Retail Processes Are Important

I'm transferring blog posts below from another service.

Before getting into the discussion below from 2009, I'm clarifying why retail processes are important.

You need superior service to compete with discount stores.

Sometimes, people choose businesses based on confidence. You should inspire confidence by using knowledge & systems to guide people to select the best options. When people get their expected results, they'll have confidence to buy from you again.

As you increase your reputation, you'll be more persuasive when you advertise.

Use a solid reputation & statistics to persuade people to buy solutions instead of wishfully thinking they'll avoid problems. Tell people what'll happen without your offers to solve, mitigate & prevent problems. Explain how you reduce customers' risks more than discount stores.

Make Your Business More Successful With Policies, Plans & Procedures

Chet Holmes advised using 3 Ps: policies, plans & procedures to make businesses successful. A major reason for using 3 Ps is optimizing business practices.
Those 3 Ps have various purposes & definitions. Now I'm focusing on producing value for customers.

Policy: Deciding which results are valuable & requiring actions to produce & offer those results
Plan: Organizing actions & resources to fulfill policy requirements
Procedure/Process: Steps to fulfill plans

When you develop optimal processes, you can avoid mistakes by using the same steps. You can produce quick, consistent results with smooth practiced processes, instead of making things up each time.

Well-practiced processes become subconscious routines & increase in effectiveness & efficiency.

Subconscious routines use less energy than conscious thoughts, so you can reduce stress & fatigue with processes.

Steps in developing & finishing sales efforts are processes: order & store inventory, design ads & displays, then serve customers when they respond.

You can use processes to show customers how to use products to produce & maintain results.

Acquiring Processes

This discussion (below) started with the issue of nascent processes.

Refined processes become nascent when they're used in a different environment.

It can be hard to determine if processes will fully satisfy a purpose until they're refined. So, you might need to keep nascent processes separate until you're finished testing.

You can acquire processes by: 1) hiring employees or consultants; 2) buying businesses; 3) observation & 4) reading case studies.

When you audition processes, you should consider these issues:
Which results did the processes originally produce?
Do those results fit customers' current conditions?
When customers need slightly different results, you can adapt processes by adding &/or removing aspects.
Which other (potential) problems can these processes prevent or solve?
To solve different problems, you'll probably need to change steps &/or materials. Those changes can temporarily decrease the effectiveness & efficiency, so allow time for practice.

Updating Your Store With Processes As Customers' Conditions Change

As customers' conditions change, you can develop processes to adapt your store & services. Compare what customers usually buy for seasons with what they'll need for new solutions & improvements.

You might prioritize inventory & services based on changes customers are least prepared for. Will previous products & services fulfill customers' evolving needs?

Determine if you can prioritize inventory & services based on changes competitors are least qualified for.

You should develop testing processes for sales methods, so you can track results & adopt what works. When you do it, you can optimally market new solutions & improvements.

Processes, Tactics & Strategies

Synonyms like tactic, process & method can be interchanged. I tried to avoid confusion.

I've written about processes, tactics & strategies in other posts, so now I'm just focusing on developing tactical processes.

Discount stores refine processes to reduce costs. Local retailers can reduce costs & create value with processes.

In “Bottom-Up Marketing", Al Ries & Jack Trout described a strategy as a coherent marketing direction & encompassing coherent marketing activities & a tactic as an idea. Marketing mix activities must be coherently focused on the tactic.

They used NyQuil as an example. The tactic was developing a nighttime cold remedy, which dictated the strategy of introducing NyQuil as a cold remedy.

I've adapted that for retailing. Marketing tactics & strategies determine how products & services are offered.

Customer service tactics & strategies should help customers get needed results with products & services. Processes should fulfill your strategic & tactical framework.

Your marketing tactic can promise solutions for specific problem categories. Your marketing strategy can be compatible marketing activities to promote your tactic. In-store processes would help people find the best solution for a specific problem.

Strategies set directions & activities for stores to serve customers. Tactics should show how stores, products & services are valuable for customers. Processes can apply that value by guiding customers.

After promotions attract customers, processes can guide store staff & customers to combine products & services to produce benefits. Strategies can link processes & tactics, so customers recognize product & service value, so they buy benefits to gain results.

Develop processes to diagnose customers' conditions to help customers choose products/services & plan improvement/solution projects. Diagnostic processes are ways to observe symptoms & ask questions to determine causes & effects. After a diagnosis, you can find ways to stop or mitigate causes & decrease or eliminate negative effects.

You can use your product knowledge to determine what will solve problems & if solutions will also prevent problem recurrences.

Customer Service Processes

In the Performance Enhancement Quotient "PEQ" Program, Jay Abraham & Chet Holmes advised using strategies to make tactics more effective. Abraham & Holmes used retail examples.

Jay Abraham said a retailer tested approaches like this: When people walked in, the store staff asked, "And what ad brought you into the store today?" Jay said, "That produced 300% more ultimate sales. You won't know what's going to work masterfully unless you test."

This is an edited example from Chet Holmes: I'm the salesman in this store & I say, "Hi, what are you looking for?" The guy says, "I'm looking for couches." I say, "This way to couches." On the way to the couches, I say to the customer, "Is it your first time in the store? We've been in business for 47 years. We do this, we do that …" This is designed with all these strategic layers you're trying to accomplish.

These examples can be combined with questions & statements to help customers decide which options to buy.

The Transferred Blog Posts

Hillary considered buying a store.

Without policies, plans & procedures (3 Ps), there's not much to buy except physical assets & possibly a customer list. Physical assets can be bought from other sources. Customers might not return after a store is sold unless there's still consistent value.

Stores can offer consistent value by establishing & optimizing 3 Ps.

Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2019 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
When you compete against big businesses with big budgets you need powerful marketing strategies & tactics. You'll find them here-
https://thriving-small-businesses.blogspot.com/
http://www.voy.com/31049/

Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
This blog post was transferred from another service.

Subject: I'm confused about Nascent Processes Author: Hillary Date: 03/12/09

I realize you've written about Clayton M. Christensen & processes because they're important. I've listened to his audio books. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the process concepts.

A small competitor & his part-time employees are struggling. We've talked about some kind of merger, strategic alliance, joint venture or whatever buzz word would apply. If we can agree on a price, I could consider buying the store & possibly hiring the (former) owner & part-timers.

It seems they did some things correctly, but not enough to keep the store alive in this economy.

How can I know if I should let them do what they did before & what I should change?

Subject: Nascent Processes & Profitability Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date Posted: 03/13/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09

Hi Hillary,

Thanks for using this forum.

I realize I may be going beyond the answer you want, but I want to be sure the issues are covered & understood.

You could be referring only to processes, but why have a process unless it's needed to profitably sell a product/service?

I don't know your whole situation, here's the short answer: Let them do what satisfies a profitable customer base. Change what's barely profitable or breaking even. Eliminate what costs you too much to do/offer.

You should read some or all of what I'm writing to more fully explain & validate the short answer.

You may've noticed other threads in this forum are long & in multiple parts. This thread will be in multiple parts, too.

I don't know when I'll finish it. I tend to reread & rewrite quite a bit. So, far I've written over 6 pages. Some things I wrote directly relate to your question & my short answer. Other parts are analogies to help explain some concepts.

Small businesses can sometimes sell things profitably when big businesses can't. But some businesses barely hang on while selling outdated products & low-demand services.

Some retailers keep products in stock because they made an investment when they bought the products & wholesalers/liquidators won't buy the outdated products.

Be careful about buying a store that stocks outdated products. Part of your due diligence should determine if there is (or could reasonably be) profitable demand for the products.

Is that store unprofitable because of the inventory, business practices or both?

A discussion of how to profitably buy a store can be complicated. As a marketing consultant, I could help you with some issues, but you definitely need legal & accounting guidance. I'm not licensed or qualified to get deeply into legal & accounting issues.

A store near me sold some discontinued products (for a very low price) to an employee who used some of those in his hobbies. He personally sold some of those also when people asked for them. The retailer was no longer liable for those.

The retailer got some money for the products & opened his storage & display space again. Since he sold the products for such low prices, the Return On Investment may have been low. While the products consumed space & some labor, the Return On Assets was extremely low.

Storage & display space can be expensive assets. ROI is critical, but low ROA dooms many businesses.

Maybe you can sell old inventory through online auctions or classified ads.

A few customers may benefit from something that isn't profitable & may be sold at or below break-even.

If it's legal, you may sell some individual products or case lots to a group. Let them divide it, then you wouldn't pay somebody to open the boxes, then unpack & offer the products.

There are some circumstances, when this would be illegal. Some examples: prescriptions & anything requiring a background check or some kind of legal verification.

If other (possibly skilled) processing &/or assembly would be necessary, they may find somebody to do it or you could teach them.

If there aren't other sources or possible options for people to get what they need, you'll end up determining what you can afford to do. I don't recommend cutting off a supply unless there's no practical way you can provide what people need without jeopardizing yourself or your business. If it's just an issue of desire & not need, you may end up dropping it.

As nations, businesses & people progress, there's less demand for some things. It's part of modern life.

Subject: Re: I'm confused about Nascent Processes Author: Hillary Date Posted: 04/10/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09

Hi Dennis,

Thank you for helping me. I thought of writing earlier but I'm not sure how much more I can sure of.

I could specify which products we'd stock, but it could change quickly, especially with spring. There are plenty of traveling retailers. They remind me of "Gypsies, Tramps & Thieves."

By the time we know they're setting up, they promote, sell quickly & leave. There are flea markets & the sellers vary. Some major stores have pop-up stores. Some of these have guarantees so we can't use guarantees as a benefit.

The other stores owner I might buy out or merge with & I think our problem may be we stock too much of the same things. But I've read more than one store with the same products can bring more people in.

It doesn't mean we have to sell all of the same things.

We can't afford for suppliers to know how much trouble we may be in. Also if customers think we won't be here, they may not be our customer. Though the traveling stores have enough luck.

We're not being dishonest; we know people over react & may think we're worse off than we are if they suspect anything.

Are there things you teach us to help us succeed even if we change products?

Thanks

Subject: Creating Superior Value With Marketing & Retail Processes Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date Posted: 04/13/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "Re: I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 04/10/09

Hi Hillary,

Peter Drucker's insight: Company cultures are like country cultures. Never try to change one. Try, instead, to work with what you've got.

I agree with that as long as the culture isn't counterproductive or destructive.

A big part of a culture is its values: what's considered valuable & ethical. Processes are ways to produce & conserve what's valued.

Many retail processes should work for a variety of products & customers, so you should be able to adapt if you change product categories.

Without a specific specialty, I don't know which benefits you would offer compared to the competitors you wrote about. Flea market vendors & traveling retailers may have specialized product knowledge. They may be able to answer questions & give good advice.

There are more things to consider in risk reversal than just offering guarantees. Even if the full price is refunded, a problem isn't solved. If a shirt rips because of substandard material, a customer is entitled to a refund, but the refund doesn't solve the problem.

Money, a credit or a refund check won't cover a person's back or keep him/her warm.

Here's an educated guess (I've extrapolated based on mail-order & Internet marketing):
Traveling retailers probably have office addresses; but without physical stores, they can't quickly remedy problems. Maybe they can send a replacement, but it's not instant.

If a customer doesn't have enough money to buy a replacement, s/he has to wait for a traveling retailer to receive & inspect a returned product. Then the financial transaction is handled. Even if a credit/debit card account is credited, the customer still doesn't have the solution s/he tried to buy. To get a problem solved quickly, s/he needs to buy a replacement product from a different retailer who hasn't left town.

I haven't bought from any of those transients, so I don't know what happens when products are defective.

If this is accurate & a lawyer approves, your message to their prospects could be:
Saving Money Isn't Always A Bargain
"Are you thinking of buying a ‘bargain' from a transient retailer? You'd be better buy at least 2, so you might still have 1 to use while you wait for your refund. There are reasons for products to be so cheap. There are also reasons for things to be made in places we can't see. How young are the workers (slaves) who make those ‘bargains'? How many hours per day do they work? How much pollution is in their air & water?
"Yes, these issues ARE important to you. It's hard for overworked children to concentrate on work when they & their families are sick. When they're distracted, they don't make good products.
"Will a transient retailer talk to you about these issues? Not unless you ask, but don't expect real answers. Transient retailers just want you to buy, so they can take your money & run to the next city."

Since I'm not licensed to give legal advice; a lawyer should guide you before you try attacking competitors. But I'll warn you- Do NOT specify a transient retailer by name.

As long as you don't accuse specific retailers, if they want to admit they resemble your remarks enough to object, they'd be vulnerable to your criticism, then they'd be vulnerable to public criticism. If they don't think they resemble an unnamed retailer you criticize, why would they object?

If you were to specify a business & what you claim isn't completely accurate you could be completely sued for libel/slander or defamation. That's besides the negative effects on your reputation.

Here's another possible theme you could test if it's accurate:
"Where Do You Get The Best Value For Your Money? Going to flea markets & buying inexpensive used items can be fun. But some sellers are FLEE markets because after they get your money they FLEE! They're gone & so is YOUR MONEY!
"It's maddening enough to get people's adrenalin flowing. Adrenalin/ epinephrine is your Fight or Flight hormone. When you deal with FLEE markets, your epinephrine is wasted. You can't fight because your enemy has taken flight.
"Some people are frustrated again when they try to exchange cheap, worn out, broken & defective FLEE market stuff in our store. We can't afford to take it in exchange because suppliers we buy inventory from won't accept it. We don't offer anything that bad & neither do our suppliers.
"We accept exchanges of products sold from our inventory. If we'd accept FLEE market stuff, we'd be stuck with it. We wouldn't try to sell it to anybody. We'd have to throw it away; so if we accept it, we'd be throwing our money away."

(It implies FLEE market customers threw their money away without directly insulting them. This message doesn't call them fools.)

Now back to the potential merger or store purchase-

Profitable Processes

When a person or business has a new (nascent) process, it may be hard to determine its efficacy. A process may only be effective (& cost-effective) when it's done proficiently & efficiently. Efficiency & proficiency depend on practice & making adjustments.

I'm using efficacy & effective to mean achieving maximum, optimal & intended results.

I'm using efficient to mean achieving maximum & optimal results without wasting time, money & other resources.

Peter Drucker's insights: "Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things."
"Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things."

You probably already know about the problems of integrating or not integrating what people or other businesses do.

It's vital - for morale & progress - to make decisions about integration based on results, not on how the processes were learned or developed.

Too many people dismiss things if they weren't involved in creating or developing them. Even if you know better than to do it, the other business owner & employees may discriminate against what they think is foreign. This is insulting for those whose knowledge is rejected.

Even if you buy the other store & the other business owner works for you (as opposed to being a full partner), you should do your best to agree about whose processes will be used - before you make a commitment. S/he may "understand" (assume) you intend to leave things as they are.

Misunderstandings can lead to seller's & buyer's remorse. Legally ending the arrangement could be more expensive - in money & time - than the merger or purchase that started it.

It may be challenging to objectively determine which processes are more effective or efficient. If the result(s) are similar, profitably produced & customers gladly pay profitable prices for the value, some details aren't worth debating. But determine what you'll tolerate & what's unacceptable.

Peter Drucker's insight: Executives owe it to the organization & to their fellow workers not to tolerate nonperforming individuals in important jobs.

The only "problem" inherent in a different process may be the hassle & expense of learning it. Whether people consciously &/or subconsciously resist, some passively undermine what they don't like. They do things slowly, they procrastinate &/or they do low quality work.

The only "innovation" they may produce is negative. They cost a business more than their "efforts" are worth.

Peter Drucker's insight: Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has 2 - & only 2 - basic functions: marketing & innovation. Marketing & innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.

To positively differentiate your store(s) for consumers, you need real solutions worth marketing.

Differentiation as an employer can help you retain & recruit good workers. But sometimes, people won't like tasks or ways (processes) they're expected to do tasks. They may adamantly believe their way of doing things is better. Or they may disagree about how necessary some tasks are.

It's great to have a fun job & business, but sometimes we (& employees) need to put up with hassles involved with creating value. We need to learn to do things to solve customers' problems even if it doesn't immediately solve our problems.

If your potential partner & employees won't do what creates more value for customers, it's best to know it early so you don't make the wrong decisions.

Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.

Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.

ubject: I disagree with a universal concept of processes Author: Doubter Date: 04/22/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09

I can understand how processes are important for manufacturers to produce consistent products and for big retailers that depend on logistics. But small retailers get preproduced inventory that's shipped to us by logistics companies. We get small amounts of various products; we open boxes and put products on shelves and racks - end of "process".

When I try to get productive conversations going about how we can effectively compete with big retailers, some members want to talk about processes.

When I asked how they came up with their ideas, guess whose name came up!

I read some of your stuff and it applies, but now you've gone off in another direction - maybe right maybe wrong depends on the stores and circumstances.

I'd like to open-minded about this, but it seems creating and practicing processes requires more time than it's worth.

Processes, as you and Clayton M. Christensen have written, are set to create the same results over and over. This produces a one-size-fits-all or one-size-fits-none result.

For those who serve homogenous groups, it may be good, but few small retailers can afford to do it. We need to serve whomever comes in and serve as they want to be served. Since we have to charge higher prices because of our lower volume, we have tailor-fit every service to everybody who comes in.

We don't sell enough of the same products to the same kind of people to warrant using the same processes over and over.

Using a common or standardized process to serve individuals violates what Stephen R. Covey wrote about being efficient with things and effective with people.
Processes are formed for efficiency. Success with people depends on effectiveness.

Based on other things you wrote, you respect Covey.

Some customers ask me questions they couldn't get answered in discount or big high-end stores.

I can't always produce premanufactured - via processes - answers.

I thought for a while I misunderstood what you claim about processes, but members of our group understand it the same way. It'd seem we're not all misunderstanding but it's possible. We don't all agree.

Maybe we could/would agree if we had some universal examples.

I know there are apt to be individual cases of useful processes, but it seems you're claiming the concept is universal.

Subject: Increase Customers' Confidence With Processes Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 04/23/09
In reply to: Doubter's message, "I disagree with a universal concept of processes" on 04/22/09

Thank you for responding. It seems you may be asking for clarification. We may not agree even after I clarify these points.

I don't know of any universal examples of processes. Without an in-depth study of an individual business & ability to test methods in that business, I can't develop a definitive, tailored process. It wouldn't be right to reveal proprietary, behind-the-scenes methods of businesses without owners' permission.
I could provide some guidelines.

I think the main misunderstanding is about the length or size of processes. A process can be simple & still improve efficiency & effectiveness.
Example: You can have pens & paper near your phones. If you don't have a telephone headset & you're right handed, you can determine when you take phone calls, you'll pick up your hand set, then place it by your left ear. Then you can pick up a pen with your right hand & be ready to write on paper.

A simple process like this may seem unusually & unnecessarily regimented until you consider the benefits. You'd be ready to hold a phone hand set between your left shoulder & head, then be able to write notes about what customers want when they call. Your notes could be passed to your staff to do what a customer wants.

I'm not implying you waste time, but I'm using a "you" viewpoint to communicate this concept.

This process would cut down on time being wasted if you look for a pen or paper during a call. You'd be less apt to drop your phone hand set because you wouldn't have to transfer it between your hands while you talk & hold a pen. You'd probably reduce the necessity to ask customers to repeat things.

This short process would be efficient with things & increase effectiveness & benefits for you & customers.

This process could be almost universal, but cobblers & other craft-oriented people probably wouldn't use it. Some service providers don't accept calls because it slows their workflow.

Note: Some cobblers either don't publish their business phone numbers &/or list their home phone numbers. Reason: Customers call to ask if their shoes have been fixed, but if they didn't call, cobblers could spend more time fixing because they'd spend less time handling phones & talking.

I advise cobblers & others to use numbered work order receipts & answering machines. When a customer leaves shoes, boots, etc. to be fixed, they'd get a numbered receipt. When their footwear is ready, that number would be listed.

They could call & listen to an outgoing message that includes the numbers from the receipts. The list numbers would indicate which footwear has been fixed.
Their numbers would be listed for a few days or a week at the longest. If customers still didn't pick up their completed footwear, it wouldn't be listed any longer.

I talked with a cobbler who was frustrated because so many customers called & interrupted his work. He stopped publishing his business phone number. Then he was frustrated because people weren't coming back to get their fixed footwear.

Do you think the customers didn't want to waste time going back to a cobbler shop unless they knew the work was completed?

If they kept returning to the shop just to ask about their footwear before the work was done, they'd still unnecessarily interrupt a cobbler.

Now with the Internet, a cobbler can have a simple web site & update the list of numbers of completed work orders.

Why use numbers instead of names? Because some people would be concerned about their privacy being violated.

A process could be developed to expedite posting the numbers &/or updating the list in the answering machine outgoing messages.

Depending on the questions customers ask & the answers you provide, you may benefit from having a place for your books, magazines & notes, plus a quick way to find information in those sources.

Processes can be used to create efficient results for people. For those who expect fast service - faster than big (giants) & medium (ogres) retailers offer - if you don't serve them with at least the speed they expect, they may choose a different store.

Consumers may feel if they end up waiting for service no matter which store they shop in, they might as well buy from giants & ogres who charge lower prices.
Depending how efficiently & effectively, giants & ogres train workers; customers could be dissatisfied with the service no matter how low the prices are.
Giants & ogres tend to focus on efficiency with things & skimp on effectiveness with people. Because of a lack of processes, small retailers may frustrate consumers too.

With the right processes, small retailers can lower their expenses (because they'd be more efficient) & satisfy more customers (because they'd be more effective).

Some processes will only solve a limited number of problems (maybe only 1). Each resulting solution may fit only specific people or situations, but hopefully those solutions would be satisfactory. Using a process would probably speed up the services. Then there'd be more time to solve less common problems.

Selling more solutions resulting from processes could bring in more money because using processes would increase the speed & accuracy of actions. There'd be less wasted time & materials.

Customers, business owners & workers would be less frustrated. It could also improve ego-strength because results could be consistently positive. Confident people are apt to inspire the confidence of others. Confident, reassured customers are more apt to return & refer others.

Confident people are apt to try & succeed in solving less common & possibly more complex problems.

Subject: More Clarification Is In Order Author: GRand Master Date: 04/23/09
In reply to: Doubter 's message, "I disagree with a universal concept of processes" on 04/22/09

Doubter, Dennis, Ladies, & Gentlemen:

I'd better clarify more points for our host.

Some people may wonder what a process about taking phone calls has to do with marketing. Everything in business should be related to marketing because it affects customer's experiences. Even Accounting? Yep!

Anything that affects how much money is invested in presenting merchandise and serving customers is related to marketing. Whatever influences customers' perception of a business is related to marketing. Employees loudly chewing gum matters too.

Do you think, "Answering a phone and other simple things are no-brainers"?

After you have a good process, it can be a no-brainer. A big reason for having processes to make some things so routine they're ALMOST no-brainers. But if you or employees completely disengage your brains, you're apt to make mistakes.

Some people want to multitask, others would prefer not, but feel forced to do it. Develop processes to make multitasking a viable option - as long you're not face-to-face with customers. Even if your conscious mind is totally focused with them while your hands and subconscious are doing something routine, customers are apt to feel you're paying attention to them. It's true, even if they multitask while they talk to you. Double standard? Sure. Unfair? Probably so.

Analogy: Think of baseball games and other childhood events. Somebody supplied a ball and bat or other necessary equipment. That person demanded that the others follow his/her rules, right?

If the others didn't accept his/her rules, they didn't play because its owner took the necessary equipment back.

The necessary equipment in this case is the money a prospect will pay you if you follow his/her rules. If you want him/her to pay, you've got to play - by their rules.

Ego-strength?! As a business owner, you may have enough under normal circumstances. But if you're frustrated by playing by others' rules, things going wrong, complaints, high expenses & low income, etc. Your confidence may be strong, but shaken.

Another analogy: Rodney Dangerfield said something like: "This morning I picked up my shirt - a button fell off. I picked up my brief case - the handle fell off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom!"

Going to the bathroom probably wouldn't cause a fall off, but it can seem like it would. It's an example of shaken confidence.

Why would a process make a difference? When you have a successful way to do something, you're apt to be successful with it again. If you make it up as you go along every time, you won't always have the same level of success. After a few strike-outs, it's harder to get back up to the plate & be confident of hitting a homerun or even just a base hit.

Subconsciously, if you keep making mistakes, those mistakes can become habits. This makes it more imperative to set up successful processes - even for mundane tasks - to get your brain on a successful track.

Have you noticed anybody making a mistake, then be a bit miffed & make the same mistake again? After that, he or she is angry, but his/her subconscious is focused on the mistake instead of the desired results. So, he or she makes the same mistake again.

It's like the story of the baseball team manager who told a pitcher which pitch not to throw because the batter hit many home-runs off that particular pitch. The pitcher then threw that pitch & that batter got another home-run. Why?
The pitcher focused on the wrong pitch instead of focusing on a right pitch.

Successful processes focus people's subconscious minds on doing what's right so the right things block thoughts of the wrong things.

What Dennis wrote about the cobbler and interrupting calls from customers is an example of a business owner and customers in a contest of wills. Dennis got lucky again by suggesting a good compromise.

This message is getting long so I won't elaborate much. But read what Stephen R. Covey in "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" about synergistic Win/Win solutions that are better & mutually beneficial.

Develop ways for customers, employees and business owners to benefit. But when there are slight inconveniences for business owners and employees when they make things convenient for customers, deal with it. That's business. Customers aren't always right. Business owners and employees have rights too. But if you want customers to pay, you've got to play - by their rules.

Subject: Education & Training Are Critical Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 05/18/09
In reply to: Subject: More Clarification Is In Order Author: GRand Master Date: 04/23/09

GRand Master added some good points & clarification.

Education & Training Are Critical

Peter Drucker's insights:
"Knowledge has to be improved, challenged & increased constantly, or it vanishes."
"Making good decisions is a crucial skill at every level."
"No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings."

Training & education should help people make the right decisions, but beware: Part of training is letting people experiment to find what they do well & learn from their successes & mistakes. As long as the risks are low, you'll end up enduring the results or lack of results.

You may hire or already have somebody who has experience, but the experience may be doing things differently than you &/or customers expect. The results may be the same, the time required to do the tasks could be much different.

Different methods can be just as effective in producing a consistent result, but some of those methods may be more efficient than others.

It's up to you to determine if you'll require everybody who performs a task to do it the same way.

Some employers prefer hiring people who don't have job-related experience because retraining (training to do things differently) can be more expensive than training. It's related to the Curse Of Knowledge. It's hard for people to act & think like they don't know what they've learned & remember.

The Best People Using The Best Procedures

When you make hiring, firing, retention & promotion decisions, you should remember how critical it is to have the best (intelligence, wisdom & talent) people you can afford. Now here's a conflicting concept: A major goal in designing & developing processes is to make intelligence, wisdom & talent ALMOST (not entirely) irrelevant.

Don't develop a lot of boring, mindless tasks. Since people tend to be distracted while they work & may need to multitask, it can be good for tasks not to require total concentration.

Wise, talented & intelligent people should have optimal ways (KNOW HOW) of doing things so they KNOW WHAT to do & not do. They should be informed enough to KNOW WHY a customer desires a certain result. After employees master a method, they can focus more on results instead of each action. With the right input & methods, they can use their judgment to determine when innovation may improve results.

(Note: If customers are asked why they want a result, they may feel the question violates their privacy. But when somebody knows why, s/he may know how to adapt/adjust resources to produce a better result.)

It's similar to learning how to drive. Somebody, who doesn't have to consciously focus on each action, can consciously focus on traffic & road conditions. Another driver, who focuses on staying in a lane, has less mental resources available to watch for & avoid hazards.

Recipes For Success

While listening to Christensen's books (especially "Seeing What's Next"), you may notice what happens when industries & organizations develop rules, routines & standards. (Note: The authors didn't express the concepts exactly how I did below. I embellished & extrapolated.)

It's somewhat like chefs writing recipes for people who have less cooking skill, knowledge &/or experience. When novices use the recommended amounts of the right ingredients & bake/cook those as instructed, they could produce the same results.

People, who have less training & education, can effectively use instructions (processes) to do specialized tasks. Efficiency increases because people become qualified sooner & they can create consistent value. They can create consistent value in less time & with less waste than technology pioneers could. Pioneers used trial & error while they searched for & developed the right resources & experimented to determine the right ways to use those resources.

The pioneers' efforts, mistakes & successes were used as technological foundations for training the next practitioners. What subsequent practitioners discovered & perfected was codified into rules, routines & standards. Those became bases for education.

Effectiveness increases because highly educated, trained specialists can focus on complex problems that others aren't qualified to solve.

Too many people spout this derogatory comment: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." They imply teachers' & professors' contributions aren't valuable enough. Talented, dedicated instructors produce a lot of value. They educate students, while other people - who have specialized knowledge & skill - focus on improving technologies.

Talented practitioners might not have the talent &/or patience to teach others. Knowing how to do something is different than knowing to teach others to do it.

It'd be less efficient if practitioners would spend time teaching others instead of improving technologies. Who would improve technologies while practitioners would be teaching? Instructors can effectively teach students how to be entry-level practitioners.

There are opportunity costs in everything people do & don't do. So, it's important be as efficient as possible. Efficiency can reduce the resources - including time & money - used to produce a result. It means there'd be resources left to produce another result.

High Quality Education & High Quality Knowledge Aren't The Same

What should matter to you is the content & quality of a worker's education & training, plus how much knowledge & skill s/he retains. The content & quality is more important than who taught/trained them & where the training & education took place.
Example- The facts you learned from listening to recorded books are just as valuable as they would be if you were a Harvard student & learned the same facts directly from Clayton M. Christensen or a graduate assistant in a classroom.

Of course, Harvard students can learn a deeper variety of content than you've learned from a few hours of listening to CDs. You wouldn't necessarily learn those same facts any better in a classroom, than you have from the tapes or CDs.

Unfortunately, tapes or CDs can't interactively respond to your questions. But, in a big class (lecture hall), sometimes it's hard to get answers.

Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.

Subject: Clarification About Education & Training Are Critical Author: GRand Master Date: 05/20/09
In reply to: Dennis S. Vogel's message, "Education & Training Are Critical" on 05/18/09

Here I am again clarifying our host's explanations.

Dennis can correct me if I'm wrong: Based on what he wrote, he apparently included non-classroom learning as still being "book learnin'" It's still valuable as long as the content is valuable.

Education IS critical & should be pursued in any ethical way people can get it. There are many public & school libraries.

If there's a printed or recorded book you need, but if you can't find it in a local library, you should ask for an interlibrary loan. Interlibrary loans allow you to check out books from distant libraries.

Some college & university libraries are available for non-students. There may be a small fee involved.

If you can afford the money & space, you can buy a book and have it available for future reference. Though authors benefit from book sales, many authors are consultants and educators who use their books to reach more prospects. Books bring publicity to consultants, professors, universities and colleges.

Don't feel bad if you can't afford the money or space for more books. You can honor and acknowledge authors by using their work and then telling people about the benefits you got from their insights - testimonials.

Subject: Your Role Is To Figure Out How & Why. Workers' Roles Are To Do & Try. Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 07/14/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09

Here's an example (analogy) I'll use to start explaining what comes next. (I'll tie it in effectively.)

I know many will disagree with this, but it's my opinion.

It's inefficient to have doctors teaching undergraduate classes. Doctors are overqualified for the job. Somebody, who has a bachelor's degree, can adequately teach general education courses & anything below a graduate level. A college-educated professor can answer basic questions as easily as a professor with doctorate. Generally, in academics, answers to advanced questions wouldn't help anybody until they're tested on the advanced knowledge. That would happen in graduate school.

This should be a safe assumption: Somebody, who knows a subject well enough to graduate from college with a bachelor's degree, knows enough to provide an identical education for other students. This education would be good enough to confer bachelor's degrees.

(Think of this logically. When graduate students study to get doctorates, do the professors have degrees a few levels above what the students want? NO! Doctorates are the highest. The education produced is good enough for the students to graduate.)

Doctors/professors can do research (those with less education aren't qualified to do) & can supervise researchers. Maybe those researchers would be students or interns.

There's a snob factor in being educated by professors with the highest credentials, but it doesn't mean a student is better educated or prepared for a career.

Some employers are more interested in having employees who have college degrees than they (employers) are interested in the education or field of study. There's a big difference between having a degree & getting, then retaining an education.

Some employers are picky about which schools potential employees attended. (This is another inefficiency - It doesn't make sense.)

Here's how this analogy may apply to your situation:
In the short-term, it may seem more efficient & effective for you to do a task, instead of training somebody to do it. You probably have more knowledge & skill than the result justifies. You're also probably overqualified for the job of a trainer.

When somebody in an entry-level job (with entry-level wages) can produce essentially the same results as you can, you should only do those tasks occasionally.

By using optimal marketing, you can increase your business revenue enough to cover somebody else's wages.

If customers get just as much benefit from an employee's work as they can get from yours, you should do higher-level tasks. It's vital for you to still have contact with customers, so you don't lose your perspective.

You may be overqualified in serving some customers. (You shouldn't tell them if you are, since that could offend them.) If they want/need basic service & their questions require entry-level knowledge, you can have somebody else serve them while you focus on creating more value for your whole customer base.
Depending how big your staff is/will be, you should decide if you'll have somebody specifically in charge of training. The trainer can do other tasks when there aren't any trainees. Having designated trainers makes it easier to have consistent, standardized training.

Having any experienced worker train new workers can be ineffective & inefficient because knowing how to do something is different than knowing to teach others to do it.

Side Note: Some self-important people will insist on being served by the top person (owner/manager). I'm against arbitrary price increases, but if somebody will only accept your work, the fact you did it may be worth a higher price to that person. A higher price may encourage people to save money & accept employees' work.

Customers may object to paying more for the owner's work & may say, "It's not worth that much. I can get the same thing for less money when an employee does the work." *Exactly!*

Sometimes, I think people expect to served by - or at least meet - the business founder because his/her name is in the business name.

Somebody, who decides to buy from Hank Smith Fashions, may figure Hank would be involved in the transaction. Why would Hank put his name on his business, if he doesn't intend to serve people?

However, if a business name is Valu Books, people will expect good value, but they won't expect to meet "Valu".

People might feel like bait-&-switch victims if they feel lured into a business transaction by the expectation of being served by senior people but the work is really done by entry-level people.

Factors In The Decision About Trainers

Do you have an employee who did a job enough to master it? Do you think s/he will still work for you long enough to justify your extra investment in being taught how to train people?

If you don't & won't have a designated trainer, do you have an employee who will consistently & patiently mentor a trainee?

If a trainee doesn't have the same schedule as a mentor, the training could be haphazardly left to whomever is available. Whoever is available may not know what a trainee was already thought or how thoroughly.

Example: If you're a trainee & I'm your mentor for a day, I'd end up asking what you learned from the previous mentor. You may think & claim you learned something, but as a trainee, you probably wouldn't realize how much you don't know.

Because of this problem, trainees can have a job for a year & still not have fully learned to do any tasks. Some people want to fake it until they make it. But without an experienced (designated trainer's) perspective, how would they know if they've made it? They may be faking without realizing it.

A simple example: Trainees may think they know how to put price stickers on products. After all, how hard could it be? But many price stickers are made to shred if somebody tries to remove them. When a removed sticker is shredded, a dishonest ‘customer' isn't apt to successfully switch prices to get expensive products for lower prices. But the proper way - to place a price sticker - is to be sure it can't be removed intact. Trainees may not realize that & haphazardly slap stickers on.

Your store could lose a lot of money because price discrepancies may not be drastic enough to be noticed by a stressed, distracted cashier.

When you keep ordering more products to replace those that sold for the wrong prices, you could lose thousands of dollars on hundreds of sales. You could lose all of that money about $5 at a time, so in the short-term it may go unnoticed.

That $5 per product could've been your whole net profit per product. As inflation increases, it'd decrease the value of the rest of your gross margin.
Hopefully, I've persuaded you to institute consistently complete training whether you have designated trainers or not.

Subject: Should A Boss Occasionally Do Nonexecutive Labor? Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 09/20/09
In reply to: Hillary's message, "I'm confused about Nascent Processes" on 03/12/09

Doing entry-level & intermediate tasks occasionally may be a good idea to maintain your skill level & show employees you don't feel high & mighty. While you do entry-level & intermediate tasks, you may discover a better alternative. It's especially true, if you haven't done it every day. You can explore the task from a different perspective.

Workers may have good ideas about how to make processes better. Since they don't have your perspective, you may disregard what they suggest. No matter how tempting it may be to ignore them or feign interest in their insights, don't act like you're including them just to mollify them or get them to buy into your plan.

They could suggest something (big or small) that'll improve your process. I advise you not to automatically disregard what seems like a little change. If a change saves you $1, you could save $1 every time the changed process is used. Saving $1 implies not losing $1 each time. The savings or losses could (eventually) total in the hundreds or thousands.

Should A Boss Do Employee Level Processes Or Just Design Processes?

There's an opportunity cost when a business owner isn't doing administrative & strategic planning work. In general, business owners may produce more profit by developing methods, then letting others test them. Time spent doing a process isn't available for designing a process.

Realistically, time spent doing a process is a way to achieve goals & evaluate a process. Doing a process helps a boss understand it.

Note: You should realize there's a big difference between doing a task for your business & working for somebody else (like employees working for you). If you've been employed by somebody else, you probably didn't feel the control & satisfaction you get now being self-employed.

Some people advise bosses to occasionally do what they expect employees to do. Some rationales are: 1) setting a good example; 2) knowing how to do the tasks means a boss knows what the experience is like; 3) showing workers a boss is willing to do what s/he expects them to do.

The second rationale is partially false. Doing a task, even if a person has years of experience doing it, doesn't mean a person knows everything about it. There can be a different variable or set of variables each time for each person.

Example- When I was in the US Navy, some petty officers figured they knew exactly what it was like to do various jobs. Most of them were no taller than 5' 10". At the time, I was 6' 4". (By the time I got out of the Navy, I was 6'3" with a curved spine.) Having to bend for hours to do a job (because the overheads/ceilings were too low for me) & walking in passage ways (halls) is a factor they didn't experience, nor cared about.

Having been shorter when I was younger, I had some experiences of being a shorter person, but I knew my experiences were different than theirs. (Being a 5'10" 14-year-old is different than being a 5'10" 40-year-old.) Commissioned & petty officers didn't all want to acknowledge how much difference 6 or more inches (compared to them) could make for me.

Could they have gotten better results from me if they would've acknowledged banging my head &/or bending lower was hurting me? Yes.

If they didn't know, it was because they didn't want to know. I reminded them very often.

Could they have gotten better results from me if they engaged a couple more of their brain cells? Yes.

Did some of them get better results from me eventually? Yes.

They were surprised when 1 of my work evaluations was much better than the previous evaluations. When they wanted to know why, I told them, "Because the guy (supervising petty officer) who wrote that treated me like a human."

He was shorter than me, but he still didn't confine me to a low area. But I still had other low areas to contend with.

For a touch of empathy, imagine living in a metal pipe that has a diameter 3 inches less than your height. You can't stand or walk any straighter because you can't put your head through the metal, so your back stays unnaturally bent too much of each day. How long do you think it'd take for your back muscles to chronically spasm & bone spurs to grow on your vertebrae?

Employees' experiences while working for you can literally--positively or negatively--change their lives. How well could you do their jobs if you had their limitations & were still subject to your same expectations?

I'm not advising you to feel sorry for anybody. But when somebody works for you, you'll probably get better results when you use some intelligent empathy.
You'll always experience--what seem to be--the same situations differently than others.

We've Been There, Done That But It Was Different For Each

I've worked in ship's stores (Navy), plus big & small civilian stores. I understand various situations from my perspective. I won't try to deceive others or myself by implying I know exactly what retailers experience.

Do Or Dichotomy

Business owners need to balance many dichotomies, among them are: 1) design a process & have others test it while s/he (the owner) works on another process; or 2) design a process & test it before training somebody else to do it.

A creative person can design hundreds of processes in the time required to perfect each process. But what good are hundreds of imperfect processes without anybody who has time to use them?

If somebody only designs or maps processes, but doesn't do or use any of them, how could s/he understand what many of the possible problems are & how to avoid or solve them?

If you have a big enough staff, a person or team can test a process while the others use your current processes. Productivity & customer satisfaction may drop if everybody would stop doing what's been working & does what might work.

Reality Check: You can design & map (diagram) a "process", but until somebody tests & uses it successfully, your "process" is just a theory of what may achieve a goal. Even if a process worked for somebody else in a different situation, your 1st attempt--in your situation--will be a test.

Though you may be able to design many "processes", they won't be productive until they're used. So, you'll probably need to be involved in physically testing & perfecting some processes.

Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.

Subject: Re: Should A Boss Occasionally Do Nonexecutive Labor? Author: Cris Date: 09/20/09
In reply to: Dennis S. Vogel 's message, "Should A Boss Occasionally Do Nonexecutive Labor?" on 09/20/09

Hey Dennis,

I know this a bit off subject, but it's related if that makes any sense.

When talking to consumers who "Been There, Done That" Remember "It Was Different For Each" of them too.

What they used in their lives & how they used, it could be different than how anybody else would use it or find it useful.

You could hear from a few customers who may rave about the results they got -- This is why some advertisers add this statement -- "Results not typical" or "your experience may vary"

IF an advertiser rushes into using/promoting what some customers got from a service or product, others may try it too. But the others may be disappointed or get hurt.

How long did those results last? How much time did it take to take effect? How much of the product did they use? If a 200 lb person & 100 lb use the same amount of something, it could be too much & hurt the 100 lb & not help the 200 lb because it's not enough.

Maybe the raving customer only thinks it helped like a placebo. Maybe the raving customer is a raving lunatic who sometimes seems sane.

Somebody could say bad things just to get attention. People pay attention to bad things more than good. It's how those tabloids Wal-Mart Walmart or whatever sells. Bad things & stupid, nosy people keep them in business!

Even if a hurt customer doesn't sue, the bad word & customer loss could be as big a money drain as a law suit. Without court case win on your side, you won't get back your good reputation.

Subject: You're Right. Accuracy Is Always Vital. Author: Dennis S. Vogel Date: 09/21/09
In reply to: Cris 's message, "Re: Should A Boss Occasionally Do Nonexecutive Labor?" on 09/20/09

Hi Cris,

Thank you for sharing your insights. Since your insights are accurate & relevant, I want to expand on them.

I'm not a fan of the Ready, Fire, Aim Philosophy.

Acting according to it could get somebody hurt as Cris described.

I realize waiting to make everything perfect before offering a product or service can mean losing sales opportunities. But law suits can take more money than lost sales would.

Quality in the best products & services tends to vary. When a product or service result is already mediocre, sometimes quality will dip down to poor. Then a business's reputation will plunge to poor.

Ready, Fire, Aim is also bad for the content of marketing messages. If you rely on inaccurate information, you could get into a lot of trouble.

Check the facts no matter if you believe you remember accurately or as much as you trust those who tell you something.

When somebody is emotionally involved in something, emotions affect memories & judgment.

People tend to misremember, exaggerate &/or lie. Since bad "news" travels quickly you could hear the same exaggeration or lie from a few people. It would seem true since you'd hear it from more than one person, but they may've heard from the same liar.

Even if the story is an exaggeration instead of a lie, it's apt to seem worse every time it's repeated.

Basing business decisions on exaggerations or lies is like building part or all of your business on quick sand.

What's not on a firm foundation can ruin the rest & leave you with a total loss.

Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2009 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.

Branding Will Make Your Marketing More Effective

Copyright 2006 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
This blog post was transferred from another service.

Subject: What's Their Secret? Author: B.J.

Hi,
I read what you wrote about Victoria's Secret owner Leslie Wexner in Marketing Nuggets. At first, it seemed like you mistakenly wrote "he" instead of "she."
I'm not doubting what you wrote since Victoria's Secret is highly successful.
How can a man - anyone who's not a member of a target market successfully sell what they need or want?
Does this show big box stores don't have to have "intimate" (pun intended) knowledge about their target markets?
If so, that makes it harder for us to compete with them.
Or does it show people will buy when they think they don't have much other choice?
I mean big retailers can outspend us in advertising, so it's almost like our advertising or stores don't even exist. We're lost in the clutter. People probably think they can't afford to buy from a better quality store or they don't see us past the fog of the big retailers.

Subject: Part 1- Branding Will Make Your Marketing More Effective Author: Dennis S. Vogel
In reply to: B.J. 's message, "What's Their Secret?"

Hi B. J.,

Thanks for joining us.
First a disclaimer- This is a controversial topic. I know some prefer lingerie not be made for displaying female beauty. Since some of it is, I'm dealing with reality. This isn't meant to offend or insult anybody. I think I understand why some are defensive about this. Even those, who don't agree with this gender issue, can still learn something valuable.
I hope I answered your questions & implied questions among the rest of what I wrote in this multi-part post. I didn't answer them individually because other issues relate to the issues you submitted.

According to Stephen R. Covey, breakthroughs are usually break-withs, somebody breaks with conventional wisdom & does something different.
Many times those who step around conventional wisdom find better ways to do things. Often those are outsiders or people in the field who aren't accepted by other insiders.
Victoria's Secret was started by Roy Raymond, another man.
Let's think about who is a target market.
Raymond shopped for lingerie as gifts for his wife. The body-language of female shoppers & store salespeople seemed to suggest he was an intruder.
I experienced some of this when I passed through a Montgomery Ward lingerie department (as an employee) to get to a store room of men's clothing.
Raymond thinks those stores were either excessively frilly or blandly conservative. Wexner figured lingerie should be displayed better than department stores did it. Though neither invented lingerie, they both innovated. Innovations don't have to be major changes. Major changes can be harder to market.
Was Roy Raymond part of the lingerie target market? Yes, as a gift buyer & I suppose as somebody who appreciated beauty. Since lingerie is more than underwear, some of it is made for more than female physical comfort. A wife can guess what her husband would like her to wear. A husband hopes to buy things his wife likes & is willing of wear. Lingerie is for both of them.

Reality- Other than basic, functional underwear, what's the purpose of lingerie? It's not all for the women wearing it.
A lingerie store owned by a man doesn't seem so farfetched. He can still have input from women (employees & customers). For women who want lingerie appealing to men, a male company owner can represent part of the male side of the issue.

Leslie Wexner rarely used advertising when he started his clothing businesses. He used exposure to customer traffic in malls. I've seen Victoria's Secret advertising lately. Wexner used to think his stores were too specialized to justify advertising. He figured the big anchor stores, with many product lines, needed to advertise to bring in enough people to buy things from the multiple store departments.
If you read between the lines, you may think Wexner relied on other mall tenants to advertise & attract customers. But some of those other tenants also offer lingerie.
Apparently, relying on general customer traffic wasn't enough. Just because people walk past a store in a mall or drive past a free standing store, it doesn't mean they'll notice. Even if they notice, it doesn't mean they'll automatically know what the store sells, unless they take a closer look. But how would they know if it's worth looking at?

Branding requires matching a name & identity with product/service line. It requires sufficient exposure. This is a simplistic model but it fits -
Product/Service + Brand Name + Promise/Benefit Statement + Sufficient Exposure = Branding
Whether it's a specialty or department store, its success depends on enough members of a target market knowing what it sells. It's easier for a specialty store to establish this, because stocking "anything" or "everything" to sell to "anybody" or "everybody" is a hard identity/brand to establish & maintain. It's also hard to keep enough of "everything" in stock to sell enough "anything" to be profitable. It's too expensive to reach "everybody" with a message that has enough meaning for each person to make an impact on "anybody".
This begs the question - What does Sufficient Exposure =? That's something to test. For a national brand in the USA, it could mean billions of dollars &/or many years. It depends on how much desire & perceived need there is for the product/service. The level & sophistication of competitors matter also. The number of competitors doesn't matter as much as ability & willingness to market.

Victoria's Secret is so specialized, it needs the exposure of consistent marketing messages. Examples- 1) When a wife shops for lingerie in lingerie specialty store, she's not apt to tell her husband, "I'll meet you in the men's wear department when I'm finished." 2) Somebody, who goes to a store to buy a vacuum cleaner, probably won't see lavish night gown displayed in a lingerie store.

If Victoria's Secret owned the top spot in lingerie, it could afford to promote lingerie to build the category. If it was done well, it would increase VS's profits even if it didn't increase market share. 40% of the lingerie market is more profitable when total sales of the category increase.

I think this could be a good basis for promoting the category- "Lingerie is make-up for your body & a lot easier than make-up to put on the right way." A possible double entendre (controversy) could be added - "It's also easier to take off."
This could be adapted to promote a brand or a locally-based store.
Smaller companies can't afford to promote a category as much because their share & profits aren't big enough. Others, in a category, end up promoting themselves as alternatives (better for some consumers) to the top company(ies).

Subject: Part 2- Branding Is A Lot More Than A Name & A Logo Author: Dennis S. Vogel

After absorbing my thoughts on branding, let's consider another angle. Branding authority, Rob Frankel defines branding as marks put on cows to show ownership. He said after he's paid to raise the cow -- food, medicines, etc. -- he doesn't want it to be mistaken for somebody else's cow.
As much as I dislike the thought of burning an animal, I admit it's a valid opinion.
I take it further - it's not enough to make a mark on your product/service, you need to make a mark in the target market's minds. Your ultimate goal should to make your business name (if you sell directly to end-users), product/service brand name & in some cases your name a consistent part of your target market's lives. That can be a challenge if what you offer is used or purchased infrequently.
Considering how quickly people get distracted & forget what they bought, from whom they bought it, why they bought it & might not care about brands, it's critical to remind them.
Even if your business doesn't depend on repeat purchases, after you've developed trust & value as part of the mark you made in people's minds, you can recommend products/services of other businesses. In return for that, you can get access to other businesses' customers or a percentage of sales revenue.
Branding is important, even if your business has done well without it. Many businesses did well without a lot of improvements - until a business using available improvements displaced them.

It's so easy for business owners to think when customers bought them, customers will automatically return. Yet, those same business owners don't automatically buy from the same businesses. One reason is many other businesses are reaching them. It's like Tracy Lawrence sings in "Somebody Paints the Wall" -- "Seems every time I make my mark somebody paints the wall."
There are a lot of businesses painting the walls of consumers' minds. There are a lot of demands, on people, chipping the pain off.
Rude Awakening/Reality Check- Your message isn't a high enough priority, your offer isn't exclusive enough for them to automatically remember every (if any) detail.
Remember AIDA? You attract to get attention, you intrigue to incite interest, you develop their desire,
you ask for action, but it doesn't mean you've made a deep enough impression for them to remember.

Back to Victoria's Secret
Wexner preferred to adapt what others started, instead of taking the risk of pioneering a totally new innovation. Top companies in categories tend to be the former pioneers, but some later entrants took top positions. Some business pioneers started well, but later closed down.
Raymond started Victoria's Secret well. Wexner had a different vision for the stores & took it to the next level. It's common for companies to slow or stop until somebody else with different ability gets involved.
Wexner had the option of starting a new business, as he did with his others, but when he found VS, he knew his ideas could lift the company higher.
Lingerie is a controversial product line. Even those, who approve of it, may reject it completely if it goes beyond their mental or moral threshold.
Beneath a conservative image, may be somebody who likes to wear or see others who wear lingerie. This hypocritical trait can be true of customers of any product/service. Some customers might become very vocal critics. So, don't count on all of your customers to support you.
I'm not trying to dissuade you from owning a business, I just want you not to be overwhelmed if controversies arise.
Some controversy can help a business. Controversy gets attention & those on each side of the issue have emotions & reputations invested in it. That'll definitely make a mark in people's minds. That's the topic for the next post.

Subject: Last Part- Controversy -- Who Needs It? Maybe You! But Be Very Careful! Author: Dennis S. Vogel

Some brands are formed to be controversial (start a controversy), others are adapted to take advantage of controversies, somewhat like trying to cash in on fads. Sometimes controversies are started because somebody starts a rumor or somebody wants attention & latches onto an issue to increase their popularity & to show they're needed. About as bad as starting rumors, some look for evil in good or neutral things.
Examples- Religious & political leaders -- or those who want to be leaders -- spark things to gain or regain popularity.

Don't be surprised if some unpopular national & religious leader says a book was written against a religion & tries to get religious zealots to kill the author & anybody who sells the book. Never mind the obvious ploy to divert attention from the country's problems & the fact the religion's members aren't allowed to read the book to confirm or reject the leader's claims.
How about this? Viewership is low & donations are even lower. A preacher needs more media attention & the image of actually doing something (to warrant asking for more money to do even more work). He latches onto a children's TV show character & exploits it as further evidence of the decadence of a minority group.

Back to Victoria's Secret
Some lingerie advertising is controversial, so people talk about it. But that doesn't mean controversy is enough to attract the target market. Talking about a controversy is a lot different than making a referral.

Negative controversy can hurt, but unfortunately the Wal-Mart scandals & problems haven't brought W-M down yet. There are PDF's available for downloading. You can use Adobe Acrobat Reader 6 &/or 7 to search for documents & web pages about W-M.
Controversy definitely increases attention, but nobody buys a product/service just because they know it exists. Controversy increases positive & negative interest. Though controversy inspires desire in those who want to rebel, except for very inexpensive things, rebels aren't apt to buy something only to rebel. Controversy won't produce or increase enough purchasing action to sustain a business category.
Conflict, created by the older generations in the USA during 1950s & 1960s, + peer pressure + curiosity helped rock 'n' rollers get & maintain attention & interest, but many teenagers liked the music.
Controversy doesn't necessarily communicate product/service value or benefits. Some substance is needed, like explaining advantages of owning something.

Controversy fades if it's not "fed" & marketing is an effective way to "feed" it. This is especially true because the opposition usually realize their criticism reminds others about the controversial things & helps the producers feed the issue. Many producers escalate the controversy to nudge the opposition back into action so the controversy will be sustained.
But some on the other side of controversies use them for exposure, like I wrote above.
Escalation tends to strengthen the opposition's resolve & polarizes more people, so more join each side of the issue.

Dave Thomas used Wendy's "Ain't No Reason to Go Anyplace Else" campaign to get attention. People, who apparently didn't have enough real problems to keep themselves busy, complained about Wendy's using "Ain't No" because "Ain't" ain't uh, isn't a word, plus it's a double negative.
But if "ain't" ain't a word, then how could "ain't no" be a double negative?
Dave wrote in "Dave's Way"- "Some groups threatened to boycott us until we cleaned up our grammar."
This is my interpretation of the situation, not Dave's (so don't blame the late R. David Thomas) - When Dave reminded people about popular songs including "Ain't" he softened the issue for some. He spread the blame/flack, but it also caused more rage in the self-righteous & probably inspired fundamentalists to join in. They wouldn't want such evil songs to be legitimized.
Dave also declared: "Dave Thomas has 2 words for people who don't like the campaign: 'Too bad!'"
Sure, some might figure "It's no use, they won't change." But Dave's response probably ticked more people off.
But the campaign was successful, partly because of the controversy.
So, people are bound to be more upset about a real controversy. If you start something unfavorable some might think "You Ain't Nothing But A Hound Dog" though they'll be the ones howling.
In 1984, some had a cow because they claimed Wendy's was demeaning to senior citizens. Remember Clara Peller & 2 other elderly women? The "exploited" Clara Peller earned at least $500,000 from that campaign & related merchandising (T-shirts, baseball caps, records, greeting cards & other items bearing her picture).
I don't know how much Elizabeth Shaw & Mildred Lane profited from their parts.
That was before Clara was featured in a commercial for another business.

The rumor is false- She wasn't fired by Wendy's because she appeared in a dog food ad. She said, "I finally found it!" in Prego spaghetti sauce advertising. (Dave Thomas avoided this part of the issue in "Dave's Way.") Clara heavily implied she didn't need to ask or look for "the beef" anymore because she got it from a different company.

Using other people/characters in marketing messages is useful, but it can backfire. They might be hired by a different company & interfere with the branding of their former employer. They might be involved in a past, current or future scandal.
Ronald McDonald can be portrayed by just about anyone. But when somebody is recognizable, even when portraying a character, it can cause problems.
Spokespersons & others perceived as part of a company can become embroiled in controversy.

Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.

Copyright 2006 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
When you compete against big businesses with big budgets you need powerful marketing strategies & tactics. You'll find them here-
https://thriving-small-businesses.blogspot.com/
http://www.voy.com/31049/

Segmenting Makes Marketing More Muscular

Copyright 2006 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
This blog post was transferred from another service.

Jay Abraham has also been blogging -- http://www.abrahamblog.com/blog/

Here's a response I posted -

Hi Jay,

There are good lessons in the advertising you wrote about, but I don't know if I'm remembering the exact ad.

I probably started noticing Charles Atlas ads about 10 years after you did. But since we're both Mid-West baby-boomers, we probably both had similar experiences -- in addition to inflamed sinuses.

I can identify with the beach scenes since I grew up along "Wisconsin's East Coast." Though if Charles Atlas's marketing person segmented the messages, you might have seen different messages in Indianapolis.
If those were segmented by location, that could've added more power.

Nobody kicked sand in my face or took a girlfriend away from me. But I didn't have the most stunning body on local beaches.

I lived in Nebraska for a while, the lakes there are like ponds compared to the Great Lakes, so, space on beaches is scarce. Messages about working in fields might have appealed to guys there -- having strength & not being shy about taking off a shirt when heat reached 100 degrees & humidity was over 60%. Maybe this theme would still be appealing, though a lot of the work is done by machines now.

If the theme is developed well enough, it could be something men would aspire to, even if they don't plan to live the full reality.

I can imagine a theme like this - a muscular guy is loading or unloading big, heavy equipment or bales & some attractive women/girls coyly glance at him, then they blush when he notices & winks at them. If the females are different types -- blond, redhead & brunette, short, tall & in-between (to appeal to a variety of men/boys) guys might think my kind of woman/girl goes for that type of guy.

This is bringing out more thoughts than I realized. But writing all of them would take up a web page or more. Is Leo Costa hunting for another theme to test?

Charles Atlas seemed to focus on guys who weren't interested in & probably couldn't afford the money & time to spend 6 or more hours per day in gyms. Some of his direct mail follow-ups focused on injuries from exercise equipment.

The exercises he developed -- I think he called them Dynamic Tension -- didn't include equipment. He used muscles pushing against other muscles to increase strength & size. Some of the exercises are what he-men use as poses but don't look quite so ridiculous.

He didn't seem to have a Mr. Universe or Mr. Olympia physique, but many don't want one of those. If Bill Bixby would've been "before" & Lou Ferrigno is "after", ("The Incredible Hulk" TV show) Charles Atlas might be "in-between."

Some men & women don't like seeing that much definition or blood veins bulging.

Many of us don't want a train car strapped to our heads & don't aspire to want to pull a train car, but Atlas's antics got attention.

I remember the pictures of him showed shadows of his nose & eyebrows. I used to wonder why he'd use pictures in which he looked like he had black-eyes & his tongue was hanging out. But maybe I'm the only one who perceived those. Since a major part of the theme is appearance, I think different pictures from different angles or at least a change of lighting would be better.

From a branding angle, though it's obvious mythology, I don't know if Atlas is the best idea. Atlas is/was strong enough to hold the Earth & heavens apart, but that's written as a punishment. That would seem to conflict with an idea of being liberated by being stronger & bigger. But considering how some religions are formed & sustained around the theme of punishment & burdens - maybe it's appealing to some.

Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.

Copyright 2006 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
When you compete against big businesses with big budgets you need powerful marketing strategies & tactics. You'll find them here-
https://thriving-small-businesses.blogspot.com/
http://www.voy.com/31049/

Marketing Leverage

Copyright 2006 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
This blog post was transferred from another service.

Subject: I don't understand some things

Like you, I've also learned a lot of good things from Jay Abraham, but I don't understand some things.

He often says, "The headline is the ad for the ad." It may be profound, but I don't remember him explaining what he means. He's often talked about leverage on leverage. But, maybe I'm thinking too literally, how can leverage be put on leverage?

I may have missed something while reading a Clayton M. Christensen book. I remember he wrote people won't know ahead of time how they'll use a product. Companies won't know ahead of time, who will buy products.

If that's the case, how do products ever get sold?

Subject: Marketing Leverage Author: Dennis S. Vogel
In reply to: "I don't understand some things"

Hi,

I don't remember Jay Abraham explaining these either. The short explanation is: We use ads to attract people to come to our store. These ads ask prospects to come in. Headlines & graphics advertise the ads & "ask" prospects to pay attention to the ads. (The longer explanation is below.)

Clayton M. Christensen answered your question briefly in "The Innovator's Dilemma." It's in his analogy of being an electric vehicle project manager. I don't remember if this is in both editions of his book. You can find it in Chapter 10 of the updated edition or maybe both.

If you looked for something specific about small businesses, it may be why you missed it. He wrote about a big company forming a small division or separate company to make electric vehicles.

Now The Longer Explanations

I'll try to tie these concepts together in a meaningful way.

To add what I've learned from other sources, the task would be to determine which niches might be able to use the innovation.
Determine if the innovation:
1) Improves how they do things, if they can already do what they want.
2) Would help them do what they have trouble doing.
3) Would help them do what they think they need/want to do.
Each of these calls for speculation, so what you find today could be outdated by the time you'd produce a solution or find a supplier. When you market your solution, it may undershoot the need by being a partial or inconvenient solution. People can use the solution, but they wish they'd have something better.

If you anticipate what they'll need in the future, based on what they need now & what they say they'll need in the future, you may overshoot their need. Then your solution would have too many features (with POTENTIAL benefits, but no CURRENT/ACTUAL benefits). Example: If you need a knife, a Swiss Army Knife would overshoot your need to cut or carve. The extra features wouldn't provide benefits, unless you'd use them.

Persuade people to use the products (hopefully to buy or at least use free samples). Then observe how they use the product & get their input about improvement, including which features to eliminate. Extra features add more expense but no extra benefits for particular users. (Many those in the Swiss Army get full use & benefit of each Swiss Army knife feature, but most of us don't.)

I'm taking a chance on this explanation overshooting your questions & curiosity. 8^) But I want to cover what may be your next questions or what I think your next questions should be. I want you to get a full benefit from the short answers I gave.

To Take A Stand, You Need A Place To Stand

I think Archimedes said, give me a lever long enough & a place to stand & I'll move the move the Earth. He may've added the need for a fulcrum.

But what if he didn't have a long enough lever? Or what if he had a long enough lever to reach past Pluto, but no place to stand to get the maximum use from it? If he had many friends, who each had strong levers & places to stand (on Mercury, Venus, Mars & Jupiter), they could move the Earth. If they each put their levers & fulcrums in advantageous places, they could exert pressure at the same time & do the work.

(You may've heard of Rube Goldberg. Or you may've seen the Mousetrap game. Putting things together in strange configurations [somewhat like my explanations {8^{] to do something relatively simple.)

This next concept may seem like a Rube Goldberg. In theory (mine), if you had good levers, but not a convenient place to stand, you could use a lever to push another well-placed lever, which would move a load.

These are examples of leverage on leverage. Since these examples are so confusing, they may show why Jay Abraham didn't explain what he meant.

Leo Burnett advised, "Plan the sale when you plan the ad." "The sale" can be a sales event with discounts. It can also be the act of selling something.

Retail displays, sales techniques (what we do & say, plus how we do & say them), point-of-purchase signs, ads/commercials, referrals/testimonials/ endorsements are "levers." Each should be planned as much as is practical. (Each of these is also something we should test by trying variations.)

What I wrote in another post about blaming versus accepting responsibility for what you can do applies here with a small change. To figure how to change a situation, we need to start somewhere. If we start with a person having a problem, we still need to figure how to induce the person to buy a solution from us. A journey starts with the first step, but it's easier to map a route by starting with what we know. What we know is OUR current situation.

The mousetrap fallacy doesn't address this, it states people will beat a path. If it were true, business failures would be very rare. This is like thinking, "If people don't know I have a better mousetrap, it's their tough luck. I won't tell them. So, it's their fault if my business fails."

It's our job to accept responsibility & beat the path. It's usually easier starting the path from where we are, while we look ahead for a destination.

In general, I recommend finding people who have a problem before finding or inventing a solution. But it doesn't guarantee when we find a solution we'll have enough expertise & production capacity to provide what people need.

Clayton M. Christensen's books for innovators focus on disruptive technologies that were discovered or developed before a problem to solve was discovered. In effect, it means disruptive innovators work backwards. This approach can be used when demand for a product/service is low or nonexistent, as in mature markets/product categories or new product/service categories.

Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.

Copyright 2006 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
When you compete against big businesses with big budgets you need powerful marketing strategies & tactics. You'll find them here-
https://thriving-small-businesses.blogspot.com/
http://www.voy.com/31049/

Subject: The Leverage Process

As I wrote in the previous post, we know our situation, but since we may not know who will use our products/services, we need to start from we are. As we progress, we hope to have a clearer vision of our potential target market.

After we convince our potential target market to use our products/services, we can find what they like & dislike.

It's a potential target market because they may prefer something else. Even if they prefer our solution, they may not be able to afford it. If they can't afford it, we can determine if we can decrease our costs by removing features they don't want or would seldom use. Or if they need a short-term solution, maybe we can make the product or service result less durable & less expensive.

If We'd Start With Consumers
Though it seems ideal to start with people or businesses & their needs, we have to start with what our knowledge & priorities. To start with something totally foreign would be impractical because the learning curve would be too long & steep.

Instead of producing a complete product/service, we could've started with research, then designed our product/service according to what we learn about people's needs. But by the time our product/service is ready to be marketed, our prospects' needs/desires may change. It'd mean scrapping what we did or find somebody to buy what we produced. So, we could still end up doing the process I described below.

The order of these issues varies according to the situation. If you don't have an answer to each question, find answers to the others. These answers can direct your thoughts to other answers you need. If you start in the middle then work toward each end of the list, it's OK if you get the answers you need.

Backwards May Be Inevitable
These issues are in approximate reverse order like disruptive innovation creators should use.
This list isn't complete enough to fully cover every possible scenario. Each of these issues/steps is a point where we need to apply leverage to "lift" prospects out of their previous situations.

The drawback of working backward is we don't always know--specifically-- where we're going. If we get stuck, we can jump ahead--in planning--to where we think we want to go (where we think a problem exists which our solution can solve). It's like a maze drawn on paper, the starting & ending points are indicated, if we get stuck working toward the end, we can leave our route marked, then work from the end toward the beginning. If our routes "meet" then we're successful.

A Retailer's Current (Hypothetical) Situation/Internal:
When we bought our inventory, which problem(s) did we think these products would solve?
Which other products/services do people need to get a complete solution?
What do we need to set in motion to sell our inventory? What do we need to do so people will buy? Do we have the necessary resources, values & processes?
Why should prospects believe our claims? How will we show these are true?
What has to happen to make people aware of the consequences of their need?
We want people to buy products, how will it happen?
We need to know what other problems our product might solve.

Message Distribution-
We need attention inducing devices, like headlines & graphics, to "advertise" our ads. These should convince people to invest enough time & attention so they'll understand our messages.
We need prospects to notice our advertising messages.
We need to find people who want to & can afford to solve this problem.

Mapping The Potential External Situation:
Message Development-
We need people (who might have that problem) to come to our store.
We need to let them know we have that product/solution.
Does our niche already accept their need & want to solve it?
We need to let them know how serious their problem is & will be. What will happen if it's not solved?
Is solving it a high priority?
What causes the problem? What makes it worse?
We need to let them know their problem can be solved.
We need to get them to admit to themselves, they have a problem.
We need to get them to trust us as people who care about them & have valuable knowledge.
How do they describe their problem? We should use these descriptions in our marketing messages so our sales copy will be interesting & meaningful.
We need to get & keep their attention long enough to inspire their interest, desire & action.
How will we recognize those who have this problem?
Who has this or a similar problem?

Questions For Drilling Down On Some Issues
We need to find 1 or more of these (Knowing more of these will help us solve the problem for the most people.)-
Where they are when they first discover they have the problem.
Where they are most often when the problem recurs/flares up again.
What are they doing most often when the problem recurs/flares up again?
Where they are most often when they feel the strongest motivation to solve the problem.
Where can they most comfortably solve the problem/apply the solution? (Somewhat facetious example- People may feel pain from hemorrhoids wherever they go, but they won't apply a solution anywhere.)
When are they closest to a place where they'll apply/use a solution?
When are they closest to a place where they're willing to buy a solution? (Is it a competitor they're close to? If we can change this, how can we do it?)
Where & when are they closest to a place where they can buy a solution?
Are there typically times when they can't afford to buy the solution?

Taking Action-
How can we help them discover they have the problem?
How can we help them realize they need to solve the problem?
How can we cost-effectively make the solution process easier for our target market?
How can we cost-effectively make the solution process more efficient for our target market?
How can we cost-effectively make the solution process more convenient for our target market?

Easier, efficient & convenient are almost synonymous, so the last 3 questions may seem redundant. But we can substitute whichever words fit the situation. Example: painless, helpful & timely.

You may've concluded a lot of this intuitive, but when people do things without conscious thought, they may miss something important.

Except for 1-step messages, which convince people to buy something without any more sales effort, good ads inspire people to inquire about products/services. After the inquiry, they'll buy what they can afford if they want it.

An ad copywriter needs to achieve AIDA. But it won't happen unless people notice & pay attention to the ad. Good headlines & graphics get a target market's attention & interest by "advertising" the ad.

Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.

Copyright 2006 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
When you compete against big businesses with big budgets you need powerful marketing strategies & tactics. You'll find them here-
https://thriving-small-businesses.blogspot.com/
http://www.voy.com/31049/