Is the Boycott Groupon Movement Anti-Business? No.

Some people have written and accused me of being anti-business for railing on Groupon. I don't think so at all. Here's my rebuttal to people when they say that Groupon intent was not to commit fraud or intentionally rip off people and that I shouldn't complain:

I think Groupon intent, in this case, is important, but what's more important is how, after a screwup is found, how they handle the problem. The CEO of Groupon fails to understand his customers feelings and, on top of that, is perceived as having a a bad attitude... For that, should Groupon be out of business? 

If people were asking the government to intervene, I would be against that. No one is asking for government intervention to stop him. And, if he does fail (doubtful) no one is stopping him from learning a lesson and trying again.

The people complaining have every right to do so and are completely in line with Libertarian ideals.

Products, services, and understanding peoples wants and needs are all integral parts of running a company, They are not mutually exclusive.

If people complained about your products you'd better listen to them and make them happy or you take the risk of creating ill will and these people today, thanks to the Internet, have to power to organize. Ignore these people at your peril. 

One need to only look at Hosni Mubarak for evidence of what that can lead to.

Here's a simple example of what I think about any free association movement or boycott (which I believe is completely in line with Libertarian ideals): 

1950. A restaurant opens up. The food is bad. The restrooms are dirty. Customers complain. The owner takes a bad attitude and fails to apologize and fails to promise try to do better next time... He says things like, "Other restaurants are worse" (maybe so, but not the point). Word of mouth spreads and the shop gets a bad reputation...... From that, perhaps the restaurant gets no customers then goes out of business... Hopefully, the owner might learn a lesson and try again - next time with some humility and more accommodation to CUSTOMER concerns.

2011. A restaurant opens up. The food is bad. The restrooms are dirty. Customers complain. The owner takes a bad attitude and fails to apologize and try to do better next time...He says things like, "Other restaurants are worse" (maybe so, but not the point). Word of mouth spread and gets around the way word gets around in 2011: people use the Internet....... From that, perhaps the shop gets a bad reputation. From that, no customers then goes out of business... Hopefully, the might learn a lesson and try again - next time with some humility and more accommodation to CUSTOMER concerns.

I'm sure there were people who wrote letters in defense of McDonald's when there were (still are) boycotts. Did anyone write letters of defense of toys with lead paint when parents considered boycotts of Mattel due to lead in children's toys from China (until the US government intervened and made them illegal)? Perhaps these are outrageous comparisons, but I think they prove my point. 

People can defend Groupon, but to criticize other people from trying to freely associate and create a voluntary group to get a company to understand customer anger and frustration - in order to get that company to react to their concerns - is a disservice to the free market and Libertarian ideals, no? 

Facebook's Boycott Groupon Logo

I would be right there with the defenders of Groupon if the boycotters were trying to get the government to ban Groupon or control their business.

No. Calling for a free association, a voluntary boycott of Groupon in order to get them to understand people's unhappiness and concerns is not anti-free market. It is the free market in its purist form.

Customers deserve to have their concerns addressed and

their voices heard. They also have the right of free association and freedom of speech. True tenants of the free market and a free society. 


Comments?: Comments should be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Comments that include personal attacks, racial, religious, or ethnic slurs are not permitted. We continuously review and remove any inappropriate comments. 

Marketing Japan: The Japan of Free Enterprise

Yesterday, I received some brilliant commentary about Japan by economic expert Marc Abela about the Time Lapse Journey Through Japan post that I thought I'd share with you.

It is just one more reason why Japan experienced such high economic growth until recently (when the Bank of Japan and Japanese government decided to interfere):

"Japan was up until very recently one rare and beautiful battalion of free enterprise, liberal thinking, private property and private responsibility, not just your name, but your whole family name directly on your brand, Honda-san, Matsushita-san, Suzuki-san, Toyota-san, with free customers roaming around and simply picking the favorite amongst a sea of different products to be found on the market, it was competition at its best... and if people didn't like you, no-one there to use violence, you just go through periods where the group decides to ostracize you at best/worst... Rothbard would have loved this country." - Marc Abela 


You can contact Marc Abela through Facebook.


Here's an addendum:


Allow me to push the argument a little further - men who row and fish on the outside of the boat (private sector) find it more and more difficult to feed a whole family, while men sitting in the middle of the boat (public sector) vegetablize themselves (sou-shoku-kei?) and grow in proportion, in the process slowing every day a little bit more the speed of the whole boat and making it more and more difficult for the private sector to row to keep the boat afloat and fish to feed all in the middle. Due to the lack of competition in the public sector and the over amount of competition in the private sector, most men loose their edge and/or their talent, and as a direct result, women tend to less trust men on a general social basis and find themselves choosing to work directly to provide for their own income. This translates into fewer kids per family, less couples, women wanting out of the system, more and more men not buildi ng up the strength to be able to support and feed a wife along with 3? 5? or even more kids, etc etc... A lot of people in Japan think that Chinese service is of a lesser quality, just because... well, just because, people there, are, well, see, they are "Chinese". Nothing to do with the geography or nationality if you ask anyone rational. People in China just spent decades bathing in a socially corrupt environment with tons of central planning and rotted ideas "a la" Mao - so the "social structure" was "the only" reason why Chinese are on average less up-to-date with "quality service" than some of their Japanese counterparts who have been used to "private competition". But the Chinese have been catching up (big time) in speed (at least since the end of the cultural revolution around 1976). Same with the Soviet Union. Many think the Soviet Union fell just because - well, see, it's easy, Soviet failed cause they were all... Russians. At least that's how most school bo! oks will almost attempt to portray things. Funny how so many today still think all they need to do is simply replace Lenine with someone smart and eloquent like Ozawa or with Obama to make it all work. Lenine spoke 7 languages. Not sure how many Obama & Ozawa speak but I bet the number is a tiny bit closer to... 1?