Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Anchor Behind The Curtain
Transparency has become a required characteristic in every type of organization from education to business to government. This phenomenon is the sociological equivalent of what trendwatching.com calls “Transparency Tyranny” (http://trendwatching.com/trends/transparency.htm), and it has already entered mainstream media. Take a look at the recent changes in television news broadcasting - Brian Williams on Saturday Night Live – Katie Couric’s public colonoscopy. The news organizations are keenly aware that their newest generation of viewers simply will not trust a row of talking heads behind a desk. We must get to know them – to see them as people first and reporters second. Exposing their personalities, making their human qualities transparent, instills trust.
The physical layout of news sets illustrates transparency quite literally. Gone are the days of a half an hour worth of tight shots of the anchor posed behind the desk in front of a solid mauve colored backdrop reading the news. Today, entire control rooms are exposed in a sea of natural light and glass. In the background people are walking from desk to desk, others typing at computers. We see guests entering the studio through the back hallways, giving a quick nod at the camera. Weathermen are perched on balconies high above the set in their own glass nest. I recently saw an interview conducted partially while walking the hallways between NBC and CNBC, finally setting down at the CNBC table to discuss economics with their experts. What is the connection between NBC and CNBC? Now you know quite literally.
I recently saw a broadcast during which the anchor faced with a question to which he didn’t know the answer, casually called on a colleague from behind her desk located out of view of the set. She walked over to the anchor desk, sat down, was acknowledged by the anchor as the expert, and answered the question. All of this was on camera and in real time.
It is easily identified that pragmatism and distrust have sculpted our current reality. There are, however, other forces in play that contribute to our desire for transparency. The “why’s” and “how’s” that were once unimportant and inaccessible (you may choose the chicken and the egg), can now be looked up, researched verified, analyzed, compared, and re-verified. The Internet and other advances in technology have provided access to information that was once known to only a few. Until recently, we had been forced by practicality to put faith in those who claimed expertise. Now, we have the means to bypass faith and instead, if we choose, seek the source. We have come to demand it. The curtain must come down and the man behind it better be ready to explain his actions. A cameo on Saturday Night Live couldn’t hurt either.
The physical layout of news sets illustrates transparency quite literally. Gone are the days of a half an hour worth of tight shots of the anchor posed behind the desk in front of a solid mauve colored backdrop reading the news. Today, entire control rooms are exposed in a sea of natural light and glass. In the background people are walking from desk to desk, others typing at computers. We see guests entering the studio through the back hallways, giving a quick nod at the camera. Weathermen are perched on balconies high above the set in their own glass nest. I recently saw an interview conducted partially while walking the hallways between NBC and CNBC, finally setting down at the CNBC table to discuss economics with their experts. What is the connection between NBC and CNBC? Now you know quite literally.
I recently saw a broadcast during which the anchor faced with a question to which he didn’t know the answer, casually called on a colleague from behind her desk located out of view of the set. She walked over to the anchor desk, sat down, was acknowledged by the anchor as the expert, and answered the question. All of this was on camera and in real time.
It is easily identified that pragmatism and distrust have sculpted our current reality. There are, however, other forces in play that contribute to our desire for transparency. The “why’s” and “how’s” that were once unimportant and inaccessible (you may choose the chicken and the egg), can now be looked up, researched verified, analyzed, compared, and re-verified. The Internet and other advances in technology have provided access to information that was once known to only a few. Until recently, we had been forced by practicality to put faith in those who claimed expertise. Now, we have the means to bypass faith and instead, if we choose, seek the source. We have come to demand it. The curtain must come down and the man behind it better be ready to explain his actions. A cameo on Saturday Night Live couldn’t hurt either.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Rant Redux: Business Is War
Some say “Business is War”.
We as a nation, came to embrace this idea as a symbol of American Capitalism at its finest. Today, people are tired of war, of bullies, of the unequal distribution of wealth, of the misuse of power, and of the standardization of nearly every American city with a population over 10,000. We crave authenticity, innovation, and forward thinking. The way we prioritize our lives is changing, and so is what we find to be morally acceptable. The idea that all things are fair as long as they are within the law no longer feels right. We are seeing the most pragmatic generation ever begin to enter the workforce in big numbers. The “Y” generation is, in fact, the “Why?” generation. Unequal, and unfair treatment to employees, customers or other businesses are not acceptable practices. There will be a growing demand for greater transparency in all aspects of business operations. We are more able than ever to parse through the spin. "Business Is War" is a byproduct of the 80's "greed is good" mantra. Today, these sentiments are seen as both egotistical and outdated.
We as a nation, came to embrace this idea as a symbol of American Capitalism at its finest. Today, people are tired of war, of bullies, of the unequal distribution of wealth, of the misuse of power, and of the standardization of nearly every American city with a population over 10,000. We crave authenticity, innovation, and forward thinking. The way we prioritize our lives is changing, and so is what we find to be morally acceptable. The idea that all things are fair as long as they are within the law no longer feels right. We are seeing the most pragmatic generation ever begin to enter the workforce in big numbers. The “Y” generation is, in fact, the “Why?” generation. Unequal, and unfair treatment to employees, customers or other businesses are not acceptable practices. There will be a growing demand for greater transparency in all aspects of business operations. We are more able than ever to parse through the spin. "Business Is War" is a byproduct of the 80's "greed is good" mantra. Today, these sentiments are seen as both egotistical and outdated.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The Death and Rebirth of Retail Customer Service: An insider’s perspective on the upcoming collapse
Part I: Background
Retailers across the country are finally acknowledging their inevitable destiny. The precarious balance between competitive pricing, profit, and customer service is at its tipping point. Sides are being drawn, business models are being revised, and retailers are sending a clear message to their customers… “The party is about to end”. Customer demands for convenience, low prices, and top-notch customer service have pushed retailers to their breaking point. Something has to give…and that which will emerge over the next 12 to 18 months will shape the framework for nothing less than a new paradigm in retail operations.
Retailers are eager to make a change, analyzing profit margins and emerging consumer trends all while maintaining an ever-watchful eye on their competition for a cue. Unlike the trend toward total customer satisfaction in the mid 1990’s, the direction now is not all about them. In fact, it’s anti-them. It’s about the fundamental ability to survive in today’s complex marketplace of Internet retailers, wholesale clubs, mega-discount stores, and consumer-to-consumer auction sites.
It’s The Internet, Stupid.
The sudden emergence of the Internet-as-retailer played a particularly important role. The Internet business model missed it’s important transformative years. Instead, it emerged on the scene in the late 1990’s like a child on a sugar-high, and has remained there ever since, out of control and relentlessly searching for its place in the world marketplace. Business models with entirely uncertain outcomes were tested with millions of investor dollars. This was new territory. Successful strategies were tested by trial and error, and as we are well aware today, many strategies with their faithful investors failed to pass the longevity test. Many businesses, once far removed from the fast-paced and rapidly evolving world of technology, found themselves forced into a position too tempting to overlook, and too dangerous to dismiss.
This was especially true in the retail sector. Businesses scrambled to establish their position in the virtual world. Just how would they utilize this new ubiquitous tool to enhance their business? In the early stages, many businesses saw the Internet mainly as a promotional vehicle. It was a way to reach out to new consumers. The media-centric nature of the Internet provided new opportunities in advertising and marketing. However, it was not long before retailers began to see more significant and far-reaching implications of this new medium. The Internet was not seen merely as a supplement to their business, but as a business in and of itself. The relative success of Amazon.com (relative because the company had yet to make a dime of profit) was ample motivation for many retailers to give it a try.
The retail business model provided essentially the same advantages for all retailers. The online store required less people to operate, no or little property to purchase, no buildings to construct. Processes were able to become highly automated and streamlined, requiring fewer and fewer employees between customer and product sales. This lower overhead would allow the retailer to sell it’s product at a lower price point, at least low enough to compensate for the added consumer-cost of shipping. Early on, the advantage of online shopping for consumers was that of convenience, not of price. At this time, in the late 1990’s, online shopping was still seen as a niche market. Consumers were unfamiliar with the technology, and concerns over credit card fraud, shipping problems, and lack of personal interaction created reluctance among buyers. Additionally, most households were still connecting via slow dial-up connections, which essentially nullified the convenience factor.
In just a few years, as high-speed connections became more widespread and consumer confidence regarding online security began increasing, Internet sales began to make a significant impact on the retail sector. Online activity was increasing each year in both number of users and total sales generated. Most retailers, with the major exception of Amazon.com, maintained both an online presence as well as a physical presence. “Bricks and Clicks” proved to be a major factor in the decline of customer service.
The Beginning of the End
Actually, the breakdown had started several years before. Many retailers accepted short-term losses in their online businesses to increase brand awareness and build their overall customer base by tapping into a niche market that preferred the ease of online shopping over traditional brick and mortar shopping. Hopes were that the increased brand visibility combined with the increase in their customer base would lead to an eventual profit-making business. The war was waged on the most dangerous piece of the marketing mix: price. In a battle to win over customers, online retailers began providing deep discounts, often resulting in per sale net-losses. Competition among online retailers forced prices even lower.
Soon, the choice to abandon an Internet presence became less and less viable as increases in competition and visibility grew. Businesses lacking an online presence were seen as antiquated and as resistors in embracing new technology. Sites like Wal-mart and Bath & Body Works once used the Internet solely as a promotional and reference tool to drive their in-store business, while sites like Target.com and BarnesandNoble.com used the Internet as a direct sales vehicle. Today most retail sites, including Wal-mart and Bath & Body Works, have begun using their sites for direct-to-consumer sales.
The onset of the Internet as a direct sales vehicle initially caused a great deal of confusion and anger among customers. On one side, the price disparities between online and in-store pricing seemed unfair to the in-store shopper. On the other side, online shoppers beganto feel they were being duped by bait-and-switch type tactics because advertised online discounts were frequently offset by the costs of shipping.
Suddenly, businesses were competing not only against rival companies, but also against their own brick-and-mortar operations. Consequently, in store prices dropped to compete with their own online prices, and policies regarding shipping costs were relaxed or eliminated. Profit margins continued to shrink and companies were forced to offset these profit-margin decreases by other reductions.
Next Up….
Part II: Where are the Employees?: Current Realities
Retailers across the country are finally acknowledging their inevitable destiny. The precarious balance between competitive pricing, profit, and customer service is at its tipping point. Sides are being drawn, business models are being revised, and retailers are sending a clear message to their customers… “The party is about to end”. Customer demands for convenience, low prices, and top-notch customer service have pushed retailers to their breaking point. Something has to give…and that which will emerge over the next 12 to 18 months will shape the framework for nothing less than a new paradigm in retail operations.
Retailers are eager to make a change, analyzing profit margins and emerging consumer trends all while maintaining an ever-watchful eye on their competition for a cue. Unlike the trend toward total customer satisfaction in the mid 1990’s, the direction now is not all about them. In fact, it’s anti-them. It’s about the fundamental ability to survive in today’s complex marketplace of Internet retailers, wholesale clubs, mega-discount stores, and consumer-to-consumer auction sites.
It’s The Internet, Stupid.
The sudden emergence of the Internet-as-retailer played a particularly important role. The Internet business model missed it’s important transformative years. Instead, it emerged on the scene in the late 1990’s like a child on a sugar-high, and has remained there ever since, out of control and relentlessly searching for its place in the world marketplace. Business models with entirely uncertain outcomes were tested with millions of investor dollars. This was new territory. Successful strategies were tested by trial and error, and as we are well aware today, many strategies with their faithful investors failed to pass the longevity test. Many businesses, once far removed from the fast-paced and rapidly evolving world of technology, found themselves forced into a position too tempting to overlook, and too dangerous to dismiss.
This was especially true in the retail sector. Businesses scrambled to establish their position in the virtual world. Just how would they utilize this new ubiquitous tool to enhance their business? In the early stages, many businesses saw the Internet mainly as a promotional vehicle. It was a way to reach out to new consumers. The media-centric nature of the Internet provided new opportunities in advertising and marketing. However, it was not long before retailers began to see more significant and far-reaching implications of this new medium. The Internet was not seen merely as a supplement to their business, but as a business in and of itself. The relative success of Amazon.com (relative because the company had yet to make a dime of profit) was ample motivation for many retailers to give it a try.
The retail business model provided essentially the same advantages for all retailers. The online store required less people to operate, no or little property to purchase, no buildings to construct. Processes were able to become highly automated and streamlined, requiring fewer and fewer employees between customer and product sales. This lower overhead would allow the retailer to sell it’s product at a lower price point, at least low enough to compensate for the added consumer-cost of shipping. Early on, the advantage of online shopping for consumers was that of convenience, not of price. At this time, in the late 1990’s, online shopping was still seen as a niche market. Consumers were unfamiliar with the technology, and concerns over credit card fraud, shipping problems, and lack of personal interaction created reluctance among buyers. Additionally, most households were still connecting via slow dial-up connections, which essentially nullified the convenience factor.
In just a few years, as high-speed connections became more widespread and consumer confidence regarding online security began increasing, Internet sales began to make a significant impact on the retail sector. Online activity was increasing each year in both number of users and total sales generated. Most retailers, with the major exception of Amazon.com, maintained both an online presence as well as a physical presence. “Bricks and Clicks” proved to be a major factor in the decline of customer service.
The Beginning of the End
Actually, the breakdown had started several years before. Many retailers accepted short-term losses in their online businesses to increase brand awareness and build their overall customer base by tapping into a niche market that preferred the ease of online shopping over traditional brick and mortar shopping. Hopes were that the increased brand visibility combined with the increase in their customer base would lead to an eventual profit-making business. The war was waged on the most dangerous piece of the marketing mix: price. In a battle to win over customers, online retailers began providing deep discounts, often resulting in per sale net-losses. Competition among online retailers forced prices even lower.
Soon, the choice to abandon an Internet presence became less and less viable as increases in competition and visibility grew. Businesses lacking an online presence were seen as antiquated and as resistors in embracing new technology. Sites like Wal-mart and Bath & Body Works once used the Internet solely as a promotional and reference tool to drive their in-store business, while sites like Target.com and BarnesandNoble.com used the Internet as a direct sales vehicle. Today most retail sites, including Wal-mart and Bath & Body Works, have begun using their sites for direct-to-consumer sales.
The onset of the Internet as a direct sales vehicle initially caused a great deal of confusion and anger among customers. On one side, the price disparities between online and in-store pricing seemed unfair to the in-store shopper. On the other side, online shoppers beganto feel they were being duped by bait-and-switch type tactics because advertised online discounts were frequently offset by the costs of shipping.
Suddenly, businesses were competing not only against rival companies, but also against their own brick-and-mortar operations. Consequently, in store prices dropped to compete with their own online prices, and policies regarding shipping costs were relaxed or eliminated. Profit margins continued to shrink and companies were forced to offset these profit-margin decreases by other reductions.
Next Up….
Part II: Where are the Employees?: Current Realities
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
