Yesterday a person from my dentist’s office called me. “You are due for a cleaning,” she stated. “Would you like to schedule that?”
“Yes, I am,” I replied, irritated. “Even more, I need to replace my temporary bridge with a permanent one, but I don’t have time to attend to either right now.”
“Okay,” she meekly said. “Let us know when you are ready.”
Evidently, she passed along my irritated reply because the next morning I received an e-mail detailing what I had to do to get the temporary bridge replaced. “We will need about seventy minutes to take an impression and then three weeks later you will need an appointment for one hour to seat the bridge.”
As I read the e-mail, my irritation turned to annoyance. At the beginning of the bridge process, I had had an impression made at the insistence of the dentist. I had had to rearrange my schedule so that I could make a special appointment just to have the impression made. Even worse, I had feared that the impression would make me toothless because the lose crown might fall out during the process and not be replaceable. To my knowledge, that impression had never been used, which I asked in my e-mail reply. The response did not address my question but stated that a new impression needed to be made because the tissue may have healed in a different shape.
Realizing that I look at situations too much from the customer’s point of view and at times become more irritated because of doing so, mentally I took a step back. “Why am I irritated?” I wondered.
First of all, I was upset at their system. A system which ought to work for my benefit and theirs had broken down. The hygienist normally scheduled my next cleaning immediately after I had had one, but she could not do that due to the temporary bridge. The person who called for cleanings did so without any knowledge as to what the customer might have in progress. Therefore, she could not help move me forward with my bridge situation. Neither of these parts of the system were working to my benefit nor to theirs.
Furthermore, the dentist had suggested that I call when I was ready to put in the permanent bridge. Well, I readily admit that if I am given an open-ended option such as that, particularly concerning the dentist, I will delay and delay. After all, in my daily schedule getting the bridge finalized is not urgent. Since there is no pain, it also does not seem to be important. The fact that they left the appointment scheduling up to me irritated me because I knew that I would wait. Had they held my feet to the fire by telling me what needed to be done and scheduling the appointment, both of us would have been much better off. They would have had business, and I would have had the work completed.
Instead, neither has happened.
Systems are a tremendous marketing tool and a helpful customer service. However, systems must be set up so that those working the system have access to all the information on the customer. If that is not available, the person contacting the customer leaves the impression that the company is not paying attention to the customer as an individual. By not checking my file, the person calling about the cleaning made me feel that she was not focusing on me. I was just a number to call to drum up more business because the office was slow. In that case, the system left a negative impression instead of a positive one.
Check your system to make certain that your company is not making the same mistake.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Competitive Mudslinging
Although I realize by a recent survey that I read and another that I took in class today that universally politicians are not trusted and not liked, I am using a political ad as an example for this week’s Insight. Please look beyond the politicians to the example. Russ Feingold, one of the senators from Wisconsin, is facing reelection against Ron Johnson, an entrepreneur who owns a plastics manufacturing business in Milwaukee. Johnson’s commercials have featured him dismissing the traditional political advertising and talking straightforwardly about runaway spending. In no nonsense terms, he firmly states that he wants to go to Washington to fix the situation. “Government doesn’t create jobs; government creates debt. You know that, and I know that,” he says.
Feingold’s response to Johnson is to say that his opponent wants to turn the Great Lakes over to the oil companies. Playing on the disaster in the Gulf, Feingold maintains that he will never let that happen; he will protect the Great Lakes from the oil companies.
Of course, you can guess that Johnson has come back and now has ads running which state that he would never turn the Great Lakes over to the oil companies. Furthermore, he states, Feingold knows that there is a law against that happening. After all, he says, Feingold voted against that law. In fact, he was the only Great Lakes senator to do so.
I know. That sounds like the traditional back and forth mud slinging typical of most campaigns. Voters get tired of hearing these exchanges and become so confused that they do not know for whom they want to vote. Ultimately, the difference between the two blurs into a “He said, he said” exchange.
While businesses do not usually engage in mud slinging, unfortunately, many business people do become obsessed with their competition. They fret about the competition’s prices. They agonize over how their inventory compares to that of the competition. They worry that customers will buy from their competition and not shop them. They place too much emphasis on what the competition is doing rather than on what their business offers customers.
Customers don’t care about competitors; they care about what you offer. They ask, “What’s in it for me to do business with your business?”
99.9% of your customers do not think about your competition when they are dealing with you. If your business has what a customer wants, most likely that customer will buy from you. If not, he or she may look elsewhere. If the customer has done business with you before, the chances are very high that he or she will do business with you first and foremost.
Realize that the concern about your competition resides in your head, your outlook, and your worry. Switch your view and look at your business from your customer’s point of view. Focus on solving your customers’ problems. Don’t focus on your competition. Talking about your competition doesn’t solve a customer’s problem. In fact, you may pique your customer’s interest in them.
Take a lesson from the politicians. If you solve customers’ problems, your business will thrive. If you don’t, you will always be rolling around in the mud with your competition.
That’s not a profitable place to be.
Feingold’s response to Johnson is to say that his opponent wants to turn the Great Lakes over to the oil companies. Playing on the disaster in the Gulf, Feingold maintains that he will never let that happen; he will protect the Great Lakes from the oil companies.
Of course, you can guess that Johnson has come back and now has ads running which state that he would never turn the Great Lakes over to the oil companies. Furthermore, he states, Feingold knows that there is a law against that happening. After all, he says, Feingold voted against that law. In fact, he was the only Great Lakes senator to do so.
I know. That sounds like the traditional back and forth mud slinging typical of most campaigns. Voters get tired of hearing these exchanges and become so confused that they do not know for whom they want to vote. Ultimately, the difference between the two blurs into a “He said, he said” exchange.
While businesses do not usually engage in mud slinging, unfortunately, many business people do become obsessed with their competition. They fret about the competition’s prices. They agonize over how their inventory compares to that of the competition. They worry that customers will buy from their competition and not shop them. They place too much emphasis on what the competition is doing rather than on what their business offers customers.
Customers don’t care about competitors; they care about what you offer. They ask, “What’s in it for me to do business with your business?”
99.9% of your customers do not think about your competition when they are dealing with you. If your business has what a customer wants, most likely that customer will buy from you. If not, he or she may look elsewhere. If the customer has done business with you before, the chances are very high that he or she will do business with you first and foremost.
Realize that the concern about your competition resides in your head, your outlook, and your worry. Switch your view and look at your business from your customer’s point of view. Focus on solving your customers’ problems. Don’t focus on your competition. Talking about your competition doesn’t solve a customer’s problem. In fact, you may pique your customer’s interest in them.
Take a lesson from the politicians. If you solve customers’ problems, your business will thrive. If you don’t, you will always be rolling around in the mud with your competition.
That’s not a profitable place to be.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Wasted Advertising
Have you seen BP’s commercials about the oil spill? On one, a middle management guy says that he is from the Gulf area, he’s in charge of distributing the clean up funds, and he won’t rest until BP takes care of everyone who deserves to get money. On the other, a senior executive says that he was raised in the Gulf area and will see that everything is put back to where it was before the oil spill. Both commercials have a similar theme of the spokesperson being from the Gulf Coast and assuring the viewer that BP will make it right; he will see to it.
In addition to these commercials, desperate tourism businesses are airing commercials which invite vacationers to come there and play in the warm, white sand. Relax on the beautiful beaches. Enjoy the fresh, delicious seafood. Have fun at the Gulf Coast. I’ve seen these commercials a couple of times in the evening but not on a major network. I suspect the businesses don’t have much budget to air these; I’m surprised that they have any budget at all.
A week ago, I saw one of these commercials in the evening, and the first news story that I saw the next morning was of oil washing up in a new location on a Gulf Coast beach. One or two ads in the evening were easily trumped in the morning with one statement by a news reporter, “Oil is washing up on the Mississippi coast.”
Why is BP running these ads?
Beats me. I am totally perplexed. They appear to think that advertising will restore their good name. They seem to think that commercials will convince viewers that everything is all right in the Gulf. They are certain that if they just run these commercials with enough frequency that they will change Americans’ minds about the tragedy.
Evidently BP management or their marketing team missed the lesson on publicity versus advertising. Of the two, publicity is by far and away more credible, more noticed, and more trusted. When Americans see a report on the news about the oil spill, read an article in the paper, or talk to their friends and relatives about the situation, they internalize and remember what they saw, read, or discussed. That information forms the basis for their opinion on the subject. Their opinion determines if they even notice the commercials. If they do notice them, chances are that they dismiss them as more BP propaganda.
What the public knows that BP doesn’t is that you can’t trump publicity with advertising. It’s a waste of effort and money. Obviously, the desperate Gulf Coast businesses don’t know that, either. However I can understand their advertising. When you are desperate, you are willing to try anything.
I am sharing this with you today to reinforce to you that advertising cannot trump publicity. If your customers have formed an opinion due to news or word of mouth, advertising will not change their opinion. Advertising can maintain their opinion, but it cannot change it. Many businesses use advertising in an attempt to educate or convince customers. That is the wrong use for advertising. Advertising maintains; it does not initiate.
Are you using your advertising to maintain your position with customers?
In addition to these commercials, desperate tourism businesses are airing commercials which invite vacationers to come there and play in the warm, white sand. Relax on the beautiful beaches. Enjoy the fresh, delicious seafood. Have fun at the Gulf Coast. I’ve seen these commercials a couple of times in the evening but not on a major network. I suspect the businesses don’t have much budget to air these; I’m surprised that they have any budget at all.
A week ago, I saw one of these commercials in the evening, and the first news story that I saw the next morning was of oil washing up in a new location on a Gulf Coast beach. One or two ads in the evening were easily trumped in the morning with one statement by a news reporter, “Oil is washing up on the Mississippi coast.”
Why is BP running these ads?
Beats me. I am totally perplexed. They appear to think that advertising will restore their good name. They seem to think that commercials will convince viewers that everything is all right in the Gulf. They are certain that if they just run these commercials with enough frequency that they will change Americans’ minds about the tragedy.
Evidently BP management or their marketing team missed the lesson on publicity versus advertising. Of the two, publicity is by far and away more credible, more noticed, and more trusted. When Americans see a report on the news about the oil spill, read an article in the paper, or talk to their friends and relatives about the situation, they internalize and remember what they saw, read, or discussed. That information forms the basis for their opinion on the subject. Their opinion determines if they even notice the commercials. If they do notice them, chances are that they dismiss them as more BP propaganda.
What the public knows that BP doesn’t is that you can’t trump publicity with advertising. It’s a waste of effort and money. Obviously, the desperate Gulf Coast businesses don’t know that, either. However I can understand their advertising. When you are desperate, you are willing to try anything.
I am sharing this with you today to reinforce to you that advertising cannot trump publicity. If your customers have formed an opinion due to news or word of mouth, advertising will not change their opinion. Advertising can maintain their opinion, but it cannot change it. Many businesses use advertising in an attempt to educate or convince customers. That is the wrong use for advertising. Advertising maintains; it does not initiate.
Are you using your advertising to maintain your position with customers?
Friday, July 9, 2010
Muddying Your Focus
Last weekend the Taste of Minnesota stirred up quite a controversy. For twenty-seven years, the Taste had offered those attending an opportunity to savor delicious dishes from Minnesota restaurants. Under new management and ownership, this year the event was changed to include “over 100 hours of top-notch musical acts on five stages.” With this came an admission charge for the first time. The admission was twenty dollars for the afternoon and thirty dollars for the evening.
When I first heard of the change, I thought, “They are muddying their focus.”
The event’s focus and name had revolved around food, hence the Taste of Minnesota. These changes shifted the focus to music. I assume that the new ownership and management made this change in the hopes of making more money. Events with big name music acts offer more opportunity for revenue than food events. In the interview that I watched and on the event’s Web site, I found the focus to be first on music and then on food.
What’s wrong with that?
An event that had had a food focus in the minds of customers and vendors now had a music focus. That means those customers who came for the food had to pay an admission for the music. After paying that admission, they had less money to spend on what they wanted, which, of course, was the food. Their spending less on food meant the vendors took in less revenue because they sold less food. One vendor said that his business was down 80% from the prior year. Most vendors complained of business being down 50% or more. Not only did these vendors lose on sales, but they also lost on excess perishable inventory which they could not use.
Long-time customers also complained. They were not planning on an admission fee. I wonder how many left rather than paying one? Or, how many did not attend at all rather than pay admission? Those who did attend said that the crowds were substantially smaller than last year. Although that may have been nice for those who attended, smaller crowds did not help either the vendors or the new management.
At the end of the event, the new management maintained that, similar to this year, next year’s event would feature more “top notch musical acts.” Perhaps that will work for them. However, with their muddied focus in the minds’ of both customers and vendors as to if this is a music or a food event, I predict lower turnout by the customers for the food and lower vendor participation. By the time labor and inventory is covered, restaurants usually do not make much money on events such as this. Now that they are competing with the event for the customers’ money due to admissions, restaurant owners will not come back.
For the Taste of Minnesota to survive, the new management will have to clarify its focus in the minds of its customers and its vendors. Is it a music event or a food event? It had been a food event with music. This year it was a music event with food. If management is continuing the music event with food, it will need to target new customers who want to attend music events.
How is your company’s focus? Does your customer clearly understand what you offer?
When I first heard of the change, I thought, “They are muddying their focus.”
The event’s focus and name had revolved around food, hence the Taste of Minnesota. These changes shifted the focus to music. I assume that the new ownership and management made this change in the hopes of making more money. Events with big name music acts offer more opportunity for revenue than food events. In the interview that I watched and on the event’s Web site, I found the focus to be first on music and then on food.
What’s wrong with that?
An event that had had a food focus in the minds of customers and vendors now had a music focus. That means those customers who came for the food had to pay an admission for the music. After paying that admission, they had less money to spend on what they wanted, which, of course, was the food. Their spending less on food meant the vendors took in less revenue because they sold less food. One vendor said that his business was down 80% from the prior year. Most vendors complained of business being down 50% or more. Not only did these vendors lose on sales, but they also lost on excess perishable inventory which they could not use.
Long-time customers also complained. They were not planning on an admission fee. I wonder how many left rather than paying one? Or, how many did not attend at all rather than pay admission? Those who did attend said that the crowds were substantially smaller than last year. Although that may have been nice for those who attended, smaller crowds did not help either the vendors or the new management.
At the end of the event, the new management maintained that, similar to this year, next year’s event would feature more “top notch musical acts.” Perhaps that will work for them. However, with their muddied focus in the minds’ of both customers and vendors as to if this is a music or a food event, I predict lower turnout by the customers for the food and lower vendor participation. By the time labor and inventory is covered, restaurants usually do not make much money on events such as this. Now that they are competing with the event for the customers’ money due to admissions, restaurant owners will not come back.
For the Taste of Minnesota to survive, the new management will have to clarify its focus in the minds of its customers and its vendors. Is it a music event or a food event? It had been a food event with music. This year it was a music event with food. If management is continuing the music event with food, it will need to target new customers who want to attend music events.
How is your company’s focus? Does your customer clearly understand what you offer?
Friday, July 2, 2010
How to Lose a Sale
A friend of mine stopped by a Mega Holiday convenience store today to gas up her car. When she went into the store to pay, she spotted a cartload of fresh buns being put on display. Since these were her favorite buns, she reached for a package. “No, don’t take one of these, yet,” the guy putting out the buns exclaimed. “I haven’t checked them in. Come back later.”
Pulling back her hand, she turned toward the checkout, waited in line, paid for the gas, and walked toward the door. As she exited, she noticed the guy standing near the door with a surprised look on his face, likely because she did not have the buns in hand. She almost stopped and informed him that his statement had lost a sale, but then she thought, “Why bother?”
When she related this incident to me, I had three thoughts. First of all, why did the guy even take the buns to the display area before checking them in? That was just not smart. As a matter of procedure, merchandise should always be checked in away from customers. If that is not possible and a customer attempts to pick up an item, then the response on the part of the person stocking ought to be cheerfully to hand one to the customer. Never, ever should a person stocking tell a customer to wait to purchase. The result of that directive will be to lose a sale, just as what happened in this case. Very rarely will customers return, especially in a convenience store where customers are in a rush.
My second thought was “How many sales has this store lost due to customers being told not to buy at this time but to come back later?” No one knows, and there is no way to tell. We know the store lost one. I think that is too many. I also suspect that there are many more. Checking in merchandise on the floor is a pattern of behavior. With that pattern, the possibility of encountering customers who want the merchandise is great. With that happening in a convenience store where customers are hurried leads me to believe that this has happened many times.
Finally, I wondered how many customers had exited the store dissatisfied with their experience as my friend did? Mega works hard to get customers. I’m certain that management does not want any customers upset because they couldn’t make a purchase. What a foolish reason to upset a customer.
How can this be corrected?
Management would be wise to set the policy that I suggested, which is not to have items checked in on the floor. If that cannot be avoided and a customer wants an item, instruct the person checking in the item always to hand one gladly to the customer and make note of it on the paperwork. That puts the customer first. That makes a sale. That keeps a customer happy.
How do your employees handle a situation such as this?
Pulling back her hand, she turned toward the checkout, waited in line, paid for the gas, and walked toward the door. As she exited, she noticed the guy standing near the door with a surprised look on his face, likely because she did not have the buns in hand. She almost stopped and informed him that his statement had lost a sale, but then she thought, “Why bother?”
When she related this incident to me, I had three thoughts. First of all, why did the guy even take the buns to the display area before checking them in? That was just not smart. As a matter of procedure, merchandise should always be checked in away from customers. If that is not possible and a customer attempts to pick up an item, then the response on the part of the person stocking ought to be cheerfully to hand one to the customer. Never, ever should a person stocking tell a customer to wait to purchase. The result of that directive will be to lose a sale, just as what happened in this case. Very rarely will customers return, especially in a convenience store where customers are in a rush.
My second thought was “How many sales has this store lost due to customers being told not to buy at this time but to come back later?” No one knows, and there is no way to tell. We know the store lost one. I think that is too many. I also suspect that there are many more. Checking in merchandise on the floor is a pattern of behavior. With that pattern, the possibility of encountering customers who want the merchandise is great. With that happening in a convenience store where customers are hurried leads me to believe that this has happened many times.
Finally, I wondered how many customers had exited the store dissatisfied with their experience as my friend did? Mega works hard to get customers. I’m certain that management does not want any customers upset because they couldn’t make a purchase. What a foolish reason to upset a customer.
How can this be corrected?
Management would be wise to set the policy that I suggested, which is not to have items checked in on the floor. If that cannot be avoided and a customer wants an item, instruct the person checking in the item always to hand one gladly to the customer and make note of it on the paperwork. That puts the customer first. That makes a sale. That keeps a customer happy.
How do your employees handle a situation such as this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)