Tuesday, 8 November 2011

Has Tesco Resurrected the Tech Salesman?

Picture of Tesco Tech Support AdvisorImage via Wikipedia

Oh the irony...last week I blogged about the decline of the electrical goods salesperson, and this week Tesco launches its cosy 'Ask our friendly Tech Support Team about the perfect Christmas gift' ads.

So, were they listening?  Have they resurrected personal selling? What are the chances someone will be willing to sell me something this weekend if I try again?  And..have they put the staff member nursing a hangover who failed to make any money out of me last week on a course ?  (Not the guy in this picture - I'm sure he's brilliant at his job...although perhaps on closer inspection he looks a little like a robot...) 

Robot or not, I'm willing to believe, Mr Tesco.

Watch this space, I'll report back when I've checked for vital signs...
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 29 October 2011

The Death of the Electronics Salesman


Today I tried to buy an iPod.

Tried, and failed.

Why?

Pike Place Fish Co., 1978Image by Seattle Municipal Archives via FlickrBecause the sales staff in the three stores I went to just didn't want to know.   It was a somewhat surreal experience for me.  Normally I shop for electronics online, but today I wanted to buy a product and use it today.  I was a willing customer, ready to try out the products and with money to spend, in fact I could probably have been persuaded to buy a more expensive version than the one I went in for. However, I was treated with variously, disdain, disinterest, and downright disrespect.  Not only did the retailers make no effort to locate the product I wanted (which was out of stock), but they lied to me about the reasons and made no effort to sell an alternative, order one for  me etc. etc.  All the things a motivated and engaged saleperson might do.  Several of them even failed to make eye contact, and I'm pretty sure I saw one of them roll his eyes at having to break off a conversation with a colleague to serve me.  My reaction in such cases?

Walk.

Then Tweet.

Then Facebook.

Then blog.

What does this mean for the company?   Reputational damage, lost sales, wasted showrooms. Haven't electrical retailers got enough to worry about with the threats to their businesses from their online competitors, without actively discouraging sales in their stores.  Haven't they got enough PR problems without causing potential customers like myself to have a little rant about their poor service online?  It seems not.

The eerie quiet in both Currys and Comet was telling.  Not only have they lost out on price to the online stores, but it seems they've given up on service.

It makes me wonder whether the Internet is having far broader implications for business and business skills than we've even imagined.  If we lose our ability to engage as humans in a sales process, then I think we've lost something of value in our society.  Don't get me wrong, I can't stand being pestered by pushy salespeople.  Neither do I expect sycophancy and obsequiousness.  What I expect is to be treated with respect, to be able to buy the products I want with good advice, and for buying to be a pleasurable experience.  I work hard to earn my money, and every now and then I'd like to enjoy spending it.

So, what have we lost?  Well, it's not simply salesmanship that we're losing - it's a service culture, and more than that a joy in our work.  Clearly the employees in the places I visited this morning lacked any sense of responsibility, pride, and equally clearly they were not enjoying their work.  They didn't even seem to be working on any incentive system based on sales.  I am incredulous because I know it doesn't have to be that way.

Back when I was a student I worked in a soulless out of town shopping centre as a sales assistant for a major fashion retailer.  The hours were long and anti-social, the pay was rubbish, the staff facilities cramped, and taking all this into account it could have been an incredibly boring and unrewarding  job, but it wasn't.

Why not?

Culture.

Plain and simple.

The company used to train its staff using the Pike Place 'FISH' principle.  If you haven't heard of this, take a look at the video of the Pike Place Fish Stall at the Seattle Farmer's Market below.  The method is based on making work (and particularly sales work) fun, friendly and social for everyone.  The customer gets a better experience, the staff enjoy themselves and are motivated; it's a win-win.  I was not a natural at selling, but thrived in this environment where everyone had shared targets and we were incentivised as a team.

Where has this emphasis on service culture gone?  Certainly in our major retailers it seems to be lower and lower on the list of priorities.  It has driven me back to buying online in this case (I refuse to buy from a company that treats me badly), but I wonder also whether it offers an opportunity for independents.  Those who can, and want to, add value by training their staff well, providing the best customer experience and therefore helping people spend their money in the ways they want to.  I'll certainly be first in the queue...


Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 22 October 2011

In Praise of the Polymath

Image representing Wikipedia as depicted in Cr...Image via CrunchBaseWe live in a society that worships specialism.  We look to our 'experts' for advice and to share their depth of knowledge in all fields.  Yet, anyone can describe themselves as an expert, or a guru, specialist, consultant etc etc.  What does this mean?  What are the qualifications you need to become an expert in something?  How can we separate the charlatans from the real deal?  Does a white beard, spectacles and tweed make you an expert?  Does a certificate that says you have been through a factory process of learning suffice?  Do the scars of battle gained through years of bitter experience give you the credibility you need? And why do we need experts - can't we just find all the answers on Wikipedia anyway?

I'm being facetious here, of course, and I know that we are dependent on specialists to move science and technology forwards.  They are the people that have made many of the things we take for granted in our world possible. However, as much as we need specialists, we also need those who have breadth of knowledge...and in a strange way, despite the great leaps we've made in terms of enabling access to information for the masses, it's the generalist that seems to be undervalued in society.

Our education system, for example, is a funnel designed to narrow and deepen your field of knowledge as you progress.  This channels us as learners to the point where, on completion of a PhD or post-doctoral research we may be the person in the world who knows most about the secret life of cardinal beetles, the etymology of lapidary terms, or the social impact of 'The Only Way is Essex'.  Noble causes all, I'm sure, and of course we need these specialists and their work chipping away at the coalface of human understanding, but we must take care not to idolise them.

Whatever it means to be an expert we know we need them, but sometimes seem to forget that we also need generalists.  We need people who can make connections between disparate fields to create new ideas and possibilities.  An education system predicated on the need to narrow and deepen knowledge may result in a society with extremely able scientists and technologists, but breadth of knowledge is, for me, equally likely to be the source of ideas for truly disruptive innovations.  The American college system seems to do this so much better than we do.  A liberal arts degree will give a student the freedom to explore human understanding in a way that is personally relevant and yet interconnected.  Here in the UK there are similar options available, but they are not the norm, and not valued as highly by some.  We seem wary of anything that does not lead our students on a path towards specialism because of the reverence with which we view the expert.

We can't all be polymaths of course, with a great deal of knowledge in a number of fields, but in a world where the tools to gain a breadth of knowledge are freely available to the vast majority of us we should be better at encouraging a broader view of learning. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 6 October 2011

Steve Jobs - a Legacy Greater than Apple

It would be wrong to let today pass without writing something about the passing of Steve Jobs - a man who has, whether we own an Apple product or not, had a massive impact on all our lives.

Before I go on I should say that I'm not an Apple devotee - and tend to have pity on those disciples of Apple who treat the brand with such reverence that they think it can do no wrong.  I buy Apple products when I think they provide superior value, utility or delight, and buy other brands when I make a similar judgment. But, the very fact that this man created a brand that inspired such cultish and evangelical following is something that, as a marketer, I can't help but admire enormously. 

Steve Jobs has, of course, been the driving force behind the Apple brand, but the brand has a life beyond him, and that makes his work an even greater achievement.  What we see in Jobs is a man who had such drive, passion and vision that he drew people into his world; his sheer enthusiasm for his product was infectious in a way that the Apple product announcements by his successor a few days ago proved is going to be difficult to replicate.

In a bizarre coincidence I showed a video of Jobs in class yesterday, he was speaking in 1997 about what he believes marketing to be.  It's pure Jobs, stripping it all back to emotion.  'Marketing is about values' he says 'it is about passion':


I admire Steve Jobs as a marketer, a charismatic leader to the 'n'th degree, and I use the above clip in class as a discussion point, but I admire Steve Jobs more as a man who lived by his values, and to that end, the Jobs speech that inspires me most as a human being is the one below.

I believe this to be one of the best motivational speeches of all time, a must watch for all students.  Yes, Apple as a company may be a fantastic legacy for jobs, but this speech, for me, has equal (if not greater) value...


RIP Steve Jobs

Saturday, 24 September 2011

Calm seas - why listening to your people might save you from the tsunami

Photo by Ben Terrett
I've been reminded this week of how important it is to take care of the little things. The little things are the things that, if you don't keep an eye on them can become very big things. That tiny pebble thrown into the sea that becomes a tsunami - and in business these tiny pebbles are everywhere. Getting the little things right matters.

Much business education is based around planning - and the creation of business plans, marketing plans, financial plans is something that forms a core part of most business school (or management education of other kind) syllabi - but what often seems to happen is that plans are created because they are a requirement, a box to be ticked, a funding bid, an audit trail. These plans are, of course, difficult to produce. Predicting the future is hard, and although past experiences can be useful, last year is another time and tomorrow will, necessarily, be different. This often results in plans that remain vague and superficial - and in some businesses planning can end up being a process that simply plays lip service to an organisational system but bears little relation to the reality of organisational activity.

Of course there has, over the years, been much discussion of the benefits of planning amongst both practitioners, theorists and (best of all) the practitioner/theorists. The benefits of planning have been called into question by the complexity theorists and a quasi-planned approach has been suggested by those who believe strategies should emerge based on an adaptation to current conditions. I agree that there can be considerable benefits to these approaches.

However, I also believe in that, particularly at an operational level, there are many businesses who fail to plan the small things well. They forget about the tiny pebbles and look to the horizon.

BT, for example, are dealing with huge volumes of customers. This means an individual customer appears low-value to them. So, they feel happy to subcontract out their repair services and create complex, frustrating customer services processes that suit their need to 'manage the herd'. I've recently experienced BT's monopolistic attitudes and lack of customer care and was shocked that they feel able to get away with it. They appear willing to forget that each customer is a human being, and that those human beings each have an influence on their business whether large or small.  Whilst some may switch suppliers and have a very small negative effect, there are others in that large pool who may be able to have a dramatic impact on their business. BT don't know if they are upsetting a Watchdog journalist, the son/daughter of the CEO of one of their major business contracts, a tech blogger with a massive audience - all these people can create a crisis for the company if they receive poor service. But don't get me wrong, I don't think BT should treat these people any differently to any customer - rather I believe they should take into account the danger that poor customer service poses to their organisation and make sure it simply doesn't happen - for any customer.

So, how do they get it right? Involving the right people in planning is crucial when it comes to getting the detail right. Senior Managers who have worked their way up from the bottom of an organisation, or who take/make the time to get to know the challenges and successes of every job role in their organisation are clearly in a better position to make decisions. This, however, may simply not be possible in a large organisation or where senior managers are recruited from outside. This is why listening is so crucial.

If you can provide a channel through which every member of staff in your organisation can flag up potential problems or opportunities, if you give them access to strategic plans and the right and responsibility to comment on them and contribute to their development, you may find that the tiny thing you overlooked, that one missing or problematic detail in your plan, the ripple-effect of which could become a tsunami, could be prevented before you even get started.

Calm seas are so much more pleasant to sail on.

Friday, 19 August 2011

Who Says You Can't Develop Theories and Models when the 'Theory of Can't' says you can?

I've spent some time today scribbling diagrams on the backs of envelopes (no cliche - I really did use envelopes - there are no cigarette packets or beer mats at my place).  The reason?  I've been creating a model of 'can't'.

Ok, I'm going to rewind a little here (Wodehousian difficulty in starting my story at the right point).  I'm writing an editorial piece on why business theory is important, and this has led me to think about the mythology that surrounds 'theory' in general.  For many, theory is synonymous with abstraction, complexity and inaction.  It is thinking, not doing - divorced from reality - a closeted world which excludes those who don't know the lingo.

For some students theory is the stuff in books that you need to know to pass exams.  It's a matrix, a Venn diagram or a pyramid with labelled sections and a surname attached.  What a sad little paradox it is when the very things designed to simplify, explain and provide help are also the things that seem most complex, inexplicable and like a barrier to the achievement of success.

This is where I got to in my thinking for the article, before I asked myself the following question:

'Have we lost touch with theory - or does theory just have a marketing problem?'

'Maybe' (still talking to myself - not out loud, of course) 'we need to take a broader perspective on the role of theory, and particularly how we communicate it and how we teach it - who is doing this?  I'm sure there must be people out there doing this.'

Ok, now I have a little rule for myself that if I'm thinking about something I try to form an opinion or take a position before I read the opinions, arguments, statistics, research presented by others.    This, I realise, is not the way most people work - but I like to find my instinctive position, a sort of anchor point before letting the barrage of others' opinions hit me with their best shots.  In reality I often change my opinion when I learn more, but that's all part of the learning.

What I'm getting to, is that I ignored everyone else's view on this, and decided to go with my first idea.   My first idea went something like this...

'I know, I'll take a concept, generate some theory and create a model, (probably on the back of an envelope) today, for something everyday, just so I can demonstrate how easy it is.'  I create little diagrams quite often when I'm trying to work things out, but today I did it with a sort of meta-consciousness to see how I went about it and what made it work/not work.

So, I have modelled the concept 'can't'.  'Can't' is pretty simple isn't it?  If you're unable to do something, you can't do it.   Well I can confirm that 'can't' is more complex than that, but only a little, a four quadrant matrix is enough to create a pretty good model of it (if I do say so myself). So, where's the model?  Well I'm not going to show you mine...mine is mine and yours will be yours. So I'd rather you had a go for yourself.

A lot of students think they 'can't' generate a theory or a model.  This term, I'm planning to see if my first years can model 'can't' for me...because my theory of 'can't' says they can...and I'd quite like to test it...

OK, that's enough for now...I'm off to work on my theory of 'can'.  This one's gonna look like a Rubix Cube...

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

What do we need when the dust settles? Critical thinking, and above all, philosophy.

Image source: Will Lion
Why is this happening to our society?  Everyone seems to be asking that question, and many are filling in the pause after it with their own interpretative explanation.   I don't have an answer, and wouldn't presume to be able to explain it, but what I do have is a series of thoughts on what I've seen and heard (as represented by a media under question), and these thoughts have led me to question my own position on fundamental aspects of human nature and society.  Morality, ethics and the role of the government  are the things people are talking about on our streets today, and I'm glad. Glad that people are thinking, glad that they are arguing, questioning, giving their opinions.  This is what enables our society to balance itself, and it's this critical, multi-perspective thinking that I and my colleagues in higher education seek to help our students develop.  This, is philosophy, and we need it now more than ever.

Perhaps seemingly counter-intuitively, in order to illustrate the importance of breadth and depth of critical thinking,  I'm going to start with a reference to science. Events taking place in our cities have particularly reminded me of the work of Milgram, who, in the 1960s, conducted a series of experiments aimed at determining how willing individuals would be to inflict pain on others when instructed to do so by authority figures.  Very willing was the overwhelming answer, to the shock and disgust of many of those involved and the wider public when the results were published.  

Milgram's work suggests that when placed in a situation where we consider ourselves to be subordinate to a perceived authority figure, we 'switch off' our moral compass and do as we're told, no matter how unpalatable the consequences.  This, along with the Asch experiments of the 1950s on group conformity (which showed the willingness of people to consciously give an erroneous response to questions in order to conform to the responses of the wider group), seem to me to provide some superficial insight into the behaviours we have been seeing in our cities in recent days.  Are we seeing an extreme negative example of  Janis's 'Groupthink' here - where group pressures lead to questionable decision making?  Group conformity, the exploitation of this by organised criminals and gang hierarchies, and this removal of a sense of morality through the ability to rationalise the activity as a response to 'social problems' blamed on government, the police and other authority figures are, it seems to me, all in the mix here.

I could, of course, also refer to the rather obvious example of  Golding's Lord of the Flies. Like the experiments above, this was first published in that post-war period of questioning and attempts to understand the horrors of war and the senseless destruction of human life in the Holocaust, and with this in mind there are all sorts of directions in which this particular comparison could lead us...the involvement of children in these activities, the underlying influences (socio-economic, cultural, political, or individual), and in a broader sense, the question of how this reflects our own place in history (the shock of 9/11 and other terrorist acts, the tumbling dictatorships of the Middle East, the loss of confidence in our political and economic leadership, loss of faith in the media and the police) are all relevant here.

Do these events create a situation in which we are more likely to behave in destructive and negative ways?  Are we all seeking a sense of direction, order and leadership amongst the chaos?  Can chaos in fact lead to its own form of stability through self-organisation?   For example yesterday saw citizens organising themselves to clean up their neighbourhoods after the damage of the previous night.  Is this what Kant meant when he referred to self-organization?  Is this a complex, self-organising system which, in the absence of leadership and direction, is achieving a balance by itself?

Questions, questions...but who will answer them?

I could continue here ad infinitum, trying to get to grips with this myself - twisting and turning this complexity over, but this would be mere speculation, and with respect to those positivists out there, and to the empirical research to which I refer above, I'm not going to continue without evidence...

What I do believe, however, is that this highlights the importance of one thing, and it's something that's currently under threat from cuts to higher education and a lack of engagement with the topic. Right now, we need philosophy and philosophers.   What we are seeing relates to the fundamental questions philosophers have been asking for milennia, about ethics, politics and logic, and so our society needs people to read, think, reflect and debate these problems we are facing, so we can make the right decisions on how to act - and not just those from a small section of society for whom philosophy is an open book.   We need people from all backgrounds and communities to value, nurture and respect the role of philosophy in our society, and to do this we need to engage more young people with the subject and above all keep philosophy departments in Universities open.

If you are reading about these issues, watching them on the news, and discussing them, you are already engaging in philosophy as well as politics.  And just like politics, philosophy should be something for the massess not just for the elite.