Break the rules..Still win?

[michaeledward]

Another sad showing of political correctness. Rather then doing the right thing and announcing that the contest was open to all mothers that were legal citizens and stand by that decision .... Toys R Us caved.

Political Correctness? and not Financial Goodwill and bottom line?

Toys 'R' Us just opened their first store in mainland China. Might such a decision negatively impacted the opportunity for the corporation to do business in that land of 1 billion people?

 

[michaeledward]

One thing that bugs me is this:

They said the prize should was supposed to be for the child, not the mother.

Who are these advocates to tell the company what the prize is for? That is Toys 'R Us' decision to make. What arrogance!

Very good observation. I guess this can be readily determined by looking at what name is put on the savings bond. It may very well be that the prize is intended for the child.


http://www.firstbabyoftheyear.com/rules.html

PRIZES: Grand Prize (1): A $25,000 US Savings Bond for the very First Baby of the Year (awarded in the name of the baby) and a $100 Babies"R"Us Gift Basket. Value of bond at time of awarding equals $12,500 with bond face value effective on date of maturity.

Also, it may very well be that it was the HOSPITAL that registered the mother ..

Additionally, U.S. hospitals and OB/GYN offices may enter on behalf of themselves, their obstetricians and their pregnant patients who are legal U.S. residents and who give birth in a registered U.S. hospital.

Would the hospital know if the patient is a legal resident? Should the hospital know? Should the hospital restrict access for non-legal U.S. Residents?

Sure seems to be quite a few questions that can be asked by this incident. Maybe it's just easier to blame the mother.

 

[CoryKS]

PRIZES: Grand Prize (1): A $25,000 US Savings Bond for the very First Baby of the Year (awarded in the name of the baby) and a $100 Babies"R"Us Gift Basket. Value of bond at time of awarding equals $12,500 with bond face value effective on date of maturity.

Well, that pretty much answers that. Nothing to see here, folks.

 

[Cryozombie]

I guess we read this sentence differently.

yeah I READ that part that said said "eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents." to mean that eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents.

Call me uneducated, but I dunno how else that can be read... :idunno:

 

[michaeledward]

yeah I READ that part that said said "eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents." to mean that eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents.

Call me uneducated, but I dunno how else that can be read...

Although promotional materials called for "all expectant New Year's mothers" to apply, Waugh said eligibility rules required babies' mothers to be legal residents. Many sweepstakes have such requirements, Waugh said.

I will direct you to the 'promotional materials', which called for all expectant mothers, to register. And such registrations could be competed by either the mother, the hospital or the doctor. Presumably, those promotional materials were distributed before awarding the prize.

Ms. Waugh's attributed statement would be a spoken statement that we can safely assume occurred after the hospital, OB/GYN, and mother were notified that they won the random drawing.

As I have pointed out, the Hospital, the doctor, and / or the mother could have entered the promotion. We don't know who entered the contest.

But, if you wish to continue to blame the mother, please go right ahead.

 

[Cryozombie]

But, if you wish to continue to blame the mother, please go right ahead.

I never blamed the mother, I blamed Toys R Us.

 

[shesulsa]

I think Toys R Us didn't do their job in verifying the eligibility of the "winner" before making an announcement. Good business practices would command that there be around 50 of the earliest babies to arrive selected and eligibility verified in order, one by one. Once the first, earliest, fully eligible baby born to a fully eligible mother in an eligible family in an eligible household is determined via thorough and proper investigation, *then* the announcement should have been made.

That said ...

I think that once TRU announced the winner, they were obligated to follow through and award the child the bond. The child was decided *and announced* the winner on company error - both this child AND the eligible winner should receive bonds, in my opinion.

I'm disturbed and perturbed that the Chinese-American population would react as though this were an act of racism when it's quite clearly someone's failure at their job.


I sure hope they fired whoever ****ed up.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Heaven forbid that someone assumes that a person who lives someplace is a legal resident of said place.

 

[Jade Tigress]

No doubt about it.

But, if word gets out, as it apparently did here, how should a corporation respond? Either way, it is a PR problem.

It seems that it is just easier to just rail against the mother.

This is what it boils down to. It's a PR problem. Right or wrong, ToysRus would have suffered more if they denied the winnings. It's more beneficial for them to look compassionate in granting the winnings regardless of the circumstances, than for them to look stingy over a "technicality". For the record, I think it's wrong, but I'm sure they weighed their options closely. ToysRus's target consumer's would most likely have been turned off by the company if they denied the "baby" the prize because of the mothers citizenship.

I think Toys R Us didn't do their job in verifying the eligibility of the "winner" before making an announcement. Good business practices would command that there be around 50 of the earliest babies to arrive selected and eligibility verified in order, one by one. Once the first, earliest, fully eligible baby born to a fully eligible mother in an eligible family in an eligible household is determined via thorough and proper investigation, *then* the announcement should have been made.

Yep. This would all have been avoided if they verified eligibilty BEFORE announcing a winner. How can they not damage their image if they award a prize and then say "Oops! Sorry, you can't have it. Rules is rules."