Thursday, March 15, 2007

Yesterday, had a young family come in while we were in the midst of putting away our weekly shipment. A mom, a grandmom, and two kids, about 6 and 3 year old girls.

The 3 year old grabs a graphic novel off the shelf by the cover, and starts to wander around the store. I wince, but ignore it. The three year old then drops the book to the ground, and I see that the cardboard cover has been bent in half. I could:

A.) Ignore it, and hope the kid doesn't do any further damage. This is the Walmart solution. Employees are fired if they dare question a customer. Of course, Walmart can return the damaged product for full credit. We Can't.

B.) Get angry, demand that the mother buy the damaged book.

C.) Gently remove the book from the child's hand, and remark to the grandmother, "Comics aren't that cheap anymore. This book costs 8.00."

The mother can then do:

A. Apologize and offer the buy the book.

B. Apologize and tell the child to "Look but not Touch."

C. Get huffy, accuse you of being child unfriendly.

Obviously, since I'm writing this, you can guess what path the parent took.

It isn't surprising. Over the years, we've noticed that the kids who are most out of control have parents who exercise no discipline.
Posted by at

4 comments:

newbery said...

Hopefully this comes off as constructive criticism.

I'm not going to discount the possibility that the Mom may have been a jerk but I'm afraid that it sounds like she might have had a point.

Children are a fact of life. Toddlers are an unpredictable but known quantity. Caring for toddlers is hard work and a great responsibility. and of course we expect the parents to shoulder most of this burden. But as responsible members of society, we should all share in the responsibility to provide a caring and nurturing environment for parents to do their job.

Is it possible that your store may actually *be* a little child unfriendly? Is it possible that your response was interpreted as unfriendly criticism of their child rearing abilities?

While "look but not touch" might be an appropriate instruction when in a china shop, when is this appropriate in a book store? Shouldn't we be encouraging children that books are approachable and not pieces of china that only adults should handle?

Sure, there is a risk involved. And perhaps some books should be treated like china. But in a child friendly store, perhaps china should not be placed within easy reach of toddlers.

So what should a child friendly store owner do? Let me suggest a few possibilities.

1) Walk through your store as if you were a parent looking to child proof your own living room. Move fragile and/or expensive items to make it harder for the little ones to reach them. Remove or fix any toddler-eye-level sharp corners or other potential accidents waiting to happen.

2) Keep a box of inexpensive children books/toys behind the counter or perhaps in an inviting-looking child lounge area.

3) If you see a parent come in with a toddler in tow, shower the toddler with attention. Bring him/her a book/toy (not candy!). Talk to the child. Play.

4) Complement the parent on a what cute/intelligent offspring they have. Offer to keep the little one busy while they do their shopping. You may earn a loyal customer for life.

5) If you have to remove something from a toddler's grasp, it's much easier to offer something in exchange. If you do it quickly, with flash and flare, the toddler probably will enjoy the game. Different toddlers have different temperaments so it may not be wise to just ask and wait for them to hand it over -- if you give them time to think about it, they may get stubborn. If all else fails, ask for assistance from the parent.

6) If you feel the need to explain that something is expensive (hopefully due to #1 above, you won't have to), address the child, not the parent. It's very hard to say something like this without sounding judgmental. Never, ever, say anything that may suggest that the parent is being negligent in their parenting duties. Unless of course you just want them to go away.

March 16, 2007 at 12:42:00 PM PDT
Jason said...

If a child goes running out into the road because the parent isn't watching, and promptly gets skooshed by a car, should we make an effort to make streets and cars more child-friendly?

In fact, Pegasus Books is child-unfriendly, and clearly so as soon as you set foot inside. That's the point at which the Responsible Adult In Charge of the kid(s) should think very carefully before turning the little ones loose.

"While "look but not touch" might be an appropriate instruction when in a china shop, when is this appropriate in a book store?"

Honestly, if you can't keep your child from tearing up somebody's store, you need to either:

Come back when you don't have them in your care;

or

Be willing to take full responsibility for what the child does.

Oops, there's that darned "R" word again ... but that is what it boils down to. Responsibility.

((oof, I didn't mean to rant, but honestly ...))

March 18, 2007 at 12:23:00 AM PDT
newbery said...

Jason, there is no need to start a flame fest over this.

First of all, please read Duncan's original post more carefully. I didn't read anything about a kid tearing up the store. I read that a 3-year old child picked up a book, carried it for a bit, then dropped it. Sure, it sounds like some damage was done but let's keep our perspective, shall we?

Again, I wasn't there and I don't intend to pass judgement on anyone involved. I don't have all the information and if you read my response more carefully it should be clear that it's not really relevant to the point I was trying to make. The point is relevant whether it applies in this particular case or not.

The parent may indeed have been a jerk. The world is full of jerks. Some are parents, some are shop owners, some are hotel clerks. Some are just having a bad day.

I agree parents should take responsibility for their children. But again, as responsible members of society, we should also all share in the responsibility to provide a caring and nurturing environment for parents to do their job.

In any case, I haven't been in Duncan's store recently but I don't recall it being as "clearly child-unfriendly" as you claim. And I suspect that Duncan does not want his store to be known as child unfriendly. Hence my suggestions.

March 18, 2007 at 8:24:00 PM PDT
Jason said...

No flameage intended, Newbery, really. I didn't mean to come across as angry, and I'm very sorry if I did so.

When I said "child-unfriendly", I was trying to find a good term. Clearly, I failed miserably. For me, it simply means a place that is either not safe for young children, or a place that's just not organized in such a way that it keeps the wee ones from getting into things that they shouldn't.

Pegasus is a wonderful store, but there's far too much inventory (books, games, toys, movies, etc) at a convenient grabbing height for three-year-olds. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the sort of place you would want younglings roaming around in unless someone was keeping a fairly close eye on them.

Your suggestions are wonderful; if space permitted, and if Duncan felt like going through all the trouble of kid-proofing his store, that would be fine. In fact, if the space was available for something like that, I'm sure he would do it in a flash to keep incidents like this from ever happening again. I certainly would.

The "child tearing up somebody's store" was not solely in regards to this particular situation. I'm definitely not implying that the poor kid was doing so, but it can and does happen.

Regardless of the severity of the situation, my statement still stands; come back later when you don't have children you can't keep from doing damage, or be prepared to pay for the things that your children damage.

"(...) if you read my response more carefully it should be clear that it's not really relevant to the point I was trying to make. The point is relevant whether it applies in this particular case or not."

I would say the same thing about my own statement. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

March 18, 2007 at 11:34:00 PM PDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)