I'm a RichRod convert.
There, I've said it. After three of the worst years in the history of college football's most storied program, I think the best course may very well be to keep Rich Rodriguez as head coach. There was an interesting discussion about this between the TV play-by-play guys (one of whom was former Michigan quarterback Brian Griese) during the Illinois-Michigan game on Saturday. They talked about how RichRod was something of a genius when it comes to putting together an offense, and how in just three years he's turned Michigan's offense into an explosive powerhouse. After all, on the first play of the game Michigan QB Denard Robinson hit receiver Roy Roundtree on a 75-yard pass play for a touchdown. Do you risk losing that because the defense sucks (and it truly does suck)? Or do you shake things up below the head coach level instead? Ron Zook did it at Illinois, and turned his team around, particularly on defense. Being good TV commentators, they never did state a conclusion, but I think they were on the right track.
I love what RichRod has done for the Michigan offense. Under previous coaches, our offense has been plodding and predictable, if powerful. Opposing teams always knew exactly what Michigan was going to do, and Michigan was fine with that. We were going to smash that ball into our opponents' faces, and let them stop us if they could. Usually they couldn't, but more and more in recent years, our offense came up short. Under Rodriguez, we are racking up yards and points like they are on sale at Costco. It's fun to watch. Really fun.
The problem is, the defense is allowing the opposing teams to match us point for point. We put up 67 points against Illinois, but they scored 65 points against us. And that's been the pattern regardless of the opponent, whether it's a strong team like Iowa or a weak team like UMass. So the problem is the defense, without a doubt, and that means Greg Robinson, the defensive coordinator, must go. We can argue back and forth about injuries, and inexperience, and whether previous head coach Lloyd Carr "left the cupboard bare," but that won't change anything. In two years, Robinson hasn't produced any measurable improvement on defense. If anything, we look worse this year than last. Someone has to take the fall, and given how great the offense looks, that someone has to be Robinson.
Aside from what I've said above about RichRod, here's something else I really like about him -- he's not afraid to take chances on offense. Going for it on 4th down instead of punting or trying a field goal, that's unheard of at Michigan. Lloyd Carr would sooner eat raw donkey entrails than go for it on 4th and long. RichRod does it frequently, and his gambles usually pay off. Now, some of this is necessity, because our field goal kickers suck, but I give RichRod points for gutsiness.
Here's what I don't like about RichRod. One, since he arrived there have been problems with compliance with NCAA regulations. That shouldn't happen at Michigan, and he better understand it. I think he's gotten the message. Two, our special teams, and in particular our field goal kickers, suck. We need to get that turned around pronto. Three, he's a bit of a spaz. Maybe he's normal, but he just looks like a spaz because his predecessor was so buttoned-down. Even so, he isn't Bo, and therefore he hasn't earned the right to be a spaz...yet.
Here's what I'd like to see over the remaining games this season:
1. Defense, naturally
2. Better special teams play
3. Fewer turnovers
4. Lots more Stephan Hopkins. This guy is a 235-lb bruiser of a running back, and he rarely gets the ball. Against Illinois, he had 5 carries for 45 yards, including a touchdown and a 32-yard scamper. He should be in there on any short-yardage down. This guy running downhill will punish defenses. Oh, and he's a freshman. So give him the ball.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
The Paper Chase
I refer to the 1973 film, about first-year Harvard Law students, starring Timothy Bottoms, John Houseman, Lindsey Wagner, James Naughton, and Edward Herrmann, among others. A great film, and one which holds a great emotional importance to any law student of the past 35 years. They are all so pompous, self-importance, self-absorbed. And not that intelligent, despite all their protestations to the contrary.
John Houseman, as the fearsome Professor Kingsfield, is probably the most terrifying predator of modern film history. He makes Jason, Freddie Krueger, and the shark from Jaws seem like a bunch of pussies. There's one scene in particular, where he has a law student (played by James Naughton) on the ropes, and he's about to eviscerate him, when another student distracts him from the kill. He gives Naughton a look as he turns to the other student, a look that says "I'm going to melt the flesh from this pathetic loser, and then I'm going to return to you and eat your beating heart while you watch...don't go anywhere." It's absolutely chilling.
Lindsey Wagner, as the love interest and Kingsfield's daughter, is ethereal. She's got timeless beauty, the kind that should have transcended her role as The Bionic Woman.
If you haven't seen this gem of a film, get thee to your local video store with all due haste. If you have seen it but not recently, see it again.
John Houseman, as the fearsome Professor Kingsfield, is probably the most terrifying predator of modern film history. He makes Jason, Freddie Krueger, and the shark from Jaws seem like a bunch of pussies. There's one scene in particular, where he has a law student (played by James Naughton) on the ropes, and he's about to eviscerate him, when another student distracts him from the kill. He gives Naughton a look as he turns to the other student, a look that says "I'm going to melt the flesh from this pathetic loser, and then I'm going to return to you and eat your beating heart while you watch...don't go anywhere." It's absolutely chilling.
Lindsey Wagner, as the love interest and Kingsfield's daughter, is ethereal. She's got timeless beauty, the kind that should have transcended her role as The Bionic Woman.
If you haven't seen this gem of a film, get thee to your local video store with all due haste. If you have seen it but not recently, see it again.
The Right Person in the Right Job
Yeah, right. Since closing my business, I'm now back in the job market, and so I've become attuned to these mismatches. This morning I went to a job search workshop at Jewish Vocational Service. I arrived about five minutes late, despite the fact that I left home an hour before for what is usually a 30-40 minute trip. I had to wait 20 minutes for the N-Judah tram to show up, and when it did arrive it was packed, and I had to stand. Plus it was a slower-than-usual trip in, with several delays. So I was a few minutes late arriving, with a badly-needed coffee in hand on this cool, damp morning. The receptionist didn't greet me, didn't say good morning or hello. She merely said "you're late, and you can't take coffee in to the workshops."
At that point, I was frazzled, and just not in the mood. To put it delicately. It doesn't exactly give me great confidence in a vocational service that puts an obviously-unfriendly bitch in a receptionist role. I should think some basic and obvious skills for a receptionist would be friendliness and courtesy. Apparently the world has changed.
And frankly, having such a clearly-inappropriate person in that particular job at that particular agency is an insult to all the job-seekers that agency is supposed to be helping. There are dozens of people who would be happy to have that receptionist job, and who would make an effort to do it well, and yet the JVS puts that person out front. A good receptionist, someone with "people skills," would have said to me "Good morning. They've just started, but I don't think you've missed anything important. It's just down the hall to the right. Oh, and in the future, we prefer that people not bring outside beverages into the workshops."
Unfortunately, I see this all too frequently. I remember a trip to Office Max to pick up some supplies for the store. I had four items on my list, but could only find one of them. So I go up to the checkout, and the clerk asks "were you able to find everything you were looking for?" I answered "no," and she ignored my answer and proceeded to ring up the one item I had. I just stood there, stunned. It really isn't her fault, it's the fault of whoever hired her. Her boss either didn't coach her as to how to respond to the situation, or he did but she didn't really care. Either way, this was a person that should never be put out where customers might encounter her.
We've all received telemarketing calls from people whose language skills are so rudimentary, we can't even understand what they are saying. I'm not talking about heavily-accented callers from Bangalore, India. I'm talking about Americans who aren't even capable of speaking English clearly. If they aren't calling out, they are certainly on the other end of the line when we call in to customer service. I can't imagine a company is really interested in serving their customers if they put such people in a customer service role. Have you ever called Sprint's customer service department? Neither has Sprint CEO Dan Hesse, or he wouldn't make TV commercials that talk about how important customer service is to Sprint.
But these are the kind of people that too many companies hire for customer service roles. My suggestion is to punish these organizations by refusing to do business with them. I left Office Max that morning and haven't been back. And I dumped Sprint, because when they hire brain-dead people for customer service, people who can't solve problems in a quick and efficient manner, they are telling me they don't care about me or my time. So why should I care about making them more profitable? And as someone who is out there in the job market, like I said, I'm insulted when I see that a company has hired grossly unsuitable people.
At that point, I was frazzled, and just not in the mood. To put it delicately. It doesn't exactly give me great confidence in a vocational service that puts an obviously-unfriendly bitch in a receptionist role. I should think some basic and obvious skills for a receptionist would be friendliness and courtesy. Apparently the world has changed.
And frankly, having such a clearly-inappropriate person in that particular job at that particular agency is an insult to all the job-seekers that agency is supposed to be helping. There are dozens of people who would be happy to have that receptionist job, and who would make an effort to do it well, and yet the JVS puts that person out front. A good receptionist, someone with "people skills," would have said to me "Good morning. They've just started, but I don't think you've missed anything important. It's just down the hall to the right. Oh, and in the future, we prefer that people not bring outside beverages into the workshops."
Unfortunately, I see this all too frequently. I remember a trip to Office Max to pick up some supplies for the store. I had four items on my list, but could only find one of them. So I go up to the checkout, and the clerk asks "were you able to find everything you were looking for?" I answered "no," and she ignored my answer and proceeded to ring up the one item I had. I just stood there, stunned. It really isn't her fault, it's the fault of whoever hired her. Her boss either didn't coach her as to how to respond to the situation, or he did but she didn't really care. Either way, this was a person that should never be put out where customers might encounter her.
We've all received telemarketing calls from people whose language skills are so rudimentary, we can't even understand what they are saying. I'm not talking about heavily-accented callers from Bangalore, India. I'm talking about Americans who aren't even capable of speaking English clearly. If they aren't calling out, they are certainly on the other end of the line when we call in to customer service. I can't imagine a company is really interested in serving their customers if they put such people in a customer service role. Have you ever called Sprint's customer service department? Neither has Sprint CEO Dan Hesse, or he wouldn't make TV commercials that talk about how important customer service is to Sprint.
But these are the kind of people that too many companies hire for customer service roles. My suggestion is to punish these organizations by refusing to do business with them. I left Office Max that morning and haven't been back. And I dumped Sprint, because when they hire brain-dead people for customer service, people who can't solve problems in a quick and efficient manner, they are telling me they don't care about me or my time. So why should I care about making them more profitable? And as someone who is out there in the job market, like I said, I'm insulted when I see that a company has hired grossly unsuitable people.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Membership Has Its Privileges
Apparently I'm hot, and hot people should breed with other hot people, to improve the species. At least, that's my takeaway from this e-mail from an online dating service I've been trying recently:
Of course, I don't have any ugly friends. That's another advantage of being so damned attractive. Now if you'll excuse me, I believe Jennifer Aniston is calling...
"We are very pleased to report that you are in the top half of OkCupid's most attractive users. The scales recently tipped in your favor, and we thought you'd like to know.
How can we say this with confidence? We've tracked click-thrus on your photo and analyzed other people's reactions to you in QuickMatch and Quiver.
. . .Your new elite status comes with one important privilege:
You will now see more attractive people in your match results.This new status won't affect your actual match percentages, which are still based purely on your answers and desired match's answers. But the people we recommend will be more attractive. Also! You'll be shown to more attractive people in their match results.
. . .Suddenly, the world is your oyster. Login now and reap the rewards. And, no, we didn't just send this email to everyone on OkCupid. Go ask an ugly friend and see."
Of course, I don't have any ugly friends. That's another advantage of being so damned attractive. Now if you'll excuse me, I believe Jennifer Aniston is calling...
Netflix Is Ripe for a Takedown
Merchandising matters. If you don't display your wares in an attractive manner, customers will be less likely to buy them. And if the customer can't even find what she is looking for in your store, she'll get frustrated and go to a competitor. This is a pretty basic principle of retailing, established centuries before the internet, but it applies to internet retailers as validly as bricks-and-mortar retailers. Netflix would do well to pay attention.
When I go to Netflix to add a DVD to my queue, the first place I usually look is under New Arrivals. I want to see that new film that I may have missed at the theater, for example, Ironman 2 or Get Him To the Greek. But a couple days ago, here's what I found under New Arrivals at Netflix:
Movies
Friday (released 1995)
Proof of Life (released 2000)
Black Sheep (released 1996)
Space Cowboys (released 2000)
Scorpion King (released 2002)
Driven (released 2001)
Tales from the Hood (released 1995)
Television
Psych, Season 1 (there are currently five seasons)
Eureka, Season 1 (there are currently four seasons)
Married With Children, Season 1 (multiple seasons, long since off the air)
Monk, Season 1 (multiple seasons, now off the air)
What is going on here? No movies more recent than 2002, and stale episodes of television shows, some of which are now off the air?
Netflix and I have very different views of what is meant by "new arrivals." For me, and I suspect for many other customers, it means a recently-released film. But the tech-geeks at Netflix think it means something that you can now "watch instantly," without waiting for the disk to arrive in the mail. Netflix has gone all-in on streaming films and TV from the internet directly to your computer, or your smartphone (yeah, I really dig watching Avatar on that 2 inch by 3.5 inch screen), or gaming console. In fact, Netflix is so committed to this new delivery system that it no longer cares about customers that don't have their TV hooked up to the internet, and who prefer to watch DVDs the old-fashioned way, like, on DVD. Maybe these customers have slower internet connections, for example, DSL. Or maybe they have an older TV that isn't internet-ready. Or maybe they just don't want to string a big fat cable from the office where their computer is, to the family room or the bedroom where they watch TV.
I'm sure Netflix has some research showing that 90% of all households now stream movies directly from the internet to their HDTV, but I doubt that's the case. For example, about 13% of the American population is 65 or older. They are less likely to be streaming video directly to their smartphones. Not to mention lower-income families that may not be able to afford broadband internet and the latest web-enabled television. But maybe the folks at Netflix only asked their friends and colleagues, 20-something geeks who are early adopters, constantly texting away at their smartphones, and not even close to representative of the American public.
It seems to me that Netflix is dangerously out of touch with their customers. They are certainly dangerously out of touch with me. Do I have to walk into a Blockbuster, write down the titles of the new releases, and then go online at Netflix and type in the names of those films just to find them and add them to my queue? Well, unless I'm really interested in The Scorpion King or Tales From the Hood, I guess I do. And it isn't just me. I bet there are millions of households just like my own, that are finding Netflix to be suddenly very difficult and unfriendly.
Netflix is ripe for a take-down, because when so many customers are unhappy with their experience, we are primed and ready to jump to a competitor. Check out Blockbuster.com, for example. The pricing is competitive with Netflix, and you can actually find films and TV pretty easily. Unfortunately, Blockbuster is in bankruptcy right now, and may not survive. How many people are going to want to commit to a competitor that is circling the drain?
So, if there are any really wealthy folks out there reading this, maybe some venture capitalists, let's talk. I need about $50 million, and I can put together a helluva online DVD-rental company that will blow Netflix away. Netflix is practically begging for it!
When I go to Netflix to add a DVD to my queue, the first place I usually look is under New Arrivals. I want to see that new film that I may have missed at the theater, for example, Ironman 2 or Get Him To the Greek. But a couple days ago, here's what I found under New Arrivals at Netflix:
Movies
Friday (released 1995)
Proof of Life (released 2000)
Black Sheep (released 1996)
Space Cowboys (released 2000)
Scorpion King (released 2002)
Driven (released 2001)
Tales from the Hood (released 1995)
Television
Psych, Season 1 (there are currently five seasons)
Eureka, Season 1 (there are currently four seasons)
Married With Children, Season 1 (multiple seasons, long since off the air)
Monk, Season 1 (multiple seasons, now off the air)
What is going on here? No movies more recent than 2002, and stale episodes of television shows, some of which are now off the air?
Netflix and I have very different views of what is meant by "new arrivals." For me, and I suspect for many other customers, it means a recently-released film. But the tech-geeks at Netflix think it means something that you can now "watch instantly," without waiting for the disk to arrive in the mail. Netflix has gone all-in on streaming films and TV from the internet directly to your computer, or your smartphone (yeah, I really dig watching Avatar on that 2 inch by 3.5 inch screen), or gaming console. In fact, Netflix is so committed to this new delivery system that it no longer cares about customers that don't have their TV hooked up to the internet, and who prefer to watch DVDs the old-fashioned way, like, on DVD. Maybe these customers have slower internet connections, for example, DSL. Or maybe they have an older TV that isn't internet-ready. Or maybe they just don't want to string a big fat cable from the office where their computer is, to the family room or the bedroom where they watch TV.
I'm sure Netflix has some research showing that 90% of all households now stream movies directly from the internet to their HDTV, but I doubt that's the case. For example, about 13% of the American population is 65 or older. They are less likely to be streaming video directly to their smartphones. Not to mention lower-income families that may not be able to afford broadband internet and the latest web-enabled television. But maybe the folks at Netflix only asked their friends and colleagues, 20-something geeks who are early adopters, constantly texting away at their smartphones, and not even close to representative of the American public.
It seems to me that Netflix is dangerously out of touch with their customers. They are certainly dangerously out of touch with me. Do I have to walk into a Blockbuster, write down the titles of the new releases, and then go online at Netflix and type in the names of those films just to find them and add them to my queue? Well, unless I'm really interested in The Scorpion King or Tales From the Hood, I guess I do. And it isn't just me. I bet there are millions of households just like my own, that are finding Netflix to be suddenly very difficult and unfriendly.
Netflix is ripe for a take-down, because when so many customers are unhappy with their experience, we are primed and ready to jump to a competitor. Check out Blockbuster.com, for example. The pricing is competitive with Netflix, and you can actually find films and TV pretty easily. Unfortunately, Blockbuster is in bankruptcy right now, and may not survive. How many people are going to want to commit to a competitor that is circling the drain?
So, if there are any really wealthy folks out there reading this, maybe some venture capitalists, let's talk. I need about $50 million, and I can put together a helluva online DVD-rental company that will blow Netflix away. Netflix is practically begging for it!
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Love My Kindle!
Oh yes I do! I really wasn't expecting to buy a Kindle, or any other e-reader, but you try lugging around a 900-page brick (The Company, by Robert Littel, highly recommended). That and the woman with the 2nd generation Kindle at the coffee shop got me thinking about it. I spoke to her a couple of times about it, and she was a big fan.
Amazon.com really did a good job with this product. It's battery power lasts a long time, it holds a lot of books on it, and you can read it outside in daylight. It really shouldn't be compared to products like the iPad, because the Kindle isn't trying to be as versatile as a tablet PC. It's a product that is dedicated to one particular task, and it does that task exceedingly well. Buying and downloading e-books can be down wirelessly, and Amazon made all the right moves there, too. The Kindle's wireless service is free at any AT&T wifi hotspot, which just about every Starbucks cafe has. How hard is it to find a Starbucks? I don't even have to go inside; I can get a perfectly good wifi signal standing outside on the sidewalk. The downloads are ridiculously fast, too. The other day I downloaded The Strain, by Guillermo del Toro, and it took less than 30 seconds. It happened so fast, I actually thought something had malfunctioned.
It can hold thousands of books, and this becomes a real convenience when you travel. Instead of trying to force 3 or 4 books into an already tight suitcase, just bring them along in the Kindle.
Oh, did I mention that the Kindle is only $139? Yes, it's only $139. Try to get an iPad for that kind of money.
One of the problems with the Kindle is that media formatted for other e-readers, such as the Nook from Borders, are incompatible. That's inconvenient for me, but fiendishly clever on the part of Amazon.com. It essentially ties me to Amazon when purchasing anything for my Kindle. That's a smart strategic move by Amazon, because it really isn't that inconvenient for me. Not enough to deter me from buying the Kindle. I can still buy old-fashioned paper books anytime I want, from any retailer I want.
A related problem is that it really isn't easy to share or give away a book bought for the Kindle, and if you can do so, you really can only share with other Kindle owners. I like sharing books with people, and I like giving away books when I'm done with them. I just lugged a big grocery bag of books to the laundromat, and half of them are already gone, adopted by lucky readers.
I find the Kindle a little difficult on its own, from an ergonomic perspective. It's quite thin, and just doesn't feel right in my hands. I solved that problem by purchasing a nice leather cover for it. The cover opens like a book, giving it the kind of hand-feel (that's a word now, because I say so) that I expect from a book.
I've heard almost as much good about the Nook, and it is priced competitively with the Kindle. Whichever you prefer, you'll probably be quite happy. And if not, it's only $139, right?
Amazon.com really did a good job with this product. It's battery power lasts a long time, it holds a lot of books on it, and you can read it outside in daylight. It really shouldn't be compared to products like the iPad, because the Kindle isn't trying to be as versatile as a tablet PC. It's a product that is dedicated to one particular task, and it does that task exceedingly well. Buying and downloading e-books can be down wirelessly, and Amazon made all the right moves there, too. The Kindle's wireless service is free at any AT&T wifi hotspot, which just about every Starbucks cafe has. How hard is it to find a Starbucks? I don't even have to go inside; I can get a perfectly good wifi signal standing outside on the sidewalk. The downloads are ridiculously fast, too. The other day I downloaded The Strain, by Guillermo del Toro, and it took less than 30 seconds. It happened so fast, I actually thought something had malfunctioned.
It can hold thousands of books, and this becomes a real convenience when you travel. Instead of trying to force 3 or 4 books into an already tight suitcase, just bring them along in the Kindle.
Oh, did I mention that the Kindle is only $139? Yes, it's only $139. Try to get an iPad for that kind of money.
One of the problems with the Kindle is that media formatted for other e-readers, such as the Nook from Borders, are incompatible. That's inconvenient for me, but fiendishly clever on the part of Amazon.com. It essentially ties me to Amazon when purchasing anything for my Kindle. That's a smart strategic move by Amazon, because it really isn't that inconvenient for me. Not enough to deter me from buying the Kindle. I can still buy old-fashioned paper books anytime I want, from any retailer I want.
A related problem is that it really isn't easy to share or give away a book bought for the Kindle, and if you can do so, you really can only share with other Kindle owners. I like sharing books with people, and I like giving away books when I'm done with them. I just lugged a big grocery bag of books to the laundromat, and half of them are already gone, adopted by lucky readers.
I find the Kindle a little difficult on its own, from an ergonomic perspective. It's quite thin, and just doesn't feel right in my hands. I solved that problem by purchasing a nice leather cover for it. The cover opens like a book, giving it the kind of hand-feel (that's a word now, because I say so) that I expect from a book.
I've heard almost as much good about the Nook, and it is priced competitively with the Kindle. Whichever you prefer, you'll probably be quite happy. And if not, it's only $139, right?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Why "Draw The Line"
It's from the song by David Gray. I love the song, and for several months it was my "mojo song." These were songs that I had to listen to either while going to or come home from the store, in order for me to have a good sales day. Over time, the mojo songs would change. For quite a while it was Lady Marmalade, the Christina Aguilera version from the film Moulin Rouge. After a while, that didn't seem to work anymore so I eventually found that my mojo had moved to Crazy, by the Welsh singer Jem. I really liked the way she integrated a funky banjo riff into what was otherwise a conventional dance pop tune.
Finally, the mojo migrated to Draw The Line. This was during the last six months I had the store, and I connected with the sense of grim determination that pervades the song.
Oh, I know it's total BS, but you just can't argue with superstition.
Here's Draw The Line:
Finally, the mojo migrated to Draw The Line. This was during the last six months I had the store, and I connected with the sense of grim determination that pervades the song.
Oh, I know it's total BS, but you just can't argue with superstition.
Here's Draw The Line:
Retailers Are Killing Themselves With Discounts
Last week I came across an article about how retailers would probably be resorting to discounting this holiday season. Apparently back in the spring when they ordered their holiday merchandise, the economy looked a lot better. Well, retailers using discounts during the holiday season is hardly new or noteworthy, they’ve been doing it for decades. What is noteworthy is how this practice, and in particular the very steep discounts of the past 3 years, is destroying the retailers who are doing it.
It is standard practice now for retailers to entice holiday shoppers with discounts, and to make those discounts bigger the closer we get to Christmas. They have trained consumers to expect those discounts, and to wait as long as possible, because if that sweater is 20% off on December 1, it will be 30% off on December 15 and 50% off on December 21. Retailers see full shelves and racks as Christmas approaches, and increase the discounts in a desperate attempt to get someone, anyone, to buy their merchandise. It’s a crazy and destructive game of chicken, however, because the shoppers know how it works, and they are waiting as long as they dare. So the shelves stay full, the prices drop further, and finally the consumers come in to purchase, but not until after the retailer has given away a substantial amount of profit.
In the past three years, it’s gotten even worse. Desperate retailers are marking down goods 70% and more. This is destructive for a few reasons. First, it makes consumers wonder what the product is really worth if the retailer can sell it at 70% off. The consumer must wonder, what did the retailer buy this sweater for in the first place, if they can mark it up to $100 and then sell it for only $30? And if the retailer is marking things up that much, why should I buy from it? How badly has that retailer been ripping me off all these years? Have I been paying $100 for $10 sweaters?
Second, the super-steep discounts are putting retailers in an untenable position. When you start selling goods at 70% off, soon enough nobody will ever pay attention to a discount of 10%, or 30%, or even 50%. It’s nuclear armageddon applied to retail pricing, and the fallout will hurt even those retailers that don’t discount so deeply. Consumers will now question everyone’s pricing, and it makes it impossible for anyone to run a sale without massive price cuts.
Finally, when I see a store with a 60% or 70% off sign in the window, my immediate thought is that the store is in deep trouble. They just seem desperate to me, and I'm not sure I want to jump on board a sinking ship.
It is standard practice now for retailers to entice holiday shoppers with discounts, and to make those discounts bigger the closer we get to Christmas. They have trained consumers to expect those discounts, and to wait as long as possible, because if that sweater is 20% off on December 1, it will be 30% off on December 15 and 50% off on December 21. Retailers see full shelves and racks as Christmas approaches, and increase the discounts in a desperate attempt to get someone, anyone, to buy their merchandise. It’s a crazy and destructive game of chicken, however, because the shoppers know how it works, and they are waiting as long as they dare. So the shelves stay full, the prices drop further, and finally the consumers come in to purchase, but not until after the retailer has given away a substantial amount of profit.
In the past three years, it’s gotten even worse. Desperate retailers are marking down goods 70% and more. This is destructive for a few reasons. First, it makes consumers wonder what the product is really worth if the retailer can sell it at 70% off. The consumer must wonder, what did the retailer buy this sweater for in the first place, if they can mark it up to $100 and then sell it for only $30? And if the retailer is marking things up that much, why should I buy from it? How badly has that retailer been ripping me off all these years? Have I been paying $100 for $10 sweaters?
Second, the super-steep discounts are putting retailers in an untenable position. When you start selling goods at 70% off, soon enough nobody will ever pay attention to a discount of 10%, or 30%, or even 50%. It’s nuclear armageddon applied to retail pricing, and the fallout will hurt even those retailers that don’t discount so deeply. Consumers will now question everyone’s pricing, and it makes it impossible for anyone to run a sale without massive price cuts.
Finally, when I see a store with a 60% or 70% off sign in the window, my immediate thought is that the store is in deep trouble. They just seem desperate to me, and I'm not sure I want to jump on board a sinking ship.
Gaming The System
The other day I was at my local coffee shop, and Kate, the adorable but too-young girl that works there, was telling me about how a customer was trying to take unfair advantage of the 60-cent refill deal. A small coffee is $1.50, and a refill is only 60 cents. This customer, apparently, came in with an empty cup from a previous day, and was trying to get a coffee for only 60 cents. That’s just tacky, and Kate of the Delicious Dimples was having none of it. And rightfully so.
This kind of low-class chutzpah seems to be cropping up more and more. One Saturday a woman came into my picture framing store with a plastic photo frame that she had bought across the street at Goodwill, needing an easel back. Well, just the fact that she had bought the frame from Goodwill instead of me put her off on the wrong foot. In this case, the frame required an unusually small and circular easel back, the kind of thing nobody in the world carries. Which I told her, but she kept insisting, so I went in the back and brought out my smallest easel back, which was the wrong shape and too big. She seemed to think she could make it work, though, and I could tell by her body language that she was getting ready to go and expected this piece of merchandise to be free. So I quickly said “that will be $5,” whereupon she exploded. She flung the easel back at me and launched into a tirade, accidentally knocking her plastic Goodwill photo frame onto the floor and snapping it in two. She picked it up and slammed it down onto the counter, muttering that I should throw it out for her. As she headed for the door, still in her tirade, I couldn’t resist a parting shot: “we charge $5 to throw your frame out for you.”
I'm not opposed to giving away the occasional freebie. Sometimes someone would come in looking for a hook, or a wire, and I would often give it to them at no charge, even though if they went to a hardware store they would certainly be paying for the same item. But it was my decision, not the customer's. I usually did it when the customer was reaching for his wallet, and finding out the small item was gratis was a pleasant surprise. If someone came in expecting me to give things away, however, like the plastic-frame lady, forget it. See how the clerk at Home Depot handles it.
I really don’t know where this mindset comes from, but it isn’t limited to coffee or picture frames. It’s destroying the music industry, where illegal file sharing sites are robbing musicians of their rightful income for producing the music we love. People don’t seem to realize that, whether we are selling coffee, or picture framing, or writing music, we are trying to make a living at it. We have bills to pay, food to put on the table, kids to put through school, and when people try to game the system the way these people do, they are stealing from us.
This kind of low-class chutzpah seems to be cropping up more and more. One Saturday a woman came into my picture framing store with a plastic photo frame that she had bought across the street at Goodwill, needing an easel back. Well, just the fact that she had bought the frame from Goodwill instead of me put her off on the wrong foot. In this case, the frame required an unusually small and circular easel back, the kind of thing nobody in the world carries. Which I told her, but she kept insisting, so I went in the back and brought out my smallest easel back, which was the wrong shape and too big. She seemed to think she could make it work, though, and I could tell by her body language that she was getting ready to go and expected this piece of merchandise to be free. So I quickly said “that will be $5,” whereupon she exploded. She flung the easel back at me and launched into a tirade, accidentally knocking her plastic Goodwill photo frame onto the floor and snapping it in two. She picked it up and slammed it down onto the counter, muttering that I should throw it out for her. As she headed for the door, still in her tirade, I couldn’t resist a parting shot: “we charge $5 to throw your frame out for you.”
I'm not opposed to giving away the occasional freebie. Sometimes someone would come in looking for a hook, or a wire, and I would often give it to them at no charge, even though if they went to a hardware store they would certainly be paying for the same item. But it was my decision, not the customer's. I usually did it when the customer was reaching for his wallet, and finding out the small item was gratis was a pleasant surprise. If someone came in expecting me to give things away, however, like the plastic-frame lady, forget it. See how the clerk at Home Depot handles it.
I really don’t know where this mindset comes from, but it isn’t limited to coffee or picture frames. It’s destroying the music industry, where illegal file sharing sites are robbing musicians of their rightful income for producing the music we love. People don’t seem to realize that, whether we are selling coffee, or picture framing, or writing music, we are trying to make a living at it. We have bills to pay, food to put on the table, kids to put through school, and when people try to game the system the way these people do, they are stealing from us.
The Dogs On Main Street Howl
I closed my picture framing business at the end of June, after a five-year run. It wasn’t a sudden thing, so I had plenty of time to prepare. Three years into the worst economy of my lifetime, it was just impossible to get a solid footing. This was especially the case for a business like custom picture framing. To begin with, it’s a luxury business. People don’t really need it; they are perfectly happy to sit in a home with blank walls, or to tack their art to the wall like they are still back in their college dorm, even though they now have kids and a home and are pulling down a 6-figure salary. It’s also something that only a small percentage of the population -- maybe 6% -- has purchased.
It didn’t help that the government has no understanding of how small businesses operate, or what their needs are. As the economy melted down, the government gave most its attention and aid to Big Business. These were the big donors to politicians in both parties, and they had instant access to the highest echelons of government. I actually tested this during the first round of government bailouts. I placed a series of four calls to the Treasury Department, each time asking for the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulsen, and each time identifying myself as the owner of a small business. Each time, the receptionist immediately put me through to a general voicemail box set aside for cranks, hoi polloi, and people who simply weren’t important. Then I called back a fifth time, and when the receptionist asked who I was, I told her I was the owner of a $5 billion multi-national, and wanted to speak with the Secretary about government assistance. She immediately put me through to a person, a guy with a name, and I left a message with him. He even called back within about 3 hours, and we had a nice but fruitless chat.
The government’s sole remedy for the plight of small business has been to increase the availability of credit. But I already had a loan I was struggling to pay, and I didn’t need or want another loan. The government seemed to be under the impression that small businesses pay our rent, suppliers, and employees with loans. That’s a shell game, however. If I owe my landlord and suppliers $50,000, and I borrow $50,000 from the bank to pay them, I still owe $50,000. I just owe it to the bank now. With the vig. What the government didn’t understand, what they still don’t understand, is that we don’t pay our bills with loans, we pay our bills with money that our customers pay to us. And if customers aren’t coming in the door and buying what we are selling, we can’t pay our bills. Borrowing $50,000 from the bank won’t help, because without customers, I can’t pay back the bank either.
In all the rush to make sure banks were happy and that greentech research got whatever resources it needed, the government lost sight of the fact that consumer spending is what drives our economy. When consumers disappear, economic vitality isn’t far behind. I must admit, I made fun of President Bush’s $300 stimulus checks, but in retrospect it wasn’t such a bad idea. Put money in consumers’ pockets, and they will spend it on things. It just wasn’t enough, but at least it was on the right track. If customers don’t have money, they won’t spend it and small businesses are going to feel the pain first. If more of the stimulus money had been put directly into customers’ pockets, maybe I’d still have my business.
It didn’t help that the government has no understanding of how small businesses operate, or what their needs are. As the economy melted down, the government gave most its attention and aid to Big Business. These were the big donors to politicians in both parties, and they had instant access to the highest echelons of government. I actually tested this during the first round of government bailouts. I placed a series of four calls to the Treasury Department, each time asking for the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulsen, and each time identifying myself as the owner of a small business. Each time, the receptionist immediately put me through to a general voicemail box set aside for cranks, hoi polloi, and people who simply weren’t important. Then I called back a fifth time, and when the receptionist asked who I was, I told her I was the owner of a $5 billion multi-national, and wanted to speak with the Secretary about government assistance. She immediately put me through to a person, a guy with a name, and I left a message with him. He even called back within about 3 hours, and we had a nice but fruitless chat.
The government’s sole remedy for the plight of small business has been to increase the availability of credit. But I already had a loan I was struggling to pay, and I didn’t need or want another loan. The government seemed to be under the impression that small businesses pay our rent, suppliers, and employees with loans. That’s a shell game, however. If I owe my landlord and suppliers $50,000, and I borrow $50,000 from the bank to pay them, I still owe $50,000. I just owe it to the bank now. With the vig. What the government didn’t understand, what they still don’t understand, is that we don’t pay our bills with loans, we pay our bills with money that our customers pay to us. And if customers aren’t coming in the door and buying what we are selling, we can’t pay our bills. Borrowing $50,000 from the bank won’t help, because without customers, I can’t pay back the bank either.
In all the rush to make sure banks were happy and that greentech research got whatever resources it needed, the government lost sight of the fact that consumer spending is what drives our economy. When consumers disappear, economic vitality isn’t far behind. I must admit, I made fun of President Bush’s $300 stimulus checks, but in retrospect it wasn’t such a bad idea. Put money in consumers’ pockets, and they will spend it on things. It just wasn’t enough, but at least it was on the right track. If customers don’t have money, they won’t spend it and small businesses are going to feel the pain first. If more of the stimulus money had been put directly into customers’ pockets, maybe I’d still have my business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)