Salesforce is acting like Dick's

Status
Not open for further replies.

SharpDog

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
3,203
Location
Tennessee
Every time I see something like this I think if it would be worth it to change careers and focus on establishing a pro 2A in a traditionally anti crowd. Just look how well Black Rifle Coffee is doing. If I don't do it someone else will. The market of gun owners is just too large for no one to try and cater to us if we are a little vocal, just don't go overboard as to turn off people that are neutral on 2A issues.
 
This is what they are actually telling thier 'customers'.


Worldwide, customers may not use a Service to transact online sales of any of the following firearms and/or related accessories to private citizens. Firearms: automatic firearms; semi-automatic firearms that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any of the following: thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, grenade launcher or flare launcher, flash or sound suppressor, forward pistol grip, pistol grip (in the case of a rifle) or second pistol grip (in the case of a pistol), barrel shroud; semi-automatic firearms with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds; ghost guns; 3D printed guns; firearms without serial numbers; .50 BMG rifles; firearms that use .50 BMG ammunition. Firearm Parts: magazines capable of accepting more than 10 rounds; flash or sound suppressors; multi-burst trigger devices; grenade or rocket launchers; 80% or unfinished lower receivers; blueprints for ghost guns; blueprints for 3D printed guns; barrel shrouds; thumbhole stocks; threaded barrels capable of accepting a flash suppressor or sound suppressor.

Essentially, they're trying to roll out CA laws to thier 'customers'.
 
Salesforce customers like:

ADP
Adidas
Design Within Reach
Farmers Insurance
Amazon Web Services
US Bank
T Mobile
Yeti
Canon
Kimberly Clark
Philips
Toyota
American Express
AAA
Intuit
Marriot
Papa Murphy's
Duncan Donuts
Columbia sportswear
Western Union
...and many more

are faced with a dilemma. Do they ignore Marc Benioff's activist virtue-signaling because they don't sell semi-automatic rifles, or do they recognize the threat of such activist use policies to their investment in Salesforce software? For now, the overbearing policy affects Camping World and perhaps a few other small customers. No doubt customers like Toyota and American Express will be tempted to bear little concern since they feel their business is safe and perhaps they also feel their contracts are worth too much to be bullied. But they and all Salesforce customers should be concerned that their very substantial investments in the software are at risk for whatever cause Benioff concedes to next. What if he prohibits use by customers that don't source 50% of their energy from "green" sources or requires LEED certification or carbon offsets? There's a whole host of liberal causes he could decide to bully customers about including abortion, equal pay, affirmative action, global warming, healthcare, immigration, and homosexual promotion. Responsible executives and boards at customer organizations should recognize this risk and look to phase out Salesforce in favor of less risky contracts. The fact is, Salesforce is the runaway leader in the Gartner quadrant for their business. That generally means that there is a lot more value to be had from a challenger or niche player.

Similarly, investors in Salesforce should look for an exit strategy. Investment results are going to be affected by a great many other factors than Benioff's anti-gun activism and it would be hard to expect immediate harm from his decision, but fund managers and individual investors should be alerted to the instability his hubris is causing both the company and its customers. If nothing else, they should pressure the board to control it or retire Benioff.
 
I'm a product manager who uses salesforce. I asked my boss today what he should do if Marc beniofff targeted our businesses, and he didn't have an answer.

I work in travel, but I'm still scared.
 
It's not Salesforce's owners that are doing this. Benioff only owns about 5% of it, but the change to their use policy had to be approved or at least accepted by his co-CEO Keith Block and the board. It's the owners, who are investors, who should recognize the risks their bullying customers presents and do something about it.

Obviously, potential customers like AOBC, Remington, SIG, Vista Outdoors, Ruger, Lipseys, Talo, Davidsons, Bass Pro, Sportsmans Warehouse, are going to look elsewhere. But if I were the CTO or CIO of one of those, you can bet I'd be taunting my Salesforce rep. "Gee, it looks like we could close this fantastic contract if you could just get us an exception." And if I got it, you'd better believe everyone would hear about their hypocrisy. But of course if they're determined to turn away money, then the shareholders should know about that.
 
Every time I see something like this I think if it would be worth it to change careers and focus on establishing a pro 2A in a traditionally anti crowd. Just look how well Black Rifle Coffee is doing. If I don't do it someone else will. The market of gun owners is just too large for no one to try and cater to us if we are a little vocal, just don't go overboard as to turn off people that are neutral on 2A issues.

You'd have a tough time in the CRM space. It's crowded, with a lot of low-cost or freemium competition for the non-enterprise customers, and the enterprise side is pretty well-dominated. That said, LMK if you want someone to bounce ideas off of.
 
It's their right to do so.

It's my right to curse their name and take my business elsewhere.

I'm in sales and I can tell you there are a ton of options out there that work just as well or better than Salesforce.
 
I'm in sales and I can tell you there are a ton of options out there that work just as well or better than Salesforce.

Maybe, but once your data is in a SaaS offering like Salesforce and all your workflows are around it and all your API's from other systems are built to talk to it, changing isn't exactly like switching your natural gas provider.

Lock-in is very real.

The government has basically not enforced antitrust laws in the technology sphere, and, as a consequence, a relatively small number of plutocrats have vast power to call the shots on what other people and other businesses do.
 
Sure. Why wouldn't it be their right? They're not discriminating based on race, religion, sexual orientation or anything like that.

It's the same old song of bigotry, with a new target - guns and gun owners. It's still not right.

Stupid move? Yes.
Illegal? Doubtful.
Last time I looked extortion - forcing someone to do something under threat - was a felony. That's exactly what Salesforce is doing. In the short run they're going to get that explained to them in court. In the long run they might get away with it for new customers.

If you were a potential Salesforce customer, would you risk investing with a company willing to hold your enterprise system hostage if you don't allow them to impose their view of what your business practices should be? What's next, we'll shut down your business if you don't reduce your carbon footprint? Fire all the NRA members?

For those who blithely say to take your business elsewhere, it's not that easy. A large business can invest years of work and millions of dollars in a Salesforce configuration. Changing to a different vendor would be a MAJOR project, involving more years and more millions.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but once your data is in a SaaS offering like Salesforce and all your workflows are around it and all your API's from other systems are built to talk to it, changing isn't exactly like switching your natural gas provider.

Lock-in is very real.

The government has basically not enforced antitrust laws in the technology sphere, and, as a consequence, a relatively small number of plutocrats have vast power to call the shots on what other people and other businesses do.

People don't seem to be understanding this issue very well. It's not like changing cell phone providers.
1. Can a business offer a very expensive service, allow you to build your business around it, then create a NEW set of use terms that are directly in conflict with your business and will cost you millions and untold amounts of changeover headache to comply? I have no idea, I'm not a lawyer and I don't think many 2A businesses EVER thought they would see a day when the TECH sector would become the boogeyman and would be looking to Gov't for help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top