided them. So the letter could be a good way to show them what a wise decision it is for the bottom line. On the other hand - if the sign removal is somehow an error, it could bring it to their attention.
So, on the one hand I intended this post to be somewhat rhetorical and several posters have agreed with the 'shhh' path. But after giving this some thought, I am now going to play devils advocate and take a moment to argue the other side.
First, let me state that I don't think any company should be informed that they are displaying non-compliant signs. Some here subscribe to the school of thought that it would be better to have them be black and white than fall into the grey area of posting non-complaint signs. But that is not what I am about to argue.
-----
It seems that you can boil down a CHL holder's response to entering (and presumably doing business) with an improperly posted business to two options:
1. Enter away - the sign has no legal bearing on CHL holders so pretend it is not there.
2. Don't give them your business - it doesn't really matter that the sign is invalid. I don't want to give my money to someone who attempts to restrict my 2A rights.
There may be additional arguments or variations on these positions, but that about sums it up, right?
Nothing I am going to suggest or present should have any bearing on those in camp 1. Nothing what-so-ever.
For those in camp 2, I have read a lot of post suggesting that one should simply avoid the place. Giving them a
TSRA card or calling/writing a letter is simply a pointless waist of time. That position seems a bit silly to me for a couple of reasons:
1. There are examples of companies who have changed their policies because of customer communication. Many have been posted on this forum and include banks and restaurants.
2. It is widely known in PR circles that a single call or letter represents more than just the one person making the complaint. How many people can't be determined. It depends upon the size of the company and presumptive information about the size of potential customer base effected by the issue. That presumed figure for the CHL community will certainly be smaller than other groups, say mothers with small children or other demographics. But no matter how small - your one single voice will still represent more customers than just yourself.
3. While no-one can guarantee any results from a customer informing them that they are losing business. What I can guarantee is that
the only thing less effective than informing them of your protest is a 'silent protest'!
The third item is especially true for small groups such as ourselves. Yes, you get the satisfaction of knowing that you didn't give money over to an entity that stands in opposition to rights that you hold dear. But they will likely not realize this without that call or letter and the impact will not likely be enough to force them to close for lack of business.
-----
How does this apply to the situation at hand? Well, we don't truly know WHY some previously posted AMC theater locations are no longer posted, do we? But less play a few scenarios:
1. If we assume that it was due to CHL holder complaints, then those in Group 2 could contact them to let them know we will be returning to their theaters. This will only strengthen the argument and the relationship. Group 1, who have been going to AMC theaters the whole time are completely unaffected by the postings and the removal and so are not affected in any way. They don't need to contact them because it never impacted their options.
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.
4. Finally, perhaps some local owner/managers made the call to drop the signs for one reason or another. With this scenario, perhaps Group 2's communication will alert AMC corporate to the posting removals and they will scold
the local theaters and force them to repost. Group 2 did not mention that the old postings were invalid, so there is no reason to think that they will suddenly 'upgrade' their postings. If they do, it was not because of any communication from Group 2. So it has no impact on Group 1 because before the removal, they still attended while improperly posted - so they can continue to do so. Group 2 may have been able to attend for a while at the un-posted locations - but AMC corporate was still anti 2A the entire time so Group 2 probably doesn't want to support AMC at all. Even though the local theater became un-posted, some of that money still made its way to corporate AMC.
So, what did I miss? Other than being a very lengthy post, where is the error in my logic?
t
Edited for grammar ...
I didn't want to potentially sully the logic for those who might feel it would be dishonest to contact them if you were already attending. But one doesn't have to be specific about whether or not they have been attending (in spite of the postings) in order to 'praise them for their actions', as you put it.