Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14
CharlesIsland

Off Your Rocker Series

Recommended Posts

Here is the official response from Cracker Barrel regarding geocaches placed on Cracker Barrel property

 

Michael,

 

Unfortunately we have had a change in policy regarding Geocaching. We are unable to allow geocachers to hide geocaches on our premises. Sorry for the change in policy.

 

Reading the thread in bits, screws up responces.

 

This is a corporate non answer. It's quick, expedient, and worthless. They had a reason for the policy change and they can share. There is no reason not to share it unless it would do more harm than good. For example it's a stupid reason such as "Our new VP thinks geocaching is stupid" and naturally CB would not want to advertise that even if they are stuck with the new VP's policy.

 

In this light, I'd say anyone at all contacting CB is fair enough. Enough pressure and maybe the lines of communications would open up to a real level.

It seems clear that they will not give permission. So does that mean they or anyone else that says "No" should be hounded? I don't think that would shed a positive light on geocaching/geocachers. IMHO there are plenty of other places to hide caches. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Here is the official response from Cracker Barrel regarding geocaches placed on Cracker Barrel property
Michael,

 

Unfortunately we have had a change in policy regarding Geocaching. We are unable to allow geocachers to hide geocaches on our premises. Sorry for the change in policy.

Reading the thread in bits, screws up responces.

 

This is a corporate non answer. It's quick, expedient, and worthless. They had a reason for the policy change and they can share. There is no reason not to share it unless it would do more harm than good. For example it's a stupid reason such as "Our new VP thinks geocaching is stupid" and naturally CB would not want to advertise that even if they are stuck with the new VP's policy.

 

In this light, I'd say anyone at all contacting CB is fair enough. Enough pressure and maybe the lines of communications would open up to a real level.

It seems clear that they will not give permission. So does that mean they or anyone else that says "No" should be hounded? I don't think that would shed a positive light on geocaching/geocachers. IMHO there are plenty of other places to hide caches. :P
Please explain why you believe that it is inappropriate for someone to contact a company to advise the company that, due to decisions that the company has made, that the person will no longer choose to spend his/her money at that company.

 

If WalMart introduced a policy that forbid RVers from parking in it's lots, would it be wrong for RVers to advise WalMart that they will now be shifting their business to K-Mart or Target?

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
Here is the official response from Cracker Barrel regarding geocaches placed on Cracker Barrel property
Michael,

 

Unfortunately we have had a change in policy regarding Geocaching. We are unable to allow geocachers to hide geocaches on our premises. Sorry for the change in policy.

Reading the thread in bits, screws up responces.

 

This is a corporate non answer. It's quick, expedient, and worthless. They had a reason for the policy change and they can share. There is no reason not to share it unless it would do more harm than good. For example it's a stupid reason such as "Our new VP thinks geocaching is stupid" and naturally CB would not want to advertise that even if they are stuck with the new VP's policy.

 

In this light, I'd say anyone at all contacting CB is fair enough. Enough pressure and maybe the lines of communications would open up to a real level.

It seems clear that they will not give permission. So does that mean they or anyone else that says "No" should be hounded? I don't think that would shed a positive light on geocaching/geocachers. IMHO there are plenty of other places to hide caches. :P
Please explain why you believe that it is inappropriate for someone to contact a company to advise the company that, due to decisions that the company has made, that the person will no longer choose to spend his/her money at that company.

 

If WalMart introduced a policy that forbid RVers from parking in it's lots, would it be wrong for RVers to advise WalMart that they will now be shifting their business to K-Mart or Target?

I never said that. Anyhow, in response to your false assertion: Is it "wrong" to act like a baby when you don't get your way? Boycotting CB because they won't let people hide caches on their property seems childish to me. But if you twist their arms and annoy them with hundreds of emails then maybe you can get your way. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Here is the official response from Cracker Barrel regarding geocaches placed on Cracker Barrel property
Michael,

 

Unfortunately we have had a change in policy regarding Geocaching. We are unable to allow geocachers to hide geocaches on our premises. Sorry for the change in policy.

Reading the thread in bits, screws up responces.

 

This is a corporate non answer. It's quick, expedient, and worthless. They had a reason for the policy change and they can share. There is no reason not to share it unless it would do more harm than good. For example it's a stupid reason such as "Our new VP thinks geocaching is stupid" and naturally CB would not want to advertise that even if they are stuck with the new VP's policy.

 

In this light, I'd say anyone at all contacting CB is fair enough. Enough pressure and maybe the lines of communications would open up to a real level.

It seems clear that they will not give permission. So does that mean they or anyone else that says "No" should be hounded? I don't think that would shed a positive light on geocaching/geocachers. IMHO there are plenty of other places to hide caches. :P
Please explain why you believe that it is inappropriate for someone to contact a company to advise the company that, due to decisions that the company has made, that the person will no longer choose to spend his/her money at that company.

 

If WalMart introduced a policy that forbid RVers from parking in it's lots, would it be wrong for RVers to advise WalMart that they will now be shifting their business to K-Mart or Target?

I never said that. Anyhow, in response to your false assertion: Is it "wrong" to act like a baby when you don't get your way? Boycotting CB because they won't let people hide caches on their property seems childish to me. But if you twist their arms and annoy them with hundreds of emails then maybe you can get your way. :P
If you don't feel that you should let them know that you are unhappy with their decision, don't contact them. However, most companies would like to know when their customers are upset. This knowledge helps them make decisions that keep them profitable. Also, if you want to continue to eat at CB, go for it. Why should I care?

 

That being said, I don't think that it's wrong to avoid spending money at companies that dissatisfy me if I have viable, easily substituted alternatives. Given this, I certainly can't fathom why letting the company know that they are losing a customer due to their actions is 'childish'.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
That being said, I don't think that it's wrong to avoid spending money at companies that dissatisfy me if I have viable, easily substituted alternatives.
I never said that either but I don't think that's "wrong" either. Anyhow, if there are viable alternatives then why don't you place caches in those places and not harrass CB? That is the point I am making. :P

Share this post


Link to post
That being said, I don't think that it's wrong to avoid spending money at companies that dissatisfy me if I have viable, easily substituted alternatives.
I never said that either but I don't think that's "wrong" either. Anyhow, if there are viable alternatives then why don't you place caches in those places and not harrass CB? That is the point I am making. :P

Please see post #92 for my reply to this point.

Share this post


Link to post
That being said, I don't think that it's wrong to avoid spending money at companies that dissatisfy me if I have viable, easily substituted alternatives.
I never said that either but I don't think that's "wrong" either. Anyhow, if there are viable alternatives then why don't you place caches in those places and not harrass CB? That is the point I am making. :P

Please see post #92 for my reply to this point.

I think you are starting to stray off-topic. Please re-read Quiggles response in the very next post, post #93.

Share this post


Link to post

Can you guys please take your differences to a private forum, email discussion, or PM?

 

It's getting really old.

Edited by Quiggle

Share this post


Link to post

...[left out a lot of other back and forth]... I don't think that it's wrong to avoid spending money at companies that dissatisfy me if I have viable, easily substituted alternatives. Given this, I certainly can't fathom why letting the company know that they are losing a customer due to their actions is 'childish'.

I agree. A few years ago, a certain blue jean company said that they purposely did not use models posing as "truck drivers" in their blue jean commercials because "that wasn't the kind of image they wanted to be associated with their product" Several organizations from the trucking industry made follow-up inquiries asking if this was a misquote --to which the official corporate statement was that it was the view of the company that truckers did not project an image that the company wanted to be associated, and no, they would not apologize for that remark and yes, they would stand by it.

 

My husband is a truck driver. Like most other truckers, he works long hours every week to deliver things the rest of us need. The job is rough on clothes (oil spills, sitting for long hours while driving, hauling freight in and out of the trailer, climbing on top the trailer, etc). In order to look neat and presentable for his customers, my husband buys more new pairs of jeans (and shirts, and caps, and gloves, etc) than most of us. He has been known to change clothes in mid-shift so he'll look nice at his next stop.

 

So my husband decided to honor the company policy by never purchasing any of their products again. Since our family gets half it's income from my husband's wages, we decided that the rest of us wouldn't purchase their products either. You can be sure that we let that company know they lost five customers--three of their 'target customers' (teenagers), one loving mother/wife, and one "disreputable" truck driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Can you guys please take your differences to a private forum, email discussion, or PM?

 

It's getting really old.

Sorry Quiggle. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

...It seems clear that they will not give permission. So does that mean they or anyone else that says "No" should be hounded? I don't think that would shed a positive light on geocaching/geocachers. IMHO there are plenty of other places to hide caches. :P

It's worth knowing exactly why they changed their stance. If for no other reason to know what their concerns were. Perhaps they are valid concerns or maybe some Executive is smoking crack. If it's the former, it's something we as a community can address. If it's the latter, we can hound them until they clean up their act.

 

Without good information we can only guess on the right course of action for future Cracker Barrells. The positive lite is a good thing, but that comes from careful work on a lot of groups who are always putting the postive spin on geocaching. You can use that while hounding them...er pressuring them to do the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post

...It seems clear that they will not give permission. So does that mean they or anyone else that says "No" should be hounded? I don't think that would shed a positive light on geocaching/geocachers. IMHO there are plenty of other places to hide caches. :P

It's worth knowing exactly why they changed their stance. If for no other reason to know what their concerns were. Perhaps they are valid concerns or maybe some Executive is smoking crack. If it's the former, it's something we as a community can address. If it's the latter, we can hound them until they clean up their act.

 

Without good information we can only guess on the right course of action for future Cracker Barrells. The positive lite is a good thing, but that comes from careful work on a lot of groups who are always putting the postive spin on geocaching. You can use that while hounding them...er pressuring them to do the right thing.

 

Just a thought. Before making comments like this maybe we should take a second and think about who might be reading this thread. Has anyone thought that someone from corporate CB might be?

Share this post


Link to post

...It seems clear that they will not give permission. So does that mean they or anyone else that says "No" should be hounded? I don't think that would shed a positive light on geocaching/geocachers. IMHO there are plenty of other places to hide caches. :P

It's worth knowing exactly why they changed their stance. If for no other reason to know what their concerns were. Perhaps they are valid concerns or maybe some Executive is smoking crack. If it's the former, it's something we as a community can address. If it's the latter, we can hound them until they clean up their act.

 

Without good information we can only guess on the right course of action for future Cracker Barrells. The positive lite is a good thing, but that comes from careful work on a lot of groups who are always putting the postive spin on geocaching. You can use that while hounding them...er pressuring them to do the right thing.

 

Just a thought. Before making comments like this maybe we should take a second and think about who might be reading this thread. Has anyone thought that someone from corporate CB might be?

 

I hope they are. No one should ever post anything in an open Forum if they are afraid of who might read it. Reading this thread would give that CB exec some valuable insight into the feelings of the posters and enable him/her to make a more informed decision, for good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post

...It seems clear that they will not give permission. So does that mean they or anyone else that says "No" should be hounded? I don't think that would shed a positive light on geocaching/geocachers. IMHO there are plenty of other places to hide caches. :P

It's worth knowing exactly why they changed their stance. If for no other reason to know what their concerns were. Perhaps they are valid concerns or maybe some Executive is smoking crack. If it's the former, it's something we as a community can address. If it's the latter, we can hound them until they clean up their act.

 

Without good information we can only guess on the right course of action for future Cracker Barrells. The positive lite is a good thing, but that comes from careful work on a lot of groups who are always putting the postive spin on geocaching. You can use that while hounding them...er pressuring them to do the right thing.

I agree with RK that CB should provide us with the reason they changed their policy. Perhaps theire lawyer or insurance agent felt they were open to a lawsuit if someone were injured while looking in the old washtub or butter churn on their porch. How many geocachers have be injured looking for an Off Your Rocker cache? How many non-geocachers have been hurt looking at these items while waiting for a table? If CB is really concerned about getting sued, they should stop putting that stupid peg game on their tables. Somebody is going to put a peg in their mouth and and accidentally choke on it.

 

Of course I could be all wrong and CB may be changing their policy for some other reason. Maybe they will tell us.

Share this post


Link to post

How has this topic made it to 4 pages? :P

 

It's perfectly understandable. Developing a plan to drive a company the size of CB to its knees requires much planning, organizing, idea development, alternative plan formulation, logistical coordination, poster printing, fund raising, pizza and beer.

 

This will in all likelyhood require the remainder of the week. Follow up discussions will probably resume October 15th. or there abouts. :P:):)

 

Oh did I forget meetings? Gots to have lots and lots of meetings. Perhaps a committee or two would help as well. Everone knows that all important decisions are made by committees. B)

Share this post


Link to post

How has this topic made it to 4 pages? :P

 

It's perfectly understandable. Developing a plan to drive a company the size of CB to its knees requires much planning, organizing, idea development, alternative plan formulation, logistical coordination, poster printing, fund raising, pizza and beer.

 

This will in all likelyhood require the remainder of the week. Follow up discussions will probably resume October 15th. or there abouts. :D:D:D

 

Oh did I forget meetings? Gots to have lots and lots of meetings. Perhaps a committee or two would help as well. Everone knows that all important decisions are made by committees. :)

You have a knack for sarcasm. I like that. B):P

Share this post


Link to post

Oh did I forget meetings? Gots to have lots and lots of meetings. Perhaps a committee or two would help as well. Everone knows that all important decisions are made by committees. :P

Hey, there's a Cracker Barrel down the street we could all meet at.

Share this post


Link to post
Of course I could be all wrong and CB may be changing their policy for some other reason. Maybe they will tell us.

May we won't like it.

 

Could be they got tired of folks taking up parking spots on busy days, acting goofy on the porch, making paying customers nervous, and then not coming in for a meal. I know CB can be pretty busy at times--the reason I've never eaten at one as I believe a half hour wait time just to be seated is simply too long for breakfast or lunch--so a cacher who shows up simply to find a cache and leave doesn't help. We all know some cachers can be less than stealthy--it's all about the smilie.

 

But, in all, if we did know the reason, and if it gives an opportunity to learn from it, then so much the better.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really bite into the idea of a cacher not going in to eat as the reason for not allowing any more caches on their properties. I for one like a good hearty meal before going out for a long hike in the woods. Now for the numbers I looked them up and I go a least once a month to eat at one of their locations. And I have three in the series. I would think most have eaten more times there than have cached there.

 

added in --- Now we can only get the opinion of those who frequent the forums on this topic.

Edited by jtbrady01

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really bite into the idea of a cacher not going in to eat as the reason for not allowing any more caches on their properties. I for one like a good hearty meal before going out for a long hike in the woods. Now for the numbers I looked them up and I go a least once a month to eat at one of their locations. And I have three in the series. I would think most have eaten more times there than have cached there.

 

added in --- Now we can only get the opinion of those who frequent the forums on this topic.

 

If you think about it jtbrady, I'd say you and CR are both correct. If there's a CB in a heavily developed suburban area near a major city, most cachers are probably jumping out of the vehicle, grabbing the cache, and moving on to the next quick smiley. An OYR with a high abundance of 6 word or less logs would probably be indicative of that. But say a CB at a rural exit along an Interstate in Indiana, most people are probably stopping in for a meal.

 

I'd like to think most people that stopped and ate would mention that in their logs, but there are plenty of threads on "the lost art of logging" and that sort of thing. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that you can gauge the success of these geocaches (for CB) by merely examining whether cachers eat at CB when they find the local caches. By having a corporate policy that allows caches, the company creates good will that may cause cachers to choose to eat at their restaurants. By rescinding that policy, they risk causing ill will that will cause cachers to eat at one of the other many options.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

It would be a shame if the ill will caused by rescinding the policy was substantial enough to overcome all the good will generated during the time that caches were allowed. Not much of a motivator for other corporations who might be looking to support geocaching in some fashion down the road.

Share this post


Link to post

I find no sign of a policy posted on the internet. I also see that 200+ "Off Your Rocker" caches are active today. Are we sure this isn't just a flying rumor? Who can post this policy or link to it to prove to me that it exists?

Share this post


Link to post

Magnetic Hide-a-key: $.50

Scrap of paper and golf pencil: $.25

Free promotion of your national restaurant chain: Priceless

 

And they don't even have to pony up the $.75!

 

Their loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Here is the official response from Cracker Barrel regarding geocaches placed on Cracker Barrel property

 

Michael,

 

Unfortunately we have had a change in policy regarding Geocaching. We are unable to allow geocachers to hide geocaches on our premises. Sorry for the change in policy.

wesleykey, I don't think that Michael just made that up. He said that this was their official response.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh did I forget meetings? Gots to have lots and lots of meetings. Perhaps a committee or two would help as well. Everone knows that all important decisions are made by committees. :lol:

Hey, there's a Cracker Barrel down the street we could all meet at.

That's funny! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I find no sign of a policy posted on the internet. I also see that 200+ "Off Your Rocker" caches are active today. Are we sure this isn't just a flying rumor? Who can post this policy or link to it to prove to me that it exists?

A change in policy, does not mean that they will activly seek out and request all existing caches be archived. It could be up to local managment, it could be they don't care enough to bother...Hard to say given their short and sweet responce.

Share this post


Link to post
wesleykey, I don't think that Michael just made that up. He said that this was their official response.

 

With all due respect, I wonder if even Michael has seen the policy. Some secretary replying to email inquiries does not constitute an official response. I'm not wanting to stir controversy, just asking if GC has seen a written policy or if this is heresay.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be a shame if the ill will caused by rescinding the policy was substantial enough to overcome all the good will generated during the time that caches were allowed. Not much of a motivator for other corporations who might be looking to support geocaching in some fashion down the road.

 

That's exactly backwards. The Good Will was Cracker Barrels to lose. They could have handled it better if they wanted a better responce from cachers. They could also have handled it worse.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the official response from Cracker Barrel regarding geocaches placed on Cracker Barrel property

 

Michael,

 

Unfortunately we have had a change in policy regarding Geocaching. We are unable to allow geocachers to hide geocaches on our premises. Sorry for the change in policy.

hmmm - too bad.......

 

Repeat of Post #2

Share this post


Link to post

...It seems clear that they will not give permission. So does that mean they or anyone else that says "No" should be hounded? I don't think that would shed a positive light on geocaching/geocachers. IMHO there are plenty of other places to hide caches. :laughing:

It's worth knowing exactly why they changed their stance. If for no other reason to know what their concerns were. Perhaps they are valid concerns or maybe some Executive is smoking crack. If it's the former, it's something we as a community can address. If it's the latter, we can hound them until they clean up their act.

 

Without good information we can only guess on the right course of action for future Cracker Barrells. The positive lite is a good thing, but that comes from careful work on a lot of groups who are always putting the postive spin on geocaching. You can use that while hounding them...er pressuring them to do the right thing.

 

Just a thought. Before making comments like this maybe we should take a second and think about who might be reading this thread. Has anyone thought that someone from corporate CB might be?

 

I hope they are. No one should ever post anything in an open Forum if they are afraid of who might read it. Reading this thread would give that CB exec some valuable insight into the feelings of the posters and enable him/her to make a more informed decision, for good or bad.

 

Exactly. I posted that to make a subtle point that in the absence of information we are left to speculate.

Share this post


Link to post
wesleykey, I don't think that Michael just made that up. He said that this was their official response.

 

With all due respect, I wonder if even Michael has seen the policy. Some secretary replying to email inquiries does not constitute an official response. I'm not wanting to stir controversy, just asking if GC has seen a written policy or if this is heresay.

I don't think a written policy is necessarily the issue, it appears that a spokesman for the company has simply informed the GC community that they are no longer granting permission to hide things on their private property. It seems entirely reasonable, although maybe not entirely smart based on the feedback in this thread...

 

I would be amazed if many organizations have a written policy stating that hiding things on their private property is (or isn't) allowed. This would seem to fall under the definition of private property.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be a shame if the ill will caused by rescinding the policy was substantial enough to overcome all the good will generated during the time that caches were allowed. Not much of a motivator for other corporations who might be looking to support geocaching in some fashion down the road.

 

That's exactly backwards. The Good Will was Cracker Barrels to lose. They could have handled it better if they wanted a better responce from cachers. They could also have handled it worse.

It's not backwards at all. CB allowed the placement of geocaches on their property for years. They didn't have to, but for whatever reason, they did. To my knowledge they never promised to allow them for all time. And now that they have decided (for whatever reason) to no longer allow geocaches on their property they are being portrayed in a negative light by some? I just don't get it.

 

Cracker Barrel hasn't taken anything away from us that was ours in the first place. The decision to allow, or not allow, caches on their property has always been theirs to make. We should be happy they supported the activity during the time they did.

 

And some people have indicated a desire to 'punish' CB by taking their business away from a company that allowed geocaching for years and giving it to a company that never allowed geocaching at all. This just baffles me. Maybe I'll start going out of my way to eat at Cracker Barrel in an effort to thank them for their years of support.

 

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think a written policy is necessarily the issue, it appears that a spokesman for the company has simply informed the GC community that they are no longer granting permission to hide things on their private property. It seems entirely reasonable, although maybe not entirely smart based on the feedback in this thread...

 

I would be amazed if many organizations have a written policy stating that hiding things on their private property is (or isn't) allowed. This would seem to fall under the definition of private property.

 

A written policy is certainly the issue. I could say that as a US citizen I am the spokesman for the USA and all caches in this country should be archived. This is no more "official" than some corporate goon replying to an email without even knowing what geocaching is. I'm not going to continue in this petty line of whining, just asking folks to stop and think before they believe the sky is falling.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

 

Cracker Barrel hasn't taken anything away from us that was ours in the first place. The decision to allow, or not allow, caches on their property has always been theirs to make. We should be happy they supported the activity during the time they did.

 

And some people have indicated a desire to 'punish' CB by taking their business away from a company that allowed geocaching for years and giving it to a company that never allowed geocaching at all. This just baffles me. Maybe I'll start going out of my way to eat at Cracker Barrel in an effort to thank them for their years of support.

 

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

Thank you, it baffles me for that reason as well. But as has been stated, if you really think it's the way to go, at least let them know. Otherwise, it's just like your SO giving you the silent treatment and refusing to say why.

 

Our DNR used to have no policy on caches, they were just allowed. Then out of nowhere, they came up with a very restrictive policy and nearly banned caches. People held CITO events and helped out the state parks anyway. Now there is a very permissive policy.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be a shame if the ill will caused by rescinding the policy was substantial enough to overcome all the good will generated during the time that caches were allowed. Not much of a motivator for other corporations who might be looking to support geocaching in some fashion down the road.

 

That's exactly backwards. The Good Will was Cracker Barrels to lose. They could have handled it better if they wanted a better responce from cachers. They could also have handled it worse.

It's not backwards at all. CB allowed the placement of geocaches on their property for years. They didn't have to, but for whatever reason, they did. To my knowledge they never promised to allow them for all time. And now that they have decided (for whatever reason) to no longer allow geocaches on their property they are being portrayed in a negative light by some? I just don't get it.

 

Cracker Barrel hasn't taken anything away from us that was ours in the first place. The decision to allow, or not allow, caches on their property has always been theirs to make. We should be happy they supported the activity during the time they did.

 

And some people have indicated a desire to 'punish' CB by taking their business away from a company that allowed geocaching for years and giving it to a company that never allowed geocaching at all. This just baffles me. Maybe I'll start going out of my way to eat at Cracker Barrel in an effort to thank them for their years of support.

 

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

Well written! I would still eat there but there are no Cracker Barrels in California. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
It would be a shame if the ill will caused by rescinding the policy was substantial enough to overcome all the good will generated during the time that caches were allowed. Not much of a motivator for other corporations who might be looking to support geocaching in some fashion down the road.
That's exactly backwards. The Good Will was Cracker Barrels to lose. They could have handled it better if they wanted a better responce from cachers. They could also have handled it worse.
It's not backwards at all. CB allowed the placement of geocaches on their property for years. They didn't have to, but for whatever reason, they did. To my knowledge they never promised to allow them for all time. And now that they have decided (for whatever reason) to no longer allow geocaches on their property they are being portrayed in a negative light by some? I just don't get it.

 

Cracker Barrel hasn't taken anything away from us that was ours in the first place. The decision to allow, or not allow, caches on their property has always been theirs to make. We should be happy they supported the activity during the time they did.

 

And some people have indicated a desire to 'punish' CB by taking their business away from a company that allowed geocaching for years and giving it to a company that never allowed geocaching at all. This just baffles me. Maybe I'll start going out of my way to eat at Cracker Barrel in an effort to thank them for their years of support.

 

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

First, as I explained early in the thread, there is a big difference between never having a policy and reversing their policy 180 degrees. Certainly, their recent action is a negative action toward geocaching.

 

Second, CB's previous decision to allow caches made me think positively of the company and, therefore, give them more of my business than I normally would give them. For the time that they had a policy which supported geocaching, I went out of my way to eat at their restaurants to thank them for this support. Their recent decision makes me think negatively of the company and, therefore, withhold my business.

Share this post


Link to post
It would be a shame if the ill will caused by rescinding the policy was substantial enough to overcome all the good will generated during the time that caches were allowed. Not much of a motivator for other corporations who might be looking to support geocaching in some fashion down the road.
That's exactly backwards. The Good Will was Cracker Barrels to lose. They could have handled it better if they wanted a better responce from cachers. They could also have handled it worse.
It's not backwards at all. CB allowed the placement of geocaches on their property for years. They didn't have to, but for whatever reason, they did. To my knowledge they never promised to allow them for all time. And now that they have decided (for whatever reason) to no longer allow geocaches on their property they are being portrayed in a negative light by some? I just don't get it.

 

Cracker Barrel hasn't taken anything away from us that was ours in the first place. The decision to allow, or not allow, caches on their property has always been theirs to make. We should be happy they supported the activity during the time they did.

 

And some people have indicated a desire to 'punish' CB by taking their business away from a company that allowed geocaching for years and giving it to a company that never allowed geocaching at all. This just baffles me. Maybe I'll start going out of my way to eat at Cracker Barrel in an effort to thank them for their years of support.

 

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

First, as I explained early in the thread, there is a big difference between never having a policy and reversing their policy 180 degrees. Certainly, their recent action is a negative action toward geocaching.

 

Second, CB's previous decision to allow caches made me think positively of the company and, therefore, give them more of my business than I normally would give them. For the time that they had a policy which supported geocaching, I went out of my way to eat at their restaurants to thank them for this support. Their recent decision makes me think negatively of the company and, therefore, withhold my business.

It's very difficult for any company to take action without somebody finding something wrong with their decision. Start a 'free month of service' offering to get new customers, existing customers will cry foul because they had to pay for the same month. Improve your product, and someone will complain that they liked the old way better. I get what you are saying. I completely understand that some people will think of CB in a negative light now, and that they might lose some customers as a result of their action. They have made some people angry. I'm just saying that I don't understand feeling that way.

 

At least once a year for a number of years, the person who owns and manages the office building from which I lease space has given me Celtics tickets. Great tickets, second row. These are his personal season tickets. He doesn't do this because I'm a big or important tenant in his building (I'm not). This year, he may choose to not give me tickets. He might do so without explaining why. He might just mention that he won't be giving me tickets this year without any explanation whatsover.

 

If this happens, I would be disappointed, but I wouldn't harbor a single bit of ill will towards this person. I wouldn't question his decision, and it never would have even occurred to me to consider moving my office to a different building simply because he no longer gives me tickets.

 

I know, I know. I'm not the general public. He's not a national chain. This effects only the two of us. But I guess it's all a matter of how you look at things, and so this analogy works for me. I know people will do so, but to look back at years of good will and somehow come out feeling negative, bitter, or vindictive is just something I don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post

....It's not backwards at all. CB allowed the placement of geocaches on their property for years....Cracker Barrel hasn't taken anything away from us that was ours in the first place. ....And some people have indicated a desire to 'punish' CB by taking their business away from a company that allowed geocaching for years and giving it to a company that never allowed geocaching at all. This just baffles me. Maybe I'll start going out of my way to eat at Cracker Barrel in an effort to thank them for their years of support.

 

No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

 

For years they reaped the rewards by having those caches in place. That past policy was the good deed, the reward of caches stopping in and buying a cold drink or a meal were well earned.

 

However now things are different. There is no part of "No More caches" that is a good deed for cachers. If it's a good deed, who is it a good deed for?

 

As for being baffled...your eating at Cracker Barrel is may be thanks for past good will, but it will do less than eating at another place that at least has a hope of a geocaching friendly policy.

Share this post


Link to post
But I guess it's all a matter of how you look at things, and so this analogy works for me. I know people will do so, but to look back at years of good will and somehow come out feeling negative, bitter, or vindictive is just something I don't understand.
Amen. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

...It's very difficult for any company to take action without somebody finding something wrong with their decision. ...

 

That's a true thing. Every company has to evaluate their actions. For me it's not so much the decision that Cracker Barrel made as the lack of information. If their insurance firm has a line item that now prohibits geocaching on an insured property, I can't think ill of Cracker Barrel. If it's just the personal preference of some doofie with a corner office, that's another thing. A lack of information always leads me to suspect a doofie was involved.

 

Also companies can pay attention and right things or repair damage.

The Apple iPhone is a good example. They needed to lower the price to capture the market share they wanted. They broke all kinds of unwritten rules and annoyed a lot of people with both how much of a price drop and how fast they did it. However, Appled listed to the pulse of the market, came back and offered op a 100.00 credit and stopped their credibility from draining away---so much.

 

Oh, and your Tickets guy. Yeah, I'd be dissapointed as well if he stopped giving tickets, That's not fatal. I'd be annoyed if I could no longer step in his office at break and shoot the breeze because he changed his personal policy. I'd find another person to talk with at break. The difference is if Cracker Barrel stopped putting out caches, vs. not allowing them any more.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

Please oh mighty Moderator, make it stop, make it stop!

 

This is going no where. I agree that a proper response to TPTB from CB would be more useful than going round and round and round and round.

 

 

"Look kids. Big Ben, Parliament!"

 

-C. Chase

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how cachers discussing how to respond to the policy change is a bad use for the forums.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is just spinning wheels.

 

Will reopen discussion when there is something relevant to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 14

×
×
  • Create New...