Target/Kitty City

Nature of the Offense

Today's entry documents a spectacular double-whammy of a piss-poor shopping experience combined with a substandard, badly-advertised product. The offenders are Target supermarkets, one of the real giants, and Kitty City, a manufacturer of (as we'll soon see) crummy cat toys and accessories. The prologue is included in the letter, so let's get to it!

The Letter

Dear Target and Kitty City, USA:

I am writing the both of you because I consider the consumer experience I have just completed a joint failure on your parts. First, some backstory: I am adopting a new kitten. To put a face on the matter, I have included a picture of the kitten in question for you.





This kitten has had a rough life so far. She has lost her mother, presumably in a horrific accident, and was discovered alone, filthy, and malnourished. Thanks to the devoted efforts of a rescue agency and a foster family, she is now healthy and happy, and about to join her "forever home." To make the transition a comfortable one, my wife and I headed to Target to pick up some kitten supplies.

Here is where the trouble starts. While Target stores seem to have plenty of lovely accessories for dogs, they seem to hold cats in the same regard as they do gay people. All the kitten beds were shoved into one shelf all the way at the bottom of the aisle, with boxes all looking like they had just been caught "talking shit" to somebody on Jersey Shore. As evidence, I have included a picture of the box to my Kitty City hideaway:





In case it's not abundantly clear from the picture, that's the top flap of the box, hastily re-sealed with packing tape. And every box on the shelf looked the same way. So now I get to bring my baby kitten home and put her in a bed that, for all I know, has been used and returned by someone whose cats have mange. Thanks a lot, Target. Nothing beats paying the "new" price for used merchandise.

Now, on to the product itself. Kitty City, as I'm sure you are aware, you use the following picture on the box of your Hideaway play center:





Notice how the blue ball toy hangs more than halfway down the cube. However, when I unpack my Hideaway, here's what I find:





Are you aware that the oscillation period of a pendulum is directly proportional to its length? At three inches long, when my kitten paws at this "toy"--assuming she can even reach it, that is--there's every chance it will swing back and smack her in the face before she can even react. While I'm sure your wives all assure you that three inches is perfectly adequate, my eight-week-old kitten doesn't need a speed bag. Please change your product packaging to accurately reflect its contents.



Pictured: not my kitten.


In short, I'm doing my best to give a delicate, adorable baby animal the safe, nurturing environment she deserves. Kitty City, on the other hand, sees fit to sell me misrepresented accessories that are as likely to injure her as entertain her, and Target has no problem with charging me full MSRP for them when they've been (potentially harmfully) tampered with.

Look at that kitten again. Is this really the best she should hope for? If not, you should consider a complete overhaul of the "pet care" divisions of your respective businesses.

The Response

The first thing I got was this load of crap from Kitty City:

"Thank you for contacting SportPet Designs, Inc.

The following information will be required to process your request.

1. Reason for your inquiry:

2. Product Name:

3. Date of Purchase:

4. Location of Purchase:

5. Product Number (located on the instruction sheet in upper right hand corner XX-0000):

6. Letter or ID number (00000) of the part(s) and quantity of each:

7. Full Name:

8. Mailing Address:

9. Phone Number:

10. E-mail address:

This is an auto response.

Information provided to SportPet Designs, Inc. is confidential. It is not shared or sold to any other parties. "

Translation: "Thanks for contacting us! We couldn't be bothered to read your actual correspondence, so if you'll please fill out this form, we'll be better able to fit a form letter to your needs."

The next morning, though, I got another, more personal letter from Sport Pet:

"Hello Paul,

Thank you for your email. I'm sorry that you had such a negative experience when purchasing this item. I can tell you that since the photo was taken for the box of the item, we had a case in which a cat become entangled and injured with the longer string toy. Because we take the safety of people's pets very seriously, we promptly adjusted the design to make sure that it would not happen again. The photo has not been updated yet to reflect the new design.

Thank you,
Kristen ***** ******

Customer Service
Sport Pet Designs"

...Wow. This is the first time in the history of the Angry Customer Letters that I've gotten anything resembling a thoughtful response. While I hate getting a product that was not as advertised, at least I get it.

Of course, right when I thought things might be turning around for The Angry Customer, Target drops the following turd in my inbox:

"Dear Paul,

I'm sorry your recent trip to our Austin, Texas Target store didn't meet your expectations.

We're always looking for ways to improve your shopping experience. Hearing about your purchase for your new kitten is important to us. I've documented your thoughts and comments, which will be shared with our Store Operations team for further review. It's just one way we can keep working to provide you with the experience you've come to expect at Target.

If you ever have concerns during your visit, please visit the Guest Service Desk and ask to speak with the Guest Service Team Leader. They'll make every attempt to resolve the issue during your visit.

We appreciate your feedback because it helps make Target even better.

Sincerely,

Beth
Target Guest Relations"

I love that "Target cares" about my kitten. Everything else, though, is the trite pabulum I've come to expect from America's megamarts. Is there some company that all these retailers subcontract their customer feedback to?



Company, no. Country? Maybe.



The Verdict


Severity of the Offense:
7/10 (Target)
6/10 (Kitty City)

While the miniscule string length on the ball toy didn't much affect the overall quality of the product, false advertising is a cardinal sin in the eyes of The Angry Customer. Target, on the other hand, is lucky to skate by with a seven. First off, they do business with a crummy company. Then, they go over the top by selling repackaged items as new? Would you do that with a big-screen TV? No? Then don't do it with my cat house.

Corporate Care Level:
2/10 (Target)
9/10 (Kitty City)

Target's letter mentions my kitten as a way of saying "See, we really did read your letter before we fired off this mindless response!" Kitty City would have hit the 10 here if they hadn't led off with the auto-reply.

Adequacy of Response:
0/10 (Target)
8/10 (Kitty City)

While it's nice that Target replied at all (seems to be a rarity these days), I thought they would at least offer to take the item back if it wasn't in satisfactory condition. Kitty City, on the other hand, basically gets a pass here. I understand that in today's society everyone thinks they're Erin Brockovitch, and you have to CYA, but a picture change would be appreciated.

Also, everyone loses an additional point because both responses were from female employees after I made a fantastic dick joke.

Overall:
3/10 (Target)
9/10 (Kitty City)

It should be pretty obvious at this point what the take-away is here. The little company cares, the big one doesn't. Shocker.

People Magazine

Nature of the Offense

The Fast Food Warrior kind of made his own bed with this one. He signed up for some magazine subscription for the free throw-ins, thinking he could cancel before the first bill without penalty. Anyone who has ever done this knows how shamefully stupid this is, but I'm getting off track here...we're here to make fun of the big corporations, not the little people they take advantage of! Off to the letter...

The Letter

To: PEOPLE Magazine
Subject: Matthew McConaughey assaults kitchen staff in Austin restaurant!



No less believable than anything else in People.


Dear Editors of People,

Now that I hopefully have your attention from my subject line, STOP SENDING ME EMAILS!

I have tried several times to unsubscribe from your email list and your subscription folks don't seem to be getting the message. If I recall correctly, the only reason I signed up was to get a $10 coupon to Papa John's Pizza, and then I immediately canceled the trial subscription to your magazine. The pizza was good; the emails are annoying.

It shouldn't take three or more attempts to unsubscribe from an email list. The last time it tried, I informed them that any future communications will be reported to my ISP as SPAM. And I intend to do so. I hear there's lots of money to be made in suing companies for email spam SPAM. It's interesting that a search of your website for "Report Spam" comes up with the result "Try again."

My hope is that as editors of a magazine that thrives on exploiting the flawed lives of celebrities, you would understand that this is best taken care of quietly. So, please locate your subscription department, or marketing, or whoever is responsible for these harassing emails, slap them upside the head and make sure they never send me one again. Your best response will be no response. A "We're sorry, problem fixed," email or a large check are also acceptable. Then leave me alone and never contact me again. Do not send me free magazines or offer discounted subscriptions, for they aren't even suitable for toilet paper.

The Response

"Thank you for contacting PEOPLE Customer Service.

We have removed your email information from our promotional listings.

If your information was already on our files, you may have been selected for a recent promotion. Please allow ten business days for this to become effective. After that, you will not receive future promotions.
If you are just providing us with your contact information, you will not be added to the promotional listings.

Sincerely,

Cynthia H"

The Verdict

This is a new section we're trying out. We've seen plenty of corporate negligence and arrogance thus far, with various levels of response to complaints. Here, we will rate various aspects of the consumer-business exchange, assigning ratings in each category from 1-10 with 1 being the lowest. Businesses will want to get as many "10s" as possible, except in the "severity of offense" category, where 10 is the worst.

Severity of the Offense: 5/10
Completely unsolicited, this type of spam would rank closer to a 10, but again, FFW filled out the form. He'd have been better off ordering actual Spam on his Papa John's pizza.



Yum!


Corporate Care Level: 3/10
They obviously didn't read too carefully, or they wouldn't have sent their moronic form letter. To be fair, have you seen People magazine? They clearly don't expect their subscribers to do any reading, either.

Adequacy of Response: 6/10
Ideally, a letter like this would cause them to stop this kind of marketing altogether. That big check would be nice, too. As it stands, the cessation of spamming a single non-customer gets them just north of the equator.

Overall: 3/10
Usually, Angry Customer letters are reserved for companies that I would at least have wanted to do business with in the past. The fact that we have to burn one on People, a second-rate gossip rag (seriously, Cosmo is like, soooo better...) means they've really screwed the pooch.