April 18, 2008 2:19 pm : Comments 000
When a company is coming under fire from the public and media, you can count on their related official statements sounding anything but meaningful or spontaneous. Such statements are often perfunctory at best and clearly written with kid gloves snuggly fitted on the committee of writers’ hands. As a result, the issued statement is invariably bland, sweepingly broad, and peppered with enough “PR-speak” so that it doesn’t say very much at all. Example:
Reporter: “How can the company justify paying 300 times book value to acquire a failing company owned by the CEO’s son-in-law?”
Spokesperson: “NEWCO is proud of its corporate governance practices and its commitment to increasing shareholder value. We look forward to expanding the NEWCO brand through this merger of equals.”
Ok, so maybe I’ve crafted more than a few statements in PR-speak myself.
That said, how incredibly liberating to come across a corporate comment in the newspaper that not only speaks directly to the issue, but does so with real gusto…a statement that puts the inquiring reporter in his place and publicly questions his news judgment….a statement where the spokesperson stops being a shiny, happy person for a millisecond to say what he or she is really thinking.
Surprisingly, such a statement was issued by none other than CBS News. In response to a question about the embattled Katie Couric possibly – but not definitely – but, let’s face it, increasingly likely – “barring a change” – possibility of quitting as the anchor of “CBS Evening News”, CBS issued the following statement to the New York Post:
“We think readers are extraordinarily bored with this infantile and nasty pilling on… and will continue to focus not on baseless rumor and conjecture, but on the quality and depth of the broadcast – which is second to none.”
Wow – that’s a big change from the more traditional “we’re very proud of…” and “we have no plans for any changes regarding…” statements reportedly issued earlier.
Alas, the Post didn’t report whether a name was attached to the more recent statement, so I don’t know the identity of the verbal sharpshooter. But whoever you are, I applaud your courage and candor. I’d be delighted to buy you a drink.
Something tells me you could use one.
Share This Post
April 10, 2008 1:13 pm : Comments 001
One of the great frustrations for any profession is to be defined in the public’s collective mind by the unethical or scandalous antics of a handful of individuals whose behaviors or values don’t mirror the majority of those in their industry. Just ask any reputable lawyer, car salesman, mechanic, or real estate agent.
Or ask someone in private equity. That sector is most often associated with the likes of Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman, who has reaped billions of dollars by buying healthy companies, crippling them with debt and massive layoffs, and then selling them at a huge profit. Although there are countless private equity firms who have contributed mightily to the economy and the public good, the average Joe or Jane steadfastly identifies the industry with greedy individuals who pillage companies and feast on $40 crab claws.
The PR profession certainly isn’t immune to public misperceptions either, which is more than a tad ironic. Indeed, we are the proverbial shoemaker’s children when it comes to our own reputation management. Our public credibility gap has, sadly, only widened lately thanks to the headline-generating missteps, blunders, and ethical breaches of some high-profile practitioners. While these individuals may occupy corner offices, I am loathe to use the term “industry leader” to describe any of them for they have shown via their actions, words, or values that they do not represent the trail-blazing people in the PR industry who truly deserve professional respect and admiration.
Mark Penn, the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, is the industry’s embarrassment du jour. While the mainstream media has been highly critical of Senator Hillary Clinton’s decision to allow Mr. Penn to keep his day job while serving as a key advisor on her presidential campaign, Burson-Marsteller has largely been given a free pass on its equally problematic decision to allow Mr. Penn to continue on as its CEO.
As someone who has generated a significant amount of new business through referrals from people with whom we work, I appreciate the value of having a CEO who is so connected as to have the ear of someone who could very well be the next president. But one of the cardinal rules of reputation management is that you should never act behind the scenes in a way that would prove to be embarrassing or detrimental if it was covered on the front page of the newspaper.
Mr. Penn’s decision to meet with officials from Colombia, which hired Burson no doubt in part because of Mr. Penn’s connection to Senator Clinton, and subsequent apology after his meeting became public, was an insult to the firm’s employees who dutifully uphold the firm’s published commitment to avoiding conflicts of interest and to all the clients who were taken in by the firm’s grandstanding about its ethical approach to business. It also demonstrated that Mr. Penn’s greater loyalty is to the Clinton campaign rather than to Burson’s clients.
But the Colombia incident isn’t the only instance of ethical malfeasance at Burson under Mr. Penn’s leadership. The Wall Street Journal in September reported that Burson was aggressively waging a campaign advocating against Google’s planned acquisition of DoubleClick. But in its outreach to reporters, Burson representatives failed to disclose to reporters that it was working for Microsoft, a major Google competitor. According to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), such subterfuge is wholly improper and a significant ethical breach.
Harold Burson, an industry luminary and the co-founder of the firm that employs Mr. Penn, also has ethical problems with PR firms not disclosing their vested interests. “I’m totally opposed to front organizations that do not disclose where their funding comes from and to my knowledge – we’re a big company – we have never started or organized a group where the funding sponsorship was unknown,” Mr. Burson said in a 1999 interview that was first cited by PR blogger Mark Rose. Things have clearly changed at Burson since Mr. Penn assumed the leadership.
Further, Mr. Penn reportedly has been actively involved in Burson’s representation of troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. For an inside look at one of the most dubious reputation management campaigns ever waged, this article in the Wall Street Journal and this one in Salon is must reading.
Regrettably, Burson isn’t the only global PR firm causing the industry considerable embarrassment. It was reported on Gawker, a media-focused website, that Edelman, which also made pledges about its ethical approach to business and commitment to honesty, tells clients that it is okay to lie to the media. CEO Richard Edelman denies the story, of course.
I’ve met Richard Edelman and even once entertained thoughts of joining his firm (heck, we once cheekily considered calling this blog “5:45 a.m.” as opposed to his own “6 a.m.” blog to suggest we were at work before the Big Boys of the industry). My take from afar? Mr. Edelman is decidedly one of the most decent, personable, trusting, and gracious senior executives in the PR business. But his trust has repeatedly been misplaced. In recent years he has increasingly chosen to surround himself with political operatives, including Leslie Dach, who worked at Edelman for nearly two decades, albeit with some sabbaticals to work on various political campaigns.
Mr. Dach, the subject of an extremely damning profile in The New Yorker, formerly oversaw Edelman’s Wal-Mart account and he has since joined the giant retailer. During Dach’s leadership, Edelman initiated the “Wal-Marting Across America” blog, supposedly penned by a couple of customer enthusiasts who turned out to have been bought and paid for by the PR firm. That campaign was one of the most egregious communications frauds in recent memory. Edelman still retains the Wal-Mart account, which suggests the controversial retailer wasn’t too chagrined after being outed for the deception.
Then there is the issue of Ronn Torossian, the CEO of 5WPR, which claims to be one of the fastest growing PR firms in the industry. Mr. Torossian has a penchant for threatening litigation (see Strumpette’s Torossian Lawsuit countdown clock), a brash style, and a rather skewed perception of where he fits in the pecking order of industry giants (To wit, he reportedly said this a few years ago with respect to legendary PR man Howard Rubenstein: “5WPR are the new kids on the block to challenge him as the leading PR person in NYC.”). I will let the folks at Gawker fill you in on a major reason why Mr. Torossian comes to mind while writing this particular post.
Finally, there is Michael “The-Flack-When-You-Are-Under-Attack” Sitrick. As I’ve noted before, I admire Mr. Sitrick’s willingness to rough up reporters who write negative stories about his clients (although some of the reporters he has taken on are among the smartest and fairest in the business) and I salute Mr. Sitrick for his ability to dupe 60 Minutes into doing an uncritically sympathetic story about his controversial client Biovail being an unjustified victim of short sellers. Yet his outrages and messianic attacks on short sellers for their dubious activities loses some of its steam when you read that his firm has apparently engaged in some highly questionable practices itself.
(Full Disclosure: I briefly was retained by an attorney to assist in a matter involving Spyro Contogouris, a hedge fund researcher who was a prime target of Mr. Sitrick’s attacks)
Over the years I have been frequently criticized by PR people for being “extremely naïve about PR” and “thinking too much like a reporter.” I’ve been told that PR is an inherently dirty business that often requires the use of dishonesty and deception to get the job done. But I don’t buy that, nor do the people who work here. At the end of the day, our reputation for integrity and transparency is our most cherished corporate asset, and no client, project, award, or piece of business is worth its sacrifice. These values have served us well.
The PR industry has no shortage of practitioners who are quick to advise others how to manage their reputations. It’s high time we did something about our own.
Share This Post
April 4, 2008 2:08 pm : Comments 006
When it comes to jumping on the latest technology bandwagon, I am always the last one on board. Whereas others tend to await the latest product release by the wunderkinds of Silicon Valley with blissful anticipation, I face them with inevitable dread.
I just don’t “get” technology. I barely passed computer science in seventh grade and it’s been an uphill battle ever since. When something goes wrong with my computer or iPod or whatever, there’s never an easy fix. My colleagues, friends, and probably Dell and Mac’s combined support staffs have learned to dread my phone calls begging for help.
But it seems there’s hope for me yet.
Six months ago I reluctantly leased a BMW. I say “reluctantly” because I actually wanted to lease another Acura, the car I previously leased for a blissful trouble-free 39 months. Heck, I would have been happy to buy my old Acura, but the buyout payment was ridiculously prohibitive, especially considering an unbelievable offer a local BMW dealership gave me. Even the Acura salesman agreed the BMW deal was just too good to pass up. So, despite a panic-attack-inducing dashboard full of high-tech bells and whistles, I went with the BMW.
I’m glad I did. Anyone who knows cars knows that BMWs are legendary for their handling. Having spent some time in the driver’s seat, I can confirm that the reputation is well deserved. I haven’t enjoyed driving this much since I first got my driver’s license! Forget “The Ultimate Driving Machine”, BMW’s marketing folks should call it what it really is – “The Ultimate Driving Technology“.
Whereas some people may pride themselves on having a BMW parked in their driveway, I’m not one for “status symbols” so the car means nothing to me on that level. The pride I derive from the car is being able to triumphantly say, believe it or not, that I have mastered its myriad technology operating functions and amenities. I’ve actually figured out how to use all the “extras” on my dashboard. I can listen to my iPod, use the GPS, or talk hands-free on my cellphone without breaking out the driver’s manual or calling my salesman. Remember, I was essentially a Luddite when it came to embracing new technologies so this is a really big deal for me.
There once was a time when I was equally in awe of Apple Computers’ ability to make user-friendly and reliable technologies. Mac computers were once considerably more intuitive and reliable than those of its PC-based rivals, and the company’s tech support staff was equally accessible. Sadly, those days seem resigned to the history books.
I recently was staying away from home for a while in a corporate apartment. The cable Internet connection wasn’t working with my G4 laptop, so I called Apple, thinking that its tech people would be trained to quickly and easily help me with such a basic function. Guess again.
After waiting a good 30 minutes in the Apple tech support queue, I connected with a technician and told him my dilemma. Imagine my shock to be told dismissively that Apple doesn’t support products that are more than three years old (Excuse me? Yeah, that’s a whole other blog post waiting to happen.). After I begged and pleaded, he said Apple would support me “this one time.” I’m sure there was some significant eye-rolling at the other end of the line.
To make a long and rather unpleasant story short, it took the Mac “genius” more than an hour to troubleshoot my problem. Regrettably, he managed to create a host of other problems along the way that he wasn’t able or willing to correct, including disabling the functionality of my Verizon Wireless card. Fortunately, someone at Verizon Wireless was able to get me back up and running within minutes. As Verizon Wireless doesn’t officially support Apple products, the assistance was twice as much appreciated.
My growing disenchantment with Apple isn’t tied to that one incident. About a year ago, the company redesigned its mac.com email program, for which I paid about $100 a year to use. The upgrade was fraught with major hiccups and glitches, including system outages where the site itself would be down, denying users access to their messages. And if you did log on, it would frequently log you off as you were drafting an email, losing whatever you’d written thus far. Emails you thought were sent never went through to the recipient. It was frustrating to say the least.
Other Mac users, including talk show host Rush Limbaugh, report having other problems. Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh recently appealed on air to Apple CEO Steve Jobs for help with a computer problem after failing to get an issue resolved via the company’s tech support desk. Apple’s response? They dispatched an engineer to go work with him. If only the rest of us could get such high-touch, personal customer service.
There is also a broader concern about reliability. Dao, our former creative director who left us to join the Peace Corps, convinced me that she needed an iMac to do her job. Well, guess what? Less than a year later we had to send back the computer because its internal workings were “fried”. Even the new MacBook Dao eventually took with her to Macedonia was infected with gremlins. I believe the tech term would be “Random Shutdown Syndrome.” According to BusinessWeek, problem-plagued Macs are clearly not limited to my little private circle.
Yet Apple continues to enjoy a cult-like following simply because of the lack of formidable competition when it comes to functionality and design. Even I can readily appreciate the superiority of the Mac operating system. And while Apple’s standards for reliability have declined significantly over the past few years, it has never introduced a product as flawed as Microsoft’s Vista operating system, which is so problem-plagued that even Microsoft’s own senior executives have issues with it.
Still, it seems Mr. Jobs is increasingly willing to compromise on the reliability of Apple products in the rush to be first to market. His tolerance of launching “almost good enough” technology is a common mindset in Silicon Valley and the focus of a highly insightful commentary by Stephen Baker in BusinessWeek last September. Technophiles don’t seem to mind the shortcomings and compromises; Dao steadfastly remains a devoted Mac user and sees nothing wrong with needing a software upgrade immediately after buying her laptop. Her successor, Jake, is another devout iPhone-carrying Apple head. (When I told Jake that Apple will no longer support my laptop, he unabashedly replied, “Well you know it is more than three years old.” UGH!!!!!)
Perhaps it’s a generational thing, but I refuse to go along with the “almost good enough” mentality and the constant – and sometimes immediate – need for upgrades after products are introduced. In a way, I blame BMW. My experience with them has taught me that technology can be made both simple and reliable, and explained at a level that even a technophobe can understand. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet seen the need to publish a “BMW for Dummies.”
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I suspect that if BMW decided to make computers, their engineers and designers would adhere to much higher performance and service standards than those currently demanded by Mr. Jobs. And the folks at BMW could no doubt give Mr. Jobs a hell-of-a-run on the marketing front. Ah yes, dare to dream…
The thought of BMW making computers might sound absurd today, but who would have thought just a few years ago that Mr. Jobs would one day be peddling music and cell phones. Suffice to say, Mr. Jobs had better hope that my dream never becomes his reality.
Okay, you die-hard Appleheads who blindly worship Mr. Jobs, give me your best shot.
Share This Post
February 28, 2008 3:05 pm : Comments 001
One of the silver linings (no pun intended) of turning 50 was, I thought, becoming eligible for membership in the AARP. While I didn’t know much about the specifics of what they do, I had always had a generally positive perception of the organization. My impression in a nutshell? They worked doggedly to serve members’ best interests, they were relentless in advocating their causes to key influencers, and members got great deals on financial products and services.
As it turns out, I should have done my homework before signing up. AARP’s slogan “The Power to Make it Better” doesn’t seem to always apply, at least not when it comes to the products they endorse.
I once received a mailer promising me the lowest auto insurance rates available in New York. Even though I was content at the time with the level of service and coverage I had with GEICO, I figured I’d see how much better the AARP plan could do. I called, I gave my personal details, I was given a quote – which happened to be significantly higher than my existing policy. So much for getting great deals!
Turns out specious claims are not only reserved for AARP-endorsed insurance products. BusinessWeek’s Anne Tergesen makes clear in the magazine’s February 25th issue that, in most instances, the endorsement program that AARP offers on third-party financial products may be a better deal for the AARP than it is for most of its members. Royalties from the sale of financial products in 2006 contributed $400 million to the organization’s $1 billion budget, or almost twice the income of monthly dues.
A spokesperson acknowledged to BW that its products are “not always the cheapest.” That said, he also suggested that they don’t necessarily try to compete solely on price, saying that the organization believes it offers “a higher-quality plan with elements that are not included in a lot of competitive plans” and that the products are “designed in part to serve those who might otherwise be excluded from the market.”
Fair enough. But if that’s the case, the promotional literature needs to come with something akin to one of those “viewer discretion” advisories they flash before those paid programming shows they run in the wee hours of the morning: “The following is a paid product endorsement. AARP advises members that better-suited and better-priced products are likely available elsewhere.”
Retirees are typically people most in need of protection from predators hyping financial services products that are not in their target’s best interest. How ironic – and disturbing – that AARP is complicit in the financial exploitation of its own members. AARP would be strongly advised to review its reputation management practices.
Share This Post
February 25, 2008 3:14 pm : Comments 000
After months of trumpeting the Starwood Preferred Guest program and mere hours after reaffirming my preference for its Westin Hotels chain, I regrettably find myself doing a complete 180 as I declare a personal boycott of all Starwood properties.
According to the New York Post, Starwood – whose properties include the Westin, Sheraton, St. Regis, Le Meridien, and Four Points hotels – has reportedly notified affinity program members that it plans to dramatically raise the number of reward points needed to get a free night at more than 200 of its properties – in some cases by as much as 133%. I never got the email notice supposedly sent to members, so I’ll have to trust the Post on this one.
If it’s true, it’s a big disappointment. Unlike the major airlines, which almost never let me use my frequent flyer miles when I want to, I’ve had great experiences with the Starwood program. Rooms are almost always available where I want to stay and on my preferred night(s). I must have stayed at one of my favorite hotels in the country, the Westin on Market Street in San Francisco, using Starwood points more than a half dozen times in the last year. It would have been half a dozen and one times, but there was an occasion last summer when I was told the hotel was fully booked – even though I was able to subsequently get in by securing a room at the same hotel for the very same night via hotels.com. (Hmmmm… so much for no blackout dates, eh?)
As one blogger pointedly noted, it appears that the Starwood program has been incredibly successful and the company now wants to “steal back tons of Starpoints.” Having used my Starwood card almost exclusively since I received it more than a year ago, I feel cheated. If Starwood wants to change the rules of the game, I’m sure the fine print that came with the sign-up sheet gave the company the right to do so. What may be legally permissible, however, is not in this case customer service-wise. The latter would dictate that those of us who essentially invested in the company by using its co-branded American Express card should be permitted to continue redeeming existing points under the prevailing terms when we signed up for the card.
Assuming Starwood won’t be adding such a grandfather clause, I hope other disappointed program members join me in boycotting the company’s properties. As Starwood is certainly not alone in upping its point redemption requirements recently, I am not sure which, if any, major chain will become my new favorite. There are plenty of quality independent hotels to choose from; perhaps I’ll give some of them a go. Who knows – maybe I’ll even find some with the marketing smarts to offer special discounts for disgruntled Starwood refugees in need of a new hotel to call home.
Share This Post
October 29, 2007 11:54 am : Comments 000
The biggest advantage for any company with a monopoly is the freedom to pretty much throw out the customer service manual. Sure, you may have to do a dog-and-pony show to appease regulators every now and then, but at the end of the day you pretty much have free rein to dictate the rules of pricing and service, consumer be damned. AT&T Corp. before its court-ordered breakup in 1984 serves as a textbook example of the hazards when a company is allowed absolute domination of a market. That company’s attitude was best captured in a bumper sticker bearing the Bell logo and the following caption: “We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the phone company.”
Cable companies until just recently enjoyed such monopolistic freedoms, though their industry is probably better defined as an oligopoly. Individual cable providers long-enjoyed exclusive contracts to provide service to entire communities and apartment buildings, which has allowed them to raise prices more than a whopping 90 percent over the past 10 years. The ensuing monopolistic mindset is best reflected by their rigid pricing approach and broadly bundled channels, uniformly bad customer service, and appalling practice of expecting their customers to put up with a three- or four-hour time estimate of when a technician will be on-site to provide installation or maintenance service. Imagine a restaurant or your local pizzeria delivery joint trying to get away with that approach…
The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to serve the cable industry its just desserts. The New York Times reports today that the agency is preparing to invalidate all contracts that give individual cable companies exclusive rights to provide service in apartment buildings. The decision will likely prove to be a big boon for consumers, as studies show that when an alternative cable service is made available, prices can drop as much as 30 percent.
Verizon Communications and the new AT&T (not to be confused with the old, “Ma Bell” monopolistic one) are still in the process of rolling out their fiber optic services, but they do seem inclined to make an aggressive play for marketshare. Unfortunately for consumers, these two companies are also notorious for bad customer service, so I doubt we’ll find much relief on that front. But hey, if the increased competition drives down service costs across the field, that will be a small victory enough.
The cable industry has signaled it will challenge the FCC’s rule in court. No doubt the hearings will be scheduled to start sometime between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m.
Share This Post
October 17, 2007 10:05 am : Comments 001
People who know us know that I couldn’t ask for a better partner than Jackie; we’re complete opposites, which is apparently a very good thing. We go back now more than 10 years – a lifetime in this business – and have had our fair share of celebrations and setbacks. Fortunately, there have been far, far fewer of the latter! Like all partnerships, we’ve had our share of tense moments, but we always manage to quickly work through them and keep the business on track. There is no one in business I trust more.
Jackie also is a very gifted editor. I have never encountered anyone who could massage copy with the skill and deftness as she can, not even during my earlier years as a professional journalist. She can make words sing off the page, as they say. Jackie, never afraid to rein in my passion when warranted, has saved me from embarrassment on more occasions than I care to admit. Her record on this score is almost impeccable: she has only let me down once.
The year was 2001. While on a visit to San Francisco, I came across an issue of SF Weekly that featured three women striking a Charlie’s Angels pose on the cover. It turns out they were tech sector headhunters. Their big secret to finding potential job candidates? If memory serves, they would go partying wherever dot-commers liked to hang out. The story irked me because it celebrated these women as industry leaders, when I viewed them as the embodiment of the ills dragging the sector down. I found the article sufficiently outrageous that on my return flight home, I drafted a letter to the editor.
As always, I asked Jackie to review the letter before sending it. She cleared it with nary a punctuation change, a highly unusual event. I recall she was annoyed with me at the time, although I don’t remember over what issue. So I sent the letter.
Admittedly, the letter was a tad too passionate. Although Jackie vehemently denies it, I believe that she made a cold, calculated decision to let me hang that one time, figuring not much harm could come from me sounding a little over the top to readers of a free alternative weekly in San Francisco.
But this is the Internet age, and if you google my name and SF Weekly, that letter shows up in all its glory, as does the editor’s snarky introduction to it: “Choose one: This reader (that would be me) recently had a bad experience with A) a pretty woman, B) a job recruiter, C) A and B.”
I’m painfully reminded of this bombastic letter every time I’m in San Francisco. Thanks to Google, it will no doubt haunt me forever. Or at least until I get my payback. Hmmm…
7 of 9
Share This Post
October 16, 2007 2:35 pm : Comments 000
We always caution clients about the dangers of being an oracle. While making bold predictions is a surefire way to get media visibility – as Henry Blodget learned when he predicted in December 1998 Amazon shares would hit $400 within a year – they can forever haunt you if you turn out to be egregiously wrong. Tom Watson, former chairman of IBM, serves as a classic case in point. Despite his many accomplishments, Mr. Watson will always be best remembered for his suggestion that “there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
Another real doozy of a prediction was made by an unidentified New Yorker who was quoted by reporter Mark Calvey in a November 1996 San Francisco Business Times story saying that “the Internet is a hot fad that will be over in a year.” What was that guy thinking?! I’ll bet he feels pretty stupid now…
Okay, so that comment doesn’t appear to be one of my proudest moments. But for the record, I strongly maintain that I was misquoted.
As I recall my dinner conversation with Mark, I said that the excitement about dot-com companies was a bunch of hype because Internet technology at the time wasn’t sufficiently user friendly and that most dot-com entrepreneurs didn’t understand or appreciate the importance of good and reliable customer service. (I regard customer service as the best barometer of a company’s viability). In 1996, consumers didn’t have high-speed connections and if you ordered a product or service over the Internet chances were better than even that you never received it because the order never went through. I might have been wrong about the duration of the hype, but I think I deserve some credit for being among the first to predict that many of the era’s dot-com companies would eventually implode.
I consider Mark as being one of the most honest and decent reporters in journalism; after all, he could have legitimately quoted me as I never insisted beforehand (as I do when I’m accompanying a client) that our dinner conversation be treated as off-the-record. I long wondered if Mark even remembered my infamous quote, so this past summer I gave him a call and left a message on his voicemail. My worst fears were quickly realized when he called me back, as our conversation went something like this:
ME: Hey, Mark. Are you in New York? Your number showed up with a 212 area code.
MARK: No, I’m in San Francisco. I probably show up with a 212 area code because our phone lines are over the Internet. You know the Internet now has that capability, don’t you?
Yeah, he remembered.
ME: About that quote, you know that isn’t exactly what I said.
MARK: No, I’m pretty sure I quoted you accurately.
We agreed to forever disagree.
I’m coming clean on my infamous quote now because I figure it’s only a matter of time before Mark discovers that I’ve launched this blog. I can almost hear him snickering already.
Okay, Mark. Give me your best shot.
6 of 9
Share This Post
October 12, 2007 10:10 am : Comments 001
Whether good or bad, the world generally perceives New Yorkers as a hurried and impatient lot, continually on the move, always rushing off to somewhere more important than the place we are at a given moment. Without question, many of us take a certain pride in being seen as the most demanding, of marking time in nanoseconds, of living our daily lives under the rule of the “New York Minute“.
But the truth is that New Yorkers tolerate some of the most – if not the most – apathetic customer service in the nation. Forget the notion of a New York minute if you need to pick up toiletries or a gourmet coffee – it’ll cost you 15 of those minutes at least. And if you need technical help at a wireless store or, heaven forbid, need to cross a bridge or tunnel? You’ll need to set your watch to count off in quarter-hour increments. Despite what Don Henley may suggest, everything can change in a New York minute … but only if you’re not stuck in line at Duane Reade, Starbucks, or the George Washington Bridge.
I’m always reminded of this myth/reality disconnect whenever I am in San Francisco. California is famous for its slower pace and less stress lifestyle, yet residents here enjoy a prompt level of customer service that far exceeds the standards found in New York City, even at the most everyday of establishments. Generally speaking, there’s an attentiveness to customers and an urgency to help them complete their transactions and get them on their merry way that is in stark contrast to life in the Big Apple. No exaggeration, it’s akin to culture shock to this beaten-down NY consumer. Budgeting extra time to stand in long lines is part of my daily ritual.
Consider the evidence:
Walgreens vs. Duane Reade
Like Duane Reade in New York, there seems to be a Walgreens on every block in San Francisco. That’s where the similarities end.
The managers of San Francisco-based Walgreens seem to realize their customers want to shop in a clean, logically-organized, uncluttered, friendly store, and that they have better things to do than stand aimlessly in line once they’ve found everything they need. If the queue becomes more than three or four people deep, cashiers call for backup without reservation. Employees performing stockwork and other functions drop what they are doing and open a register to move the people through the line quicker.
While there are a few Walgreens in New York, the city is unquestionably dominated by a chain called Duane Reade. Poor customer service is Duane Reade’s hallmark. Forget death and taxes, the only thing you can REALLY bet the house on is that you will never, ever go to a Duane Reade store in New York and not wait in line – even if there are no customers in the store. You’ll simply have to wait while the cashier finishes talking to her colleague, changes the receipt paper, or perhaps fills the coin slots in the till, breaking open the individual coin rolls and counting out every last quarter, dime, nickel and penny packed in them before ringing you up. I am not exaggerating.
Peet’s vs. Starbucks
There is absolutely no debate among coffee aficionados that Peet’s Coffee & Tea, an expanding, locally-based chain whose stores are predominately in California, is far superior to Starbucks when it comes to deep roasted coffee goodness. But their baristas are also worthy of praise.
People who work at Peet’s take great pride in their product – and it shows. They are friendly and energetic, and quick to pleasantly greet you and take your order. The flavor of the coffee is consistent and fresh, and is seemingly made with considerable care rather than with the soulless push of a button. Soothing classical music can be heard in the background. While lines sometimes do form during peak times, it’s not for a lack of hustle on the employees’ parts. It’s simply the popularity of the product. Most important, Peet’s has a pure gourmet coffee shop feel to it. When I walk in there, I don’t put up my guard that they are going to try to cross-sell me 18 other types of products.
Starbucks in New York has essentially become just a fast food chain – minus the “fast” bit. At the store in my neighborhood, the lines move maddeningly slow, they frequently pour coffee that isn’t fully brewed, and on more than one occasion, they actually didn’t have any coffee ready. The baristas like to blast music through tenth-rate quality speakers and while there may indeed be people who truly enjoy “The music of Starbucks,” I’m not one of them. I go to a coffee store just to buy coffee.
Verizon San Francisco vs. Verizon New York
Verizon may be synonymous with bad customer service, but someone forgot to tell Muki, the manager at the company store at 768 Market Street, just off Union Square. I’ve had to visit the store on numerous occasions, and have been impressed with not only the speed of the service but with the knowledge of its tech support people (maybe it has something to do with San Francisco’s proximity to Silicon Valley). I’ve always managed to get in and out of the store within 10 minutes.
Verizon stores in New York are a service nightmare. A while back my colleague Jeff had some problems with his cell phone that required frequent lunchtime visits to the Verizon store near our office. Whenever he announced he was heading over there, we all knew to block out a solid two hours before he would be back and available again for meetings, conference calls, etc.
As an aside, when I casually mentioned to an employee at the Market Street store how much better the service was than Verizon’s New York stores, he remarked, “You know we just had someone else here from New York who told us the same thing.”
Whole Foods on Fourth Street vs. Whole Foods New York City
Whole Foods is a retail delight for anyone who prefers to eat healthy, fresh food. The one on Fourth Street in San Francisco has these wonderfully prepared hot foods and a comfortable seating area to sit and enjoy them. Now here is the best part: I’ve visited the store at peak times and I’ve never had to wait in line. There are plenty of open registers at all times, and cashiers manning them are quick to get you on the move.
While the stock selection and prepared foods are equally good in New York, it’s the untraditional one line to check out that earns the Whole Foods stores their demerits. Simply, it takes too long to check out. Literally, the hot bowl of soup you were looking forward to enjoying for lunch is lukewarm by the time you pay for it and grab a seat. I suppose I could try going at an off-peak hour, but it seems more logical to accommodate customers who want to eat lunch at lunchtime. The New York Times did a profile late last June on the advantage to Whole Foods way of queuing people in one main line and then feeding them to registers as they free up – like they do it at Motor Vehicles – but the “longer the line, the shorter the wait” experience they talk about is nothing I’ve ever appreciated first hand.
The Golden Gate Bridge vs. The George Washington Bridge
Okay, I don’t have hard statistics to back this claim up, but the toll booth collectors at the Golden Gate Bridge run circles around their counterparts at the George Washington Bridge. Maybe they have performance goals and better attitudes, and maybe they just get the credit for what’s really a function of better designed roadways to keep the traffic flowing. The bottom line is that crossing the Golden Gate is comparatively quick and easy.
When I travel back from the Napa region, it is usually on a Sunday evening. On occasion there have been some extremely long backups, but it’s never taken me more than 20 minutes to make it through to the tollbooth. Once you get there, the collectors seem decidedly more polished and engaged, focused solely on accurately processing your transaction. A collector told me the working goal is to have cars pass through in ten seconds or less.
Back on the other coast, Sunday night backups on the George Washington Bridge can easily take more than an hour out of your life, especially in the summer. While part of the delay is no doubt due to the sheer volume of cars trying to squeak through, partial blame must lie with the distractions with which the tollbooth operators surround themselves. They chat on their cell phones, converse with each other by yelling across the lanes, and play loud, pulsating music while supposedly doing their jobs. While there are certainly other advantages to signing up for the E-ZPass automated toll payment system, there is none more persuasive than the promise of not having to deal one-on-one with human toll collectors who make you feel like you are an interruption to their fun.
I read somewhere that the expression a “New York minute” was coined by a guy from Texas who described it as “… a nanosecond, or that infinitesimal blink of time in New York after the traffic light turns green and before the ol’ boy behind you honks his horn.” I can only imagine what the definition would have been if he had taken the subway instead and based it on time standing in line at Duane Reade.
2 of 9
Share This Post
October 5, 2007 2:31 pm : Comments 004
Whenever I tell someone that I own and manage a PR firm, the response is almost always the same: “Wow, that must be great being the boss and getting to do whatever you want.” Their visions of me taking extended vacations and enjoying the stress-free existence that comes with not having to report to someone sounds good, but is hardly the case.
Owning your own company, particularly if it’s a professional services business, is just a more glamorous form of indentured servitude. You are forever beholden to clients, with their needs and deadline pressures taking precedence over yours (and rightfully so, just so we are clear). Planning an all-day hike on Saturday only to have a client call you the Friday afternoon to say they need a news release drafted and approved by 9 a.m. Monday morning? The mountain will be there next weekend. Booked on a little R&R trip to Florida in January only to find the day before that a client in Minneapolis wants to see you? Swap the scuba flippers in your suitcase for snow boots, as you’re going to Minnesota.
But clients aren’t the only ones ruling the roost. There are also your employees. It’s often said that in a professional services business, a company’s best assets walk out the door every night. At a top-tier firm like S&A, these “assets” are aggressively courted by other firms on a regular basis and understandably so as I’ve surrounded myself with some of the best and brightest people in the public relations business. To keep these people happy I’ve had to embrace what is known as employee empowerment, meaning that I must often listen and accept the collective will of my colleagues, even when it involves the trampling of my First Amendment right of free speech. Harrumph!
When we launched this blog in June, it was generally assumed by the As in S&A that I would focus on public relations, reputation management, customer service, and media relations, topics on which I can speak with a great degree of authority and expertise. All things considered, it was a reasonable assumption. I’ll give them that. However, I do have interests outside the four walls of the office that I would like to write about from time to time. One of them is the airline industry… which I guess is apparent to even the most sporadic of readers by now.
I have been fascinated with the business since I flew on a Vickers Viscount turboprop to Pittsburgh when I was about 10 years old. The logistics of moving all those people and all that cargo to so many places… it’s like watching a symphony on tarmac. Truthfully, I secretly covet the job of Henry Joyner, the American Airlines executive whose myriad responsibilities include overseeing the nation’s biggest airliner fleet. Then again, I get pretty stressed out wondering if we turned off the air conditioner at night. I’m not sure I have that inner zen tranquility required to masterfully juggle more than 4,000 daily flights without causing myself irreparable cardiac stress.
Given this childhood-born fascination still entrenched, is it any wonder I started writing about the airline business? It started with a blog about call centers and then I moved on to Virgin America. Okay, maybe Virgin America IV was a little much, but, hey, Sir Richard Branson is a PR guru so I figured I was on solid ground. I’ll concede that my blog about relieving airport congestion was hardly within the realm of PR, but I fly a lot and I’m fed up with increasingly long delays. But if you hold these airline posts up to the light at just the right angle, there are PR considerations touched on. The post about airline frequent flyer programs earlier this week, for example, should technically be considered within the realm of customer service, which is PR-ish, right?
Unfortunately, my colleagues see things otherwise and have plotted against me.
The mutiny – or intervention depending on where your sympathies lie on this one – began with my co-founder Jackie, who has the final say over all editorial content emanating out of S&A, including this very post. She let me know early on that she, well, let’s just say “disapproved” of my steady stream of airline blogs, especially when I became a tad fixated on criticizing the airline connected with Sir Richard Branson, a guy with a solid invite on her Five Famous People You’d Invite to Dinner list.
Then there is Jeff, who in another life specialized in travel PR and has probably forgotten more about the travel industry than most people know. Jeff, too, has let me know of his concern over the frequency of my airline blogs and graciously has sent me links to people more qualified than me to write about the business. Anthony has repeatedly made references about getting me help for my “airline blog addiction.” Meghann? Well, she now just meets my requests for help on airline-related research with the glazed-over look of defeat and resignation. The final straw came from Jacob, our creative director, who when I asked to post my Virgin America IV posting, groaned: “Not another airline blog. I thought you were supposed to be writing about public relations.”
Threatened with having my blog hijacked and off-loaded to a secret URL, I had no choice but to meet their demands for a six-month blackout on anything airline-related. These were the terms in their ransom note:
“For purposes of the S&A blog, you are not to directly or indirectly write about, write on, or write around anything having to do with the airline industry, which is defined as any person, organization or group involved for pay or pleasure in activities that enable, support, market, or provide commentary on the transporting of people or cargo via the air.”
Not completely heartless, they granted me an exception: “You may, however, write about helium balloons.”
So there you have it. Employee empowerment at its finest. As I am a man of my word and, all kidding aside, this is very much a joint effort, I must now wait until April before indulging my editorial whimsy for all that is glorious and maddening about airplanes and the people and companies that fly them.
Before I am silenced, however, I want to give a shout out to an airline blog that is amazingly informative and a delight to read. Called The Cranky Flyer, it’s written by a former airline employee and self-confessed “airline dork” named Brett Snyder. What impresses me about the site is not only Brett’s insightful musings, but the sophisticated responses of his readers. Brett is an extremely talented writer with a wry sense of humor; his numerous awards are well deserved.
I’ve had several email exchanges and brief telephone conversation with Brett these past few weeks and he’s offered to take me to a bar/restaurant at LAX with a bird’s-eye view of planes landing and taking off the next time I’m in town. For me that will be the equivalent of sitting with Bob Sheppard while watching the Yankees play. Sadly, I won’t be able to write about the experience if it happens before the winter snow comes and goes.
Then again, I guess I won’t be able to write about that unbelievably wonderful Virgin America flight I took this morning or about the senior Virgin America executive who has agreed to meet with me. Hmmmm… you sure you don’t want to renegotiate, Jackie?
And with that, off I go into the sunset. Wheels up.
Share This Post
top of page