Haagen-Dazs bans Indians from their new store in India.
blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
My takeaway (from my perspective), wasn't that "Indians" were not allowed in the store (the entire _purpose_ was to get the Indian Market excited about a Brand) - the negativity is the belief that something needs to be "blessed" by the international market before it can be rolled out as a preferred brand in India.
The whole thing sort of backfired though. I'll be interested in whether this is a net positive/negative for Haagen Daz in India.
It gets ridiculous in the hospitality industry. In some fancy hotels in the middle-east, you will be harassed if you don't look sharp/rich, except if you come in wearing nothing but a towel and swimming trunks :-) I used to stay at friends' houses and everyday go swimming in the fancy 6-star hotel for free; I pushed my luck repeatedly, sometimes carrying with me water-pistols and pool toys. No problem, because no sane "arab" would be seen in speedos. The sad thing is that their pools go unused for the whole year, they're just expensive water tanks for display.
If I walked in dressed in my normal clothes, I would be harassed, asked for a foreign passport, and told to put down a credit card number .. depending on how expensive the car I came in was. But when I flash my junk and my hairy back, I get free complimentary cocktails, pool-side, uncarded.
You're all over this thread, talking about how big a problem it is. Have you considered the possibility that you grossly exaggerate the issue? Maybe people are hateful racists, maybe they're just trying to make money. In the long run, greed pays the rent and racism doesn't, so you have nothing to be upset about except the timing.
It probably got to me because I have traveled extensively and came up against these little schemes left and right. Greed pays their rent, but it's not my responsibility to just accept that and let them have their way.
Someone at Haagen-Dasz is gonna see the internet echo-chamber that their homeboy in Delhi has caused, and I promise you his little sign will be down in 24 hours, and on the menu might be new flavors named after Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar gee.
I spent 2 years backpacking around the world and have seen this crap sometimes; it's not an India-only thing.
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.
I agree about the knee jerk reaction though
Locals should also have the right to setup a competing shop that only serves locals and not tourists :/
* Changes your opinion about it in no way, and
* Suggests nothing about whether articles like this are appropriate for HN?
Crime, gossip, celebrity news. This may be a big newspaper, but it doesn't look "leading".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rswz0sghYCw
Vaseline is a brand owned by Unilever Corporation, which says of itself: "Ever since the 19th Century when William Hesketh Lever stated that the company's mission was "to make cleanliness commonplace; to lessen work for women; to foster health and contribute to personal attractiveness, that life may be more enjoyable and rewarding for the people who use our products" -- http://www.unilever.com/aboutus/ourmission/default.aspx
It's Unilever's position that non-white skin is a problem to be dealt with in order to achieve "personal attractiveness" :-P
You can say it is racist and whatnot, but then again, people in the west prefer a darker (tanned) skin.
Serving sizes also tend to be much smaller in most parts of Asia, compared to America anyways. But then again, serving sizes in America tend to be much larger than most other parts of the world.
(All this is ignoring the fact that both of these scenarios are illegal in the US.)
This seems to be a rather strange business decision. But, seeing as this is a franchise and is likely owned by an Indian, I have trouble getting upset by it.
Would it be OK if they said, "special preview for those residing within a 10-block radius (must show proof of residence)"?
It's a curious choice, but I'm not sure it's a nefarious choice. Implying it's wicked and thus broadcasting it everywhere may have done them a favor -- even if some Indians now boycott the store. What if the people prone to take offense and boycott are exactly those they don't want associated with their brand?