Shape Up or Ship Out
I went to the Subway on the south side of Bend for lunch (5 dollar footlongs!), and it was an interesting experience. They had three employees, a guy making your sandwich, which would then get passed to a girl adding condiments, then a lady with a “trainee” sticker was at the register to ring you up. The two sandwich artists were doing a decent enough job of trying to say “Welcome to Subway” to everyone who walked in, though they missed a few people (myself included). I’ll cut them a break due to it being lunch hour and the line being a good size. The first thing that stuck out in my head was how unhappy the trainee looked. She frowned the entire time, and moped around the back area in between orders. It looked like this was the last place she wanted to be, and if this were my store she would be getting the “shape up or ship out” conversation immediately. How big of a turn off is it for the customers to see an employee who looks like they absolutely hate their job? There was a very uncomfortable feeling in the restaurant and I think her attitude was the main cause.
There was this really weird moment that occurred while I was waiting for the transfer between the condiment lady and the register. The line held up a bit because a guy asked the trainee for 2 cookies. She walked over to the oven, then mumbled something to the male employee. The male employee then told the customer that they were just done cooking and would still be very hot. The customer said he didn’t mind. The male employee then mentioned that they will probably just fall apart. The customer told the trainee that he didn’t mind, so she then stared and the male employee while everyone in the lobby watched to see what would happen. The male employee then said “just give it to him I guess” and that was that. The customer felt so awkward that he explained how they were for later and would be fine sitting in his car for now. Just wow. Give this guy his cookies! The whole thing was ridiculous, and now the customer feels like a jackass.
When it was my turn to pay, the trainee got called in to the back by a voice from a 4th, unseen employee. She went back, the re-emerged and grabbed a towel and went into the dining area and started wiping down tables. I stood there, with no employee acknowledgement, for a full minute (I was counting), before the 4th employee finally came out of the back and walked up to the register. She didn’t say hi or hello or hows it going, instead she went straight into asking what kind of sandwich I ordered. Her shirt was maroon and not green like the rest, so maybe that meant she was in charge. And that explains the lack of good customer service that all of us customers were experiencing- this person in charge didn’t display any friendliness or try to treat us as anything but numbers, and her employees certainly weren’t going to do anything but follow her example. She took my money, said “here you go” and handed me back my receipt, and that was the end of our interaction.
Experience: Bad. I would rather not go back.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Is This Really the Only Answer
In response to Jacob Smith's editorial in the March 8th edition of the The Bulletin, which depicted a correlation between rising prison populations and the decrease in violent crime rates, thus justifying spending “large sums of money” on more prisons, as he claims “there is no other alternative.” I don’t think anyone would disagree that we should put violent offenders behind bars. However, further research into the issue indicates that it is far less cut and dry than how it was presented, and shows that there are potentially other alternatives to just building more and more prisons.
According to the Department of Justice, while prison population in the United States has increased over the last 3 decades, the percentage of those inmates that were locked up due to violent crimes has remained steady (around 50%). At the same time, the percentage of inmates in prison due to drug related crimes has sky-rocketed (over a 15% increase since 1980). There are many different ideas as to why this shift has occurred. Some would argue it was caused by the "Drug War" initiatives started in the mid 90's, which changed the focus from rehabilitative measures for drug offenders to giving them more jail time. Others make the case that the rising inequalities between the upper and lower classes has lead to increased drug crimes within the poorer communities in the United States. Whatever the reason for the increase may be, one could potentially make an argument that there is at least one alternative solution to spending tax money to build more prisons: shift the punishment for drug offenders away from prison time and more towards rehabilitation. This would free up room in existing prisons for violent criminals. I may not necessarily agree with this idea, but it does open up the possibility that there are other avenues to look at for controlling our prison populations, without throwing tax dollars at it.
The larger question mark for this whole issue comes to the surface when comparing our crime and prison numbers to that of similar countries. Recent reports put our incarceration rate at over an astounding 1 in 100 citizens (approximately 1,000 prisoners for every 100,000 citizens). Most research indicates that Canada has about the same violent crime rate as the United States (it can be tough to compare the two because the definition of "violent" crime varies for each country, but most official reports put them very close). However, their incarceration rate is drastically lower, at about 130 in 100,000. Why are our violent crime rates so similar, if we put 8 times more of our population behind bars? England's incarceration rate is almost as low as Canada's, at 139 in 100,000. So why have they experienced, according to their official police reports, a 41% drop in violent crimes since 1995? What are they doing as a society to reduce violent crimes if they aren’t throwing more people in prison? I want my family to be safe, just like everyone else. But statistics like these prove that there are alternatives out there for making our country a safer place to live rather than simply building more and more prisons and locking up more and more of our citizens.
In response to Jacob Smith's editorial in the March 8th edition of the The Bulletin, which depicted a correlation between rising prison populations and the decrease in violent crime rates, thus justifying spending “large sums of money” on more prisons, as he claims “there is no other alternative.” I don’t think anyone would disagree that we should put violent offenders behind bars. However, further research into the issue indicates that it is far less cut and dry than how it was presented, and shows that there are potentially other alternatives to just building more and more prisons.
According to the Department of Justice, while prison population in the United States has increased over the last 3 decades, the percentage of those inmates that were locked up due to violent crimes has remained steady (around 50%). At the same time, the percentage of inmates in prison due to drug related crimes has sky-rocketed (over a 15% increase since 1980). There are many different ideas as to why this shift has occurred. Some would argue it was caused by the "Drug War" initiatives started in the mid 90's, which changed the focus from rehabilitative measures for drug offenders to giving them more jail time. Others make the case that the rising inequalities between the upper and lower classes has lead to increased drug crimes within the poorer communities in the United States. Whatever the reason for the increase may be, one could potentially make an argument that there is at least one alternative solution to spending tax money to build more prisons: shift the punishment for drug offenders away from prison time and more towards rehabilitation. This would free up room in existing prisons for violent criminals. I may not necessarily agree with this idea, but it does open up the possibility that there are other avenues to look at for controlling our prison populations, without throwing tax dollars at it.
The larger question mark for this whole issue comes to the surface when comparing our crime and prison numbers to that of similar countries. Recent reports put our incarceration rate at over an astounding 1 in 100 citizens (approximately 1,000 prisoners for every 100,000 citizens). Most research indicates that Canada has about the same violent crime rate as the United States (it can be tough to compare the two because the definition of "violent" crime varies for each country, but most official reports put them very close). However, their incarceration rate is drastically lower, at about 130 in 100,000. Why are our violent crime rates so similar, if we put 8 times more of our population behind bars? England's incarceration rate is almost as low as Canada's, at 139 in 100,000. So why have they experienced, according to their official police reports, a 41% drop in violent crimes since 1995? What are they doing as a society to reduce violent crimes if they aren’t throwing more people in prison? I want my family to be safe, just like everyone else. But statistics like these prove that there are alternatives out there for making our country a safer place to live rather than simply building more and more prisons and locking up more and more of our citizens.
Friday, April 11, 2008
If You Want Me To Rent Your Movies, Pretend I Exist
I hate it when you walk into a store and the employees do not acknowledge you. It was something I promoted heavily to my employees in one of my previous jobs, where I was the store manager in a customer service related field. Since I left that company, I still find myself watching the customer service skills of the employees of any retail business I enter.
Today on my lunch break I returned a movie to the west side Blockbuster store in Bend, and went inside to see if I could find a good kids movie to take home. Upon entering, I saw only one employee at the front of the store. She was organizing candy, and never looked up from her task to say anything to me. Would this bother anyone else? It gives me a strange vibe, and I feel awkward that they don't care I am in their establishment.
I was taught that you should at least give a simple hello to everyone who walks in the door. I wholeheartedly believe in this. It makes a store seem cold and impersonal when you walk in and are greeted with silence. Customers need to feel the personality of the store, and there is no better time to put it out there than right when they walk in the door. This opens up the type of experience the customer will have right out of the gate, and makes them more comfortable being in your space, and also approaching you for questions.
I feel like I’m kind of rambling, so I will close this post and visit this topic another day. To end the story, after walking in and being greeted by complete silence, I wandered down a few aisles. The store manager walked out from the back room and made eye contact with me, but she then quickly turned away without saying a word. I actually started to feel so out of place that I wanted to just put my head down and walk out. I decided to give them another shot and instead wandered towards the front of the store, and kept my head up as I walked out. There were 3 employees by the door, none of which were working with any customers, and not one of them looked my way or said anything.
I hate it when you walk into a store and the employees do not acknowledge you. It was something I promoted heavily to my employees in one of my previous jobs, where I was the store manager in a customer service related field. Since I left that company, I still find myself watching the customer service skills of the employees of any retail business I enter.
Today on my lunch break I returned a movie to the west side Blockbuster store in Bend, and went inside to see if I could find a good kids movie to take home. Upon entering, I saw only one employee at the front of the store. She was organizing candy, and never looked up from her task to say anything to me. Would this bother anyone else? It gives me a strange vibe, and I feel awkward that they don't care I am in their establishment.
I was taught that you should at least give a simple hello to everyone who walks in the door. I wholeheartedly believe in this. It makes a store seem cold and impersonal when you walk in and are greeted with silence. Customers need to feel the personality of the store, and there is no better time to put it out there than right when they walk in the door. This opens up the type of experience the customer will have right out of the gate, and makes them more comfortable being in your space, and also approaching you for questions.
I feel like I’m kind of rambling, so I will close this post and visit this topic another day. To end the story, after walking in and being greeted by complete silence, I wandered down a few aisles. The store manager walked out from the back room and made eye contact with me, but she then quickly turned away without saying a word. I actually started to feel so out of place that I wanted to just put my head down and walk out. I decided to give them another shot and instead wandered towards the front of the store, and kept my head up as I walked out. There were 3 employees by the door, none of which were working with any customers, and not one of them looked my way or said anything.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Blockbuster Online Increases Monthly Prices
Blockbuster Online recently increased the rate of their monthly service, and notified customers with an email explaining the change. Of course one of my favorite websites, The Consumerist, picked up on it and made this post:
http://consumerist.com/336209/blockbuster-total-access-is-raising-your-rates
Highlights in bold:
We like this part: “The benefits of your subscription plan will remain the same…and it’s a value of $34.99!” Oh really? Is that similar to the set of knives that are an “over $200 value” for just “one easy payment of $19.99?” Because I saw those on TV, and I was really wondering how they figured out that set of knives had a $200 value. Maybe Blockbuster knows.
You know who else knows? Math. The 19.99 plan allows 3 movies out at a time and unlimited online rentals. The big uproar is that the plan, in addition to going up by 2 dollars, limits in store exchanges to 5 per month, whereas before it was unlimited. If a customer in one month gets 3 movies in the mail, exchanges all three at the store, gets 3 more in the mail, then exchanges 2 of those in the store to hit the exchange limit, he ends up watching 11 movies. Assuming those are new release movies, which rent for $4.25 at my local Blockbuster, the customer is actually getting $46.75 worth of movies, which is more than what Blockbuster was claiming! Even if those movies were actually from the Blockbuster favorites catalog (released more than 1 year ago), the total value of the package is $32.89 (2.99 per rental in store).
It’s no secret that Blockbuster is losing money every month with their online service. Google it and you can find plenty of articles detailing just how much this program is eating into their bottom line. What would you expect them to do? A follow up post on The Consumerist listed out some of the reactions from customers upon receiving the price increase email: http://consumerist.com/336226/you-really-really-hate-blockbuster-for-raising-prices
Highlights:
"I don't know what planet you are from, but the marketing technique of "make the company richer at the expense of existing customers" does not translate well to consumers. I would understand a price hike for new customers, but to slap your current customers in the face with these OUTRAGEOUS prices is absurd. This is especially true when said consumers can get a drastically better deal from your competitor and they are still dropping prices. Have you thought about how your pricing plans compare with Netflix, your main competitor in the online movie rental industry? Its no wonder Blockbuster has lost so much money in the past quarter. Not to mention losing over half a million customers." –Kris
Hi Kris, I am pretty sure they hail from the planet where allowing a customer that costs you far more than you will ever get back to continue to bleed you out of money is NOT a good business deal. Yes they will lose your business, which means they will stop losing money on you. And I wouldnt call the $3 price difference with Netflix a "drastically" better deal, since its only $3, and you get 5 in store exchanges with the Blockbuster plan.
i just got this email from blockbuster, this sh#$ is getting rediculous?!? i was happy with my 14 dollar plan with unlimited trades, now im going to be paying 20 bucks a month for 5 trade ins and a lousy 4 movies a month? what a scam! –Chris
Hello Chris with a Ch, The only 20 dollar plan Blockbuster Online offers is unlimited online rentals (3 at one time) with 5 trade ins per month.
I have been using blockbuster online now for a few years and have been enjoying instore exchanges. Back in July they changed their subscription plans, but to my suprise i was grandfathered in under my old plan and was told i would not have to change my plan (at this time). Well last night was time. I got an email saying the price would go to 19..99 from 17.99 and only get a limited number of instore exchanges. Granted i probably use about an average of about 4 instore exchanges a month (some months i use 10 but some i use 1), but this might be the straw that breaks the camels back and send me BACK to Netflix. -Will
Hi Will, Go back to Netflix. For 16.99 per month, you will get unlimited online rentals with 3 out at a time. For 3 dollars more at Blockbuster, you would get the same thing but would continue to be able using the 4 exchanges each month, which adds a value (hello again, math!) of $17 to the package.
As I have explained to Blockbuster before, I am sorry that I signed up for their offers and made them so successful, but I won't do it anymore. I'm going back to Netflix ASAP. -Greg
Hi Greg, You made them so successful that they lost money in the 3rd quarter. Actually, you will personally lose them money every month that you remain an active subscriber on the old plans, which isn’t much of an incentive to keep you around. Netflix isn’t hemorrhaging money on its customers every month because they don’t have to worry about in store exchanges, so I am sure they will be glad to have you as a customer.
Blockbuster is now trying to raise out rate by two bucks a month after sending an e-mail a couple months back telling us our service nor price was changing. They really know how to keep customers! I'm out of there! -Wayne
Hi Wayne, If you had a customer that cost you $2 a month, would you a) keep him and just keep losing money, b) adjust his price and plan to try to actually make $2 a month, with the risk that he might leave and provide you with no money each month, but also not cost you anything?
Blockbuster Online recently increased the rate of their monthly service, and notified customers with an email explaining the change. Of course one of my favorite websites, The Consumerist, picked up on it and made this post:
http://consumerist.com/336209/blockbuster-total-access-is-raising-your-rates
Highlights in bold:
We like this part: “The benefits of your subscription plan will remain the same…and it’s a value of $34.99!” Oh really? Is that similar to the set of knives that are an “over $200 value” for just “one easy payment of $19.99?” Because I saw those on TV, and I was really wondering how they figured out that set of knives had a $200 value. Maybe Blockbuster knows.
You know who else knows? Math. The 19.99 plan allows 3 movies out at a time and unlimited online rentals. The big uproar is that the plan, in addition to going up by 2 dollars, limits in store exchanges to 5 per month, whereas before it was unlimited. If a customer in one month gets 3 movies in the mail, exchanges all three at the store, gets 3 more in the mail, then exchanges 2 of those in the store to hit the exchange limit, he ends up watching 11 movies. Assuming those are new release movies, which rent for $4.25 at my local Blockbuster, the customer is actually getting $46.75 worth of movies, which is more than what Blockbuster was claiming! Even if those movies were actually from the Blockbuster favorites catalog (released more than 1 year ago), the total value of the package is $32.89 (2.99 per rental in store).
It’s no secret that Blockbuster is losing money every month with their online service. Google it and you can find plenty of articles detailing just how much this program is eating into their bottom line. What would you expect them to do? A follow up post on The Consumerist listed out some of the reactions from customers upon receiving the price increase email: http://consumerist.com/336226/you-really-really-hate-blockbuster-for-raising-prices
Highlights:
"I don't know what planet you are from, but the marketing technique of "make the company richer at the expense of existing customers" does not translate well to consumers. I would understand a price hike for new customers, but to slap your current customers in the face with these OUTRAGEOUS prices is absurd. This is especially true when said consumers can get a drastically better deal from your competitor and they are still dropping prices. Have you thought about how your pricing plans compare with Netflix, your main competitor in the online movie rental industry? Its no wonder Blockbuster has lost so much money in the past quarter. Not to mention losing over half a million customers." –Kris
Hi Kris, I am pretty sure they hail from the planet where allowing a customer that costs you far more than you will ever get back to continue to bleed you out of money is NOT a good business deal. Yes they will lose your business, which means they will stop losing money on you. And I wouldnt call the $3 price difference with Netflix a "drastically" better deal, since its only $3, and you get 5 in store exchanges with the Blockbuster plan.
i just got this email from blockbuster, this sh#$ is getting rediculous?!? i was happy with my 14 dollar plan with unlimited trades, now im going to be paying 20 bucks a month for 5 trade ins and a lousy 4 movies a month? what a scam! –Chris
Hello Chris with a Ch, The only 20 dollar plan Blockbuster Online offers is unlimited online rentals (3 at one time) with 5 trade ins per month.
I have been using blockbuster online now for a few years and have been enjoying instore exchanges. Back in July they changed their subscription plans, but to my suprise i was grandfathered in under my old plan and was told i would not have to change my plan (at this time). Well last night was time. I got an email saying the price would go to 19..99 from 17.99 and only get a limited number of instore exchanges. Granted i probably use about an average of about 4 instore exchanges a month (some months i use 10 but some i use 1), but this might be the straw that breaks the camels back and send me BACK to Netflix. -Will
Hi Will, Go back to Netflix. For 16.99 per month, you will get unlimited online rentals with 3 out at a time. For 3 dollars more at Blockbuster, you would get the same thing but would continue to be able using the 4 exchanges each month, which adds a value (hello again, math!) of $17 to the package.
As I have explained to Blockbuster before, I am sorry that I signed up for their offers and made them so successful, but I won't do it anymore. I'm going back to Netflix ASAP. -Greg
Hi Greg, You made them so successful that they lost money in the 3rd quarter. Actually, you will personally lose them money every month that you remain an active subscriber on the old plans, which isn’t much of an incentive to keep you around. Netflix isn’t hemorrhaging money on its customers every month because they don’t have to worry about in store exchanges, so I am sure they will be glad to have you as a customer.
Blockbuster is now trying to raise out rate by two bucks a month after sending an e-mail a couple months back telling us our service nor price was changing. They really know how to keep customers! I'm out of there! -Wayne
Hi Wayne, If you had a customer that cost you $2 a month, would you a) keep him and just keep losing money, b) adjust his price and plan to try to actually make $2 a month, with the risk that he might leave and provide you with no money each month, but also not cost you anything?
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Zero Feedback
As a frequent eBay seller, one of the most painful things to see is a 0 feedback user sweep in at the last second and win your auction. Far too often I have seen this in my eBay summary:
As a frequent eBay seller, one of the most painful things to see is a 0 feedback user sweep in at the last second and win your auction. Far too often I have seen this in my eBay summary:
16 days since the sale, no payment or communication from the buyer. I don't know if its some idiot who changed their mind after winning, or some idiot who create a fake account to outbid themselves with because they changed their mind and didn't want negative feedback. Either way, this happens far too often on eBay and I would love to see them implement the ability to block 0 feedback users from bidding on your listing. It won't happen, because they won't want to discourage new users by limiting what they can bid on, but situations like these add a ton of extra work and headaches for sellers.
Friday, December 14, 2007
How To Not Make Money On eBay
Every year during the holidays there is a hot video game console that is in short order, which leads to the eBay hounds making a quick buck online by gobbling up supplies and selling them to families unfortunate enough not to find one on their own, often marked up by 100% or more. This year is no different, and the hot item last Christmas, the Nintendo Wii, is again on every one's wish list but no one's shelves. Sure enough, on eBay at this moment are over 15,000 Wiis, and most will sell for around $500 dollars (literally 100% more than they retail for). While searching for my own amusement I ran into this listing and had to laugh at the amateur mistakes that are going to cost the seller potentially hundreds of dollars:
Every year during the holidays there is a hot video game console that is in short order, which leads to the eBay hounds making a quick buck online by gobbling up supplies and selling them to families unfortunate enough not to find one on their own, often marked up by 100% or more. This year is no different, and the hot item last Christmas, the Nintendo Wii, is again on every one's wish list but no one's shelves. Sure enough, on eBay at this moment are over 15,000 Wiis, and most will sell for around $500 dollars (literally 100% more than they retail for). While searching for my own amusement I ran into this listing and had to laugh at the amateur mistakes that are going to cost the seller potentially hundreds of dollars:
1. You have to have a picture in the gallery. This listing is sandwiched in between 50 other Wiis being sold on the same page, and the majority of them show a real, actual picture of the console to catch your eye as you scan through the list. This auction is going to get ignored by less savvy consumers as they will pass right over the little camera.gif
2. Don't all CAPS anything. Is jacobrs64 shouting out the name of the console? Using WII looks like a failed attempt to reference the Second Great War, not the name of a console. Its Wii. See how cute the little ii is? Its there for a reason, its part of the identity of the system, and its what people are going to recognize.
3. Don't put Used in the title. Its a turn off for most customers. When they are looking at an item and 49 of them say New and 1 says Used, no one is going to look at the used one. Instead, don't make any reference to its status in the title. Let a customer get into your listing before discovering that its actually used merchandise, and at that point they may have already convinced themselves that your console is exactly what they are looking for. Adding Used to the title is only potentially turning away customers, and it sure as hell isn't drawing in any more.
4. Don't make typos in your listing. This is important in any part of the listing, but especially the title. What is a Bundel? Misspellings shows unprofessionalism and sloppiness, and may give the customer the idea that you are an untrustable, angry 15 year old rebelling against your parents for not letting you go out with your friends by selling all of your possessions on the internets and striking out on your own, because nobody rules you! Nobody tells you what to do! Especially the english language.
4. Don't make typos in your listing. This is important in any part of the listing, but especially the title. What is a Bundel? Misspellings shows unprofessionalism and sloppiness, and may give the customer the idea that you are an untrustable, angry 15 year old rebelling against your parents for not letting you go out with your friends by selling all of your possessions on the internets and striking out on your own, because nobody rules you! Nobody tells you what to do! Especially the english language.
5. Again, grammar. I don't think the word "game" works the same was as the words "deer" or "fish" in that the singular form is identical to the plural form.
In just the listing title alone, I have 5 reasons why consumers are not going to bid on this item. I found this about an hour before the auction ended and kept an eye on it. As you can see this bundle only ended up going to $375, whereas auctions for just the Wii console alone were routinely getting up to the $500 mark. These simple mistakes potentially ended up costing jacobrs64 over $100.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Minimum Wage
an argument against raising the minimum wage is that the price of goods/services will go up to compensate. I disagree. If we imagine that wages went up 2 dollars an hour, then the average bottom of the barrell worker would earn an additional 80 dollars a week, or 320 a month. Where will businesses make up that much money? I doubt McDonald's would change their dollar menu items to dollar-and-a-half items, and if they did would they make up enough of a difference to compensate their employees wage increase? Suppose they could make it up by doing so, does it negate the difference in pay for minimum wage? I don't think so- I bet that the increase in price for products would be minor enough that the minimum wage employees do see an increase in money in their pockets at the end of the month. Maybe not the entire 320 dollars, but more than what they usually kept.
an argument against raising the minimum wage is that the price of goods/services will go up to compensate. I disagree. If we imagine that wages went up 2 dollars an hour, then the average bottom of the barrell worker would earn an additional 80 dollars a week, or 320 a month. Where will businesses make up that much money? I doubt McDonald's would change their dollar menu items to dollar-and-a-half items, and if they did would they make up enough of a difference to compensate their employees wage increase? Suppose they could make it up by doing so, does it negate the difference in pay for minimum wage? I don't think so- I bet that the increase in price for products would be minor enough that the minimum wage employees do see an increase in money in their pockets at the end of the month. Maybe not the entire 320 dollars, but more than what they usually kept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
