A while back I put up an article about some concerns I have with NFC implementations.
Just the other day there was a big hoo-hah about Google Wallet being hacked on rooted Google Phones. Now it turns out the Gnomes of Mountain View actually left a security hole big enough to drive a truck through.
This piece on Boy Genius Report goes into more detail on the mechanics of the hack.
My problem with this is “what were they thinking”?!
From looking at the video this isn’t the sort of security flaw that’s taken hundreds of hackers millions of lines of brilliantly executed computer code to discover and exploit.
I mean, really, are we supposed to trust our personal and financial security to a bunch of code-monkeys that leave security holes like this in a product?
Makes you really feel safe about that RFID chip in your passport and your credit card too.
This is a technology that requires a whole lot more thinking about.
Showing posts with label retail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retail. Show all posts
Monday, February 13, 2012
Friday, September 30, 2011
Australian Retail Fails! GASP!
So GASP has gotten into a ferocious spat with a customer.
According to this piece from the Herald-Sun something is rotten in Chapel Street. I would say its a bit more widespread than that, but hey.
Obviously this is all some new and unique ploy by GASP to attract customers by having loudmouthed staff insult them and responding to a perfectly well reasoned complaint letter with a grammatically challenged missive; obviously written by someone with a tenuous grasp of English who felt injudicious use of the word ‘whom’ provided gravitas to an otherwise spectacularly infantile grammatical vomit.
“Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion, and Chris’s only problem is that he is too good at what he does, and as I am sure you are aware, people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted, which is the reason you were provoked to leave the store.”
I wonder if ‘Chris’ wrote this about himself?
You’d think they’d be smart enough to walk away from this one, but, no. They continued to stoke the fires. I’m guessing that they’re doing this because they’re figuring any publicity is better than no publicity.
Just wait till the guys who actually pay the bills see a drop in revenue and we’ll see how many of their, gasp, “retail superstars” who possess, gasp, “unparalleled ability” actually keep their jobs.
The icing on the cake was this:
Gasp spokesman Matthew Chidgey said Chris had only been doing his job.
“Keara and the three bridesmaids came into the store and were making a mockery of the dresses,” he told Sunrise.
Mr Chidgey said the women’s behaviour had the potential to bully other customers who wanted to a buy a dress and the incident had been Ms O’Neil’s fault because she had not visited the store with a “positive approach”.
He said anyone who did not like Gasp’s clothing should not voice their opinions inside the store as “negative behaviour” would not be tolerated.
“Some people come into the store who don’t want to turn heads, who don’t want to stand out from the crowd and that’s not what we sell,” he said.
So if I get this right, young Matthew is saying that in GASP a shop assistants job is to bully the prospective customer into buying something, make sure they can’t express themselves if their opinion doesn’t follow the party line and generally act like self-absorbed, self-obsessed bullies.
Obviously prospective GASPers must have failed the bit in kindergarten when manners were taught.
According to this piece from the Herald-Sun something is rotten in Chapel Street. I would say its a bit more widespread than that, but hey.
Obviously this is all some new and unique ploy by GASP to attract customers by having loudmouthed staff insult them and responding to a perfectly well reasoned complaint letter with a grammatically challenged missive; obviously written by someone with a tenuous grasp of English who felt injudicious use of the word ‘whom’ provided gravitas to an otherwise spectacularly infantile grammatical vomit.
“Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion, and Chris’s only problem is that he is too good at what he does, and as I am sure you are aware, people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted, which is the reason you were provoked to leave the store.”
I wonder if ‘Chris’ wrote this about himself?
You’d think they’d be smart enough to walk away from this one, but, no. They continued to stoke the fires. I’m guessing that they’re doing this because they’re figuring any publicity is better than no publicity.
Just wait till the guys who actually pay the bills see a drop in revenue and we’ll see how many of their, gasp, “retail superstars” who possess, gasp, “unparalleled ability” actually keep their jobs.
The icing on the cake was this:
Gasp spokesman Matthew Chidgey said Chris had only been doing his job.
“Keara and the three bridesmaids came into the store and were making a mockery of the dresses,” he told Sunrise.
Mr Chidgey said the women’s behaviour had the potential to bully other customers who wanted to a buy a dress and the incident had been Ms O’Neil’s fault because she had not visited the store with a “positive approach”.
He said anyone who did not like Gasp’s clothing should not voice their opinions inside the store as “negative behaviour” would not be tolerated.
“Some people come into the store who don’t want to turn heads, who don’t want to stand out from the crowd and that’s not what we sell,” he said.
So if I get this right, young Matthew is saying that in GASP a shop assistants job is to bully the prospective customer into buying something, make sure they can’t express themselves if their opinion doesn’t follow the party line and generally act like self-absorbed, self-obsessed bullies.
Obviously prospective GASPers must have failed the bit in kindergarten when manners were taught.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Australian Retailers take aim at their greatest enemy...Australian Retailers and score a bullseye!
I recently came across this little entry.
Retailers are considering introducing a 'try-on fee' to deter customers from purchasing products online.
It was a call for opinions and feedback for a news site.
How about this for an opinion. “How. Fucking. Dumb. Are. Australian. Retailers.”
…and no, its not missing a question mark!
A bit of searching and I found this piece in The Australian ‘Shoppers hit with ‘try-on’ charges as retailers fight online rivals’.
I mean really. The only advantage these clowns have is that a customer can try something on and decide if they want to buy it or not, and so, instead of working that as an advantage over the evil hoards of slavering, rapacious online retailers that are laying waste to our poor, impoverished and unfairly treated retailers, they decide to give that advantage away by charging for it!
Well done. This takes biting the hand that feeds you to a whole ‘nother level.
Poor Mr. Mendels complaining that sales of his grossly overpriced True Religion jeans have dropped in Australia as people buy overseas for a still big, but far more reasonable price. My heart bleeds.
People will pay for good service and they will pay a reasonable uplift for that, but, when you screw them for every cent you can get they they will turn on you the first chance they get.
You haven’t treated your customer with respect, you have treated them as a walking bank that you can hoover cash from.
This is no way to stop people buying online, all you’re going to do is force them to do even more online shopping.
A galactic fail for Australian retail, oh, sorry, that’s their standard way of doing business...
Retailers are considering introducing a 'try-on fee' to deter customers from purchasing products online.
It was a call for opinions and feedback for a news site.
How about this for an opinion. “How. Fucking. Dumb. Are. Australian. Retailers.”
…and no, its not missing a question mark!
A bit of searching and I found this piece in The Australian ‘Shoppers hit with ‘try-on’ charges as retailers fight online rivals’.
I mean really. The only advantage these clowns have is that a customer can try something on and decide if they want to buy it or not, and so, instead of working that as an advantage over the evil hoards of slavering, rapacious online retailers that are laying waste to our poor, impoverished and unfairly treated retailers, they decide to give that advantage away by charging for it!
Well done. This takes biting the hand that feeds you to a whole ‘nother level.
Poor Mr. Mendels complaining that sales of his grossly overpriced True Religion jeans have dropped in Australia as people buy overseas for a still big, but far more reasonable price. My heart bleeds.
People will pay for good service and they will pay a reasonable uplift for that, but, when you screw them for every cent you can get they they will turn on you the first chance they get.
You haven’t treated your customer with respect, you have treated them as a walking bank that you can hoover cash from.
This is no way to stop people buying online, all you’re going to do is force them to do even more online shopping.
A galactic fail for Australian retail, oh, sorry, that’s their standard way of doing business...
Friday, September 23, 2011
Just another word on Financial Analysts
Recently I’ve been working with a client in the hardware industry.
They’re not a huge company, but, they’ve won business with the new Woolworths hardware stores - Masters. I’m helping them to upgrade their warehouse management and logistics systems to support the growth in business they’re projecting from Masters expansion plans.
I got pulled into a meeting with the Managing Director where he showed me this piece from the SMH.
He wanted to know what I thought. Would Woolworths pull out of the hardware market? What did it mean for him and his business?
This is the sort of idiotic dribble from a so called ‘expert’ that does no good for anyone except for turning the analyst from a spreadsheet jockey into a ‘rock star’ analyst. It’s great for his career. Not so much for anyone else.
Masters will bleed money. They’re buying property for their new stores, stocking up and expanding. Their target is 150 stores in 60 months, that’s just over 2 stores a month, every month for 5 years.
Congratulations Mr. Financial Analyst - you managed to state the obvious and you think this makes you some sort of genius?
Yes they will bleed money, at the start, and then they’ll get to the tipping point and they’ll start to make money - I’m sure some analyst will turn around and say that they forecast that would happen too…
All I told my client was “this report was put together by an analyst who is no different to the analysts that said sub-prime mortgages were a safe bet and we all saw how smart those guys really were”.
Woolworths are in business to make money and they wouldn’t get into this market lightly. Neither would their partner in this venture Lowe’s.
They’re not a huge company, but, they’ve won business with the new Woolworths hardware stores - Masters. I’m helping them to upgrade their warehouse management and logistics systems to support the growth in business they’re projecting from Masters expansion plans.
I got pulled into a meeting with the Managing Director where he showed me this piece from the SMH.
He wanted to know what I thought. Would Woolworths pull out of the hardware market? What did it mean for him and his business?
This is the sort of idiotic dribble from a so called ‘expert’ that does no good for anyone except for turning the analyst from a spreadsheet jockey into a ‘rock star’ analyst. It’s great for his career. Not so much for anyone else.
Masters will bleed money. They’re buying property for their new stores, stocking up and expanding. Their target is 150 stores in 60 months, that’s just over 2 stores a month, every month for 5 years.
Congratulations Mr. Financial Analyst - you managed to state the obvious and you think this makes you some sort of genius?
Yes they will bleed money, at the start, and then they’ll get to the tipping point and they’ll start to make money - I’m sure some analyst will turn around and say that they forecast that would happen too…
All I told my client was “this report was put together by an analyst who is no different to the analysts that said sub-prime mortgages were a safe bet and we all saw how smart those guys really were”.
Woolworths are in business to make money and they wouldn’t get into this market lightly. Neither would their partner in this venture Lowe’s.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Good Morning Mr Husic. You mission, should you choose to accept it...
So. Ed Husic has decided to rattle the cage of the IT industry about pricing discrepancies between the US and Australia.
Congratulations Ed. You scored yourself a cheap headline by calling out the Managing Director of Apple Australia - Tony King.
Having been in the ICT industry for a long time I don’t disagree with Ed that the pricing discrepancies between the US and Australia are inexplicable but, seriously Ed, why didn’t you call out Microsoft, or maybe even Adobe - throw Lenovo in there as well.
Two of these three companies have had Australia grabbing their ankles for a long time and their mysterious pricing policies show much wilder discrepancies than Apple does.
Maybe your aides should do a little more research, because, in all honesty Ed. Going for the cheap headline is what I’ve come to expect from a politician. All sizzle and no sausage.
Maybe, Ed, you should get your staff to look at this article that was in IT News Apple by no means the worst Aussie price gouger, Mr Husic.
It gives a little more insight into the problem, with some numbers. I mean really Ed, if you want to have a really good look at some of this stuff maybe you should look at Adobe, and I don’t think anyone has had a real long hard look at Cisco and their pricing policies?
Really Ed if you wanted to become a hero to millions of consumers and even Australian business you should have a good hard look at Microsoft and Adobe. Get their pricing to look a bit more reasonable and you’d give back to Australian business millions of dollars in money spent on software.
The fact is Ed, while I wish something like this would happen, I doubt it will. The reason I doubt it is that as a politician you’re going to want to raise re-election funds. These guys make political donations and it seems to me that no politicians are left in Australia that have the sausage to match their sizzle.
This’ll be another flash in the pan where you can sit back and say “I raised the issue, but, the others wouldn’t back me up so re-elect me and I’ll maintain the rage. I spoke to Treasury. I spoke to the ACCC and they’re the ones who aren’t doing anything.”
Yeah. Right Ed. The only rage you’ll end up maintaining is if they raise the prices in the members bar.
I’d like to think you’ll prove me wrong, but, somehow I doubt it. If you were serious, I mean really serious, about this maybe you should spend some time talking to people on the ground in the ICT industry rather than using having a sit down with the MD of Apple Australia.
Talk to the guys who have to make IT work in small to medium businesses who run into daily examples of price discrimination in order to keep their businesses running efficiently.
I don’t think you’d do that Ed. There’s no headline in it for you.
Congratulations Ed. You scored yourself a cheap headline by calling out the Managing Director of Apple Australia - Tony King.
Having been in the ICT industry for a long time I don’t disagree with Ed that the pricing discrepancies between the US and Australia are inexplicable but, seriously Ed, why didn’t you call out Microsoft, or maybe even Adobe - throw Lenovo in there as well.
Two of these three companies have had Australia grabbing their ankles for a long time and their mysterious pricing policies show much wilder discrepancies than Apple does.
Maybe your aides should do a little more research, because, in all honesty Ed. Going for the cheap headline is what I’ve come to expect from a politician. All sizzle and no sausage.
Maybe, Ed, you should get your staff to look at this article that was in IT News Apple by no means the worst Aussie price gouger, Mr Husic.
It gives a little more insight into the problem, with some numbers. I mean really Ed, if you want to have a really good look at some of this stuff maybe you should look at Adobe, and I don’t think anyone has had a real long hard look at Cisco and their pricing policies?
Really Ed if you wanted to become a hero to millions of consumers and even Australian business you should have a good hard look at Microsoft and Adobe. Get their pricing to look a bit more reasonable and you’d give back to Australian business millions of dollars in money spent on software.
The fact is Ed, while I wish something like this would happen, I doubt it will. The reason I doubt it is that as a politician you’re going to want to raise re-election funds. These guys make political donations and it seems to me that no politicians are left in Australia that have the sausage to match their sizzle.
This’ll be another flash in the pan where you can sit back and say “I raised the issue, but, the others wouldn’t back me up so re-elect me and I’ll maintain the rage. I spoke to Treasury. I spoke to the ACCC and they’re the ones who aren’t doing anything.”
Yeah. Right Ed. The only rage you’ll end up maintaining is if they raise the prices in the members bar.
I’d like to think you’ll prove me wrong, but, somehow I doubt it. If you were serious, I mean really serious, about this maybe you should spend some time talking to people on the ground in the ICT industry rather than using having a sit down with the MD of Apple Australia.
Talk to the guys who have to make IT work in small to medium businesses who run into daily examples of price discrimination in order to keep their businesses running efficiently.
I don’t think you’d do that Ed. There’s no headline in it for you.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
It's nice to hear someone in retail say it!
This little piece just came through my inbox.
Aussie retail’s digital disgrace
Even if they get their online strategies right there’s still one little problem.
Service.
Australian retailers just don’t get it.
Retail staff are just a lowest common denominator factor in their thinking - ‘the less we pay for them the more money we make’.
People are getting sick of the shitful service received from these low cost drones so that now its a case of - ‘the less we pay for them the less money we make’.
Even Amazon who is online only gives better customer service than most Australian ‘bricks and mortar’ retailers.
Man up. You screwed up and missed the boat.
Stand up to your shareholders, tell ‘em you screwed up, but be damned sure to have a surefire strategy that’ll work, either that or tell ‘em you screwed up and quit.
Aussie retail’s digital disgrace
Even if they get their online strategies right there’s still one little problem.
Service.
Australian retailers just don’t get it.
Retail staff are just a lowest common denominator factor in their thinking - ‘the less we pay for them the more money we make’.
People are getting sick of the shitful service received from these low cost drones so that now its a case of - ‘the less we pay for them the less money we make’.
Even Amazon who is online only gives better customer service than most Australian ‘bricks and mortar’ retailers.
Man up. You screwed up and missed the boat.
Stand up to your shareholders, tell ‘em you screwed up, but be damned sure to have a surefire strategy that’ll work, either that or tell ‘em you screwed up and quit.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Retailer Logic
Not that long ago I was looking at the Sydney Morning Herald before boarding a flight to Brisbane to spend another week watching a company flush itself down the toilet when I ran across this piece.
Lingerie chain may cut jobs as trading hits 20-year low
Bras N Things say that “the mounting burdens of higher wages, restrictive industrial relations policies and competition from online shopping could force it to cut staff”.
You’ll notice that the only reason that Bras N Things are in trouble is because of the three great evils - higher wages, industrial relations and online shopping.
I also noticed in the article that the company shelved its IPO earlier this year.
As I remember it when you’re going for an IPO you generally pump up the size of the business by opening lots of new stores to get the top line revenue up - in the case of retail that means getting into high traffic shopping centres (with stupidly high rents), carrying all the stock that your potential customers may want and having stores, lots and lots of stores. In fact, earlier this year they opened their 200th store.
Hell, they even trumpeted their online presence in this piece.
So let me get this straight, in an economic environment where everyone has been complaining about the retail environment Bras N Things have been growing at a rate of 50 stores a year. The Global Financial Crisis hit us in what 2008 and things have been in the crapper ever since? Dollar plummeted against the US back in whenever it was to around 67c and they opened 50 stores a year.
Now that they’ve grown and grown, making the business look good for people wanting to invest their hard earned in a float they discover “Whoops. Retail isn’t doing so good and our results don’t look so good”.
Maybe we need to wait for a better time to float, make our mountains of money and do a Myer to the investors.
Now since it can’t possibly be the fact that the business has been on a growth trajectory that isn’t supported by economic conditions it must be that the economy ate their homework, probably helped by the internet.
Wake up to yourselves! You’ve got your hand on the tiller, you’re responsible for the mess you’ve got yourselves into. If you didn’t realise what was happening then you shouldn’t be running the company and if you did and you got yourselves into this situation, you shouldn’t be running the company.
It really is that simple.
Lingerie chain may cut jobs as trading hits 20-year low
Bras N Things say that “the mounting burdens of higher wages, restrictive industrial relations policies and competition from online shopping could force it to cut staff”.
You’ll notice that the only reason that Bras N Things are in trouble is because of the three great evils - higher wages, industrial relations and online shopping.
I also noticed in the article that the company shelved its IPO earlier this year.
As I remember it when you’re going for an IPO you generally pump up the size of the business by opening lots of new stores to get the top line revenue up - in the case of retail that means getting into high traffic shopping centres (with stupidly high rents), carrying all the stock that your potential customers may want and having stores, lots and lots of stores. In fact, earlier this year they opened their 200th store.
Hell, they even trumpeted their online presence in this piece.
So let me get this straight, in an economic environment where everyone has been complaining about the retail environment Bras N Things have been growing at a rate of 50 stores a year. The Global Financial Crisis hit us in what 2008 and things have been in the crapper ever since? Dollar plummeted against the US back in whenever it was to around 67c and they opened 50 stores a year.
Now that they’ve grown and grown, making the business look good for people wanting to invest their hard earned in a float they discover “Whoops. Retail isn’t doing so good and our results don’t look so good”.
Maybe we need to wait for a better time to float, make our mountains of money and do a Myer to the investors.
Now since it can’t possibly be the fact that the business has been on a growth trajectory that isn’t supported by economic conditions it must be that the economy ate their homework, probably helped by the internet.
Wake up to yourselves! You’ve got your hand on the tiller, you’re responsible for the mess you’ve got yourselves into. If you didn’t realise what was happening then you shouldn’t be running the company and if you did and you got yourselves into this situation, you shouldn’t be running the company.
It really is that simple.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
How to give good online
Ruslan Kogan showed everyone how to build great customer relations and make the opposition look bad in one simple statement.
He admitted their online website had a bug that sold stock at lower than actual price. He also said “we could hide behind our terms and conditions to get out of having to honour these transactions. Indeed, this is what many of our competitors have done in the past. But, we believe the bug in our website was entirely our responsibility and as a result will be honouring every single purchase made this morning”.
Kogan nailed it.
How many times have you walked into a Harvey Norman store looking for an advertised special only to find a quickly typed up and photocopied notice saying that there had been an error on page such and such of the catalogue and the advertised price was incorrect?
The guy has a seriously smart approach to business and keeping the customer happy. I mean how many of his customers are going to sing his praises based on what he did?
I’m guessing it’ll be a lot.
For anyone getting into online sales, you could do worse then looking at how this guy has built his business.
He admitted their online website had a bug that sold stock at lower than actual price. He also said “we could hide behind our terms and conditions to get out of having to honour these transactions. Indeed, this is what many of our competitors have done in the past. But, we believe the bug in our website was entirely our responsibility and as a result will be honouring every single purchase made this morning”.
Kogan nailed it.
How many times have you walked into a Harvey Norman store looking for an advertised special only to find a quickly typed up and photocopied notice saying that there had been an error on page such and such of the catalogue and the advertised price was incorrect?
The guy has a seriously smart approach to business and keeping the customer happy. I mean how many of his customers are going to sing his praises based on what he did?
I’m guessing it’ll be a lot.
For anyone getting into online sales, you could do worse then looking at how this guy has built his business.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Alas poor retail, we knew you well...
I ran across this interesting piece on the excuses that Bricks and Mortar retailers use when they’re trying to explain why The Internet ate their homework.
Old retail’s five fallacies.
Worth reading
Old retail’s five fallacies.
Worth reading
Friday, July 29, 2011
Intermission: Back to the Retailer
I was looking through the Sydney Morning Herald today and found the following piece
Grumpy Customers Enraged by Bad Service
Interesting,,,
Grumpy Customers Enraged by Bad Service
Interesting,,,
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Retailers have to stop blaming the Internet for eating their homework
Earth to Australian retailers.
People are buying online because your service sucks.
People are buying online because they can compare prices around the world.
People are buying online because they don't want to buy Gerry Harvey another racehorse.
People are buying online because they're sick and tired of limited product choice.
But mainly people are buying online because you're really bad at your job! It has nothing to do with GST this and exchange rate that. Well actually the exchange rate does have something to do with it only because people are getting an idea of how much they're being gouged by the retail and distribution channel.
You screwed it up for yourselves and you can't man up enough to admit it!
Its all about service.
The other day I walked into a Bunnings store. I needed some help and went looking for a staff member...I should have known better. As soon as I made eye contact with one of the "team" members they suddenly found something more interesting to do in another aisle.
By the time I got there they'd disappeared from sight, never to be seen again. Seriously if Australia wants to win gold at the London Olympics in the 100m all we have to do is enter Bunnings staff.
Just walk through your local shopping centre and have a look at the staff working behind the counter, I mean really look at them.
Retailers want to have the lowest cost staff possible, because they've signed up for insane leases that charge the national debt per square metre.
The staff spend more time using their mobile phones, trying on the clothes/shoes/whatever, or, talking about their last big night out. This is usually happening while a customer is waiting at the counter and being made to feel as though their mere presence is an affront to the staff who are discussing/texting/trying on far more important things.
You are the architects of your own downfall.
Another good example of this was a sad and painful visit to a Harvey Norman store. The staff didn't want to know about me. They walked around looking very important, ignoring all the customers. That all changed once a customer picked up an expensive item - all of a sudden it was another Olympic class event as they all tried to write up the sale.
I had to wander the store like a lost bedouin in the desert until I finally found what I was looking for and then I was swamped by sales staff like the winner of a marathon all clamouring to write up my purchase.
If you're going to provide me a retail experience that has no benefit over an online experience why the hell should I drive to the shopping centre and struggle for parking and service when I can sit at home and buy online.
Every retailer on Pitt Street Mall salivates at the crowds waiting to get into Zara, but I don't think one of them actually looks at why they are lining up to get in.
There's choice, something that you can't find somewhere else. The service is pretty good. The prices are reasonable for the quality you are getting.
There's a clue there for somebody if they'd just take a second to realise they don't know all there is to know about retail.
Now everyone in Australian retail has decided that they'll get into 'online' because that's the future and they're going to screw that up as well because 'online' has to deliver a quality experience for the customer.
Unfortunately it seems to be ingrained in Australian retail that the customer only exists to keep the retailer in racehorses.
People are buying online because your service sucks.
People are buying online because they can compare prices around the world.
People are buying online because they don't want to buy Gerry Harvey another racehorse.
People are buying online because they're sick and tired of limited product choice.
But mainly people are buying online because you're really bad at your job! It has nothing to do with GST this and exchange rate that. Well actually the exchange rate does have something to do with it only because people are getting an idea of how much they're being gouged by the retail and distribution channel.
You screwed it up for yourselves and you can't man up enough to admit it!
Its all about service.
The other day I walked into a Bunnings store. I needed some help and went looking for a staff member...I should have known better. As soon as I made eye contact with one of the "team" members they suddenly found something more interesting to do in another aisle.
By the time I got there they'd disappeared from sight, never to be seen again. Seriously if Australia wants to win gold at the London Olympics in the 100m all we have to do is enter Bunnings staff.
Just walk through your local shopping centre and have a look at the staff working behind the counter, I mean really look at them.
Retailers want to have the lowest cost staff possible, because they've signed up for insane leases that charge the national debt per square metre.
The staff spend more time using their mobile phones, trying on the clothes/shoes/whatever, or, talking about their last big night out. This is usually happening while a customer is waiting at the counter and being made to feel as though their mere presence is an affront to the staff who are discussing/texting/trying on far more important things.
You are the architects of your own downfall.
Another good example of this was a sad and painful visit to a Harvey Norman store. The staff didn't want to know about me. They walked around looking very important, ignoring all the customers. That all changed once a customer picked up an expensive item - all of a sudden it was another Olympic class event as they all tried to write up the sale.
I had to wander the store like a lost bedouin in the desert until I finally found what I was looking for and then I was swamped by sales staff like the winner of a marathon all clamouring to write up my purchase.
If you're going to provide me a retail experience that has no benefit over an online experience why the hell should I drive to the shopping centre and struggle for parking and service when I can sit at home and buy online.
Every retailer on Pitt Street Mall salivates at the crowds waiting to get into Zara, but I don't think one of them actually looks at why they are lining up to get in.
There's choice, something that you can't find somewhere else. The service is pretty good. The prices are reasonable for the quality you are getting.
There's a clue there for somebody if they'd just take a second to realise they don't know all there is to know about retail.
Now everyone in Australian retail has decided that they'll get into 'online' because that's the future and they're going to screw that up as well because 'online' has to deliver a quality experience for the customer.
Unfortunately it seems to be ingrained in Australian retail that the customer only exists to keep the retailer in racehorses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)