3 ms·
>> "It's very appropriate, at least now I know what brand of ice-cream to never eat again." There's nothing worse than the silly internet knee jerk reaction. B
by axod 17y ago
>> "It's very appropriate, at least now I know what brand of ice-cream to never eat again."
There's nothing worse than the silly internet knee jerk reaction. Boycott first, ask questions later. It was a franchise. Jeez. And TBH it's up to them who they serve. Just like Hulu 'bans' non Americans.
- daleharvey 17y agoits nothing like hulu 'banning' non americans (or spotify 'banning' americans), they are both legally restricted by license holders. I agree about the knee jerk reaction though
- axod 17y agoI don't really see why there's an issue with restricting something to tourists only. That's pretty usual. It's often not a popular thing to do, but I can see why companies do it, and I think they should have the right to decide. Locals should also have the right to setup a competing shop that only serves locals and not tourists :/
- mahmud 17y agoIt's a pilot franchise, their first in Delhi. Do you know how much coverage remote franchises get at the HQ? I worked for Starbucks as a lowly barista and we received photos of new baristas from every corner on earth. Corporate HQ takes the Delhi franchise very seriously. In business today, you're either in China or India. So I don't buy for a minute that the franchisee's actions are his own. It reflects on the entire brand. If they wanna do business in India they better respect the people there.