« The Bear Growls: Circus Circus Reno customer dis-service | Home | The Bear Growls: Resorts Atlantic City hits a new low for sleaziness »
The Bear Growls: Peppermill Reno stupidity and cheapness — Marketing trying to equal Circus Reno stupidity?
By LVBear | May 31, 2009
Peppermill Reno recently sent out “birthday month” promotions to patrons who list birthdays in July. Some of the offers appeared to be for slightly more freeplay than some patrons normally receive as part of the Peppermill’s marketing efforts. A nice touch, especially in view of the current economic climate. It seemed like a good way to ensure that these “good customers” visit the Peppermill during July.
But wait: A few days later, another letter was sent out, retracting the offers and replacing the decent free play offer with a lousy “gift card” of face value about 30% of the face value of the freeplay. Peppermill freeplay is automatically loaded directly onto players cards with no time-wasting, annoying line-standing (see previous Growl about Circus Circus Reno’s stupidity). However, redemption of the inferior “gift card” offer will require standing in line at the players’ club.
Could Peppermill be trying to equal Circus Circus in stupidity? Where do casinos find these clowns? It is petty and stupid for the Peppermill to retract the better offers. It likely will annoy many patrons. I laughed it off, realizing the stupidity of many casino marketing people, but others may not be so forgiving and will take their future business elsewhere. After the original mailers were sent out, Peppermill should have sucked it up and moved on, leaving patrons with a nice birthday surprise. Instead, Peppermill’s managers chose to deliberately antagonize patrons. Mind-boggling.
Topics: Casino Executives, Circus Circus Reno, Peppermill, Reno | 1 Comment »
One Response to “The Bear Growls: Peppermill Reno stupidity and cheapness — Marketing trying to equal Circus Reno stupidity?”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
If the initial mailing and the retraction-mailing were only to those Player’s Club members with birthdays in that month, then atleast fewer people will be offended than if this involved the mass mailings to all members of the Player’s Club.
The casino management should have learned: you give your word, you keep it! What pittance were they trying to undo with a revised mailing anyway? Irrespective of how utterly foolish the terms of that revised mailing are it was wrong to issue the revision.
I can just see some dolt who instituted the new policy also giving a lecture to the dealers about making the customer’s experience a pleasant one.