|
|
Post by Ladybug on Apr 22, 2020 12:17:54 GMT -4
She really is, isn't she? At least Goopy gives us some good snark material. |
|
|
|
Post by prisma on Apr 22, 2020 13:09:32 GMT -4
I'd rather have Kate than Gwyneth on the cover, since Goopy weaponizes her smug against us.
|
|
|
|
Post by tabby on Nov 13, 2020 15:30:33 GMT -4
The Facebook groups for women veterans that I belong to have blown up over this story. Kate Hudson's clothing line, Fabletics, had a Veterans' Day sale on their yoga pants, with 15% off for veterans. Lots of companies do this - discounts on breakfasts, oil changes, and whatnot - and thus get to claim that they support vets and servicemembers. Except the Fabletics discount was only for MALE veterans. Female vets didn't qualify. You can read about it on the Military Times website. |
|
|
|
Post by petitesuite on Nov 13, 2020 16:16:58 GMT -4
I read that article and I still don't understand--how was the discount only for men? Or how did Fabletics exclude women from it? Do they mean that the discount code could only be applied to leggings for men...? (Although fabletics, per their website, does not seem to actually carry any products targeted towards men?) I am so confused.
Wait never mind I just looked on Fabletics' Twitter and the official position is that the customer service rep quoted in that article was wrong. I have no trouble believing that Fabletics mostly hires incompetent people and then spends no time training them, so. I don't know how to link to specific tweets, but if you go to Fabletics feed and click "tweets & replies," it's not very far down.
|
|
|
|
Post by tabby on Nov 13, 2020 16:54:17 GMT -4
Wait never mind I just looked on Fabletics' Twitter and the official position is that the customer service rep quoted in that article was wrong. I have no trouble believing that Fabletics mostly hires incompetent people and then spends no time training them, so. I don't know how to link to specific tweets, but if you go to Fabletics feed and click "tweets & replies," it's not very far down. Oh, thanks. I'm not on Twitter, so I don't see a lot of things there. So, either it was an employee who got it wrong, or Fabletics is covering their asses after getting slammed by the veterans' online communities. |
|
|
|
Post by petitesuite on Nov 13, 2020 16:57:37 GMT -4
It pains me to give Kate Hudson the benefit of the doubt but I do think an employee got it wrong just because (sorry for repeating myself), I don't understand at all how they could have made a discount code usable only by men, even if they wanted to.
|
|
syve
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 314 
|
Post by syve on Nov 13, 2020 17:09:59 GMT -4
I read that article and I still don't understand--how was the discount only for men? Or how did Fabletics exclude women from it? Do they mean that the discount code could only be applied to leggings for men...? (Although fabletics, per their website, does not seem to actually carry any products targeted towards men?) I am so confused. Wait never mind I just looked on Fabletics' Twitter and the official position is that the customer service rep quoted in that article was wrong. I have no trouble believing that Fabletics mostly hires incompetent people and then spends no time training them, so. I don't know how to link to specific tweets, but if you go to Fabletics feed and click "tweets & replies," it's not very far down. Yeah, I don't understand why the customer who complained initially thought it was only for men, did the ad specially mention men or imply veterans = men? It's very odd. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Nov 13, 2020 17:13:58 GMT -4
I blame Facebook!
This reminds me a little bit of Reese Witherspoon and the Draper James free dress giveaway for teachers. The fine print indicated the offer was limited to the first 500 teachers, but the offer was posted around Facebook without the fine print, and then thousands of teachers got mad when they were told the dresses were gone.
|
|
