ADM serves Car Dealers, Automotive Marketing Pros and Internet Sales Managers
Grant Cardone was quick to respond to Becky Quick's opinion piece as if she were a woman scorned. Does he really think that her dissatisfaction started because the salesman didn't recognize her??!! Really??!! Grant, Grant, Grant, please pay attention to what you read more carefully. You misrepresent Quick in several ways, and thus, you do both you and her a disservice.
First, nowhere in Quick's opinion piece did she suggest that she expected the car salesman to recognize her as a TV personality. What she did expect for him to recognize was that she was a potential customer, so if you read somewhere that she expected to leverage her celebrity in order to receive better service, then I'm missing something. I expect to be treated the same as a Suze Orman or a Mrs. Cardone when I walk into a dealership even if I'm just some lowly customer in the salesman's eyes. My money spends the same as anyone else's, and so I deserve the same respect as the next person.
What the salesman did was to treat a high-profile female customer poorly, thinking she was just another female customer. In turn, she used her high-profile position to make him look stupid. Most women don't have this kind of opportunity, or I think we'd see more women, in Grant's words, "paint[ing] automobile dealers straight out of a scene from a bad 1950s sitcom." Is it Quick's fault that she writes for Fortune or reports for CNBC? Apparently, Grant thinks she's not supposed to use her public stature to publicly humiliate men who treat her poorly. If she really wanted to be mean, she could have mentioned names and dealerships. Instead, she relied on bad business practices among car salesmen that are common knowledge, because they continue to exist.
Second, Cardone responds to Quick as if she was writing an actual piece of journalism rather than an opinion piece. There are different genres of writing, and Fortune correctly labeled Quick's opinion piece as just that, an opinion. Opinion sections are short and only provide one person's perspective on something. Had she written something other than an opinion piece, I'm sure Grant would have found the details he sought.
Third, Quick is not the only woman to experience what she did in a dealership. She is just one among many women who hate walking into dealerships. So, yes, I think she represents a general consensus among women who feel that an entire industry and its male work force largely "come straight out of a scene from a bad 1950s sitcom." If they didn't, then this wouldn't be an ongoing topic of discussion, right? Rather than defending car salesmen, look at these 1950s attitudes she belittles as your own job security! If most car salesmen did things right, then some of you on ADM would be out of work and in the unemployment line that Grant mentions.
Fourth, Grant makes an ad hominen attack on Quick by calling her "sexist," or at least implying she is. He assumes she addressed women before men in her waitressing days in order to put them at ease, an assumption he refers to as sexist. Grant, your homework is to re-read Quick. The man whom the salesman greeted before Quick was a stranger to her. He wasn't her husband. He was simply a man standing behind her, so the salesman thought they were together. He assumed something and so made an ass of himself.
Fifth, what does Grant's wife's experience have to do with Quick's experience? Nothing. Every customer is different, or at least I thought so. Moreover, he questions Quick's femininity when he asks her, "why bring a man with you? Did you need someone to protect you? My wife doesn't bring male friends with her to test drive cars. She is a woman and she likes being treated like a woman." Huh? This doesn't even make sense. It also exemplifies another logical fallacy, but rather than an ad hominem, this is a non sequitur. A non sequitur is an inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. "My wife doesn't bring male friends with her to test drive cars. Conclusion: She is a woman who likes to be treated like a woman." Are we to conclude that "real" women, as opposed to "false" women, avoid bringing male friends with them to buy cars? And if Grant's wife is a woman, then what does that make Quick? Ouch!
Now this is why I'm confused by Grant's logic about his wife versus Quick. I get confused, because he tells her that "if she wants to be treated like one of the boys then she needs to act like one of them." At the same time that he's telling her to "man-up" he seems to be telling her to act like a woman. So which is it? If women expect to be treated like a viable customer, then they should expect to be treated like a man as well as act like a man? But they also need to be non-threatening to men even if men treat them unfairly? Doesn't this logic back up Quick's experience that salesmen treat men differently than they do women?
Sixth, is it only "sensitive" women who expect to be treated fairly and with respect? According to Grant, yes, so ask for a woman to wait on you, "sister Quick." Unlike you, "sister Quick," this man works hard for his money, and there are bigger problems in the world than your own dissatisfaction with several car salesmen who engaged in poor business practices! Quit your whining woman! After all, women are meant to be seen and not heard. Isn't that why Rush publicly castigated Sandra Fluke, because she dared to use the public forum to speak out against men's attempts to control women's bodies?
Finally, Grant's charges of political correctness are representative of conservatives' attempts to distract attention away from substantive debate about discrimination and unequal treatment. Why talk about the hard stuff when you can name call instead? It's easier and it prevents us from moving forward.