Is It Just Me, or do the powers-that-be have their heads where the sun doesn't shine when it comes to health care?
No, I'm not talking about the proposed health-care reform, scary thought though that may be. I'm referring to the H1N1 vaccine and how that whole situation has been handled.
Let me say this at the outset: I understand that it takes longer to "grow" this vaccine than the regular seasonal flu vaccine. I understand fully the need, especially when the supply is limited, to put the "women and kids" first; that is, people in high-risk groups like first responders, pregnant women and children absolutely should have access to the vaccine ahead of those in less danger. I understand that people age 65 and up, under normal circumstances, do not appear to contract the H1N1 virus nearly as often as younger folks -- and when they do, the symptoms usually are fairly mild. Given that, I can even understand why some states -- again given the limited supply of vaccine -- have opted to exclude senior citizens from receiving it at all.
Aye, but there's a rub: Senior citizens who have high-risk factors are left out in the cold totally. No, we aren't likely to be pregnant (thank you, God!); but we can and do suffer from serious respiratory ailments, have heart conditions and other health issues and, in many cases, still work or are volunteers in high-risk settings like public schools and hospitals. What, exactly, are we supposed to do? Why do the guidelines for vaccination not make allowances for us?
Here's a for-instance: A couple of H1N1 clinics have been sponsored by our local health department. And each time, the rules for eligibility were clear. The first one was for first-responders and those who provide direct health care. The second was for just about anyone else under the age of 65. Both were held weeks ago when the flu was spreading rapidly through the area where we live -- but my husband and I did not quality because we're fast closing in on 70.
Meantime, however, my husband, who supervises student teachers, was paying a number of visits to several area high schools -- interacting closely with both students and faculty. He also, I should add, had open-heart surgery (albeit many years ago) and now suffers from chronic sinus problems. As for me, I'm a state-certified volunteer long-term care ombudsman who meets with -- complete with hugs and kisses -- elderly residents of a nursing home on a weekly basis. Health-wise, I'm asthmatic, can expect a cold to lead to bronchitis and had pneumonia twice as a kid. Were either of us to contract the H1N1 virus, I have absolutely no doubt that we'd both be shipped to the hospital in very short order and extremely lucky if we didn't develop serious, if not fatal, complications. And should we be carriers of the virus, we could unwittingly pass it on to young folks and very frail seniors -- I don't even want to consider the possible dire consequences in those situations.
We're not alone; I can name quite a few other folks who are over age 65 who certainly should have been included in the high-risk category and thus entitled to receive the vaccine on a timely basis. In one sense, I suppose, we're luckier than some; finally, on Dec. 3, we were able to get the shots (though only after having to stand in line for an hour and a half). While we're happy to get it, at this point there are few, if any, cases of H1N1 anywhere around us. The chances that we'll ever be exposed to it or carry it to anyone else now are between slim and none, especially if we hold onto our stock in the hand sanitizer industry. But I guess those who are in our shoes risk-wise and live in those states that refuse to give the vaccine to anyone who resembles a senior citizen are expected to fend for themselves and the devil take the hindmost.
My point? Simply this: As with most health issues, H1N1 isn't black or white. Anyone with an ounce of brains should have realized there are exceptions to just about every rule. No matter what our age, we should at least have had the opportunity to explain that our existing respiratory conditions make us highly susceptible to complications of the H1N1 virus, which attacks the respiratory system with a vengeance. We should have had the opportunity to explain that even though we're not around high-risk groups every single day -- and only one of us is paid to do it -- we do it often enough, and in close enough proximity to, high-risk individuals for whom H1N1 poses a definite risk to us (from them) and those with whom we're visiting (from us).
Clearly, nobody at the top thought about those contingencies. And that bothers me enormously since those same shortsighted individuals now are trying to come up with substantial health-care reform. For all intents and purposes, at this point it looks from where I sit to be yet another one-size-fits all approach. Particularly in light of how the whole H1N1 situation is being handled, I'm worried that the number of people who need care but end up falling through the cracks with no access will be higher than it is now. I can only hope that someone, or several someones, at the top realize the need to pull off the blinders and look around at what's happening in the real world.
Or Is It Just Me?
Friday, December 4, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Customer Service Dead at Macy's
Is It Just Me, or is customer service continuing to take a hit? I've complained about this issue before, but intuitively, it seems to me that as department stores continue to struggle almost to the point of bankruptcy, customer service should be moving to the top of the must-do list. Not so at Macy's, I'm sorry to report.
It arrived in the mail last week: A "gift" card from Macy's offering my husband $10 off on a $30 purchase in celebration of his birthday, which is June 18. Fantastic, we agreed -- he needed to replace some old solid-color T-shirts, and the timing was perfect so he could get a good deal before we headed for our first vacation of the season at the North Carolina Outer Banks.
Over the years, I've learned that the "deals" from Macy's always come with strings; so it was that I hauled out my magnifying glass to read -- or so I thought -- the extensive fine print that laid out all the merchandise that's excluded from the savings. With card in hand and high expectations, we popped into the store at Eastwood Mall so he could redeem his relatively generous birthday "gift" from the company.
Almost immediately, he found what he was looking for. Just as immediately, I noticed the sign hailing the T-shirts as "Everyday Values" -- often not included in special offers. But, we reasoned, we'll just ask at the checkout counter to be sure.
As we approached the counter, we were accosted (yes, that's the word I want) by a woman wearing a manager's nametag and a sales clerk. Both greeted my husband, and his handful of T-shirts, with exclamations of "Would you like some slacks or shorts to go with those?" Chuckling but politely declining, we reached the checkout counter. There, my husband told both women explicitly: If this discount card applies, I want these; if it doesn't, I don't.
The manager, clearly aware of the type of card he had, said she was "pretty sure" the card was good on the merchandise he had selected. The sales clerk was noncommittal, saying only that she'd need to ring them up to be sure. The manager then walked away, leaving the clueless sales clerk to deal with the fallout, if any. She proceeded to scan in the items -- three T-shirts at the "Everyday Values" price of $14.99 each -- carefully removing the paper stuffing in each and promising to refold them before putting them in our shopping bag.
Then came the moment of reckoning I'd been half expecting. In fact, the card was not good on these items. That's too bad, the sales clerk cooed. And when I mentioned that I'd read the fine print but didn't notice the exclusion, she "sympathized" by acknowledging that the fine print is "really, really" small. Meanwhile, steam was starting to come from my husband's ears, but he simply repeated what he'd said at the outset: If the card isn't good on these items, I won't buy them.
Now I'm not letting myself off the hook; I'm more than willing to take responsibility for not catching the inclusion of Everyday Values on the do-not-buy list on the card. After all, I've been down this road many times before -- even complaining about the unwelcome practice on this blog. On the other hand, I can find absolutely no excuse for both a store manager and a sales clerk not being aware of what merchandise cannot be purchased with these cards, which obviously they were familiar with (as she walked away, the sales manager, who'd glanced at the card, said "Happy birthday" to my husband, and the sales clerk made a rudimentary attempt to read the fine print before she began ringing up the sale).
Customers come in with these and similar cards every day -- and I'll bet my shirt not a single one can be used to purchase Everyday Values items. We should have been informed immediately.
I've been a business woman for many years, and I am certain beyond any shadow of doubt that if I had either of their jobs, I'd know precisely what "counts" and what doesn't. But as I've said before, I have little doubt that employees are trained not to spill the beans before ringing up an order; the concept is that customers will be too embarrassed -- or want the merchandise too much -- to walk away empty-handed.
Not long ago, I read yet another list of stores that are on the seriously endangered list -- and once again, Macy's was on it. I admit we of all people should have known better; but after going through this experience again, I won't be at all surprised to see the company go down the tubes (nor will we blink an eye if it does). When it comes to customer service, Macy's has no clue. And, I suspect, it won't be long before they have no customers, either. We certainly know two who won't be back.
Or Is It Just Me?
It arrived in the mail last week: A "gift" card from Macy's offering my husband $10 off on a $30 purchase in celebration of his birthday, which is June 18. Fantastic, we agreed -- he needed to replace some old solid-color T-shirts, and the timing was perfect so he could get a good deal before we headed for our first vacation of the season at the North Carolina Outer Banks.
Over the years, I've learned that the "deals" from Macy's always come with strings; so it was that I hauled out my magnifying glass to read -- or so I thought -- the extensive fine print that laid out all the merchandise that's excluded from the savings. With card in hand and high expectations, we popped into the store at Eastwood Mall so he could redeem his relatively generous birthday "gift" from the company.
Almost immediately, he found what he was looking for. Just as immediately, I noticed the sign hailing the T-shirts as "Everyday Values" -- often not included in special offers. But, we reasoned, we'll just ask at the checkout counter to be sure.
As we approached the counter, we were accosted (yes, that's the word I want) by a woman wearing a manager's nametag and a sales clerk. Both greeted my husband, and his handful of T-shirts, with exclamations of "Would you like some slacks or shorts to go with those?" Chuckling but politely declining, we reached the checkout counter. There, my husband told both women explicitly: If this discount card applies, I want these; if it doesn't, I don't.
The manager, clearly aware of the type of card he had, said she was "pretty sure" the card was good on the merchandise he had selected. The sales clerk was noncommittal, saying only that she'd need to ring them up to be sure. The manager then walked away, leaving the clueless sales clerk to deal with the fallout, if any. She proceeded to scan in the items -- three T-shirts at the "Everyday Values" price of $14.99 each -- carefully removing the paper stuffing in each and promising to refold them before putting them in our shopping bag.
Then came the moment of reckoning I'd been half expecting. In fact, the card was not good on these items. That's too bad, the sales clerk cooed. And when I mentioned that I'd read the fine print but didn't notice the exclusion, she "sympathized" by acknowledging that the fine print is "really, really" small. Meanwhile, steam was starting to come from my husband's ears, but he simply repeated what he'd said at the outset: If the card isn't good on these items, I won't buy them.
Now I'm not letting myself off the hook; I'm more than willing to take responsibility for not catching the inclusion of Everyday Values on the do-not-buy list on the card. After all, I've been down this road many times before -- even complaining about the unwelcome practice on this blog. On the other hand, I can find absolutely no excuse for both a store manager and a sales clerk not being aware of what merchandise cannot be purchased with these cards, which obviously they were familiar with (as she walked away, the sales manager, who'd glanced at the card, said "Happy birthday" to my husband, and the sales clerk made a rudimentary attempt to read the fine print before she began ringing up the sale).
Customers come in with these and similar cards every day -- and I'll bet my shirt not a single one can be used to purchase Everyday Values items. We should have been informed immediately.
I've been a business woman for many years, and I am certain beyond any shadow of doubt that if I had either of their jobs, I'd know precisely what "counts" and what doesn't. But as I've said before, I have little doubt that employees are trained not to spill the beans before ringing up an order; the concept is that customers will be too embarrassed -- or want the merchandise too much -- to walk away empty-handed.
Not long ago, I read yet another list of stores that are on the seriously endangered list -- and once again, Macy's was on it. I admit we of all people should have known better; but after going through this experience again, I won't be at all surprised to see the company go down the tubes (nor will we blink an eye if it does). When it comes to customer service, Macy's has no clue. And, I suspect, it won't be long before they have no customers, either. We certainly know two who won't be back.
Or Is It Just Me?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Taking Care of [Current] Business Pays
Is It Just Me, or are loyal customers getting the short shrift?
You heard it here first: I'm officially pissed off. My annoyance has been brewing for quite some time now, but it came to a head early this week with a TV advertisement from Time Warner. For new customers, I learned, the company is offering a DVR, Road Runner Turbo and voice mail -- all free for an entire year. But wait! Act now, and they'll throw in free Showtime on their cable TV service.
How wonderful -- except the part about "new" customers. Just a minute, guys: I've been a cable TV customer of Time Warner ever since the service came to my town, and ditto the company's Road Runner. I was one of the first to sign on once I learned it was available to me -- and I've been a loyal customer ever since. Since then, we've purchased digital TV (including a DVR, for which we pay a fee each month), and I ordered the Road Runner Turbo service for which I pay an additional $10 a month even though I haven't noticed an appreciable difference in speed, I hasten to add. Along the way, I've recommended Road Runner many times to other folks.
Now I certainly understand the concept of "bundling" services, and I also understand that AT&T is in the process of cleaning Time Warner's clock in terms of landing new customers for its DSL and phone service packages that are, at least in the beginning, considerably less expensive than Time Warner is offering. I understand that the great deals Time Warner is promoting are an attempt to generate new business -- and in a down economy, what better way to accomplish that than with attractive discounts?
All the same, I'm totally offended by all these free (or low-cost) offers that don't include loyal customers like me. Why don't those of us who would rather fight than switch providers get a break now and again? After all, we're suffering the same slings and arrows as everyone else these days; why wouldn't a company take steps to protect what it already "owns" from being raided by a competitor?
Of course, Time Warner isn't the only company to forget who's putting most of the butter on its bread. Take, for instance, a membership-based Web site to which we've been loyal almost from the start. Today, despite a membership roster numbering in the hundreds and a potentially lucrative niche market, active participants have dwindled to less than two handfuls. Although a number of management mistakes have contributed to the site's freefall, first and foremost is the site owner's total disregard for the most important fact of business success: If you don't take care of your customers, they'll stop caring about you.
Recently, ownership of the site changed hands; and if any money changed hands as well, I'm quite certain that it was a tiny fraction of the amount the former owner sank into development and maintenance over the years. Now, although members like me are taking a wait-and-see approach, the damage already has been done. Whether or not the new owner can restore trust and honest communication to the site remains to be seen (but every member I know, including me, is hopeful).
Some companies do seem to "get it" -- and Kohl's department store, which I've mentioned favorably in previous blogs, comes to mind immediately. Back when we first got a credit card there, the stores held "Senior Citizen" days once a month, when anyone age 50 and over who paid with the store credit card received an additional 15% off -- no limits, restrictions or exemptions like other department stores are fond of tacking on to their "special" offers. Those senior days apparently proved so popular, though, that they're now held every week (and I think the requirement of using a Kohl's charge card has been dropped as well).
For all intents and purposes, I should be upset that everyone else gets the same benefits as I do. But I'm not -- and here's why: Kohl's realizes the value of loyal customers and has sweetened the deal for us as well. Not only to we get frequent coupons giving us the 15% off in between those weekly seniors-only days, but I even received a no-strings-attached $10 gift card on my birthday. That was made even sweeter when I discovered I didn't need to buy $100 worth of merchandise to take advantage of it -- no, all I needed to do was spend the amount of the card (or more, which of course I happily did).
Savvy business owners realize that keeping current customers happy brings a number of benefits. Studies have shown, for instance, that it's far easier and more cost-effective to get additional business from existing customers than to recruit new ones. And, satisfied customers are a great source of the cheapest possible advertising -- word of mouth as they tell their family, friends and co-workers about their experiences. So it's a mystery to me why companies will spend a fortune trying to woo new folks to the fold, all the while making long-time customers feel unappreciated and undervalued by offering the farm to newbies who are likely to hang around only until some other company makes them a better offer.
At the moment, Time Warner is getting somewhere around $160 a month from our household. Over the years, we've been "treated" to a number of price hikes, but never -- not even once -- anything close to a financial deal. All I've ever received were offers to sell me more, and at prices that tended to increase after a ridiculously short time.
No, I'm not quite ready to bolt the door, but those offers from AT&T are starting to look very appealing right now. So if Time Warner doesn't start convincing me pretty soon that my business is just as important to them as the new kids on the block, I just may reconsider.
Or Is It Just Me?
You heard it here first: I'm officially pissed off. My annoyance has been brewing for quite some time now, but it came to a head early this week with a TV advertisement from Time Warner. For new customers, I learned, the company is offering a DVR, Road Runner Turbo and voice mail -- all free for an entire year. But wait! Act now, and they'll throw in free Showtime on their cable TV service.
How wonderful -- except the part about "new" customers. Just a minute, guys: I've been a cable TV customer of Time Warner ever since the service came to my town, and ditto the company's Road Runner. I was one of the first to sign on once I learned it was available to me -- and I've been a loyal customer ever since. Since then, we've purchased digital TV (including a DVR, for which we pay a fee each month), and I ordered the Road Runner Turbo service for which I pay an additional $10 a month even though I haven't noticed an appreciable difference in speed, I hasten to add. Along the way, I've recommended Road Runner many times to other folks.
Now I certainly understand the concept of "bundling" services, and I also understand that AT&T is in the process of cleaning Time Warner's clock in terms of landing new customers for its DSL and phone service packages that are, at least in the beginning, considerably less expensive than Time Warner is offering. I understand that the great deals Time Warner is promoting are an attempt to generate new business -- and in a down economy, what better way to accomplish that than with attractive discounts?
All the same, I'm totally offended by all these free (or low-cost) offers that don't include loyal customers like me. Why don't those of us who would rather fight than switch providers get a break now and again? After all, we're suffering the same slings and arrows as everyone else these days; why wouldn't a company take steps to protect what it already "owns" from being raided by a competitor?
Of course, Time Warner isn't the only company to forget who's putting most of the butter on its bread. Take, for instance, a membership-based Web site to which we've been loyal almost from the start. Today, despite a membership roster numbering in the hundreds and a potentially lucrative niche market, active participants have dwindled to less than two handfuls. Although a number of management mistakes have contributed to the site's freefall, first and foremost is the site owner's total disregard for the most important fact of business success: If you don't take care of your customers, they'll stop caring about you.
Recently, ownership of the site changed hands; and if any money changed hands as well, I'm quite certain that it was a tiny fraction of the amount the former owner sank into development and maintenance over the years. Now, although members like me are taking a wait-and-see approach, the damage already has been done. Whether or not the new owner can restore trust and honest communication to the site remains to be seen (but every member I know, including me, is hopeful).
Some companies do seem to "get it" -- and Kohl's department store, which I've mentioned favorably in previous blogs, comes to mind immediately. Back when we first got a credit card there, the stores held "Senior Citizen" days once a month, when anyone age 50 and over who paid with the store credit card received an additional 15% off -- no limits, restrictions or exemptions like other department stores are fond of tacking on to their "special" offers. Those senior days apparently proved so popular, though, that they're now held every week (and I think the requirement of using a Kohl's charge card has been dropped as well).
For all intents and purposes, I should be upset that everyone else gets the same benefits as I do. But I'm not -- and here's why: Kohl's realizes the value of loyal customers and has sweetened the deal for us as well. Not only to we get frequent coupons giving us the 15% off in between those weekly seniors-only days, but I even received a no-strings-attached $10 gift card on my birthday. That was made even sweeter when I discovered I didn't need to buy $100 worth of merchandise to take advantage of it -- no, all I needed to do was spend the amount of the card (or more, which of course I happily did).
Savvy business owners realize that keeping current customers happy brings a number of benefits. Studies have shown, for instance, that it's far easier and more cost-effective to get additional business from existing customers than to recruit new ones. And, satisfied customers are a great source of the cheapest possible advertising -- word of mouth as they tell their family, friends and co-workers about their experiences. So it's a mystery to me why companies will spend a fortune trying to woo new folks to the fold, all the while making long-time customers feel unappreciated and undervalued by offering the farm to newbies who are likely to hang around only until some other company makes them a better offer.
At the moment, Time Warner is getting somewhere around $160 a month from our household. Over the years, we've been "treated" to a number of price hikes, but never -- not even once -- anything close to a financial deal. All I've ever received were offers to sell me more, and at prices that tended to increase after a ridiculously short time.
No, I'm not quite ready to bolt the door, but those offers from AT&T are starting to look very appealing right now. So if Time Warner doesn't start convincing me pretty soon that my business is just as important to them as the new kids on the block, I just may reconsider.
Or Is It Just Me?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Don't Talk Out of Both Sides of Your Mouth
Is It Just Me, or are do some people, as my dear late mother used to say, talk out of "both sides of their mouths?"
Case in point: a recent issue of a magazine that targets business executives in my neck of the woods. An article near the front of the magazine discussed the fact that restaurant owners have come out in force against comments made on national TV by financial guru Suze Orman; to help save money, she advised, consumers should consider giving up eating in restaurants for an entire month.
That left restaurant owners, not surprisingly, with a bad taste in their mouths. The restaurant business is spiraling downward fast as it is; should consumers actually take her up on the suggestion, it could spell disaster -- a prediction underscored in the magazine article, in which the writer interviewed several individuals, from owner to server to chef, from a local restaurant, who described how their lives (and incomes) would suffer as a result.
In fact, it was a very well-written, creative article. While I cannot fault consumers for trying -- make that needing -- to save every dollar they can, Suze-Q might have saved herself some grief by suggesting that they eat out one less time each week instead of foregoing the experience altogether. And, the point the writer made was well taken. Ah, I said to myself, the magazine is doing exactly what I'd expect from a business magazine: support business.
Fast forward a few pages, though, and the story did an about-face. A different and no less well-written article offered some money-saving advice to executives. Why not, it was suggested, wear your suits three or four times before you have them dry cleaned instead of only once or twice? How about turning your back on shopping at high-priced department stores and instead head for deep discount stores like Filene's Basement? Heck, why shop at all? Most of us have lots of things in our closets with which we can make do, the writer noted -- all we need to do is look for them and we'll have a new look without spending a cent.
Say what? Somehow, I don't think the owners and employees of all those dry cleaning establishments out there would take that lying down. It's been many, many years since I've had a suit dry cleaned (or anything dry cleaned, for that matter -- if it can't go in the washing machine, I don't buy it). The last time I did it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10. Given the inflation that's happened to everything else since then, I'm guessing it could cost twice that much these days.
So, if only 50 of the thousands of executives who read this magazine decided to cut their suit dry cleaning by half, it's easy to do the math and see how devastating that could be to the dry cleaning industry. The department stores already are feeling the pain; most have been posting quarterly losses for quite some time now as consumers at all income levels bolt their doors to buy from their lower-priced competitors. An even greater exodus very well could lead to their demise.
Apparently, the magazine editors think it's okay if dry cleaners and department stores lose money, but it shouldn't happen to restaurants. I don't know why, but I suspect the fact that the restaurant owners' complaints are backed by the power of the National Restaurant Association, which came out full force against Orman's opinion, might have something to do with it. Or, maybe it's because more restaurants advertise in the magazine than do dry cleaners.
Bear with me: In that same issue, which focused on diversity, was a full-page ad from a well-known utility company. It was quite simple; a pair of well-worn dark brown cowboy boots were placed amid an entire line of identical white low-top shoes. "Sometimes a Little Difference Can Make All the Difference," the caption read, going on to claim that commitment to diversity is important to the company's success.
Well, the only part they got right, in my opinion, is "little" difference. One whole pair of "different" shoes among a dozen others is sufficient to demonstrate commitment to diversity? Gimme a break! If they really wanted to show they care about hiring minorities, at the very least they would have stuck a couple more pairs of oddball shoes in that line-up.
Maybe I'm overly sensitive. After all, I grew up in the day when families didn't lock their front doors, their cars didn't emit screeches loud enough to wake the dead when the neighbor kids bumped into them with their bicycles and people's word (and perhaps a handshake) was their bond. Still, it's annoying when I hear people who should know better talking out both sides of their mouths.
Or Is It Just Me?
Case in point: a recent issue of a magazine that targets business executives in my neck of the woods. An article near the front of the magazine discussed the fact that restaurant owners have come out in force against comments made on national TV by financial guru Suze Orman; to help save money, she advised, consumers should consider giving up eating in restaurants for an entire month.
That left restaurant owners, not surprisingly, with a bad taste in their mouths. The restaurant business is spiraling downward fast as it is; should consumers actually take her up on the suggestion, it could spell disaster -- a prediction underscored in the magazine article, in which the writer interviewed several individuals, from owner to server to chef, from a local restaurant, who described how their lives (and incomes) would suffer as a result.
In fact, it was a very well-written, creative article. While I cannot fault consumers for trying -- make that needing -- to save every dollar they can, Suze-Q might have saved herself some grief by suggesting that they eat out one less time each week instead of foregoing the experience altogether. And, the point the writer made was well taken. Ah, I said to myself, the magazine is doing exactly what I'd expect from a business magazine: support business.
Fast forward a few pages, though, and the story did an about-face. A different and no less well-written article offered some money-saving advice to executives. Why not, it was suggested, wear your suits three or four times before you have them dry cleaned instead of only once or twice? How about turning your back on shopping at high-priced department stores and instead head for deep discount stores like Filene's Basement? Heck, why shop at all? Most of us have lots of things in our closets with which we can make do, the writer noted -- all we need to do is look for them and we'll have a new look without spending a cent.
Say what? Somehow, I don't think the owners and employees of all those dry cleaning establishments out there would take that lying down. It's been many, many years since I've had a suit dry cleaned (or anything dry cleaned, for that matter -- if it can't go in the washing machine, I don't buy it). The last time I did it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10. Given the inflation that's happened to everything else since then, I'm guessing it could cost twice that much these days.
So, if only 50 of the thousands of executives who read this magazine decided to cut their suit dry cleaning by half, it's easy to do the math and see how devastating that could be to the dry cleaning industry. The department stores already are feeling the pain; most have been posting quarterly losses for quite some time now as consumers at all income levels bolt their doors to buy from their lower-priced competitors. An even greater exodus very well could lead to their demise.
Apparently, the magazine editors think it's okay if dry cleaners and department stores lose money, but it shouldn't happen to restaurants. I don't know why, but I suspect the fact that the restaurant owners' complaints are backed by the power of the National Restaurant Association, which came out full force against Orman's opinion, might have something to do with it. Or, maybe it's because more restaurants advertise in the magazine than do dry cleaners.
Bear with me: In that same issue, which focused on diversity, was a full-page ad from a well-known utility company. It was quite simple; a pair of well-worn dark brown cowboy boots were placed amid an entire line of identical white low-top shoes. "Sometimes a Little Difference Can Make All the Difference," the caption read, going on to claim that commitment to diversity is important to the company's success.
Well, the only part they got right, in my opinion, is "little" difference. One whole pair of "different" shoes among a dozen others is sufficient to demonstrate commitment to diversity? Gimme a break! If they really wanted to show they care about hiring minorities, at the very least they would have stuck a couple more pairs of oddball shoes in that line-up.
Maybe I'm overly sensitive. After all, I grew up in the day when families didn't lock their front doors, their cars didn't emit screeches loud enough to wake the dead when the neighbor kids bumped into them with their bicycles and people's word (and perhaps a handshake) was their bond. Still, it's annoying when I hear people who should know better talking out both sides of their mouths.
Or Is It Just Me?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)