Lets Talk Business

In John Myers’ “Banishing junk mail saves energy, waste” article  highlights several groups advocating the elimination of “junk mail.”  Yes, advertising or direct mail can be annoying and much is discarded without much thought given to it. When consumers are asked about direct mail, most will out-of-hand agree to get rid of the stuff once and for all.

So, why not? Let’s eliminate all direct mail and the world would be better for it. However, before doing so, it is instructive to open the topic and see what’s inside. Combined with e-mail, telemarketing, and direct mail, commercial and nonprofits will add close to $180 billion to our economy and generate over $2 trillion in sales. In addition, direct marketing     accounts for over 52 percent of all ad expenditures in the United States . There are 1.6 million direct marketing employees and they support another 9 million other jobs for over 10 million jobs.

Since the start of the recession in December 2007, an estimated 8.1 million jobs have been lost. In December, there were 2.5 million marginally attached workers, 9.2 million involuntary part-timers, and 15.3 million unemployed workers in the United States , for a total of 27 million workers who are either unemployed or underemployed.  Are these groups seriously advocating adding 10 million more people to the unemployment rolls and eliminated $2 trillions from our economy! Furthermore, nonprofits depend heavily on direct mail for development as well as the post office receiving a significant revenue steam, which helps keep rates lower for first-class mail.

A healthy and vibrant economy depends upon the well-being of our business community that produces jobs and opportunities. Banishment may save energy, but is the cost worth the benefits. Therefore, it is important to research and understand the ramifications of our decisions: Cost Benefit Analysis. Instead of destroying businesses and jobs, focus on the two solutions that the article mentions: recycling and opting out options. Both are viable choices that will be economically and financially beneficial without doing harm.

The economic stress we have experienced the past few years has brought to the surface underlying tensions and suppressed emotions. In the customer-care realm, take Steven Slater the JetBlue flight attendant who was responding to one or more rude passengers cursed them out on the plane’s intercom and after landing exited down the plane’s emergency slide with two beers. Even as disturbing as this behavior is, numerous Facebook pages supported his actions coupled with video tributes on YouTube. I find this public treatment of Mr. Slater even more disturbing.

No doubt, the economic downturn, price pressures, and job reductions have really put a strain on everyone. Almost everyone who has worked with the public can relate to some degree of the trying times that can occur with customer service; however, only imagining carrying out such a crazy stunt in order to relieve the stress and tensions.

So, is this incident indicative of a larger corporate/employee shortfall? Is it a lack of training? Is the world becoming less civilized? Perhaps it symbolizes the frustration, anger, and uncertainty we may be experiencing in today’s confusing work environment with doing more with less.

However you define the situation, the demonstrated behavior is rude, crude, and very unacceptable. In my time in the business world, I have found that many people find pride and meaning in their jobs or careers not merely a way to make money in order to keep a roof over their heads and food in their mouths.  It is possible to be involved with meaningless working conditions, but there is never a good reason for an employee to take their frustrations out on a customer.

Yes, consumers as a group are more demanding than ever, but the privilege of interacting with customers should never be taken lightly.  In these economic times more than ever, serving the people who purchase our products and services requires that the entire business provide customer satisfaction or risk losing them. Without the customer, no one from the entry level associate to the CEO will be employed.

Take care of your customer, or someone else will.

Enter your blog post here…

Greater Moorhead Development Corp (GMDC)

In the 1950s, a group of businessmen identified several economic development needs for the Moorhead area and formed the GMDC to attract business, light industry, and jobs to the city. The newly formed for-profit company became involved in the original industrial park and the Center Mall in downtown Moorhead. In the later years, GMDC was primarily involved behind the scenes providing financing and land acquisition for start-ups.

Today’s leaders recognize that a healthy and vibrant local economy depends upon the well-being of our community’s existing firms. Thus, a renewed focus on business retention and expansion is critical for successful economic development. This desire to help our local businesses survive and grow led to the decision to develop the Business Liaison position.

The GMDC business liaison’s goals are to communicate information and help to keep the business community abreast of events and changes that occur within our city, state, and legislative areas. In addition, the liaison is available to provide information relative to expansion and to assist in working through the approval process.
GMDC and the City of Moorhead recognize and support the need for the retention and expansion of area businesses. However, in order for the liaison to be a productive member of your economic-development team, your advice and expertise are needed.

Together, we can develop solutions to help advance our business community with long-term improvements to benefit everyone, especially future generations. The process requires a sustained, organized, and patient effort that unites people across party lines and diverse interests.

Enter your blog post here…

“Beyond the Big Box: Wal-Mart Thinks Smaller” (WSJ April 28, 2010).
The more things change, the more they stay the same: As Wal-mart struggles to maintain their growth patterns with “innovative new formats” of opening smaller stores, the discussion of the evolution of retailing is appropriate. There are several theories to explain and describe the current retail trend that Wal-mart and others are undergoing.

Firstly, the wheel of retailing theory describes when low-status, low-margin, low-price companies achieve success they gradually acquire more sophisticated and elaborate facilities and begins to explore the up-market segment. Thereby, they become vulnerable to new entrants into the market.

Secondly, the retail accordion theory is also in play, which describes how retail companies evolve from stores that offer wide assortments to specialized stores. This contraction and expansion of assortment resembles an accordion.

Therefore, as Wal-wart develops “innovative new formats,” dust off the 101 Retailing textbook and observe as things change.

If it weren’t for the snow-laden landscape, one would think it was spring in Washington DC with the grilling of Toyota by the Senate committee investigating the company’s safety problems. It’s still unknown if Toyota’s problems were caused by “short-termism” emphasizing short-term profit over the long-term concept of providing what is best for the customer even if requires more resources. Perhaps it was a breakdown in methodology, as most automakers have had to deal with over the years.

Whatever the cause, our government has achieved something I could only dream about when I was in the retail business: the ability to investigate a major competitor. Our partisan-bound Congress owns a controlling financial stake in Toyota ’s main competitor General Motors and a large stake in Chrysler. Given such a substantial ownership in the U.S. automotive industry, can they assure a fair and unbiased assessment? After all, this same group gave us the “Buy American” feature with the stimulus funds, and we know how that turned out.

Perhaps this situation should give us pause about allowing government control of the means of production. Do we really want increased government intervention in the economy? How’s health care reform working out for us? Bad polices will produce a bad economy.