Mark Kolier’s Blog

Archive for the ‘Customer Experiences’ Category

Less than two weeks ago I made my first trip to IKEA. I realize that this puts me far into the minority and now that I have been there truly EVERYONE has been to an IKEA – or so it seems. My wife and I went to IKEA as the one snowstorm this year was waning, as she we figured it might not be as crowded as it usually was (she had been to an IKEA before). She was right and we parked near the entrance.

Prior to making the 40 minute car trip my wife went online and sketched out a couple of ideas she had for a wall unit and printed them out. We were going to try to make our own wall unit and from what I could tell it would be relatively inexpensive. That’s the first reason people go to IKEA right? I mean that the merchandise is for the most part contemporary, modular, fairly well made (to me more sort of an upscale particle board) and there are choices in colors and finishes.

We were able to find someone to help us narrow our choices based upon what we sketched out. Apparently finding someone to help in IKEA is no small accomplishment. He was a very nice septuagenarian (or at least it seemed like that), somewhat computer literate and very earnestly tried to help us. It took quite a while. The computer system was cumbersome and not all that user-friendly (my wife noticed that as well when she was attempting to design something). Once we finally found something we thought we might like it turned out that IKEA had discontinued the line so had we bought the material in stock (which it wasn’t) we would have not been able to replace anything going forward.

We had been in the store for 90 minutes (seemed longer to a guy like me who is a buyer and not a shopper) and like many people came up empty. In fact had we decided on a purchase, the ‘IKEA way’ is for us to go downstairs, pull the material we wanted off the warehouse shelves (like doors and cabinets) and roll it up to a register to pay. After that we would have had to arrange for delivery since we were not going to be able to fit it all in our car. I was assured by my wife that process (had we undertaken it) would have taken another hour. Whatever happened to time is money?

But then it got aggravating – that is, trying to get out of the store. Like Connecticut based Stew Leonard’s, IKEA has you trudge around and around the store through aisles and aisles of products (none of which were of interest), just to get to the exit. No exaggeration – at least ten minutes of going around thinking (hoping?) we were close to getting out only to see yet another turn down another aisle. I kept thinking I sure hope the fire sprinklers work well since if there ever was a fire there was no way you were getting out in time.

I had much higher hopes as the IKEA brand perception I had going in was much different than what I had going out. People seem to love IKEA.

But again I ask – what is it about IKEA?

In the era of stretching a paycheck, generic brands have moved from the fringes to the mainstream. Every day people consider the value of purchasing a ‘non-brand’ when visiting a supermarket, or big box retailer like Costco, Target or Wal-Mart. What people might find surprising (it was to me) is that a generic brand does not necessarily mean the product will be less expensive than the ‘name’ brand.

Wasn’t the whole idea behind generic brands hatched as a way for consumers to pay less while the store could keep a greater share of the profit? An article in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal http://on.wsj.com/AbOAMK offered some interesting thoughts regarding store brands. It seems at times people actually prefer the store brand to the more established name brand. And they are even willing to pay more for the store brand. What the heck is going on here?

When I shop and consider a store or generic brand versus an established brand I go through the same checklist that I’m sure is the same as many people. If I decide to buy generic or store brand paper towels my expectations are lowered a bit (thinner ply and not as absorbent) but will only buy if the price is considerably lower. Sometimes it is lower, but sometimes the name brand is having a special and the value is better. It rarely (if ever) enters my thinking that I would prefer the ‘private label (fancy name for store or generic) brand.

From the WSJ article:
‘Private-label products still cost an average of 29% less than their nationally branded counterparts. But they are rising faster in price, at a rate of 5.3% last year compared with the industry average of 1.9%, and can sometimes be the most expensive product in a category, according to market-research firm Symphony IRI.
Target’s two-pound jars of Archer Farms roasted almonds, prominently displayed on the end of the nut aisle, recently cost about 16 cents more per pound than Planters’ roasted almonds.’

That Target has been able to create a store brand that costs more than the established brand impressed me a great deal.

The article also noted that Procter & Gamble Chief Executive Bob McDonald said the maker of Pampers and Tide has been balancing its exposure to chains with store brands by expanding distribution in other channels like dollar stores, which don’t sell private labels that compete against P&G products. They are also redoubling efforts to develop new products, particularly at lower prices. “We invest $2 billion a year in research and development, $400 million on consumer knowledge and about 10% of sales on advertising,” Mr. McDonald said in a recent interview. “Store brands don’t have that capability.”

Sounds like someone who is not sure but is hoping he’s right.

Is this a wake-up call for traditional established brands?

I saw it again last Saturday night. At the restaurant where my wife and I were sharing a nice dinner on a snowy Saturday night there was a couple at the next table who spent a good part of the time reading/typing on their mobile devices. They were not talking, nor glancing at one another. The really sad thing (at least as far as I am concerned) is that is not all that unusual.

Now this is going to make me sound old – maybe older than I am, but I remember when there were no mobile devices and you actually had to have a conversation with the person with whom you were sharing a meal. You couldn’t fake a call from someone in order to get out of a bad ‘blind’ date or any kind of date for that matter which just made it much more challenging BTW.

Look around any restaurant for someone sitting by themselves. Perhaps they are waiting for someone(s). Maybe they are eating alone. But how often do you see a single person just sitting there looking out and around, not on their mobile device? Of course many people read a book or magazine (electronic or not) when dining alone but I recall from black and white movies a time where someone would sit in a restaurant and not read anything and simply just sit there and wait, and think. Could you imagine?

How often during your waking hours do you not engage in some sort of stimulus? That is, how often do you just sit, stand, or run, and think without any other stimulus (think iPod)? I think for many people this is happening to an increasing degree (in the U.S. at least) and is inexorably changing not only the way people interact but even more significantly people’s ability to spend idle time simply thinking about whatever crosses one’s mind. It’s even more prevalent for people under 30 who appear to me to never stop interacting with technology when not in the presence of others. Is there any time that they just sit and do nothing but think or day dream?

It goes way beyond the seeming inability of people to spend any idle time. Answering an email or phone call when in the presence of others when 99% of those contacts are not emergencies is not multi-tasking in my opinion. How can you make the person you are with feel that you care about them or what they are saying when you stop to answer a phone call, text or email? But somehow that’s become the norm rather than the exception. People not only have difficulty being idle, they feel the need to manage two interactions simultaneously.

How about you? Do you spend quiet time just thinking? No music or electronics of any kind. Quiet. Can you? Will you?

I am far from unique in looking at train travel as an option to air, bus, and car travel. Having ridden trains in a number of countries (most recently in China) I am favorably inclined to ride a train since I can get work done, it is less stressful, often less expensive, AND greener.

Yesterday I attended a meeting in Washington D.C. and decided to take the Amtrak Northeast Regional – it was $ 98.00 round trip. Taking Acela would have saved me less than one hour and was substantially more expensive. Driving made no sense and flying would have not saved much time at all if any. Amtrak offers ‘free’ Wi-Fi and some limited food service on board. Since I spend a great deal of time working on my computer and talking on the phone it ended up being a sort of mobile office. They also have a frequent traveler program with rewards – and yes I enrolled just to see how they might market to me and they have been doing an ok job of sending emails – not too many thank goodness.

The first thing that was good was that the train did not derail. I am not certain as to what percentage of Amtrak trains derail but it seems that it happens with some frequency.

Overall my impressions are that it was better than flying and car or bus travel. Perhaps it took a bit longer than flying, (3:20 from Penn Station to Union Station) but the low stress and ability to be productive was a plus but I was not nearly as productive as I could have been. Why? The main reason is because the free Wi-Fi service is spotty at best. There was not any option to upgrade to better service. I kept in mind that when I rode the regional train in China this past November the condition of the trains were similar (the Chinese trains were newer but get more use so appeared somewhat worn just like Amtrak) and there was no Wi-Fi service available. In fact aside from that my experience in riding the train from Guangzhou (formerly known by Westerners as Canton) to Hong Kong was remarkably similar – except for the price which was less about half in China and I made no advance reservation. That should come as no surprise to anyone.

The Chinese rail does move faster although there are a similar amount of stops. That is primarily due to the fact that the rail lines have been laid more recently and do not limit speeds for fear of derailment on the ancient tracks as is the case in the Northeastern U.S.

I had made a reservation to return to New York City at 7:10PM but arrived early at the Union Station at 5:45 and noticed there was a 6:05PM Northeast regional train. I inquired as to if I could get on that train and was told yes, but it would cost an additional $113.00! More than what I paid for the round trip in the first place. I will go out on a limb and surmise the reason was not that the train was overbooked. Managing to suppress my outrage I simply said no thanks and went and had a nice dinner and a beverage and took the 7:10. But really – how insane is that? I was not going to travel any less time on the train (the same 3:20) and there was room for me to sit without question. Just to be clear had I originally booked the earlier train the roundtrip price would have been … $98.00.

Amtrak is a viable alternative and I will ride it again but it still has a long way to go. From a marketing perspective Amtrak does not do much advertising but the messaging they do is ok. However to have a customer experience what I did in terms of attempted fleecing to move up my time by one hour undoes whatever good marketing Amtrak might put out. What happened to me should be easy to fix (but will they?) and the fact that they allow it to happen tells me there are many other problems that have to be repaired in order for Amtrak to continue to present itself as a truly worthwhile means of transportation.

Have you ridden Amtrak lately? Regional or Acela? I’d love to

As the holiday season scorecards begin to be revealed, Sears, showing its ‘softer side’ as sales were down 5.2% over the eight week holiday period, led by CEO Ed Lampert http://on.wsj.com/ttKCBi reported that it expected to close 100 to 120 underperforming stores. Already before Noon on Tuesday December 27th the stock price has sunk 20% (it finished 27% below the previous day’s close) and is down 45% over the past 12 months.

There was a Sears in the Long Island town in which I grew up. Even back then (1960’s and 1970’s) the impression I had of the store was that the stuff they had was a bit dated and that Sears was pretty good at appliances. In my opinion not much has changed and I have been in a Sears within the last year – although I cannot recall why.

With more than 2,200 stores (including Kmart and Sears full-line stores) Sears still has a substantial footprint in the United States. Yet I wonder if more often than not people end up at Sears instead of really wanting to go there. Aside from its aforementioned Kenmore home appliance offerings, what about Sears would attract a shopper? The clothes (do they still sell Haggar?)? The styles? The once proudly displayed Craftsman tools? Or maybe you will recall the union of the Sears brand with that of Lands End or Martha Stewart and KMart? It is an understatement to note that things did not turn out the way it was they were supposed to.

It’s a far cry from the now somewhat distant past where Sears was known for quality and service. While I suppose there are Sears stores that have better service than others that’s not what the brand says to me – nor does it scream quality either.

Sears was the largest retailer in the U.S. until the early 1980’s. Today the combined Sears has 2,201 full-line and 1,354 specialty retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and Sears and 483 full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc. (Sears Canada), a 92%-owned subsidiary. So Sears ‘gets around’. During the fiscal year ended January 29, 2010 (fiscal 2010), it operated three segments: Kmart, Sears Domestic and Sears Canada. As of January 29, 2011, Holdings operated a total of 1,307 Kmart stores across 49 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands.

As I browsed through comments http://on.wsj.com/ucpEXX from people who had shopped at Sears the conversation varied from blaming Ed Lampert to poor service and odd pricing but there were a few positive comments regarding selection, service and quality. The thing that stood out to me was the inconsistency of delivering the Sears brand promise – whatever that is. I could not figure it out – can you?