In a restaurant, where the meal is not to your liking, DON’T get huffy with your server, don’t blame the server for the bad food and don’t raise your voice to them, you don’t know what they’re doing with your food in the back.
Instead, be polite but firm: For example:
“I’m sorry to bother you but could I get the salad that I ordered? I know how busy you’ve been.” There are some times in life when it is better to be the lesser one in an argument, and have the attitude of seeming to ask for a huge favor, when it’s actually you that is granting the favor to the restaurant with your patronage.
I have had an experience in the past with the Outback restaurant. My husband and I have always loved their food, I have dreams about their bloomin Onion. At our last visit my husband ordered a medium rare steak and got a burnt steak that hardly had any meat on it and mostly fat. He told the waiter that it was burnt and wouldn’t be able to eat it and the waiter said that he’d take it back to the cook. Five minutes later the waiter returned to say that they could cook a new one but it would take another 20 minutes or my husband could just eat the burnt one. Since I was already done with my dinner and my husband scarffed down his baked potato and veggies, we just wanted to get out of there. After the waiter dropped off that burnt steak to my husband again, we couldn’t believe that they didn’t even want to discuss the steak issue. “I” was fed up, asked for the manager, who looked 12, and was apologized to by the manager, got the “stink eye” from the waiter WITH the roll of the eyes. We finally were offered a free bloomin onion the next time we came in! They made us pay full price for a steak that not even my dog would be able to bite into!
I still have that “free bloomin onion” pass in my purse, its been there for about a year now and I don’t think I’ll ever use it!
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Toy Recalls part II – Breaking News or Politics
While researching the Fisher Price/Mattel toy recalls that I wrote about in last week’s blog, I stumbled across a few elements of the overall story that made me wonder if there was any sort of political motivation for the recalls.
The largest political element was the name Barack Obama.
Now I may be typical, or I may have just not been paying attention, but I had never heard of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) until fairly recently when talk of his possibly running for president began. I had also never heard of the Lead Free Toys Act that Senator Obama and Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced to Congress in 2005. This bill stalled in Congress, and toys with dangerous levels of lead continued to be available to consumers.
In May of this year, Senator Barack Obama (now something of a household name) reintroduced this act to Congress. In this year’s September issue, Good Housekeeping Magazine featured an article entitled “Playing with Poison” about the dangerous levels of lead in some toys. This article is where I first learned of the Lead Free Toys Act.
Perhaps I’m cynical, but the first thing that came to my mind was “why now?” According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website, lead paint was banned from toys in 1977, and recalls happened as needed for the next 30 years. So why are toys with dangerous levels of lead all over the news now? Coincidence? Public awareness and outrage about dangerous products from China (especially after Menu Foods)? Or perfect timing for politics? We’ll probably never know.
And if it is political is that a bad thing? Because it looks like something positive may be getting done. I read a letter written on August 14, 2007 by Barack Obama which stated that nearly 6 million toys (including children’s jewelry) have been recalled in the last 5 months due to high lead content. 6 million! Wow, that’s scary!
A much scarier political element is a small paragraph I found in an article on the CNN website (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/01/toy.recall.ap/index.html). It stated that “In negotiating details of the recall, Fisher Price and the government sought to withhold details from the public until Thursday to give stores time to get suspect toys off shelves and Fisher Price time to get its recall hot line up and running.” It was not clear to me how far in advance Fisher Price and the government knew about this problem before you and I did. Was it weeks? Days? Or only 24 hours? Again, we’ll probably never know. From a Crisis Marketing standpoint, it’s never a good idea to withhold information from your consumers. Because if or when that information becomes public knowledge, the fact that it was withheld can cause a lack of trust in your company and its products. I wasn’t impressed with Fisher Price’s Crisis Marketing in the first place, and this brought down my opinion even more.
As for Senator Barack Obama and his Lead Free Toys Act, maybe he’ll be able to market himself as the man who saved our children from deadly toys.
So, Breaking News or Politics? Probably both.
The largest political element was the name Barack Obama.
Now I may be typical, or I may have just not been paying attention, but I had never heard of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) until fairly recently when talk of his possibly running for president began. I had also never heard of the Lead Free Toys Act that Senator Obama and Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced to Congress in 2005. This bill stalled in Congress, and toys with dangerous levels of lead continued to be available to consumers.
In May of this year, Senator Barack Obama (now something of a household name) reintroduced this act to Congress. In this year’s September issue, Good Housekeeping Magazine featured an article entitled “Playing with Poison” about the dangerous levels of lead in some toys. This article is where I first learned of the Lead Free Toys Act.
Perhaps I’m cynical, but the first thing that came to my mind was “why now?” According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website, lead paint was banned from toys in 1977, and recalls happened as needed for the next 30 years. So why are toys with dangerous levels of lead all over the news now? Coincidence? Public awareness and outrage about dangerous products from China (especially after Menu Foods)? Or perfect timing for politics? We’ll probably never know.
And if it is political is that a bad thing? Because it looks like something positive may be getting done. I read a letter written on August 14, 2007 by Barack Obama which stated that nearly 6 million toys (including children’s jewelry) have been recalled in the last 5 months due to high lead content. 6 million! Wow, that’s scary!
A much scarier political element is a small paragraph I found in an article on the CNN website (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/01/toy.recall.ap/index.html). It stated that “In negotiating details of the recall, Fisher Price and the government sought to withhold details from the public until Thursday to give stores time to get suspect toys off shelves and Fisher Price time to get its recall hot line up and running.” It was not clear to me how far in advance Fisher Price and the government knew about this problem before you and I did. Was it weeks? Days? Or only 24 hours? Again, we’ll probably never know. From a Crisis Marketing standpoint, it’s never a good idea to withhold information from your consumers. Because if or when that information becomes public knowledge, the fact that it was withheld can cause a lack of trust in your company and its products. I wasn’t impressed with Fisher Price’s Crisis Marketing in the first place, and this brought down my opinion even more.
As for Senator Barack Obama and his Lead Free Toys Act, maybe he’ll be able to market himself as the man who saved our children from deadly toys.
So, Breaking News or Politics? Probably both.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Toy Recalls
As both a new mother and a Marketing professional with a special interest in Crisis Marketing, I have been following the Fisher Price toy recalls (due to lead and magnets) fairly closely. And from a Marketing perspective I’ve found some very interesting things.
About a week ago, I signed up online to receive a Fisher Price e-newsletter. When the newsletter arrived in my inbox, I was quite surprised that there was absolutely no mention of the toy recalls. There was not even a link to follow for “in the news” or “current events” or anything that could be related. This major news story was quite obvious in its absence. So, of course, I went looking for it.
I started with what I knew from the local news -- Fisher Price toys were being recalled -- and I went to the Fisher Price website. I expected to find a headlining article or a pop up box containing recall information. But there was nothing to be seen. Scanning down the screen to the bottom of the homepage I finally located a small box labeled “Recall Information” written in pale pink letters -- not at all eye-catching. In fact, this box was the 8th of 9 options, and did not stand out in any way. It did not appear to be a recent addition to the website due to the breaking news story, but rather a standard feature. Clicking on this box led me to a new screen which read “Please Note! Fisher-Price® and a number of other well-known brands are subsidiaries of Mattel, Inc. Services for customers of all Mattel brands are offered through one central section on Mattel.com…” What a minute? A subsidiary of Mattel? Did everybody else already know that? I didn’t see it on the Fisher Price homepage.
Regardless of my questions, I was automatically connected to the Mattel Consumer Relations Answer Center. So I resumed my search on Mattel.com. The product recalls page contains good information about which toys are recalled, why, and what to do if you own them. But what about a statement from the company? What about an apology for putting children at risk? Nothing of the kind.
I then took my search to the Mattel.com homepage. Success! I clicked on a bright red box labeled “Voluntary Toy Recall” and was offered my choice of 22 languages. Choosing “English – US. Canada” I finally found what I was looking for: A statement from the company including a video featuring Bob Eckert, Chairman & CEO of Mattel, Inc. Great information even though it took me a long time to find it by going through what seemed to be the most obvious route of the Fisher Price website.
Because of my interest in Crisis Marketing, I decided to pursue my research even though I had finally located the information I needed as a consumer. I choose to do a general internet search starting from Yahoo.com. What a surprise! Mattel had taken out a large advertisement on the front page of Yahoo including Bob Eckert’s video. Typing “Fisher Price Toy Recall” in the search box returned 355,000 hits. Typing “Mattel Toy Recall” returned 502,000 hits. Way too much information to wade through! So I gave Fisher Price a mental score of C- for their Crisis Marketing, and graded Mattel with an A-.
Done with the toy recalls, and onto relaxing with my baby and my September, 2007 issue of Good Housekeeping Magazine. But hold on! An article titled “Playing with Poison” jumped out at me. Could it be a major coincidence since magazine articles are written 1 – 3 months in advance? Skimming the article, there was no mention of Fisher Price or Mattel, but there did seem to be some political motivation for the toy recalls mentioned.
Back to the World Wide Web for more research! But that’s another whole article. Look for Toy Recalls part II – Breaking News or Politics in next week’s blog.
About a week ago, I signed up online to receive a Fisher Price e-newsletter. When the newsletter arrived in my inbox, I was quite surprised that there was absolutely no mention of the toy recalls. There was not even a link to follow for “in the news” or “current events” or anything that could be related. This major news story was quite obvious in its absence. So, of course, I went looking for it.
I started with what I knew from the local news -- Fisher Price toys were being recalled -- and I went to the Fisher Price website. I expected to find a headlining article or a pop up box containing recall information. But there was nothing to be seen. Scanning down the screen to the bottom of the homepage I finally located a small box labeled “Recall Information” written in pale pink letters -- not at all eye-catching. In fact, this box was the 8th of 9 options, and did not stand out in any way. It did not appear to be a recent addition to the website due to the breaking news story, but rather a standard feature. Clicking on this box led me to a new screen which read “Please Note! Fisher-Price® and a number of other well-known brands are subsidiaries of Mattel, Inc. Services for customers of all Mattel brands are offered through one central section on Mattel.com…” What a minute? A subsidiary of Mattel? Did everybody else already know that? I didn’t see it on the Fisher Price homepage.
Regardless of my questions, I was automatically connected to the Mattel Consumer Relations Answer Center. So I resumed my search on Mattel.com. The product recalls page contains good information about which toys are recalled, why, and what to do if you own them. But what about a statement from the company? What about an apology for putting children at risk? Nothing of the kind.
I then took my search to the Mattel.com homepage. Success! I clicked on a bright red box labeled “Voluntary Toy Recall” and was offered my choice of 22 languages. Choosing “English – US. Canada” I finally found what I was looking for: A statement from the company including a video featuring Bob Eckert, Chairman & CEO of Mattel, Inc. Great information even though it took me a long time to find it by going through what seemed to be the most obvious route of the Fisher Price website.
Because of my interest in Crisis Marketing, I decided to pursue my research even though I had finally located the information I needed as a consumer. I choose to do a general internet search starting from Yahoo.com. What a surprise! Mattel had taken out a large advertisement on the front page of Yahoo including Bob Eckert’s video. Typing “Fisher Price Toy Recall” in the search box returned 355,000 hits. Typing “Mattel Toy Recall” returned 502,000 hits. Way too much information to wade through! So I gave Fisher Price a mental score of C- for their Crisis Marketing, and graded Mattel with an A-.
Done with the toy recalls, and onto relaxing with my baby and my September, 2007 issue of Good Housekeeping Magazine. But hold on! An article titled “Playing with Poison” jumped out at me. Could it be a major coincidence since magazine articles are written 1 – 3 months in advance? Skimming the article, there was no mention of Fisher Price or Mattel, but there did seem to be some political motivation for the toy recalls mentioned.
Back to the World Wide Web for more research! But that’s another whole article. Look for Toy Recalls part II – Breaking News or Politics in next week’s blog.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
How to Divide Your Marketing Budget - A New Rule
Jay Conrad Levinson is the author of the best-selling marketing series in history, Guerrilla Marketing. He states that “marketing is part art, part science and part business.” Here is his new 10/30/60 rule to help you achieve increased profits with the lowest possible investment.
The 10/30/60 Rule
All guerrillas know they have three markets. The largest of those markets and the one that represents the least profits to you is called your universe -- everybody within your marketing area regardless of whether they match your customer profile. Guerrillas invest 10 percent of their marketing budget talking to their universe, attempting to move them into their second largest market, one that ranks in the middle for generating profits.
That market is called your prospects, those members of the universe who do fit your customer profile. Your job: Invest 30 percent of your budget in an effort to nudge your prospects into your third market—your customers, easily your most lucrative source of profits.
Guerrillas invest 60 percent of their budgets marketing to their customers, knowing it costs them one-sixth as much to make a sale to an existing customer compared with marketing to a non-customer. By investing the most in the market that produces the most profits, yet costs the least to reach, guerrillas maximize their total marketing investment.
The 10/30/60 Rule
All guerrillas know they have three markets. The largest of those markets and the one that represents the least profits to you is called your universe -- everybody within your marketing area regardless of whether they match your customer profile. Guerrillas invest 10 percent of their marketing budget talking to their universe, attempting to move them into their second largest market, one that ranks in the middle for generating profits.
That market is called your prospects, those members of the universe who do fit your customer profile. Your job: Invest 30 percent of your budget in an effort to nudge your prospects into your third market—your customers, easily your most lucrative source of profits.
Guerrillas invest 60 percent of their budgets marketing to their customers, knowing it costs them one-sixth as much to make a sale to an existing customer compared with marketing to a non-customer. By investing the most in the market that produces the most profits, yet costs the least to reach, guerrillas maximize their total marketing investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)