Can't is the New Won't

It's London Fashion Week this week. This means that next week we'll be told that green is the new black. Or grey. Or some other colour of the rainbow. 


Trends change, and so it is true in business. Increasingly, I'm finding that businesses are using "can't" as the new "won't". 


As someone who finds the word "can't" hard to compute at the best of times, and prefers to use the English language with a little more precision than the general populace, I have to say I don't like this new trend very much at all. 


My husband was told last week that one of his suppliers "can't" send out product samples. Can't? Or won't? Surely they have samples of the products they manufacture? They've just chosen not to respond to any sample requests. 


I've had experience of a hotel restaurant that "can't" serve up a bacon roll. However they "can" serve up the bacon and roll separately, they are just not allowed to put them together. Bonkers. 


This week I came across a hotel that "can't" sell me a room at the same rate as it appears on the internet. How come? Why not? 


In recent months I've also come across a company that "can't" put through the order for processing until the money has been received - but whose credit control processes rely on waiting weeks for other companies to respond to a laborious, and somewhat old fashioned, trade reference process causing unnecessary delays and irritation to both us and our client. Can't? Really? Won't is more like. 


In so many of these situations the companies "can" but instead of being up front about their strange and unhelpful internal policy decisions, they are hiding, cowering, behind the word "can't". 


"Can't" is less assertive than "won't" - it may fill the recipient of the message with a sense of despair and irritation, but it's unlikely to incur the wrath that a more assertive "won't" would. "Can't" implies that the decision is someone else's responsibility altogether. 


However if businesses are not able to explain, justify and stand firmly behind their own policies by owning them, then why do they even bother employing people to answer the phone or manage their customer services? 


So fight back. The next time you're told you "can't", tell them that they can and they are just choosing not to and ask why. 


My husband did just that. After kicking up a fuss, he was put through to the owner of the company who quickly backed down and agreed to send out the samples. 


I did just that. After challenging the "can't" - surely you mean "won't"? -  I was happily offered the internet rate saving me a cool £35 per night. Good little customer service person. 


Can't? We just won't stand for it. 

If Your Business is Not Using Social Media, You May as Well Shut up Shop

Core to marketing is communication. And social media is now the dominant communication vehicle in the world. But despite that indisputable fact there are still businesses (and business people) who refuse to get involved, whether through stubborn ignorance or sheer dogmatic arrogance. 


Businesses who think it's a flash in the pan. Businesses who are afraid their customers might just (publicly) talk back to them. Businesses who are stuck in the past. Businesses who might genuinely have no place in the future. 


Last week I used Facebook to arrange a meeting with a client, Twitter to discuss a joint pitch opportunity and Google+ to issue a press announcement. One of our Winter Camp businesses had their first hot sales enquiry for the training of a lot of people via Twitter before our 4 week course in how to maximise its use for marketing purposes had finished. If arranging new business meetings, generating leads and discussing business growth opportunities are not enough of a reason to be involved in these social networks, I don't know what is. 


The thing is, I've never believed Facebook or Twitter are destination sites (like MySpace and Bebo were). I always saw them as highly sophisticated communication tools. 


I didn't start using Facebook and Twitter because they were "social", I started using them because they enabled me to communicate with a lot of people, simultaneously and therefore save me an inordinate amount of time. Just like our mobile phones contain our address books and enable us to connect at the touch of a button, so do Facebook and Twitter. 


I spend time on Facebook and Twitter because they enable me to interact, communicate and contact people when it is convenient for all of us. And that's the underlying key to their success. 


Unlike the phone or a text which is an interruptive force in our lives, people log in to Facebook and Twitter when it suits them and respond in their own time. That's why people like it so much. They are in control of both the incoming communications, and the outgoing.  


So if your business currently has only a telephone number, fax number and email address, you are cutting yourself off to literally millions of customers who tweet, facebook and G+ their way in the world. 


Why would any business person in their right mind, cut themselves off from the marketplace? 


You may as well save yourselves the time and stress of business failure and shut up shop now. Or take half an hour out, hop on those sites and try them out. 


It's free, and costs nothing but your time and an open mind. 

Suits You, Sir.

Today's blogging was delayed due to a very important shopping trip. Today we went on the "man shop". 


For those of you who live with a man, you'll know what that is. For those of you who don't, let me briefly explain. Men shop differently to women. They have a tendency to only come out once of twice a year, bulk buy, and spend a lot in a single transaction. 


It's an important ritual in a man's year. Stocking up on socks, pants, trousers, jumpers and shoes. Their primary mission is to clothe themselves fully in one single trip, without the pain of having to repeat the process before a reasonable amount of time has elapsed. 


For a retailer, this should make him the ideal client. He's interested in purchasing the whole kit and caboodle. And, crucially, he has money to spend. So making sure he spends it in your store is critical. 


Now we are increasingly led to believe that British Retail is in the doldrums. People are spending less and less, well established retail chains struggle, and jobs are in jeopardy as the British public cast aside shopping as a national past time and embrace, well, other stuff. 


So here's a wake up call for you, British Retail, based on my recent "man shop" experience. 


In less than 80 minutes we achieved the following:

• The purchase of 6 pairs of pants, 7 pairs of socks, 4 pairs of trousers, 2 jumpers, 1 pair of boots and 1 pair of shoes. 
• Spending a minimum of 15 minutes in 3 separate major national retailers
• Trying on clothes in all 3 retailers
• Waiting for around about 10-12 minutes to hand over money
• Having to ask for a bag to put the large shoe box in so we could carry it out of the store (seriously)
• Spending 40% less than we had intended

And we achieved all of that without once actually being offered an ounce of service or purchasing advice from any of the 6 separate sales "assistants" we encountered on our retail journey. 

Now, in a previous life I have a retail claim to fame: I was once the national sales champion for women's clothing retailer Richards. And this lofty title was bestowed upon me for one simple reason: I was able to shift more clothing per square foot of store than any other sales assistant in the country. Cool, huh?

Perhaps I should share my ancient wisdom with British Retail now, in the hope that they might be able to redeem themselves from the doldrums and lift themselves firmly back into the 21st century?

If you are trying hard to wrestle money from the purse of the average consumer, it really only ever comes down to one thing, and one thing only: SERVICE. Simple service. 

And much of that service, in a clothing environment, is delivered in the changing room. Not on the shop floor where your retail assistants are wasting time tidying up. Not in the stockroom where they are shirking from the primary task of serving the customer. And not behind the till where they are standing, looking vacant and bored. In the changing room. 

The changing room is where you can take a £20 sale and turn it into £120. The changing room is where you can offer that added value service: Need a different size, sir? Can I suggest that the green would look fantastic on you, sir, would you like to try it in that colour? Have you tried these on, sir? They look very smart, sir, we have them in 4 other colours, would you like me to bring them in for you to see?

Once a customer is in the changing room, they become a client. They are yours and yours alone to serve, advise, understand and help. 

There's a small dress shop in Perth where I live, called Loretta's which has got this level of service down pat. The shop is stuffed full of stock. So much so, it's impossible to find anything. In fact most of the stock isn't even on the shop floor. But Loretta knows this. Which is why she ritualistically shoves you in a changing room and brings the shop to you. Average spend in Loretta's, I'd hazard a guess, is in the region of £3-400 per transaction. 

When I worked for family owned, national retailer Hobbs, we were all trained in advising the customer on their ultimate "capsule wardrobe" - irrespective of whether they only popped in to buy just a belt or an entirely new look. "That belt would go really well with these trousers, madam. And may I suggest we team it up with this top - it's the perfect colour for you." Average sale? Much higher than the cost of the average belt. 

When I worked for Richards, we were specifically trained in the art of getting the customer into the changing room and off the shop floor as fast as possible. Why? You've guessed it. This action alone increased the customer's average spend. 

So come on, British Retail, this is your clarion call. Get your staff off the cleaning and into the changing room.  Get them onto the shop floor serving the customer. Get them acknowledging the customer when they walk into the store. Get them talking to the customer. Get them offering advice. Assisting. Consulting. 

Then, you just never know, your doldrums may just be a thing of the past. And my 40% underspend might just have made it into your tills. Your loss. Our gain. 

The Economy. Does it Really Matter?

I caught Newsnight this week. I try to avoid doing this because it winds me up. However, this week it was actually quite interesting and, dare I say it, thought provoking. 


Jeremy (let's call him Jer) was attempting to stimulate debate on the alternatives to capitalism following David Cameron's statement in the week about moral capitalism. Capitalism that was socially irresponsible. A type of capitalism that must be stopped. 


Bastion of the far left and son of a marxist theorist Ed Miliband agrees with him. And not to be left out, Nick Clegg fancies helping us develop a "John Lewis" economy where everyone owns a wee bit of the company they work for. How egalitarian. 


Maybe I've missed something but it would seem to me that there is a subtle political revolution which is steering us more and more in the direction of communism? And I say communism, rather than socialism. A society which has common ownership of production at its very heart. (Not people). 


The flavour of the Newsnight discussion intrigued me. Jer brought on a well known Marxist to tell us why and how capitalism was doomed to failure. Then failed to interview him well. Keynsian economics theory was referred to in the programme as "revolutionary" some 80 odd years after it was first produced but Jer forgot to tell us what that actually meant. 


Revolutionary? Really? 


Either way it's clear that this concept of moral capitalism and economic predators with fat cat bonuses is here to stay. 


However, their rhetoric could be a smokescreen and distraction for what's really happening. 


So, here's how I see it. In our so called "free market" Keynsian society, the following things have happened in very recent years:


Individuals and households up and down the country have been encouraged, programmed and positively been forced down the route that owning your own property is a rite of passage. In truth, in Britain and the USA, you're not a real contributing citizen until you've straddled yourself with a 25 year debt amounting to tens of thousands of pounds through which you will actually pay more than double the actual cost of your property. 


This lending has been made free and easy by the capitalist (and, don't forget, evil) banks that ultimately control whether our economy stands or falls. They alone, we are led to believe, have the power. Not governments. And not the people.  


These banks soon found out that not everyone actually has the ability to pay these onerous, 25 year loans. So they did what any self-protecting capitalist venture would do and minimised their liabilities. Only, in their case, they found a way to do it which kept the debt "in play" as an asset. In so doing, creating a chain of transactions which, at best, could only be described as a game that combined the best of Russian Roulette and "The Weakest Link". 


As with any weak link in a chain, it will eventually break and, like a pile of dominoes, the effects are compound. In what felt like an extremely short period of time, our banks began to fall. And the people bailed them out one by one. State owned banks in a capitalist society. Who would have thought it possible?


Taking one bold step further towards a Marxist economy, as a country we are now in an interesting position where thousands of households "own" a mortgage debt, lent to them by banks which are now owned in a large part by the government which is in turn "owned" by the people of the country. The rest of us rent council properties. Which are owned by the government. Which owns the banks. Hmmmmmmm. 


In the background, electricity and gas companies battle with market pricing mechanisms and a consumer base that is continually telling them that they can't afford to pay those prices. Transport companies are lambasted for pushing up fares beyond which consumers can afford to pay. We've even had one politician suggest that the rich should pay the fares for the "ordinary" man. Robbing the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood would be proud. 


This all sounds like the basis of a communist society to me and before we all go hurtling towards it at a break neck speed we should maybe stand back and ask ourselves: Is that what we really want?


Do we want a society where every gets exactly what they need. Not what they want, but what they need. 


As any political theorist will know - go too far to the right and you will end up on the left. Politics and, so it would seem, economics are not linear, but circular in their behaviour.


Which brings me nicely on to literary theory (often ignored in these troubled times, but a fairly useful reference tool for those that think it's just all so unfair). 


Thomas Hardy had it down nicely in his novels where Fortune's Wheel was the main factor in whether a man (or woman) succeeded or failed, economically speaking. However even Hardy had the nonce to understand that everyone begins their life at a different place on the wheel, going through both good times and bad times in order to live life to the full. It was, in essence, the meaning of life. That's why Tess never seems to get a proper break, it's why the Mayor of Casterbridge seems to be forever battling with bad luck through the ups and downs of his own career. 


Hardy wasn't the only one providing us with a commentary on economic success. Fielding did it too. And hundreds of years before him, so did Shakespeare. And years before him, Ovid. 


So, perhaps, just perhaps, what I'm trying to say is that our leaders need to be very careful if they think they have control over these situations. 


Economics are complex. However out of complexity, order will come. It's a cyclical thing. It's the way of the world. Complexity theorists know that. Writers of old know that. Heck, even the free market knows that. 


So in answer to my question about the economy, does it really matter? Yes, I think it does. 


But it matters to each and every one of us. Because we ARE the economy. Not the banks. Not the governments. The people. 


We are the market. We decide whether a business succeeds or fails. We decide whether a person's skills are valuable or not. We decide how we can better ourselves. We decide in which bank we should put our money. 


We decide. 


For the time being at least. 

What Kind of Woman would put a Hairdryer in the Wardrobe?

I have had the (mis)fortune of having to travel for work since the day my working life began. As a result of this I have stayed in literally hundreds of hotels, in quite a number of cities, in a fair few countries. 


And everywhere I go, it seems to be the same: The hotel rooms are designed by men, for men. 


Now don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that the lion's share of the business travel market is male. But that lion's share is getting smaller all the time and recent statistics suggest that over 40% of the business travel market is now female. 


So how come hotels don't seem to have cottoned on?


As a female business traveller, I'm a creature of habit. I like to use the same trains/planes/car hire companies, and I like to stay in the same hotel - it makes my life easier. But in all my travels I have rarely found a hotel who'd got is right for the girls. 


And it's not rocket science. Most women who travel often quickly get over the "don't like being alone in a restaurant" feeling - it's the lack of attention to detail that bugs us most. So here's my wish list for any of those hoteliers out there that want to stop ignoring this lucrative market and really stand out from the crowd:

• How about a free plug socket near to where a mirror is situated so we can plug in our hair straighteners?
• How about a plug socket situated far enough away from the desk (in height) so the cord attached to our hair straighteners/laptop etc etc can actually fit?
• How about replacing those terrible hairdryers in the wardrobe with something that will actually take less than five minutes to dry your fringe? (Note to hoteliers, anything less that 1600w is a) a waste of your money, b) a waste of your space, c) a waste of our time and d) means we can't travel quite as light as the boys).
• Even better, why not have qood quality ghd hair straighteners available at reception to borrow (booked in advance, of course). This is more useful to us than novelty (boys) toys like playstations - yup, I've stayed in more than a few hotels where they have been available. 
• How about having sanitary towels and ibuprofen available to purchase at reception or in vending machines? If you are travelling for a period (excuse the pun) of time and across time zones you can often get caught out. 
• Safety is a major priority for lone female travellers, how about a series of safe parking spaces close to the hotel doors so we don't have to wrestle with our suitcase and handbag, while constantly looking behind us in a strange and deserted car park late at night?
• When you are selecting toiletries, why not consider that the vast majority of women use hair conditioner as well as shampoo. Oh, and I think you'd be hard pushed to find a woman who still uses soap. So don't waste your money on toiletries we rarely use. I take mine home with me: to my husband. And yes, while it may seem old fashioned, a hair cap is actually very, very useful. But they are rarely found in hotel bathrooms anymore. 

This list is not exhaustive, by any means. But if hotels could just sort out a few of the easy peasy things, they'd have a loyal market of female business travellers just lining up to spend money with them. 


Imagine that. 

What's the Big Deal? How Daily Deal Sites are Bad for Business

The latest dot.com startup craze to sweep the globe is undoubtedly the growth of daily deals sites. Groupon led the way as the fastest growing company in history, others have followed suit in a bid to make a quick buck. 

Struggling businesses, eager to get bums on seats, have thrown traditional marketing values firmly out of the window in a bid to buy the customer: at any price. And when it comes to daily deals sites, it's a heavy price to pay. 

For the customer, it's a great deal. Savings in excess of 60% - and you can't deny that it's driving purchases that would have otherwise not been made.

But for business in general, it's bad news. Very bad news.

The costs of marketing are roughly between 70% - 80% of revenue. How many businesses can operate AND turn profit when 80% of their cost base is a marketing cost? Very few I would think. 

Compare this to a "traditional" marketing approach of spending roughly 10% of turnover on marketing activity (and that's what I would recommend for a start up who needs to spend just a little bit more). See, business forgets that marketing is simply the process of buying a customer. And savvy businesses know that you make money when you buy and not when you sell. In other words, buying as frugally as possible is the recipe for successful business practice.

If you don't believe me, watch any episode of The Apprentice and note the near obsessive attention to purchasing costs applied by Lord Alan Sugar and his aides. Costs which, on more than one occasion, have been the difference between success and failure of a task. 

But these sites don't care about business. They care about making money. Their business model is sound. You make the product (at your cost), you give it to them to market, they'll slash your retail price to something undeniably palatable (not profitable), and they'll take half the proceeds.

They don't negotiate. They pretend to, but really a few percentage points here and there will not make a massive difference to either them or to you.

Their terms and conditions are anti-competitive. Try and suggest amendments to their contract and all hell breaks loose. Ummmmm, last time I looked a contract was meant to be an agreement between two entities. Emphasis on the word agreement.

They like to dictate the price (and therefore the discount). I've had it suggested to me on several occasions that £19 would work better than £21, or would bring it into line with competitive offers. In any other industry, we'd call this price fixing and report them to DBERR. 

And even after all that, even if your product or service is great, if you are even slightly off the beaten track, they'll make the decision that their customers are unlikely to travel to get it, and exclude you from the party. Whatever happened to the concept of free market? This is a level of screening that is ALL about generating the maximum profit for them and nothing to do with the customer whatsoever.

Now, I'm not advocating that businesses should avoid daily deals sites altogether. They can have their uses in driving new customers to the business. However these should always be part of a wider marketing mix, ideally with other marketing activities that generate positive returns on investment and cost a lot less. 

There's room in this crazy developing discount market for a sustainable operator to come in and deliver. However everyone's currently off on a "me too" escapade - publishing giant DC Thomson contacted me last week about their new Beezer Deals which will launch in January. Their business model? Exactly the same as Itison and LivingSocial. Their unique offering? The ability to to advertise the deal in their daily print titles. I can barely contain my excitement.

In the same hour, DiscountTown also contacted me. Yet another discount site. Yet another similar business model.

Where's the innovation? It's not enough just to draw a pretty logo, stick it on a website and call yourself the next big thing. Yawn. Where's the true differentiation?

Businesses are getting much savvier when it comes to daily deals sites. They've been round the block a few times now and know the pitfalls and the questions to ask. They want the reach of these discount sites, but not the costs. They are trying to negotiate deals that work for them. They are walking away from deals that are not going to work for them. That suggests to me that this media is about to grow up - it's no longer about getting business at any cost, it's about strategic, effective marketing activity. 

And their growing pains are evident.  Every week I receive desperate phone calls from all the main operators trying to get my clients to give them offers to sell. They are crestfallen when I say no. 

With maturity, comes wisdom, and it's only a matter of time before a wise operator looks at the business model of these daily deals sites and recognises it is ultimately flawed. It's simply not sustainable. For businesses to survive, they need to make profit. Profit will simply be unattainable if your marketing costs amount to 80% of turnover. 

This starts a viscious downward spiral. Less profit = less business development = less businesses = less jobs = less customers = less. Just less.

I really hope someone's going to jump into that space and soon. Before it's too late.

How's Business for You?

This is a question I've been asked daily in the last month. Mainly by other business owners.

And some funny things have happened in response to my answer.

Business is good for us. We've had our busiest year (ever), we're recruiting, expanding and continuing to develop. The future is looking rosy. When we tell people this, a look of relief comes over their face and they whisper in hushed tones "Us too."

It would seem that in amidst this recession that there are a good many businesses who are doing very well indeed. Businesses who are struggling (in a good way) to keep up with demand. Businesses who are expanding, employing and charging their way through the recession.

But these businesses are, for some unknown reason, scared to shout about it.

The media is piled high with failure stories. Shop closure after shop closure. It's almost as if success in this volatile market (one which is clearly full of opportunities for the most versatile of entrepreneurs) is a dirty word.

So come on, if you are doing well, let's shout it from the roof tops. It's not a crime to perform well during a recession - in fact it's a good sign. It's a sign that things are not as bad as they seem. That the "green shoots" of growth are, indeed, there. That it's not all doom and gloom. That people and businesses are still spending money (despite numerous reports to the contrary).

The pundits don't always get it right. But who can blame them if these success stories are all being kept hush hush?