No, but I’m a person, and I’m aware of certain general human tendencies. I’m assuming Blockbuster executives are capable of the same. One of these tendencies is to accept certain cultural regularities as presupposed standards. And, in our culture, one of these presupposed standards is that movies are due back by closing time on the due date. Why do you think BB thought it was necessary to go to all the trouble you (and XJETGIRLX) say they did to remind their customers time and time again of the change? It was because they knew that their new policy flew in the face of this tendency. And given that they knew that, it can be safely assumed that they knew that it was going to happen anyway…such is life, and such are people. Or maybe they really didn’t know that, in which case I guess they’re just idiots, but personally I’d give the heads of a billion-dollar corporation a little more credit than that. YMMV.
Not the corporate mind, the human one. I maintain that the previously mentioned effects of the plan in question were obvious to all involved: executives, employees, and customers. And because of that, in the end, it didn’t do anybody any good, which is why they’re switching gears now and going with a more straightforward plan that creates a true win-win situation. Speaking of that…
Okay, you’re reading too much into my use of the word “evil”. I do not picture Blockbuster exectives rubbing their fingertips together while laughing maniacally as they unfurl their plan to extract late fees from the unsuspecting American public. All I was implying was that, regardless of whatever intention they originally had, it should’ve been obvious that the nature of the plan itself would lead consumers to believe that their motives were other than purely benevolent. As you can see, this is what happened.
My hypothesis here, without firsthand knowledge of any of the individuals making the decisions, is that they thought they could pass it off to the public as an attempt to do them a favor. The error in their thinking if this was the case would be twofold: one, because as I said, some people are going to bitch no matter what you do; and two, because the policy goes against a clear-cut and obvious human tendency which just happens to favor the corporation if people slip up and follow their more natural course of action. Another possible scenario, and the only other reasonably likely one IMHO, is that the plan was genuinely well-intentioned at the outset, and the executives simply experienced a collective brain fart that prevented them from foreseeing the obvious manner in which this particular idea would be perceived (no psychic powers required, XJETGIRLX, only a decent sense of basic human psychology). Either way, they seem to have realized their mistake, and are working to rectify it.
On preview: tdn (and others, as I suppose this is equally applicable to all), I freely admit that the “return by noon” plan may not have been developed with extortion of extra late fees in mind. I hold, however, that: A) It is a possibility, given that (as I said) they may have thought they could pass it off as a gesture of goodwill; and B) if it was indeed developed as a good-faith gesture towards their customers, it was an uncharacteristically naive and ill-reasoned decision on their part. I don’t think (B) is overly likely, but that’s just my opinion, as as you point out, it has been the case a few times in the past. Your example of the New Coke fiasco proves quite poignant as evidence of that.
One more thing: WhyNot. From what I’ve read of your posts here, I’ve gained a certain respect for you, and I don’t think you’re flying off the cuff here. I’m at a loss, though, to understand your basis for that crack about “a sense of paranoia and conspiracy theories developed as a service industry employee”. I ask that you re-read the first three paragraphs of post #192. If anything, that’s exactly the sort of attitude I’m trying to combat.
