4 ms·
> So, this isn't necessarily because of Sam Odio, but everyone's thinking it. Are you kidding me? Starbucks doesn't give a shit that someone was syphoning off
by abraham 15y ago
> So, this isn't necessarily because of Sam Odio, but everyone's thinking it.
Are you kidding me? Starbucks doesn't give a shit that someone was syphoning off money. A few hundred dollars is chump change to them. What they care about is the thousands of people "defrauding" their rewards program designed for use with a single customer. I'm sure their TOS restricts use to a single person as well.
- joshfraser 15y agoI'm not so sure based on their public response to the experiment: "We think Jonathan’s project is really interesting and we are flattered he chose Starbucks for his social experiment."
- Cushman 15y agoInteresting. Where are you getting that opinion from? Mine comes from the article Jonathan himself tweeted: "At 7 p.m. PT Friday, Starbucks reluctantly pulled the plug on Stark’s pay-it-forward social experiment following allegations of fraud or misuse. ... Adam Brotman, vice president of digital ventures at Starbucks, phoned Stark earlier Friday evening to inform him that the card would be deactivated. Starbucks, he says, was rooting for the experiment from the sidelines, even though the company’s terms do not permit the use of shared registered cards. 'I’m sad about it, first and foremost, because we were legitimately cheering on this experiment,' Brotman says. ... Once the exploit was public, however, Starbucks felt compelled to deactivate the card." http://mashable.com/2011/08/13/jonathans-card-shut-down/ http://mashable.com/2011/08/13/jonathans-card-shut-down/