So, in the past week -- I guess, file this under the "people never learn" category -- the following news stories broke:
http://gothamist.com/2013/12/21/assemblyman_dennis_gabryszak.php
Huh? So, clearly, Anthony Weiner's troubles had so little impact on this person, that he went out of his way to up his game ...
And, then, this got national play, probably because the person *should* have known better:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/21/us/sacco-offensive-tweet/index.html
When you're *paid* to write and have people listen to you, it probably makes sense to pay attention to what you're writing. Admittedly, I can be a little bit risque on Facebook, but none of my humor branches into racist, anti-Semitic or any type of "hate" humor. In fact, most of my humor falls firmly in the self-deprecation camp.
With "professionals" like these, though, perhaps I shouldn't even have a resume any longer. Maybe I should just walk in and say, "I'm not going to embarrass you or your company." That seems like something a lot of companies are going to be concerned about in the future.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Sorry Your Kid is Disappointed; But it Was Only $5
I don't think I'm unreasonable. I really don't.
But, there are certain situations that are easily avoided through simple, clear communication. Two such examples from this past weekend.
A number of months ago, we signed up our son for the "Kidgits" program at the SmithHaven Mall. He's too young for most of the programs -- he's not really an "arts and crafts" kinda kid, at this time. But, one -- in particular -- struck us as a "must-do." Saturday, December 7, 8:30am-10am -- Breakfast with Santa.
So, I dutifully drove to the mall the day they opened registration; signed up my son. Then, despite the fact that we were exhausted (still getting over my PMP midterm class project, that sucked most of my energy), we got up on Saturday; dressed my son, and drove to the mall, all the while telling him that he would be able to see Santa.
We got to the mall around 8:40am (which we didn't think anything of -- most of the programs are more 'open-house' than anything). We quickly saw the inefficiency -- rather than having people there to check you in; you had to find your own name on the poorly written registration list (which took quite a long time); then, you got hit up for a $1 donation (more paperwork); and then, you went down to get the child's breakfast -- your choice of a sugary cereal; milk, juice and a donut. We finally got seated around 8:50am.
And, Santa was gone. I immediately suspected something was up; my wife chastised me for being too negative ("He probably had to run to the bathroom," she said.). Twenty minutes later, I retorted that was starting to seem improbable, unless he had a prostate issue. She went to inquire, and learned he was gone. So I went up.
I said, "My wife tells me Santa is gone?" The useless lead worker, Joanne, said, "Yes, he had to go to take pictures in the center." I pointed to the listing -- and asked, "Um ... did no one think that a pivotal part of 'Breakfast with Santa' was, Santa?" And she shrugged ... "Santa was here until 9am." I said that was certainly not true, and she relented that he had left at 8:50. So, he made two-thirds of the one-third of the time he going to be there (which was still vastly less than the 90 minutes any of us had thought).
I told the woman she could keep my kid's membership card. She smiled at me, way too pompously for my liking and said, "It's only $5 a year." I said -- the money isn't the issue. The whole way here, we told my son he'd be seeing Santa; now he's not here. If someone went out of their way to disappoint YOUR kid, would you take solace in the fact that you'd only spent $5 for the privilege?"
She asked, "What can I do to make this better?" I said, "Get Santa back here ...." No, that wasn't an option. So, I started to say -- "Perhaps you could, I dunno, *MENTION* that Santa will only be present until 8:50 -- that after that it's just "breakfast" (and, in fact, a nutritionally inferior breakfast to what my wife would've made him if we'd stayed home)." But, I didn't get all of that out -- instead, Joanne interrupted me to condescendingly sneer, "We have a thousand Kidgits members, there'll always be some that are impossible to please."
I then asked if she was interested in hearing my recommendation, since she'd interrupted me, or, if her request for how she could make things better was just a thinly veiled offer so she could continue to sit there and insult me?
Fortunately, my son is two, and the heartbreak was short-lived, and I didn't have to go into details about poor advertising, corporate greed and the inappropriateness of having non people-persons in customer service roles. But, it doesn't change the fact that a *simple* fix would have been to (1) list the times that Santa WOULD be at the "Breakfast with Santa" (as poorly named as that turned out to be) and/or (2) to speed up the check-in process; there's no reason to hold me up to request a $1 donation, so that Santa can be on his way before we even see him.
Yes, it's only $5; but in the future, that's going to be $5 in my pocket; and not in Kidgits'.
*************************************************
Today was the Stony Brook Holiday Festival. And, I had great hopes for this, as well -- lots of events -- petting zoo, model train display, etc.
We went to the Winnie the Pooh play at St. Joseph's College earlier, and made our way up to Stony Brook by around 2:45pm, which seemed great, since everything was scheduled to end around 4pm. The operative word is "scheduled."
When we went to the "Inner Court," the Petting Zoo was GONE. When we made our way to the model train display, one had already been taken down and the other, larger one, was in the process of being dismantled. This is at 3:10.
Now, I have no real issue with the individuals -- although, really, show a little class; and don't start taking stuff apart while people are there. But, the organizers should be on top of this. Either *ask* the people, "how long do you want to be here?" or hold them to the times you've committed them to. No one should be seeing them pulling stuff apart an hour (or more!) before the scheduled event ends.
And, it's not as though the organizers are oblivious -- Santa was set up over by the Post Office, and he was scheduled to re-appear for the tree-lighting at 5:30. How do you ensure that happens?
It's really not that hard.
And, I think people can understand this a little more (especially since it's consistent with what's in the flyer). What's *not* in the flyer is the notice that (1) the Petting Zoo, scheduled for three hours, would barely last 90 minutes; and (2) the model train show, scheduled for four hours, would effectively be a show of watching the display being packed up.
Again - on both of these situations, I'm not suggesting that longer hours, etc. are needed. What I *am* saying is that clear communication needs to be the norm.
When I used to visit trade shows (as a magazine editor); there were occasions, during slower shows, when vendors would start packing up their booths earlier than the show end-time on the last day of the show. The organizers would come around and tell them to stop or don't bother signing up for next year. I'm starting to gain a far greater appreciation for that approach.
But, there are certain situations that are easily avoided through simple, clear communication. Two such examples from this past weekend.
A number of months ago, we signed up our son for the "Kidgits" program at the SmithHaven Mall. He's too young for most of the programs -- he's not really an "arts and crafts" kinda kid, at this time. But, one -- in particular -- struck us as a "must-do." Saturday, December 7, 8:30am-10am -- Breakfast with Santa.
So, I dutifully drove to the mall the day they opened registration; signed up my son. Then, despite the fact that we were exhausted (still getting over my PMP midterm class project, that sucked most of my energy), we got up on Saturday; dressed my son, and drove to the mall, all the while telling him that he would be able to see Santa.
We got to the mall around 8:40am (which we didn't think anything of -- most of the programs are more 'open-house' than anything). We quickly saw the inefficiency -- rather than having people there to check you in; you had to find your own name on the poorly written registration list (which took quite a long time); then, you got hit up for a $1 donation (more paperwork); and then, you went down to get the child's breakfast -- your choice of a sugary cereal; milk, juice and a donut. We finally got seated around 8:50am.
And, Santa was gone. I immediately suspected something was up; my wife chastised me for being too negative ("He probably had to run to the bathroom," she said.). Twenty minutes later, I retorted that was starting to seem improbable, unless he had a prostate issue. She went to inquire, and learned he was gone. So I went up.
I said, "My wife tells me Santa is gone?" The useless lead worker, Joanne, said, "Yes, he had to go to take pictures in the center." I pointed to the listing -- and asked, "Um ... did no one think that a pivotal part of 'Breakfast with Santa' was, Santa?" And she shrugged ... "Santa was here until 9am." I said that was certainly not true, and she relented that he had left at 8:50. So, he made two-thirds of the one-third of the time he going to be there (which was still vastly less than the 90 minutes any of us had thought).
I told the woman she could keep my kid's membership card. She smiled at me, way too pompously for my liking and said, "It's only $5 a year." I said -- the money isn't the issue. The whole way here, we told my son he'd be seeing Santa; now he's not here. If someone went out of their way to disappoint YOUR kid, would you take solace in the fact that you'd only spent $5 for the privilege?"
She asked, "What can I do to make this better?" I said, "Get Santa back here ...." No, that wasn't an option. So, I started to say -- "Perhaps you could, I dunno, *MENTION* that Santa will only be present until 8:50 -- that after that it's just "breakfast" (and, in fact, a nutritionally inferior breakfast to what my wife would've made him if we'd stayed home)." But, I didn't get all of that out -- instead, Joanne interrupted me to condescendingly sneer, "We have a thousand Kidgits members, there'll always be some that are impossible to please."
I then asked if she was interested in hearing my recommendation, since she'd interrupted me, or, if her request for how she could make things better was just a thinly veiled offer so she could continue to sit there and insult me?
Fortunately, my son is two, and the heartbreak was short-lived, and I didn't have to go into details about poor advertising, corporate greed and the inappropriateness of having non people-persons in customer service roles. But, it doesn't change the fact that a *simple* fix would have been to (1) list the times that Santa WOULD be at the "Breakfast with Santa" (as poorly named as that turned out to be) and/or (2) to speed up the check-in process; there's no reason to hold me up to request a $1 donation, so that Santa can be on his way before we even see him.
Yes, it's only $5; but in the future, that's going to be $5 in my pocket; and not in Kidgits'.
*************************************************
Today was the Stony Brook Holiday Festival. And, I had great hopes for this, as well -- lots of events -- petting zoo, model train display, etc.
We went to the Winnie the Pooh play at St. Joseph's College earlier, and made our way up to Stony Brook by around 2:45pm, which seemed great, since everything was scheduled to end around 4pm. The operative word is "scheduled."
When we went to the "Inner Court," the Petting Zoo was GONE. When we made our way to the model train display, one had already been taken down and the other, larger one, was in the process of being dismantled. This is at 3:10.
Now, I have no real issue with the individuals -- although, really, show a little class; and don't start taking stuff apart while people are there. But, the organizers should be on top of this. Either *ask* the people, "how long do you want to be here?" or hold them to the times you've committed them to. No one should be seeing them pulling stuff apart an hour (or more!) before the scheduled event ends.
And, it's not as though the organizers are oblivious -- Santa was set up over by the Post Office, and he was scheduled to re-appear for the tree-lighting at 5:30. How do you ensure that happens?
It's really not that hard.
And, I think people can understand this a little more (especially since it's consistent with what's in the flyer). What's *not* in the flyer is the notice that (1) the Petting Zoo, scheduled for three hours, would barely last 90 minutes; and (2) the model train show, scheduled for four hours, would effectively be a show of watching the display being packed up.
Again - on both of these situations, I'm not suggesting that longer hours, etc. are needed. What I *am* saying is that clear communication needs to be the norm.
When I used to visit trade shows (as a magazine editor); there were occasions, during slower shows, when vendors would start packing up their booths earlier than the show end-time on the last day of the show. The organizers would come around and tell them to stop or don't bother signing up for next year. I'm starting to gain a far greater appreciation for that approach.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Customer Service is Just a Game -- Some Know How to Win; Some Don't
I had originally intended to write a blog about KMart opening on Thanksgiving Day; however, many other media outlets (Huffington Post, for example), have done so, already.
But, that potential post spring-boarded into two other examples and one mammoth blog post on 'predictability and programming' that I'm hoping to have up before next Monday.
I won't be shopping on Thanksgiving. I understand the necessity of certain things to be open (hospitals, pharmacies, police, etc.); but anything non-essential should be closed (and, that even includes football -- because, although the players are *well* compensated; there are countless others involved in the day (from stadium workers, to TV to newspapers, etc.) that aren't; and they all have to be there. I'd miss football; but I understand me wanting that to exist is hypocritical.
So, why, then, did KMart decide to open on Thanksgiving? Well, first off - they obviously know people will be there (ideally, they've done some market research to ensure they aren't opening their stores so *no one* is there). And, that's where the predictability/programming comes in (which I'll be discussing later).
Essentially, those blaming KMart for this decision are missing the point. The ire should be facing the shoppers that will be there (it's a which-came-first conundrum ...). If no one shows up on Thanksgiving, odds are this won't happen again next year. But (as I suspect) if people show up in droves, we've seen the future.
*************************
Over the weekend, I had occasion to head out to buy bagels for a large gathering at my home. I went to the local shop (Stacie's Bagels), because I like the flavor, and I'd prefer to not go to a "chain."
I got there, and -- as expected -- the line was quite long. I was holding a coupon for a dozen bagels ($6). I finally spoke with the counterperson and began placing my order ... I needed an egg sandwich (probably ... $4?); a platter with eggs and hash browns ($2) and some cream cheese. While I was working with the clerk to determine which cream cheese I needed (finally settling on four different types .. probably $10 worth); I was leaning in to speak with her (since the place was so busy, it was hard to hear).
Stacie, the owner, apparently wanted to get to the cream cheese (she's a tiny woman, and *everything* she does is super-important (in her eyes). Everything is done incredibly fast, and she seems to have no patience.
(As an aside, part of the problem is the situation with a lot of businesses. She's understaffed, because she wants to maximize profits; so ... lines are long; people get annoyed; and -- ultimately -- she loses customers ... but, I digress.)
As she was leaning in to get *her* cream cheese, I leaned forward to speak to my clerk. Stacie turned on her heels and said, "Could you excuse me, I'm trying to work here!" (not in a calming way; more staccato and accusatory). With that, other patrons on line rolled their eyes and gave me a sympathetic look.
I then said to the clerk, I have a coupon here, for a dozen bagels, $6. Her face saddened and she said, "Oh, I'm sorry, that was a misprint, it's actually $7." I scowled, but I'd been waiting long enough, I simply said, "Fine." I had people waiting at my house, and I didn't feel like arguing over the fact that, whether it was a misprint or not, the coupon *has* to be accepted. I said, "fine -- no problem. I need two dozen bagels ..." And, I began listing what I wanted.
She scowled again and said, "Oh, the coupon is only good for the first dozen." Um ... why? Does it take longer to collect the second dozen? I said, "Well, I would like two dozen." And she said the second would be full price.
I then said, 'OK, never mind then." And, as she began asking, "Oh, so just one dozen?" I was already walking out of the store. I *presumed* they would call me back ... why would you let a $40 order walk out over $3 (this *after* I'd already accepted their "Oh, the coupon is a misprint" tale; and -- let's not forget -- they'd already made up an egg sandwich and egg platter (now garbage, unless they decided to peddle them off to some unsuspecting person). In the end, over $3, they *ate* $6 worth of food, AND lost a customer, AND lost a customer who went home to write about it.
I headed down the block to another bagel store and placed my order there. When I got there, I saw a sign that they accepted competitor's coupons. I lamented my predicament (that I'd left my coupon on the counter, when I'd walked out angrily). And, the gentleman gave me the coupon discount anyway (because, he probably realized he would *gain* a customer over the other business' stupidity).
It's like shopping for gas. If you get to a corner and there's a Hess, Sunoco, Mobil and Shell -- and they *all* have the same price; and the lines are all the same, how do you decide which to go to? What if you knew one of them always had a guy on duty to wash your windshield?
It's all a game; and some companies get it, and some don't.
**************************
Each week, I buy coldcuts for lunches. I normally do my shopping on Mondays, and Best Yet has the best prices, so I always head there.
They seem to rotate through various offerings each month -- one week it's Chicken Breast; one it's turkey, etc. Each time they offer Chicken Breast, I go there, and they've run out; so they do the right thing, and offer me something else as a substitute (although, from a profitability concept, this fails ... if I'm getting a discount on one type of coldcut, from my wholesaler, but then, I'm giving something else away, I'm *losing* money on that secondary type. It's great for customer service; horrible for business.
So, this last week, the chicken breast on sale was gone. So were all the other types of chicken breast I normally susbtitute, so we finally settled on turkey breast.
I asked, "Why doesn't the person who orders, just order more?" And the response was, "We always run out on Monday, and the next truck doesn't come until Tuesday; so Monday afternoon is never good."
Really? So, you're *aware* of the problem, but you don't actually want to do anything to change it (like, maybe, order more ... maybe track the number of orders you're losing (and, eventually, the amount of revenue you're losing, when those customers just go elsewhere). And, nowhere in the collective minds of upper management is a thought to "just order more."
***************************
As many of you know, my main hobby is boardgaming. In the past, there were roughly six *major* online retailers (all of whom had slightly different prices, shipping policies and inventory. 2013 saw two of them, effectively, go out of business (Thoughthammer closed its doors and Boards & Bits seems embroiled in some heinous situation that has locked up his inventory (although, with nearly no communication ...)). So, that leaves, roughly, four.
Black Friday (and Cyber Monday) is part of this world, as well. Now, Black Friday brings forth a LOT of emotions. Here on Long Island, a number of years ago, we had the infamous "trampling" episode, where people died because others, behind them, wanted to get into the store.
Some retailers have done the smart thing. PC Richard (an electronics retailer) has said, "We won't have timed deals and we won't run out of stock ... and if we *do* run out of stock, we'll still allow you to purchase it at that price." Great -- I don't have to go there at 4am to ensure I get the TV I want.
Now, where are they making up the difference (compared to, say, Best Buy?) Well, maybe Best Buy is cheaper (although PC Richard price-matches). For the most part, the differential is financing for large purchases. But, if I just want to ensure I get the thing I'm looking for, PC Richard is going to trump Best Buy (which *may* run out, and has offered no assurances).
So, this morning I log onto the boardgaming site, and I see that one of the companies -- Miniature Market -- has released its Black Friday sale (through Monday).
I see they have a game I want. I head to the site (to see what else they have, since my group typically places large orders ... when you have 20+ members, that happens). The game I was interested in was out of stock. There's an option to chat with someone in real-time, so I chose that, basically to ask if new stock would be released for the sale.
Effectively (since I don't want to make this longer), the policy is "First-come, first-serve" (I guess, since it's online, there's no risk of trampling death). Since they didn't know when they would be getting new stock, it's no longer part of the sale.
I get this - it's a loss-leader. The idea is to get someone in, then have them look around and buy more stuff; and -- if they come there, thinking they'll be buying, and what they want isn't there, they'll just buy something else.
I thanked the rep and told him I wouldn't be placing an order, but they should look into allowing customers to still purchase "out-of-stock" items, especially when the customer doesn't have a drop-dead date when the product is needed by (which is the case with me).
His response was, effectively, "we don't have that mechanic enabled, and this is the way we've always done it."
So, we have another "this is how it's always been done" approach ... except, this year, two others with that mindset went out of business ... hmmm ....
I said he should go ahead and let his supervisors (or, more correctly, the CEO) know that the company just lost a $500+ order over the fact that "things are always done this way." I explained that I didn't expect anything else from them -- I knew he didn't have the power to change it; but, if I were a business owner, I'd want to know the reason why my customer went somewhere else. I asked, if he didn't feel comfortable providing that suggestion, I'd be happy to do so; just give me the CEO's email address.
support@miniaturemarket.com
I asked, your CEO's MAIN email address is the customer support email for his company? That's how he communicates with family? Friends? etc.? He said, "that's the email you need to send it to." Again, I declined, and said simply, "meh ... I'll just blog about it instead .... "
Sure enough, 30 minutes later, I got a response from a supervisor (although, ironically, again, there's no way for me to reach *her* directly, since it's only the generic customer support email). She did the correct thing -- apologized for inconvenience, etc. And, if I want to buy the game when it's back in stock, she'll honor the price. Fantastic.
Of course, there's more -- the retailer has free shipping above a certain amount; I would like the game to be included in *this* order (and the whole thing can ship together), That remains to be seen. Ultimately, I may just tire and decide to order elsewhere.
At some point, *someone* will be unique; someone will start a new trend, and they will mop the floors with companies that "always do the same thing." At least, I can hope.
But, that potential post spring-boarded into two other examples and one mammoth blog post on 'predictability and programming' that I'm hoping to have up before next Monday.
I won't be shopping on Thanksgiving. I understand the necessity of certain things to be open (hospitals, pharmacies, police, etc.); but anything non-essential should be closed (and, that even includes football -- because, although the players are *well* compensated; there are countless others involved in the day (from stadium workers, to TV to newspapers, etc.) that aren't; and they all have to be there. I'd miss football; but I understand me wanting that to exist is hypocritical.
So, why, then, did KMart decide to open on Thanksgiving? Well, first off - they obviously know people will be there (ideally, they've done some market research to ensure they aren't opening their stores so *no one* is there). And, that's where the predictability/programming comes in (which I'll be discussing later).
Essentially, those blaming KMart for this decision are missing the point. The ire should be facing the shoppers that will be there (it's a which-came-first conundrum ...). If no one shows up on Thanksgiving, odds are this won't happen again next year. But (as I suspect) if people show up in droves, we've seen the future.
*************************
Over the weekend, I had occasion to head out to buy bagels for a large gathering at my home. I went to the local shop (Stacie's Bagels), because I like the flavor, and I'd prefer to not go to a "chain."
I got there, and -- as expected -- the line was quite long. I was holding a coupon for a dozen bagels ($6). I finally spoke with the counterperson and began placing my order ... I needed an egg sandwich (probably ... $4?); a platter with eggs and hash browns ($2) and some cream cheese. While I was working with the clerk to determine which cream cheese I needed (finally settling on four different types .. probably $10 worth); I was leaning in to speak with her (since the place was so busy, it was hard to hear).
Stacie, the owner, apparently wanted to get to the cream cheese (she's a tiny woman, and *everything* she does is super-important (in her eyes). Everything is done incredibly fast, and she seems to have no patience.
(As an aside, part of the problem is the situation with a lot of businesses. She's understaffed, because she wants to maximize profits; so ... lines are long; people get annoyed; and -- ultimately -- she loses customers ... but, I digress.)
As she was leaning in to get *her* cream cheese, I leaned forward to speak to my clerk. Stacie turned on her heels and said, "Could you excuse me, I'm trying to work here!" (not in a calming way; more staccato and accusatory). With that, other patrons on line rolled their eyes and gave me a sympathetic look.
I then said to the clerk, I have a coupon here, for a dozen bagels, $6. Her face saddened and she said, "Oh, I'm sorry, that was a misprint, it's actually $7." I scowled, but I'd been waiting long enough, I simply said, "Fine." I had people waiting at my house, and I didn't feel like arguing over the fact that, whether it was a misprint or not, the coupon *has* to be accepted. I said, "fine -- no problem. I need two dozen bagels ..." And, I began listing what I wanted.
She scowled again and said, "Oh, the coupon is only good for the first dozen." Um ... why? Does it take longer to collect the second dozen? I said, "Well, I would like two dozen." And she said the second would be full price.
I then said, 'OK, never mind then." And, as she began asking, "Oh, so just one dozen?" I was already walking out of the store. I *presumed* they would call me back ... why would you let a $40 order walk out over $3 (this *after* I'd already accepted their "Oh, the coupon is a misprint" tale; and -- let's not forget -- they'd already made up an egg sandwich and egg platter (now garbage, unless they decided to peddle them off to some unsuspecting person). In the end, over $3, they *ate* $6 worth of food, AND lost a customer, AND lost a customer who went home to write about it.
I headed down the block to another bagel store and placed my order there. When I got there, I saw a sign that they accepted competitor's coupons. I lamented my predicament (that I'd left my coupon on the counter, when I'd walked out angrily). And, the gentleman gave me the coupon discount anyway (because, he probably realized he would *gain* a customer over the other business' stupidity).
It's like shopping for gas. If you get to a corner and there's a Hess, Sunoco, Mobil and Shell -- and they *all* have the same price; and the lines are all the same, how do you decide which to go to? What if you knew one of them always had a guy on duty to wash your windshield?
It's all a game; and some companies get it, and some don't.
**************************
Each week, I buy coldcuts for lunches. I normally do my shopping on Mondays, and Best Yet has the best prices, so I always head there.
They seem to rotate through various offerings each month -- one week it's Chicken Breast; one it's turkey, etc. Each time they offer Chicken Breast, I go there, and they've run out; so they do the right thing, and offer me something else as a substitute (although, from a profitability concept, this fails ... if I'm getting a discount on one type of coldcut, from my wholesaler, but then, I'm giving something else away, I'm *losing* money on that secondary type. It's great for customer service; horrible for business.
So, this last week, the chicken breast on sale was gone. So were all the other types of chicken breast I normally susbtitute, so we finally settled on turkey breast.
I asked, "Why doesn't the person who orders, just order more?" And the response was, "We always run out on Monday, and the next truck doesn't come until Tuesday; so Monday afternoon is never good."
Really? So, you're *aware* of the problem, but you don't actually want to do anything to change it (like, maybe, order more ... maybe track the number of orders you're losing (and, eventually, the amount of revenue you're losing, when those customers just go elsewhere). And, nowhere in the collective minds of upper management is a thought to "just order more."
***************************
As many of you know, my main hobby is boardgaming. In the past, there were roughly six *major* online retailers (all of whom had slightly different prices, shipping policies and inventory. 2013 saw two of them, effectively, go out of business (Thoughthammer closed its doors and Boards & Bits seems embroiled in some heinous situation that has locked up his inventory (although, with nearly no communication ...)). So, that leaves, roughly, four.
Black Friday (and Cyber Monday) is part of this world, as well. Now, Black Friday brings forth a LOT of emotions. Here on Long Island, a number of years ago, we had the infamous "trampling" episode, where people died because others, behind them, wanted to get into the store.
Some retailers have done the smart thing. PC Richard (an electronics retailer) has said, "We won't have timed deals and we won't run out of stock ... and if we *do* run out of stock, we'll still allow you to purchase it at that price." Great -- I don't have to go there at 4am to ensure I get the TV I want.
Now, where are they making up the difference (compared to, say, Best Buy?) Well, maybe Best Buy is cheaper (although PC Richard price-matches). For the most part, the differential is financing for large purchases. But, if I just want to ensure I get the thing I'm looking for, PC Richard is going to trump Best Buy (which *may* run out, and has offered no assurances).
So, this morning I log onto the boardgaming site, and I see that one of the companies -- Miniature Market -- has released its Black Friday sale (through Monday).
I see they have a game I want. I head to the site (to see what else they have, since my group typically places large orders ... when you have 20+ members, that happens). The game I was interested in was out of stock. There's an option to chat with someone in real-time, so I chose that, basically to ask if new stock would be released for the sale.
Effectively (since I don't want to make this longer), the policy is "First-come, first-serve" (I guess, since it's online, there's no risk of trampling death). Since they didn't know when they would be getting new stock, it's no longer part of the sale.
I get this - it's a loss-leader. The idea is to get someone in, then have them look around and buy more stuff; and -- if they come there, thinking they'll be buying, and what they want isn't there, they'll just buy something else.
I thanked the rep and told him I wouldn't be placing an order, but they should look into allowing customers to still purchase "out-of-stock" items, especially when the customer doesn't have a drop-dead date when the product is needed by (which is the case with me).
His response was, effectively, "we don't have that mechanic enabled, and this is the way we've always done it."
So, we have another "this is how it's always been done" approach ... except, this year, two others with that mindset went out of business ... hmmm ....
I said he should go ahead and let his supervisors (or, more correctly, the CEO) know that the company just lost a $500+ order over the fact that "things are always done this way." I explained that I didn't expect anything else from them -- I knew he didn't have the power to change it; but, if I were a business owner, I'd want to know the reason why my customer went somewhere else. I asked, if he didn't feel comfortable providing that suggestion, I'd be happy to do so; just give me the CEO's email address.
support@miniaturemarket.com
I asked, your CEO's MAIN email address is the customer support email for his company? That's how he communicates with family? Friends? etc.? He said, "that's the email you need to send it to." Again, I declined, and said simply, "meh ... I'll just blog about it instead .... "
Sure enough, 30 minutes later, I got a response from a supervisor (although, ironically, again, there's no way for me to reach *her* directly, since it's only the generic customer support email). She did the correct thing -- apologized for inconvenience, etc. And, if I want to buy the game when it's back in stock, she'll honor the price. Fantastic.
Of course, there's more -- the retailer has free shipping above a certain amount; I would like the game to be included in *this* order (and the whole thing can ship together), That remains to be seen. Ultimately, I may just tire and decide to order elsewhere.
At some point, *someone* will be unique; someone will start a new trend, and they will mop the floors with companies that "always do the same thing." At least, I can hope.
Monday, October 21, 2013
It May Be Heresy, But I Blame Sabermetrics for the Detroit Tigers Collapse
As I may have mentioned before, when I was a young student, I desperately wanted to be a sabermetrician ... someone who analyzed baseball statistics for a living.
Of course, back then, there really weren't many of these roles (this was before "Moneyball" came out). To be sure, my interest in *watching* baseball has waned (it trails basketball and football, easily); but my love of the numbers, and my love of research of those numbers is still unparalleled.
I was driving home from Erie, Pa., last Sunday, and had the Red Sox-Tigers game on. Detroit had won the opener. 1-0, behind masterful pitching (something the Tigers had an abundance of this past year). Shutting out the Red Sox was no small task; they were the most proficient offensive team in baseball this year.
So, this was Game 2 ... in Boston ... Detroit leading 5-1 in the 8th inning, and sitting smugly. They were going to be heading back to Detroit up 2 games to none, and -- pretty much -- a sure thing for the World Series.
I think everyone knows what happened then. Leyland (the manager of the Tigers) pulled his starter, Max Scherzer, the odds-on favorite for the Cy Young Award, who had -- through 7 innings -- allowed *2* hits, 1 run and 13 strikeouts. Why was he pulled? He'd thrown 108 pitches.
The agony played out like this:
Jose Veras was brought in to pitch. After getting the first batter out, the next batter doubled.
Doug Smyly was brought in to pitch. He walked the only batter he faced.
Al Alberquerque was brought in to pitch. He struck out the first batter, and the next batter singled, loading the bases.
In 2/3 of an inning, the Detroit bullpen had let nearly as many runners reach base as Scherzer had all game.
The next pitcher -- the *fourth* pitching change of the inning -- was Joaquin Benoit, and, on his first pitch, David Ortiz hit a grand slam homerun, tying up the game (with the Red Sox winning in the 9th). It completely changed the dynamic of the series, and although Detroit grabbed on more win, they succumbed in 6 games.
So, why do I blame sabermetrics?
There was a movement, somewhere around the 1990s, where number-crunchers decided, beyond anything else, "pitch count" was the most important thing for a pitcher. So, although Scherzer was pitching a fantastic game, he'd pitched 100+ pitches. Whether the fear was that he'd lose his stuff or that he'd hurt himself, the logic was to pull him out.
I won't address the second concern here; but let's look at the first concern. He was pitching a magnificent game! And, four pitching changes later, the absolute worst case scenario had unfolded. Even if Scherzer had imploded, it couldn't have been worse than the actual reality that did occur.
This isn't new this year. Detroit had a great pitching staff ... well, starters, anyway. Third best WHIP and ERA in the league, the *best* SO/BB ratio. But the starters hid the relievers effectively.
In terms of WHIP -- just the starters alone would've been tops in the league. The relievers would've been 13th.
In terms of ERA -- again, the starters would've ranked first; relievers, 11th.
In terms of SO/BB ratio -- starters first; relievers 8th.
So, the point is, no one should've been surprised that the relievers got beat up, once the starter came out of the game.
Then, I decided to prod a little more. I sketched out the number of times pitchers pitched 250+ innings for the past 66 years (basically, back to 1945, removing the strike years of 1981, 1994 and 1995). And then, I decided to analyze these two groups -- breaking them (conveniently) into the 1945-1989 group (a total of 44 playing years) versus the 1990-present (a total of 22 years). Here's what I found:
1945-1989: 675 different occurrences
1990-present: 42
So, although 1945-1989 had only double the playing years, it had 16 TIMES the number of occurrences. This goes along with the increase of pitchers on the roster (from around 13-14 in the 1940s and 1950s, to around 15-16 in the 1970s, to 22-23 today).
But, surely, there's a reason for this -- lower innings must be resulting in far more dominating pitching, right? So, let's take a closer look.
The average age of the qualifying pitcher in the first group was 28.6; in the second group, it was 29.5, so the pitchers were roughly the same age. Here's a breakdown of the relevant statistics:
W/L - roughly the same, 18-12 for the first group, 18-10 for the second. They started the same number of games (36 for the first group, 35 for the second). The big change came in terms of complete games (16 average for the first group, 8 for the second), and -- on average -- the first group faced about 80 batters more each year.
Now, the nitty-gritty stuff:
1945-1989
ERA: 3.08
WHIP: 1.192
HR/9: 0.7
K/9: 5.6
K/BB: 2.1
1990-Present
ERA: 3.02
WHIP: 1.138
HR/9: 0.74
K/9: 7.7
K/BB: 3.29
Aside from the increased strikeouts (which can be attributed, in part, to the increased focus on "all or nothing" swinging from the batters), there's no marked difference in ERA, WHIP or HR allowed.
Now, let's look at the players who have achieved this lofty plateau:
1945-1989
Warren Spahn: 16 times
Gaylord Perry: 12 times
Steve Carlton: 12 times
Phil Niekro: 11times
Tom Seaver: 11 times
Fergie Jenkins: 10 times
Robin Roberts: 10 times
Bert Blyleven: 9 times
Mel Stottlemyre: 9 times
Bob Gibson: 8 times
Bob Lemon: 8 times
Catfish Hunter: 8 times
Claude Osteen: 8 times
Don Drysdale: 8 times
Don Sutton: 8 times
Jim Bunning: 8 times
Jim Palmer: 8 times
Juan Marichal: 8 times
Larry Jackson: 8 times
Early Wynn: 7 times
Jim Kaat: 7 times
Vida Blue: 7 times
Bob Friend: 6 times
Fernando Valenzuela: 6 times
Jack Morris: 6 times
Ken Holtzman: 6 times
Lew Burdette: 6 times
Mickey Lolich: 6 times
Mike Cuellar: 6 times
Nolan Ryan: 6 times
Steve Rogers: 6 times
Charlie Hough: 5 times
Dave McNally: 5 times
Frank Viola: 5 times
Hal Newhouser: 5 times
Jim Perry: 5 times
Luis Tiant: 5 times
Wilbur Wood: 5 times
Andy Messersmith: 4 times
Billy Pierce: 4 times
Carl Morton: 4 times
Clyde Wright: 4 times
Dave Stieb: 4 times
Dean Chance: 4 times
Dennis Leonard: 4 times
Frank Lary: 4 times
Fritz Peterson: 4 times
JR Richard: 4 times
Jerry Koosman: 4 times
Joe Coleman: 4 times
Joe Niekro: 4 times
Johnny Sain: 4 times
Larry Jansen: 4 times
Mike Garcia: 4 times
Mike Torrez: 4 times
Pat Dobson: 4 times
Randy Jones: 4 times
Rick Wise: 4 times
Roger Clemens: 4 times
Sam McDowell: 4 times
Sandy Koufax: 4 times
Whitey Ford: 4 times
1990-present
Curt Schilling (4 times)
Greg Maddux (4 times)
Jack McDowell (3 times)
Kevin Brown (3 times)
Randy Johnson (3 times)
Or, maybe that's not dramatic enough for you ... how about this:
Number of pitchers that have pitched more than 250 innings five times in their career:
1945-1989: 38
1990-present: Zero
I'm not disparaging the 1990-present pitchers. I consider Maddux one of the greatest pitchers of all time; and Johnson and Schilling are also amazing. But, ponder over that top list -- there are a ton of all-time greats there.
And, I think Schilling and Johnson would've fought with a manager who wanted to take them out (I do think Maddux wouldn't put up much of a fight), but, can you imagine the manager who tries to take out Perry? Carlton? Seaver? Gibson? Marichal? Drysdale?
If one of them had been pitching in the Red Sox game, they would've not-so-politely told Jim Leyland to get his *&$* back to the dugout, before they cracked open his skull on live television.
And then, they would've continued pitching, and won the game. And they would be in the World Series today.
I was driving home from Erie, Pa., last Sunday, and had the Red Sox-Tigers game on. Detroit had won the opener. 1-0, behind masterful pitching (something the Tigers had an abundance of this past year). Shutting out the Red Sox was no small task; they were the most proficient offensive team in baseball this year.
So, this was Game 2 ... in Boston ... Detroit leading 5-1 in the 8th inning, and sitting smugly. They were going to be heading back to Detroit up 2 games to none, and -- pretty much -- a sure thing for the World Series.
I think everyone knows what happened then. Leyland (the manager of the Tigers) pulled his starter, Max Scherzer, the odds-on favorite for the Cy Young Award, who had -- through 7 innings -- allowed *2* hits, 1 run and 13 strikeouts. Why was he pulled? He'd thrown 108 pitches.
The agony played out like this:
Jose Veras was brought in to pitch. After getting the first batter out, the next batter doubled.
Doug Smyly was brought in to pitch. He walked the only batter he faced.
Al Alberquerque was brought in to pitch. He struck out the first batter, and the next batter singled, loading the bases.
In 2/3 of an inning, the Detroit bullpen had let nearly as many runners reach base as Scherzer had all game.
The next pitcher -- the *fourth* pitching change of the inning -- was Joaquin Benoit, and, on his first pitch, David Ortiz hit a grand slam homerun, tying up the game (with the Red Sox winning in the 9th). It completely changed the dynamic of the series, and although Detroit grabbed on more win, they succumbed in 6 games.
So, why do I blame sabermetrics?
There was a movement, somewhere around the 1990s, where number-crunchers decided, beyond anything else, "pitch count" was the most important thing for a pitcher. So, although Scherzer was pitching a fantastic game, he'd pitched 100+ pitches. Whether the fear was that he'd lose his stuff or that he'd hurt himself, the logic was to pull him out.
I won't address the second concern here; but let's look at the first concern. He was pitching a magnificent game! And, four pitching changes later, the absolute worst case scenario had unfolded. Even if Scherzer had imploded, it couldn't have been worse than the actual reality that did occur.
This isn't new this year. Detroit had a great pitching staff ... well, starters, anyway. Third best WHIP and ERA in the league, the *best* SO/BB ratio. But the starters hid the relievers effectively.
In terms of WHIP -- just the starters alone would've been tops in the league. The relievers would've been 13th.
In terms of ERA -- again, the starters would've ranked first; relievers, 11th.
In terms of SO/BB ratio -- starters first; relievers 8th.
So, the point is, no one should've been surprised that the relievers got beat up, once the starter came out of the game.
Then, I decided to prod a little more. I sketched out the number of times pitchers pitched 250+ innings for the past 66 years (basically, back to 1945, removing the strike years of 1981, 1994 and 1995). And then, I decided to analyze these two groups -- breaking them (conveniently) into the 1945-1989 group (a total of 44 playing years) versus the 1990-present (a total of 22 years). Here's what I found:
1945-1989: 675 different occurrences
1990-present: 42
So, although 1945-1989 had only double the playing years, it had 16 TIMES the number of occurrences. This goes along with the increase of pitchers on the roster (from around 13-14 in the 1940s and 1950s, to around 15-16 in the 1970s, to 22-23 today).
But, surely, there's a reason for this -- lower innings must be resulting in far more dominating pitching, right? So, let's take a closer look.
The average age of the qualifying pitcher in the first group was 28.6; in the second group, it was 29.5, so the pitchers were roughly the same age. Here's a breakdown of the relevant statistics:
W/L - roughly the same, 18-12 for the first group, 18-10 for the second. They started the same number of games (36 for the first group, 35 for the second). The big change came in terms of complete games (16 average for the first group, 8 for the second), and -- on average -- the first group faced about 80 batters more each year.
Now, the nitty-gritty stuff:
1945-1989
ERA: 3.08
WHIP: 1.192
HR/9: 0.7
K/9: 5.6
K/BB: 2.1
1990-Present
ERA: 3.02
WHIP: 1.138
HR/9: 0.74
K/9: 7.7
K/BB: 3.29
Aside from the increased strikeouts (which can be attributed, in part, to the increased focus on "all or nothing" swinging from the batters), there's no marked difference in ERA, WHIP or HR allowed.
Now, let's look at the players who have achieved this lofty plateau:
1945-1989
Warren Spahn: 16 times
Gaylord Perry: 12 times
Steve Carlton: 12 times
Phil Niekro: 11times
Tom Seaver: 11 times
Fergie Jenkins: 10 times
Robin Roberts: 10 times
Bert Blyleven: 9 times
Mel Stottlemyre: 9 times
Bob Gibson: 8 times
Bob Lemon: 8 times
Catfish Hunter: 8 times
Claude Osteen: 8 times
Don Drysdale: 8 times
Don Sutton: 8 times
Jim Bunning: 8 times
Jim Palmer: 8 times
Juan Marichal: 8 times
Larry Jackson: 8 times
Early Wynn: 7 times
Jim Kaat: 7 times
Vida Blue: 7 times
Bob Friend: 6 times
Fernando Valenzuela: 6 times
Jack Morris: 6 times
Ken Holtzman: 6 times
Lew Burdette: 6 times
Mickey Lolich: 6 times
Mike Cuellar: 6 times
Nolan Ryan: 6 times
Steve Rogers: 6 times
Charlie Hough: 5 times
Dave McNally: 5 times
Frank Viola: 5 times
Hal Newhouser: 5 times
Jim Perry: 5 times
Luis Tiant: 5 times
Wilbur Wood: 5 times
Andy Messersmith: 4 times
Billy Pierce: 4 times
Carl Morton: 4 times
Clyde Wright: 4 times
Dave Stieb: 4 times
Dean Chance: 4 times
Dennis Leonard: 4 times
Frank Lary: 4 times
Fritz Peterson: 4 times
JR Richard: 4 times
Jerry Koosman: 4 times
Joe Coleman: 4 times
Joe Niekro: 4 times
Johnny Sain: 4 times
Larry Jansen: 4 times
Mike Garcia: 4 times
Mike Torrez: 4 times
Pat Dobson: 4 times
Randy Jones: 4 times
Rick Wise: 4 times
Roger Clemens: 4 times
Sam McDowell: 4 times
Sandy Koufax: 4 times
Whitey Ford: 4 times
1990-present
Curt Schilling (4 times)
Greg Maddux (4 times)
Jack McDowell (3 times)
Kevin Brown (3 times)
Randy Johnson (3 times)
Or, maybe that's not dramatic enough for you ... how about this:
Number of pitchers that have pitched more than 250 innings five times in their career:
1945-1989: 38
1990-present: Zero
I'm not disparaging the 1990-present pitchers. I consider Maddux one of the greatest pitchers of all time; and Johnson and Schilling are also amazing. But, ponder over that top list -- there are a ton of all-time greats there.
And, I think Schilling and Johnson would've fought with a manager who wanted to take them out (I do think Maddux wouldn't put up much of a fight), but, can you imagine the manager who tries to take out Perry? Carlton? Seaver? Gibson? Marichal? Drysdale?
If one of them had been pitching in the Red Sox game, they would've not-so-politely told Jim Leyland to get his *&$* back to the dugout, before they cracked open his skull on live television.
And then, they would've continued pitching, and won the game. And they would be in the World Series today.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Personal Brand -- A Twist on a Newsday Article
This past weekend, I appeared in Newsday. The reason wasn't entirely great -- it was a spotlight on the long-term unemployed (which the Department of Labor defines as those who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks).
After the interview, I had some concerns: concerns that the tenor of the article could paint me as "unemployable" -- which I certainly didn't want. I didn't love the way the original spotlight ended; so I asked the author to include the quote which appears (which, I felt, put more of a positive spin on the situation.)
When it came out, I saw the amount of space allotted, and I understood why many of my comments and suggestions hadn't been incorporated. Still, I saw the opportunity to use the article as a jumping point.
As I said to the author, I wasn't opposed to being included, but I needed to ensure it had a positive impact on my job search (and my personal brand). I didn't want someone to read it and say, "wow, he's been out a long time ..." I'd rather have them say, "how has no one scooped this guy up yet?"
So -- here is *my* version of how I would've loved the article to appear, if I'd had unlimited space! I'm using the author's original material as a launching point:
Long-term unemployment isn't a new experience for Chris Palermo, who lost his communications manager job at a local educational technology company in January, after two years.
The last time the 44-year-old Ronkonkoma resident was unemployed was in October 2009, just one year after receiving the Achievement in Communications Award from the International Association of Business Communicators. It took him 14 months to find another job. He hasn't been lucky this time either. He is still jobless after sending out close to 500 resumes. He believes the intense competition from numerous other long-term unemployed people is the problem.
"The number of skilled workers that are out of work, really enables companies to be uber-specific with their hiring requirements," he says.
Despite the length of his unemployment, he remains hopeful.
Earlier this summer, Palermo published two blog posts on job seeking. One, in particular, discussed a new method he began using to overcome a potential weakness in the online networking site, LinkedIn.
"I check LinkedIn for every job I apply to, to see if I have connections to the company," he says. "A lot of times, my contacts respond that they don't really 'know' the person to whom they're connected.
"So, then I realized I was being hypocritical -- I noticed I had a number of connections I didn't know as well as I should," he says. "Rather than simply considering those connections to be 'not-so-useful,' or -- worse yet -- 'cleaning house' and deleting them, I emailed each and every one of those connections to arrange informational meetings, with the goal of having that connection leave the meeting, thinking, (a) I was knowledgeable about my craft and (b) I was a good person.
"Overall, I had pretty good success with that initiative. I still have a number of connections to follow up with, but I have faith in my persistence," he laughs.
Palermo believes networking is a key element in the job search, but it's not the only element.
"We're consistently told that 80 percent of the jobs aren't listed online," he says. "If that's true, why would anyone spend more than 20 percent of his time looking online? By significantly reducing the number of hours spent searching, it frees up time to do more meaningful things, like networking."
He created a job-search technique that enables the viewing and searching of thousands of jobs in only three hours each week.
"The technique uses technology -- nothing that costs any money (in fact, I don't even charge when I *teach* the class)," he says. The intent is to have a hands-on session where we set everything up, and -- after that -- people can simply check the information a few times a week; and they'll see exponentially more jobs than they have ever seen before."
Palermo has taught this technique in groups ranging from three to more than 40 job-seekers.
"I've actually received emails from participants after the class saying, 'Thank you for giving my life back!'" he says. "That's a great feeling; and it's certainly part of my pay-it-forward mentality."
This fall, Palermo enrolled in the Comprehensive Project Management Certificate Program at Stony Brook. For him, this has two purposes -- first, it's part of his personal belief that we should be life-long learners (especially when it comes to personal/professional development); and second, it validates his belief that business communications *is* business (and not that it's just an unnecessary/'fluff' part of the business). It should be woven into the business fabric.
"By taking this course, I hoping to gain the skills to ensure my role is even more ingrained into the business structure of my next company," he says. "On a personal note, it's amazing how much of the core concepts of project management I already used in my personal life.
He also joined a number of organizations to continue his learning and networking, including the Long Island chapters of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) and American Society of Training and Development (ASTD), as well as the Public Relations Professionals of Long Island (PRPLI) and Social Media Association.
"I also joined Toastmasters," he adds. "which was recommended to me, and -- as I've learned more about the organization, I can see myself enjoying it as well as taking on a leadership role."
Finally, a long-term goal for Palermo is the construction of a knowledge-management/networking website specifically for Long Island Job Seekers -- something he plans to continue even after he's employed.
"There are numerous networking groups (including LinkedIn, of course)," he says. "My site would not be a competitor to LinkedIn, but, rather, a complementary site, specifically focused on Long Island people (not necessarily the LI Job Market, since many are willing to travel to NYC). The idea is to merge all the existing networking groups and job boards under one, easier-to-use site, with far more robust features for sharing job leads and search tips, while still offering an abundance of 'connectivity' between the members, without compromising their privacy."
It's easy to see how Palermo remains optimistic, even in the face of the long-term joblessness that continues to plague the nation.
"I'm still confident that my skills, my experience and my commitment to life-long learning will land me a great opportunity," he says.
(Admittedly, this article *would* have taken considerably more space than the allocated area available. On the other hand, for someone (like myself) who is typically super modest, it's almost cathartic writing something like this. I'd encourage any/all to share this -- my network can and will expand exponentially, based on the reach of this particular post).
After the interview, I had some concerns: concerns that the tenor of the article could paint me as "unemployable" -- which I certainly didn't want. I didn't love the way the original spotlight ended; so I asked the author to include the quote which appears (which, I felt, put more of a positive spin on the situation.)
When it came out, I saw the amount of space allotted, and I understood why many of my comments and suggestions hadn't been incorporated. Still, I saw the opportunity to use the article as a jumping point.
As I said to the author, I wasn't opposed to being included, but I needed to ensure it had a positive impact on my job search (and my personal brand). I didn't want someone to read it and say, "wow, he's been out a long time ..." I'd rather have them say, "how has no one scooped this guy up yet?"
So -- here is *my* version of how I would've loved the article to appear, if I'd had unlimited space! I'm using the author's original material as a launching point:
Long-term unemployment isn't a new experience for Chris Palermo, who lost his communications manager job at a local educational technology company in January, after two years.
The last time the 44-year-old Ronkonkoma resident was unemployed was in October 2009, just one year after receiving the Achievement in Communications Award from the International Association of Business Communicators. It took him 14 months to find another job. He hasn't been lucky this time either. He is still jobless after sending out close to 500 resumes. He believes the intense competition from numerous other long-term unemployed people is the problem.
"The number of skilled workers that are out of work, really enables companies to be uber-specific with their hiring requirements," he says.
Despite the length of his unemployment, he remains hopeful.
Earlier this summer, Palermo published two blog posts on job seeking. One, in particular, discussed a new method he began using to overcome a potential weakness in the online networking site, LinkedIn.
"I check LinkedIn for every job I apply to, to see if I have connections to the company," he says. "A lot of times, my contacts respond that they don't really 'know' the person to whom they're connected.
"So, then I realized I was being hypocritical -- I noticed I had a number of connections I didn't know as well as I should," he says. "Rather than simply considering those connections to be 'not-so-useful,' or -- worse yet -- 'cleaning house' and deleting them, I emailed each and every one of those connections to arrange informational meetings, with the goal of having that connection leave the meeting, thinking, (a) I was knowledgeable about my craft and (b) I was a good person.
"Overall, I had pretty good success with that initiative. I still have a number of connections to follow up with, but I have faith in my persistence," he laughs.
Palermo believes networking is a key element in the job search, but it's not the only element.
"We're consistently told that 80 percent of the jobs aren't listed online," he says. "If that's true, why would anyone spend more than 20 percent of his time looking online? By significantly reducing the number of hours spent searching, it frees up time to do more meaningful things, like networking."
He created a job-search technique that enables the viewing and searching of thousands of jobs in only three hours each week.
"The technique uses technology -- nothing that costs any money (in fact, I don't even charge when I *teach* the class)," he says. The intent is to have a hands-on session where we set everything up, and -- after that -- people can simply check the information a few times a week; and they'll see exponentially more jobs than they have ever seen before."
Palermo has taught this technique in groups ranging from three to more than 40 job-seekers.
"I've actually received emails from participants after the class saying, 'Thank you for giving my life back!'" he says. "That's a great feeling; and it's certainly part of my pay-it-forward mentality."
This fall, Palermo enrolled in the Comprehensive Project Management Certificate Program at Stony Brook. For him, this has two purposes -- first, it's part of his personal belief that we should be life-long learners (especially when it comes to personal/professional development); and second, it validates his belief that business communications *is* business (and not that it's just an unnecessary/'fluff' part of the business). It should be woven into the business fabric.
"By taking this course, I hoping to gain the skills to ensure my role is even more ingrained into the business structure of my next company," he says. "On a personal note, it's amazing how much of the core concepts of project management I already used in my personal life.
He also joined a number of organizations to continue his learning and networking, including the Long Island chapters of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) and American Society of Training and Development (ASTD), as well as the Public Relations Professionals of Long Island (PRPLI) and Social Media Association.
"I also joined Toastmasters," he adds. "which was recommended to me, and -- as I've learned more about the organization, I can see myself enjoying it as well as taking on a leadership role."
Finally, a long-term goal for Palermo is the construction of a knowledge-management/networking website specifically for Long Island Job Seekers -- something he plans to continue even after he's employed.
"There are numerous networking groups (including LinkedIn, of course)," he says. "My site would not be a competitor to LinkedIn, but, rather, a complementary site, specifically focused on Long Island people (not necessarily the LI Job Market, since many are willing to travel to NYC). The idea is to merge all the existing networking groups and job boards under one, easier-to-use site, with far more robust features for sharing job leads and search tips, while still offering an abundance of 'connectivity' between the members, without compromising their privacy."
It's easy to see how Palermo remains optimistic, even in the face of the long-term joblessness that continues to plague the nation.
"I'm still confident that my skills, my experience and my commitment to life-long learning will land me a great opportunity," he says.
(Admittedly, this article *would* have taken considerably more space than the allocated area available. On the other hand, for someone (like myself) who is typically super modest, it's almost cathartic writing something like this. I'd encourage any/all to share this -- my network can and will expand exponentially, based on the reach of this particular post).
Friday, September 20, 2013
Choices
When I was growing up, I was a big fan of "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. For those who don't know, these were books that laid out a scenario (and adventure, essentially) and would present the reader with two (or more) choices at vary stages. The choice the reader made would lead them to another page (different for each choice) and, thus, the adventure could be different each time.
Early on, I suspect these were intended as a moral test -- effectively, choose the "right" choice; get a reward; choose the wrong/immoral/unethical things, face the consequences. Eventually, they morphed into more arbitrary results -- so even choosing what seemed the right thing might end poorly; simply because the book's author wanted to make things less predictable (which, as a reader, can be disappointing, I'm sure; but, as an adult, makes total sense (i.e., things rarely go the way they should).
When I was in college, in a moment of self-awareness, I reflected on choices I'd made ... most notably, which college I was going to attend. I had been accepted to two, and my choice really came down to a gut-check. I thought, "if I had chosen the other college, I'd have never met the friends I've made here -- which I'll have for the rest of my life -- and I'd never have met my girlfriend; and my career choices would be different, etc." Of course, years later, the girlfriend is long gone; and of the many friends I made, there are but a few I speak with regularly.
The difference between life and the books is pretty stark. In the book, when I didn't like the way something turned out, I could just start over. Or, better still, I could just go back to the place where I made a "bad" choice and pick it up from there. I didn't have to necessarily start over; just start from where I needed to make a different choice. In life, we don't get that option. Each choice you make (well, the meaningful ones, anyway) impact your life in ways that are immediate *and* long-lasting.
For example, this past week, I had to make two such choices (well, I had to really only make one; but I had to think about making two).
Back in July, my knee began bothering me again. I was convinced I'd torn my meniscus. Now, I've gone through two surgeries -- they're not terrible; the recovery time is about a week (a few days off your feet, then a cane for support; within a week I was walking freely, albeit gingerly).
Over the past two months, the pain varied from intense to nearly insignificant. When I went to see the surgeon -- of course -- it was insignificant ... until the last visit. He gave me a steroid injection, and finally recommended surgery. He's not convinced it's the meniscus, but he's looking to perform something called microfracture surgery (which has been helpful for people). I've had to do a lot of debating about this .... there are times, even now, my knee feels okay; and other times where I need to take an anti-inflammatory. Even today, I'm still not 100 percent convinced I *want* to do the surgery (granted, the results in the link above don't entirely pertain to me; I don't put my body through the same rigors as a professional athlete ... my goal is simply to eventually be able to exercise, lose weight, and return to playing recreational basketball; something he seems to think is realistic). Still, the key was the surgeon said he didn't see any way it could make things worse (although, secretly, I'm still hoping he sees a meniscus tear as the cause of the problems).
Another related choice is the method of anesthesia -- the first time, because I have what's known as a 'difficult airway,' it took nearly an hour to intubate me. The second time, it was proposed that I go through the intubation while awake (something that isn't nearly as much fun as it sounds -- especially, when the amnesiac they give you doesn't actually work, and you remember every. single. moment.).
This time, the suggestion is an epidural, followed by conscious sedation (so, in other words, no intubation) -- there's numbness from the waist down; and there's a smaller amount of anesthesia (so you're more "napping" than "sleeping.") It still sounds semi-terrifying (but, then again, as we get older, and our misguided conceptions of immortality strip away, *every* surgery sounds terrifying).
The second "choice" I had to make was an even more difficult one (although, as I said, it stopped being a choice). My brother-in-law -- who works as a custodian in a school district -- heard of an opening at another school, and proposed it to me. He made very good points:
It's a compelling argument. On the negative side, it's a step away from what I've spent my entire career doing. It's not that it's *beneath* me (those who know me know I'm not particularly judgmental), it's just that, looking at it from the perspective of a hiring manager, it's a warning sign. If I were hiring someone to work for me (back when I was a magazine editor, for example), I wanted to see progressive experience in that field. A departure would certainly raise questions. I'd like to think the simple answer of, "it paid more than unemployment, and the shift enabled me to work while still pursuing a job in my field," would satisfy a potential hiring manager; but you never know.
So, I spent days thinking about the choice, and agonizing, going back and forth. Ultimately, it didn't matter. When my brother-in-law spoke to the contact, he learned the position had been filled already. In many ways, I was relieved, because it meant I didn't have to make the choice; although even that is misguided, because for all I know, the job could've been a dream job for me.
And, somewhat soberly, I realize, there really isn't a page I can go back to, to see where the "wrong" choice was made and start over.
Early on, I suspect these were intended as a moral test -- effectively, choose the "right" choice; get a reward; choose the wrong/immoral/unethical things, face the consequences. Eventually, they morphed into more arbitrary results -- so even choosing what seemed the right thing might end poorly; simply because the book's author wanted to make things less predictable (which, as a reader, can be disappointing, I'm sure; but, as an adult, makes total sense (i.e., things rarely go the way they should).
When I was in college, in a moment of self-awareness, I reflected on choices I'd made ... most notably, which college I was going to attend. I had been accepted to two, and my choice really came down to a gut-check. I thought, "if I had chosen the other college, I'd have never met the friends I've made here -- which I'll have for the rest of my life -- and I'd never have met my girlfriend; and my career choices would be different, etc." Of course, years later, the girlfriend is long gone; and of the many friends I made, there are but a few I speak with regularly.
The difference between life and the books is pretty stark. In the book, when I didn't like the way something turned out, I could just start over. Or, better still, I could just go back to the place where I made a "bad" choice and pick it up from there. I didn't have to necessarily start over; just start from where I needed to make a different choice. In life, we don't get that option. Each choice you make (well, the meaningful ones, anyway) impact your life in ways that are immediate *and* long-lasting.
For example, this past week, I had to make two such choices (well, I had to really only make one; but I had to think about making two).
Back in July, my knee began bothering me again. I was convinced I'd torn my meniscus. Now, I've gone through two surgeries -- they're not terrible; the recovery time is about a week (a few days off your feet, then a cane for support; within a week I was walking freely, albeit gingerly).
Over the past two months, the pain varied from intense to nearly insignificant. When I went to see the surgeon -- of course -- it was insignificant ... until the last visit. He gave me a steroid injection, and finally recommended surgery. He's not convinced it's the meniscus, but he's looking to perform something called microfracture surgery (which has been helpful for people). I've had to do a lot of debating about this .... there are times, even now, my knee feels okay; and other times where I need to take an anti-inflammatory. Even today, I'm still not 100 percent convinced I *want* to do the surgery (granted, the results in the link above don't entirely pertain to me; I don't put my body through the same rigors as a professional athlete ... my goal is simply to eventually be able to exercise, lose weight, and return to playing recreational basketball; something he seems to think is realistic). Still, the key was the surgeon said he didn't see any way it could make things worse (although, secretly, I'm still hoping he sees a meniscus tear as the cause of the problems).
Another related choice is the method of anesthesia -- the first time, because I have what's known as a 'difficult airway,' it took nearly an hour to intubate me. The second time, it was proposed that I go through the intubation while awake (something that isn't nearly as much fun as it sounds -- especially, when the amnesiac they give you doesn't actually work, and you remember every. single. moment.).
This time, the suggestion is an epidural, followed by conscious sedation (so, in other words, no intubation) -- there's numbness from the waist down; and there's a smaller amount of anesthesia (so you're more "napping" than "sleeping.") It still sounds semi-terrifying (but, then again, as we get older, and our misguided conceptions of immortality strip away, *every* surgery sounds terrifying).
The second "choice" I had to make was an even more difficult one (although, as I said, it stopped being a choice). My brother-in-law -- who works as a custodian in a school district -- heard of an opening at another school, and proposed it to me. He made very good points:
- It's pretty decent money
- It's pretty decent vacation time, etc.
- It's an evening shift (so, I could continue to look for jobs/interview/network during the day).
It's a compelling argument. On the negative side, it's a step away from what I've spent my entire career doing. It's not that it's *beneath* me (those who know me know I'm not particularly judgmental), it's just that, looking at it from the perspective of a hiring manager, it's a warning sign. If I were hiring someone to work for me (back when I was a magazine editor, for example), I wanted to see progressive experience in that field. A departure would certainly raise questions. I'd like to think the simple answer of, "it paid more than unemployment, and the shift enabled me to work while still pursuing a job in my field," would satisfy a potential hiring manager; but you never know.
So, I spent days thinking about the choice, and agonizing, going back and forth. Ultimately, it didn't matter. When my brother-in-law spoke to the contact, he learned the position had been filled already. In many ways, I was relieved, because it meant I didn't have to make the choice; although even that is misguided, because for all I know, the job could've been a dream job for me.
And, somewhat soberly, I realize, there really isn't a page I can go back to, to see where the "wrong" choice was made and start over.
Friday, September 6, 2013
And, the Winner is ... InoReader!
Way back when, I think -- sometime in March -- Google announced that they were pulling the plug on Google Reader, which was *the* prominent web-based reader for people who consumed content through RSS feeds.
In fact, when I found Google Reader, I stopped looking for alternatives. It did everything I wanted; there was no reason to look for anything else.
Then, they killed it off.
So, starting in March, I began researching new ways to read my content. I'm not a *power* user, in that I don't need a lot of features; but I knew what I did need:
And, really, that was it. Over the course of my research, I looked at close to 20 different web-based programs. I (like most people) started with Feedly, which met criteria #1 and #3, but #2 was difficult (to move feeds you had to enter another screen and manually move them from folder to folder; and alphabetizing within a folder was impossible). Feedly just released its "Pro" option, for $5/month, which gives you certain functions.
I also looked at The Old Reader, which definitely had its own issues (first, they had a rule that if you didn't sign in for nine days, your feeds would stop updating; then they decided to pull the plug entirely; then, they got an investment that allowed them to continue -- too volatile).
Along the way, I checked out CommaFeed, Newsvibe, AOL Reader, FeedRebel, Bloglovin, FlowReader, Feedspot, SwarmIQ, G2Reader, HiveMined and Digg Reader (which I was especially excited about). None had everything I was looking for (and, I still have a list of other apps to check out ... )
And then, I found InoReader.
By rights, this shouldn't have emerged as the top choice. It's a one-person shop, it's small ... it got *NO* attention in the days/months following. And yet, it's the most robust program I've seen. It has ALL the good features of Google Reader, plus some that Google Reader didn't have.
1. Regularly updated content -- yep; as frequently as once an hour for regularly updated sites; to as infrequently as every three days for sites that have had no movement in the past three months (I'd love for that latter schedule to be at least once a day, regardless; but this is a minor issue).
One aside, I *did* find, after first importing my feeds, that none were actually updating. I refreshed every feed individually, and that seems to have kick-started the process. The developer is aware of the issue, though.
2. Easy manipulation of folders *and* feeds -- yep, all drag and drop. When you want to create a new folder, set it up through the feed (add to new folder) and then, everything is drag and drop.
3. Order my folders -- yep, mine are in the same order as Google Reader
4. One-click integration -- this was vital, and it's why Digg isn't being written about here. With the RSS icon add-on enabled in Firefox, you can click on the icon on any page with a valid RSS feed and it will automatically subscribe you to that page and redirect you back to InoReader, so you can place the feed where you'd like. You don't have to copy XML urls. Even better -- there's a third-party app for the program that sits on your browser dashboard and shows you how many unread feeds you currently have!
5. Import/Export -- yep, got them both.
It also has full search of your subscriptions (something Google Reader also had; but which Feedly and Digg will be or are charging for). And, it's fully social media-enabled. If I see an interesting post, I can just click "send to" and my choice of social media sites is available. I can send it to my timeline (in Facebook) or to a friend's.
I'm well aware, after Google's premature ending of Reader, that nothing is guaranteed forever, and that's why I've still kept all my bookmarks for alternatives (and, it's why it's imperative that the program allow an export of my feeds); but, I'm not actively looking for another reader. At this point, InoReader has everything -- and then some -- of what I wanted.
If you want help in setting it up, feel free to reach out to me, and I can walk you through the steps. I'll also be using this program in my future Internet Job Search presentations.
In fact, when I found Google Reader, I stopped looking for alternatives. It did everything I wanted; there was no reason to look for anything else.
Then, they killed it off.
So, starting in March, I began researching new ways to read my content. I'm not a *power* user, in that I don't need a lot of features; but I knew what I did need:
- Regularly updated content
- Easy manipulation of folders *and* feeds
- Ability to order my folders in my order (not only-alpha)
- One-click integration
- Ability to import (and export) OPML feeds (so I could import my Google Reader stuff; and I can export if I choose to go elsewhere).
And, really, that was it. Over the course of my research, I looked at close to 20 different web-based programs. I (like most people) started with Feedly, which met criteria #1 and #3, but #2 was difficult (to move feeds you had to enter another screen and manually move them from folder to folder; and alphabetizing within a folder was impossible). Feedly just released its "Pro" option, for $5/month, which gives you certain functions.
I also looked at The Old Reader, which definitely had its own issues (first, they had a rule that if you didn't sign in for nine days, your feeds would stop updating; then they decided to pull the plug entirely; then, they got an investment that allowed them to continue -- too volatile).
Along the way, I checked out CommaFeed, Newsvibe, AOL Reader, FeedRebel, Bloglovin, FlowReader, Feedspot, SwarmIQ, G2Reader, HiveMined and Digg Reader (which I was especially excited about). None had everything I was looking for (and, I still have a list of other apps to check out ... )
And then, I found InoReader.
By rights, this shouldn't have emerged as the top choice. It's a one-person shop, it's small ... it got *NO* attention in the days/months following. And yet, it's the most robust program I've seen. It has ALL the good features of Google Reader, plus some that Google Reader didn't have.
1. Regularly updated content -- yep; as frequently as once an hour for regularly updated sites; to as infrequently as every three days for sites that have had no movement in the past three months (I'd love for that latter schedule to be at least once a day, regardless; but this is a minor issue).
One aside, I *did* find, after first importing my feeds, that none were actually updating. I refreshed every feed individually, and that seems to have kick-started the process. The developer is aware of the issue, though.
2. Easy manipulation of folders *and* feeds -- yep, all drag and drop. When you want to create a new folder, set it up through the feed (add to new folder) and then, everything is drag and drop.
3. Order my folders -- yep, mine are in the same order as Google Reader
4. One-click integration -- this was vital, and it's why Digg isn't being written about here. With the RSS icon add-on enabled in Firefox, you can click on the icon on any page with a valid RSS feed and it will automatically subscribe you to that page and redirect you back to InoReader, so you can place the feed where you'd like. You don't have to copy XML urls. Even better -- there's a third-party app for the program that sits on your browser dashboard and shows you how many unread feeds you currently have!
5. Import/Export -- yep, got them both.
It also has full search of your subscriptions (something Google Reader also had; but which Feedly and Digg will be or are charging for). And, it's fully social media-enabled. If I see an interesting post, I can just click "send to" and my choice of social media sites is available. I can send it to my timeline (in Facebook) or to a friend's.
I'm well aware, after Google's premature ending of Reader, that nothing is guaranteed forever, and that's why I've still kept all my bookmarks for alternatives (and, it's why it's imperative that the program allow an export of my feeds); but, I'm not actively looking for another reader. At this point, InoReader has everything -- and then some -- of what I wanted.
If you want help in setting it up, feel free to reach out to me, and I can walk you through the steps. I'll also be using this program in my future Internet Job Search presentations.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
A Blow-Your-Mind Example of Poor Customer Service
So, it's been a while since I've blogged, and I will have a bunch to share in the coming weeks.
I wanted to call attention to what I might consider the *worst* customer service I've ever witnessed. If I polled 100 business owners and asked, "if you could keep a loyal customer (who's been with you for 10+ years) and it'll cost you $100 -- would you do it? You might think 100 would say "Absolutely!" But, I now know, for a fact, there's at least one that won't.
Last year, my wife and I were shopping for new vehicles. We had decided to stick with Hyundai, since they'd been good to us so far. We shopped at a few different dealerships, including Mid-Island Hyundai (in Centereach), where we had purchased our last three Hyundais (although, at the time, they were known as Hustedt Hyundai ... they were subsequently purchased by Atlantic Auto Group.
We ended up buying the vehicles from Atlantic Hyundai, because, quite honestly, they blew everyone out of the water on price (same vehicles, and they came out about $50-55 per month, less than any other dealer).
About 8-9 months after purchasing the vehicles, the key fobs for my wife's car (which had the remote start installed by Hyundai), began cracking ... mine started disintegrating first; and then her's started developing the same cracks. I emailed the sales rep to see what we could do (because, after all, I have to imagine that with a company as keen on service and warranty as Hyundai, the fact that the fobs just disintegrated *had* to be covered under warranty.
I went back and forth with the rep for a while (he kept saying he'd follow up; but, truth be told, I wasn't pushing the issue a lot). Then, in July, the fob on my key chain just gave up and all the pieces came tumbling out. I finally called the rep, and he said, "Definitely a warranty issue" and they'd replace them. He asked if I went to their location often, and I said I didn't, but that I usually visited Mid-Island. He said that would be fine -- all related and I'd get the same service there. If I had any issues, call him.
So, I made my appointment with Mid-Island for last weekend, Saturday, for an oil change and key fobs. Arrived early for my appointment (which, apparently, they never actually entered into the system) and told the rep (Therese) what I needed. I also told her I'd be back later than service was open, so please just leave the new keys at the front reception desk. She told me she'd call me when the work was completed.
I never heard from her.
I arrived at the dealer around 6:30pm, and lo-and-behold, the keys were at the front desk; but not the new fobs ... just the old ones. The receptionist brought over the sales manager (Mike), who pointed out to me, on the receipt, that the keys were not covered under warranty, and would be $75 each, with $57.50 in labor (so, a total of approximately $200).
I asked why no one had called (especially when they had told me they would) -- obviously, I would've directed them to Atlantic Hyundai to figure everything out. He didn't know. Apparently, even if Mid Island isn't able to perform the work, it's not customary for them to inform the customer. The customer only learns when he returns to pick up the vehicle (this is like ordering a dinner in a restaurant, and when the food comes out for the rest of the party, you don't get a plate. When you question it, the waitress says, 'oh, we ran out of that.')
When I told him that Atlantic said the parts *were* covered under warranty, he said, "So, go to Atlantic!" I explained I would've had the oil change done there too -- I didn't need to be without the car for two days, and -- since they had been servicing my cars for 10+ years, I thought it made sense to go there. He then proceeded to state that -- in his opinion -- the parts weren't covered, but, rather, Atlantic was going the extra mile for me, because I'd bought two cars from them.
I explained to him that I wouldn't be back, and that I'd be blogging about my experience. He asked me to hold off until Monday, so he could speak to his service manager (Tom) and rectify the situation. I agreed.
The next day, for some inexplicable reason, the car started honking. No pattern, and no consistency, just random, sporadic bursts of honking. This had never happened before; it only happened after the car was in the *care* of Mid Island Hyundai. My wife called and left a message and I called back and got Mike on the phone. His recommendation to me was to disconnect the battery -- of course, this would render the car un-driveable, but, no worries; I'm sure the next morning my wife could get up, reconnect the battery and park her non-stop honking car in the parking lot of her hospital.
He recommended I contact Hyundai Roadside Assistance, who said they could tow the vehicle to the dealer; but I'd still be out a car. I called him back to see if he had a loaner car -- no such luck.
I called Atlantic -- just to see what they could do; and I spoke to a sales manager, Russ. I explained the situation. He seemed appalled by Mid-Island's responses; and said he would take care of me
I then contacted Corporate Hyundai, to inquire if they really expected their franchises to respond in the way Mid Island had responded (telling me to go somewhere else and that the only reason another dealer was willing to perform the work was because *they* had sold be the vehicles). I explained that brand awareness was such that, even though this was a franchise's actions, it still reflected back on the parent. And, while I knew they couldn't *tell* their franchises what to do; they certainly had the power to not permit a franchise to sell their vehicles any longer.
Corporate was even more appalled than Atlantic. They were incredulous that over -- what was $200 out of my pocket (and, almost certainly less cost to Mid Island) the dealer was willing to lose a customer (and potentially many more, depending on the reach of this blog). They viewed my 10 years of service history as supreme loyalty.
And my car kept honking.
Monday morning, Mike called from Mid Island, and said he had spoken to Tom, and they (Mid Island) would be willing to do the work if Atlantic paid them (this, apparently, constituted "taking care of me" -- "If *someone* pays us, we'll do it"... great). He told me he had left a message with Russ at Atlantic, and he (Mike) would get back to me that day. Car still honking.
That afternoon, a service adviser from Atlantic called on behalf of Russ, and said they would need to see the key fobs first (now, I started getting a little worried; since I already had verbal confirmation from the sales rep that the fobs would be covered). I told them I'd be in the next morning and I called the sales rep to fill him in on the situation, and ensure he'd be there in the morning.
I got there, went to service. The adviser took the keys to the service manager who said, "replace them, and run them through as a warranty item." Basically, everything they said they would do. The entire situation took about 10 minutes. The service manager said, point blank, that he was amazed that over such a little expense (somewhere between $100-200, of *their* cost), Mid Island would lose a 10-year customer.
I called Mid Island back to speak with Mike -- told him I was being taken care of by Atlantic. He said he hadn't gotten a call back from them; I told him I didn't think he would get one ...that the reactions I'd gotten from Atlantic (and corporate) led me to believe they saw no point in interacting with Mid Island.
A wise man once told me that businesses can excel in three things: Price, Product and Service. They can't do all three and remain profitable.
In the case of Mid Island (versus other Hyundai dealers) -- the product is the same at all dealers (a Santa Fe is a Santa Fe is a Santa Fe). The price is competitive; but as evidenced by the end result, Mid Island still can't compete with Atlantic on price. So that leaves service, and -- after this ordeal, I guess Mid Island has made the conscious choice to not excel in *any* of the three areas.
PS - I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like, you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed resistant among you -- I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you can be updated via email whenever a new post is made!
PS - I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like, you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed resistant among us, I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you can be updated via email whenever a new post is made! - See more at: http://cpalermo21.blogspot.com/#sthash.5zRMYBCr.dpuf
I wanted to call attention to what I might consider the *worst* customer service I've ever witnessed. If I polled 100 business owners and asked, "if you could keep a loyal customer (who's been with you for 10+ years) and it'll cost you $100 -- would you do it? You might think 100 would say "Absolutely!" But, I now know, for a fact, there's at least one that won't.
Last year, my wife and I were shopping for new vehicles. We had decided to stick with Hyundai, since they'd been good to us so far. We shopped at a few different dealerships, including Mid-Island Hyundai (in Centereach), where we had purchased our last three Hyundais (although, at the time, they were known as Hustedt Hyundai ... they were subsequently purchased by Atlantic Auto Group.
We ended up buying the vehicles from Atlantic Hyundai, because, quite honestly, they blew everyone out of the water on price (same vehicles, and they came out about $50-55 per month, less than any other dealer).
About 8-9 months after purchasing the vehicles, the key fobs for my wife's car (which had the remote start installed by Hyundai), began cracking ... mine started disintegrating first; and then her's started developing the same cracks. I emailed the sales rep to see what we could do (because, after all, I have to imagine that with a company as keen on service and warranty as Hyundai, the fact that the fobs just disintegrated *had* to be covered under warranty.
I went back and forth with the rep for a while (he kept saying he'd follow up; but, truth be told, I wasn't pushing the issue a lot). Then, in July, the fob on my key chain just gave up and all the pieces came tumbling out. I finally called the rep, and he said, "Definitely a warranty issue" and they'd replace them. He asked if I went to their location often, and I said I didn't, but that I usually visited Mid-Island. He said that would be fine -- all related and I'd get the same service there. If I had any issues, call him.
So, I made my appointment with Mid-Island for last weekend, Saturday, for an oil change and key fobs. Arrived early for my appointment (which, apparently, they never actually entered into the system
I never heard from her.
I arrived at the dealer around 6:30pm, and lo-and-behold, the keys were at the front desk; but not the new fobs ... just the old ones. The receptionist brought over the sales manager (Mike), who pointed out to me, on the receipt, that the keys were not covered under warranty, and would be $75 each, with $57.50 in labor (so, a total of approximately $200).
I asked why no one had called (especially when they had told me they would) -- obviously, I would've directed them to Atlantic Hyundai to figure everything out. He didn't know. Apparently, even if Mid Island isn't able to perform the work, it's not customary for them to inform the customer. The customer only learns when he returns to pick up the vehicle (this is like ordering a dinner in a restaurant, and when the food comes out for the rest of the party, you don't get a plate. When you question it, the waitress says, 'oh, we ran out of that.')
When I told him that Atlantic said the parts *were* covered under warranty, he said, "So, go to Atlantic!" I explained I would've had the oil change done there too -- I didn't need to be without the car for two days, and -- since they had been servicing my cars for 10+ years, I thought it made sense to go there. He then proceeded to state that -- in his opinion -- the parts weren't covered, but, rather, Atlantic was going the extra mile for me, because I'd bought two cars from them.
I explained to him that I wouldn't be back, and that I'd be blogging about my experience. He asked me to hold off until Monday, so he could speak to his service manager (Tom) and rectify the situation. I agreed.
The next day, for some inexplicable reason, the car started honking. No pattern, and no consistency, just random, sporadic bursts of honking. This had never happened before; it only happened after the car was in the *care* of Mid Island Hyundai. My wife called and left a message and I called back and got Mike on the phone. His recommendation to me was to disconnect the battery -- of course, this would render the car un-driveable, but, no worries; I'm sure the next morning my wife could get up, reconnect the battery and park her non-stop honking car in the parking lot of her hospital.
He recommended I contact Hyundai Roadside Assistance, who said they could tow the vehicle to the dealer; but I'd still be out a car. I called him back to see if he had a loaner car -- no such luck.
I called Atlantic -- just to see what they could do; and I spoke to a sales manager, Russ. I explained the situation. He seemed appalled by Mid-Island's responses; and said he would take care of me
I then contacted Corporate Hyundai, to inquire if they really expected their franchises to respond in the way Mid Island had responded (telling me to go somewhere else and that the only reason another dealer was willing to perform the work was because *they* had sold be the vehicles). I explained that brand awareness was such that, even though this was a franchise's actions, it still reflected back on the parent. And, while I knew they couldn't *tell* their franchises what to do; they certainly had the power to not permit a franchise to sell their vehicles any longer.
Corporate was even more appalled than Atlantic. They were incredulous that over -- what was $200 out of my pocket (and, almost certainly less cost to Mid Island) the dealer was willing to lose a customer (and potentially many more, depending on the reach of this blog). They viewed my 10 years of service history as supreme loyalty.
And my car kept honking.
Monday morning, Mike called from Mid Island, and said he had spoken to Tom, and they (Mid Island) would be willing to do the work if Atlantic paid them (this, apparently, constituted "taking care of me" -- "If *someone* pays us, we'll do it"... great). He told me he had left a message with Russ at Atlantic, and he (Mike) would get back to me that day. Car still honking.
That afternoon, a service adviser from Atlantic called on behalf of Russ, and said they would need to see the key fobs first (now, I started getting a little worried; since I already had verbal confirmation from the sales rep that the fobs would be covered). I told them I'd be in the next morning and I called the sales rep to fill him in on the situation, and ensure he'd be there in the morning.
I got there, went to service. The adviser took the keys to the service manager who said, "replace them, and run them through as a warranty item." Basically, everything they said they would do. The entire situation took about 10 minutes. The service manager said, point blank, that he was amazed that over such a little expense (somewhere between $100-200, of *their* cost), Mid Island would lose a 10-year customer.
I called Mid Island back to speak with Mike -- told him I was being taken care of by Atlantic. He said he hadn't gotten a call back from them; I told him I didn't think he would get one ...that the reactions I'd gotten from Atlantic (and corporate) led me to believe they saw no point in interacting with Mid Island.
A wise man once told me that businesses can excel in three things: Price, Product and Service. They can't do all three and remain profitable.
In the case of Mid Island (versus other Hyundai dealers) -- the product is the same at all dealers (a Santa Fe is a Santa Fe is a Santa Fe). The price is competitive; but as evidenced by the end result, Mid Island still can't compete with Atlantic on price. So that leaves service, and -- after this ordeal, I guess Mid Island has made the conscious choice to not excel in *any* of the three areas.
PS - I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like, you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed resistant among you -- I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you can be updated via email whenever a new post is made!
PS
- I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like,
you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed
resistant among us, I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you
can be updated via email whenever a new post is made!
- See more at: http://cpalermo21.blogspot.com/#sthash.gps0cCPN.dpuf
PS
- I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like,
you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed
resistant among us, I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you
can be updated via email whenever a new post is made!
- See more at: http://cpalermo21.blogspot.com/#sthash.gps0cCPN.dpuf
PS - I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like, you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed resistant among us, I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you can be updated via email whenever a new post is made! - See more at: http://cpalermo21.blogspot.com/#sthash.5zRMYBCr.dpuf
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Lemonade from Lemons (Responding to the ol' Bait-N-Switch)
I try not to post too much "negative" stuff here, for a variety of reasons: 1 - I believe positivity breeds positivity; and 2 - as someone else recently told me, it's enough for people to know I'm unemployed; I don't need to drive it home with negative stories.
But, despite that, I see this next story as having a positive outcome (on two levels) despite the fact that it was among the most appalling situations I've ever seen.
I had submitted an application as a director of communications to a NYC-based non-profit; one I was exceptionally excited about. I'm always wary of non-profits, because salary isn't usually consistent with the corporate world's titles; but the mission of this non-profit -- educational reform -- was something I found particularly near-and-dear.
Like many applications, I didn't hear anything -- something I've come to expect; although, I do have plans to revisit many of these organizations in August, in a more ambitious marketing campaign (where I'll be marketing myself). In any event, then, last week, I got an email from the organization. They were going to be having a "recruiting open house" this past Tuesday -- the founders of the organization would be there. The email identified me as "as a highly qualified candidate for one of their open roles."
I had two quick reactions to this. First - I thought I should reach out to them and ensure it was "worth my while" to attend; second - I thought this was an amazing, innovative and unique opportunity (although, if multiple people were attending for the same role, it's a little 'gladiator'-like.
I then decided, the OLD Chris would call first; the NEW Chris would just show up, full of confidence, basically saying, "of course it's worth my while; because I'm clearly the best candidate for this role. And, thank you for noticing!"
I hopped on the website, printed out the job description for the director of communications and headed into NYC: $26 in train fare, and about six hours of my life (between train and event).
I arrived and made my way to the 11th floor. The elevator opened and I saw -- maybe -- about 40 people there. Not too many; but still more than I would've liked. I signed in and saw about 15 percent of the people had "communications" listed as their profession. Again, my confidence was strong. I knew I belonged there.
The founder (maybe 23-24 years old?) went through a brief synopsis of the organization and its beginnings; and then she introduced the interim director of talent to go through the open roles. One of those roles was a director of talent (because the current one has a full-time consulting gig; and was only 'helping' out here). She also discussed the director of finance, director of operations and the communications coordinator.
Huh?
So, after the intros, I headed to the founder. Introduced myself; gave a brief synopsis about my background, and explained I was there for the director of communications role (assuming the current director was -- like the talent director -- interim only).
"Oh, yes, we filled that position five days ago." she says. "Well, it's still on your site, as of today?" I inquired. "Yeah, we haven't had a chance to take it down."
I then asked, why was I even invited? Oh, well, we have the coordinator role that we think some of our candidates would be great fits for.
Wow.
I made my way to the talent director; because I wanted to speak with her (since she also works elsewhere). And relayed my story -- I even told her about my initial apprehension in coming, but, "Of course the role would still be open!" I said. "Why would an organization invite people to an event for a role that's not longer available? That would be appalling and complete organizational failure."
Even with this, I still took some positives from last evening. First, that I even just went, without couching my expectations first. Sure, it backfired; but it's still a sea change for me to do something like that.
In addition, I made a great contact. I noticed a gentleman with his own name badge there. His badge identified him as a communications professional; and the look on his face was exactly how I felt (although, I suspect I'm a better poker player, since I wasn't quite as evident!). When I spoke with him, my presumptions were confirmed -- like me, he had applied for the director role; his pedigree is probably even more impressive than my own. In no way would he be able (or willing) to take on a coordinator role.
We talked for a while there (and on the way back to Penn Station), and I think he'll become an outstanding connection. He has some great skills (in terms of job-seeking) as do I, and we figured we'd swap our 'systems' to help each other out. He also recommended I look into publishing my job-seeking system as an eBook, which could potentially help bring in some cash flow.
It's an interesting time for me. For some reason, I'm still *amazingly* positive; but I'm also completely undecided in what makes the most sense. My networking meetings have gone exceptionally well (and I still have many, many more to do).
Only one person, so far, has shown any resistance to meeting (which is incredibly odd, in my opinion); although many haven't responded yet. Fear not; if you're one of the ones who hasn't responded, you'll be getting another invitation from me in a few weeks!
But, the advice I've received has been all over the place. I guess that's what advice is ... it's up to the individual to parse it out and decide what makes sense.
I've been advised to:
And, this is only after a handful of networking meetings! The career coach is an exceptionally intriguing concept. I *love* helping people figure out what they want to do. I've created systems that are hands-on and practical (and not simply inspiring or general). And, I write a pretty damned good resume. In fact, my own resume will undergo a *massive* change, based on advice I've received from people so far.
Most importantly, I'm still positive. I know - even if I keep on my path - I have a good road ahead of me, with some really good ideas. I know I'm not looking for a 'job,' but for a career. And, I know the efforts I'm expending *will* pay off. I haven't always been positive this time around (unlike the last time, where I was almost exclusively positive), but I feel my old self coming back. I'm helping people, connecting people and making great connections myself. And, it only takes one ...
PS - I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like, you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed resistant among us, I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you can be updated via email whenever a new post is made!
But, despite that, I see this next story as having a positive outcome (on two levels) despite the fact that it was among the most appalling situations I've ever seen.
I had submitted an application as a director of communications to a NYC-based non-profit; one I was exceptionally excited about. I'm always wary of non-profits, because salary isn't usually consistent with the corporate world's titles; but the mission of this non-profit -- educational reform -- was something I found particularly near-and-dear.
Like many applications, I didn't hear anything -- something I've come to expect; although, I do have plans to revisit many of these organizations in August, in a more ambitious marketing campaign (where I'll be marketing myself). In any event, then, last week, I got an email from the organization. They were going to be having a "recruiting open house" this past Tuesday -- the founders of the organization would be there. The email identified me as "as a highly qualified candidate for one of their open roles."
I had two quick reactions to this. First - I thought I should reach out to them and ensure it was "worth my while" to attend; second - I thought this was an amazing, innovative and unique opportunity (although, if multiple people were attending for the same role, it's a little 'gladiator'-like.
I then decided, the OLD Chris would call first; the NEW Chris would just show up, full of confidence, basically saying, "of course it's worth my while; because I'm clearly the best candidate for this role. And, thank you for noticing!"
I hopped on the website, printed out the job description for the director of communications and headed into NYC: $26 in train fare, and about six hours of my life (between train and event).
I arrived and made my way to the 11th floor. The elevator opened and I saw -- maybe -- about 40 people there. Not too many; but still more than I would've liked. I signed in and saw about 15 percent of the people had "communications" listed as their profession. Again, my confidence was strong. I knew I belonged there.
The founder (maybe 23-24 years old?) went through a brief synopsis of the organization and its beginnings; and then she introduced the interim director of talent to go through the open roles. One of those roles was a director of talent (because the current one has a full-time consulting gig; and was only 'helping' out here). She also discussed the director of finance, director of operations and the communications coordinator.
Huh?
So, after the intros, I headed to the founder. Introduced myself; gave a brief synopsis about my background, and explained I was there for the director of communications role (assuming the current director was -- like the talent director -- interim only).
"Oh, yes, we filled that position five days ago." she says. "Well, it's still on your site, as of today?" I inquired. "Yeah, we haven't had a chance to take it down."
I then asked, why was I even invited? Oh, well, we have the coordinator role that we think some of our candidates would be great fits for.
Wow.
I made my way to the talent director; because I wanted to speak with her (since she also works elsewhere). And relayed my story -- I even told her about my initial apprehension in coming, but, "Of course the role would still be open!" I said. "Why would an organization invite people to an event for a role that's not longer available? That would be appalling and complete organizational failure."
Even with this, I still took some positives from last evening. First, that I even just went, without couching my expectations first. Sure, it backfired; but it's still a sea change for me to do something like that.
In addition, I made a great contact. I noticed a gentleman with his own name badge there. His badge identified him as a communications professional; and the look on his face was exactly how I felt (although, I suspect I'm a better poker player, since I wasn't quite as evident!). When I spoke with him, my presumptions were confirmed -- like me, he had applied for the director role; his pedigree is probably even more impressive than my own. In no way would he be able (or willing) to take on a coordinator role.
We talked for a while there (and on the way back to Penn Station), and I think he'll become an outstanding connection. He has some great skills (in terms of job-seeking) as do I, and we figured we'd swap our 'systems' to help each other out. He also recommended I look into publishing my job-seeking system as an eBook, which could potentially help bring in some cash flow.
It's an interesting time for me. For some reason, I'm still *amazingly* positive; but I'm also completely undecided in what makes the most sense. My networking meetings have gone exceptionally well (and I still have many, many more to do).
Only one person, so far, has shown any resistance to meeting (which is incredibly odd, in my opinion); although many haven't responded yet. Fear not; if you're one of the ones who hasn't responded, you'll be getting another invitation from me in a few weeks!
But, the advice I've received has been all over the place. I guess that's what advice is ... it's up to the individual to parse it out and decide what makes sense.
I've been advised to:
- Start my own company as an internal communications consultant
- Partner with a friend to offer my services in conjunction with hers
- Become a career coach
- Publish eBooks on my job-seeking systems
And, this is only after a handful of networking meetings! The career coach is an exceptionally intriguing concept. I *love* helping people figure out what they want to do. I've created systems that are hands-on and practical (and not simply inspiring or general). And, I write a pretty damned good resume. In fact, my own resume will undergo a *massive* change, based on advice I've received from people so far.
Most importantly, I'm still positive. I know - even if I keep on my path - I have a good road ahead of me, with some really good ideas. I know I'm not looking for a 'job,' but for a career. And, I know the efforts I'm expending *will* pay off. I haven't always been positive this time around (unlike the last time, where I was almost exclusively positive), but I feel my old self coming back. I'm helping people, connecting people and making great connections myself. And, it only takes one ...
PS - I've now added "share" buttons (so, if you read something you like, you can share it on various social media sites) and -- for the RSS-feed resistant among us, I've now added a "subscribe via email" form, so you can be updated via email whenever a new post is made!
Monday, June 24, 2013
New Readers and Upcoming Highlights
In the past two weeks, this blog has really gotten some legs, apparently. People in my network have been sharing the posts and I've gotten a lot of new readers.
It's tempting to say blogs are already passe; but the truth is, there are very few channels that allow for such long form conversation *and* interaction (especially in this day of Twitter, where messages fly back and forth rapid fire, but with no more than 140 characters).
So, if you're a new reader -- welcome. This blog has gone through a lot of iterations. It's focused on jobseeking, customer service, guitar solos and American Idol voting. But, it's always been true to the title of the blog.
Now -- following a blog isn't that tough (but it will be tough for the next week or so). For those who don't know, blogs use a subscription service (known as RSS), which enable individuals to subscribe to content and have it delivered to them (almost like email, but less intrusively).
One of the reasons I chose this platform is because the RSS engine is built in; so -- in your browser, if you want to stay current, simply subscribe to the RSS feed, and each time I post something, you'll know about it.
The reason I say it'll be a little touch-and-go for the next week is that the RSS world is undergoing some massive changes. The leader -- Google Reader -- is being retired next Monday; and a host of new replacements (all with some positive and negative characteristics, in comparison) are waiting to take over. I've been doing a lot of research on this (because I use RSS feeds pretty heavily to keep up with internet content), and almost certainly, my next post (this week) will consist of my findings and my recommendation for a replacement.
In the meantime, if you're new -- look around; kick the tires ... you can skip most of April and May's posts (which dealt with an ambitious guitar solo tournament). Interestingly, this morning, I was thinking I should do something special for my 100th post (and then, I realized my 100th post had come and gone already). Terrified, I wanted to ensure it wasn't something like the third round of the guitar solo tournament; but it wasn't. Instead, it was a piece bemoaning the fact that I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. If you're new -- and all you've read are the past two posts (on networking and LinkedIn), that 100th post is a good place to start.
Welcome, again!
It's tempting to say blogs are already passe; but the truth is, there are very few channels that allow for such long form conversation *and* interaction (especially in this day of Twitter, where messages fly back and forth rapid fire, but with no more than 140 characters).
So, if you're a new reader -- welcome. This blog has gone through a lot of iterations. It's focused on jobseeking, customer service, guitar solos and American Idol voting. But, it's always been true to the title of the blog.
Now -- following a blog isn't that tough (but it will be tough for the next week or so). For those who don't know, blogs use a subscription service (known as RSS), which enable individuals to subscribe to content and have it delivered to them (almost like email, but less intrusively).
One of the reasons I chose this platform is because the RSS engine is built in; so -- in your browser, if you want to stay current, simply subscribe to the RSS feed, and each time I post something, you'll know about it.
The reason I say it'll be a little touch-and-go for the next week is that the RSS world is undergoing some massive changes. The leader -- Google Reader -- is being retired next Monday; and a host of new replacements (all with some positive and negative characteristics, in comparison) are waiting to take over. I've been doing a lot of research on this (because I use RSS feeds pretty heavily to keep up with internet content), and almost certainly, my next post (this week) will consist of my findings and my recommendation for a replacement.
In the meantime, if you're new -- look around; kick the tires ... you can skip most of April and May's posts (which dealt with an ambitious guitar solo tournament). Interestingly, this morning, I was thinking I should do something special for my 100th post (and then, I realized my 100th post had come and gone already). Terrified, I wanted to ensure it wasn't something like the third round of the guitar solo tournament; but it wasn't. Instead, it was a piece bemoaning the fact that I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. If you're new -- and all you've read are the past two posts (on networking and LinkedIn), that 100th post is a good place to start.
Welcome, again!
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Why Do You Have So Many LinkedIn Connections? (aka, The Art of the Referral)
Most job seekers know it's important to be active on LinkedIn. The networking site provides a wealth of information and opportunity (that is valuable all the time, but especially when you're in the market for a new job).
But, I think some people don't really know how to use it effectively.
Let me preface this, by saying - this doesn't apply to recruiters. Recruiters have a different purpose on LinkedIn, and they need to be able to see as many full profiles as they can. Because of LinkedIn's policies (that you can only see full profiles of your second degree connections), it's nearly imperative that recruiters make as many connections as they can; so they can better see full profiles of potential candidates.
Everyone else, though, I think is missing the boat.
Each week, when I send out resumes, I head to LinkedIn to check out which companies I may be connected to. I'm only looking at second-degree connections -- that indicates someone who shares a mutual connection with me. I'll then email my connection and ask them if they wouldn't mind recommending me to their connection.
A lot of times, I get back a response of, "Yeah, I don't really know that person."
And, this confuses me. Why would you be connected to someone that you don't really know? And, far more importantly, what's the purpose overall? You're certainly not getting anything out of that relationship.
Last week, I went through my LinkedIn connections. I have more than 500. Some I realized were recruiters -- those are necessary, even though I don't know them as well. I need to see when they're posting jobs. The remainder were people I knew well, and people I didn't know well. Rather than chalking up the people I didn't know well, I emailed them, one-by-one. I said, "We don't know each other very well; and that should change. We're connected on LinkedIn (I don't always remember who reached out to whom), but, in all honesty, if we don't form a relationship, the connection is useless. For me, right now, I'm looking for work. I don't expect you to have a position for me; but it's far more likely you'll know someone who might. And, I cannot expect you to recommend me, if you don't actually know me."
Some have responded already, and I've had a handful of sitdowns and phone conversations. To me, this is more valuable than "growing" my network; I'm fortifying it.
And, I think my connections recognize this value as well -- after all, what purpose do I have to them, if I don't know them really well? So, it's win/win.
I'm not someone who gets into having thousands and thousands of connections. I'd far rather have 500 really strong connections who have strong bonds with their connections. By extension, *I* have strong bonds (because, a connection who's willing to recommend you is someone that can be that vital liaison for you).
And that brings us to the referral.
My last post discussed the need for a networking wingman, and, in truth, a referral/recommendation is just an extension of that. Honestly, if you were looking to hire someone, which approach would impress you more?
1 - a candidate approaches you at a networking event (or online) and tells you he's awesome and you should really get to know him, because he'll help out your business, immensely.
2 - someone you trust approaches you at a networking event (or online) and tells you about an awesome individual you should get to know, because he'll help out your business, immensely.
If anyone DIDN'T say #2, I'd be amazed. We trust the people we trust, and we expect them to give us good advice (and we're more willing to take a chance on their advice). The same candidate (as above) is perceived differently, depending upon the way they're introduced.
So, when I ask people to make the referral for me, I'm basically asking them to do something I'd be happy to do for them.
"Hi Bob, so a friend of mine is really interested in working with your company. He's an award-winning communications executive, and he's got a great track record of helping companies reach goals -- both internally (he's increased employee engagement and morale and trust) and externally through press releases, getting his companies more well-known. He's bright, he immerses himself in the company (so he can be even more useful than just in communications functions -- he's worked in organization development and efficiencies) and he's been a valued and trusted confidant to the CEO of a company. Maybe even as importantly, he's friendly and really funny ... he's a great fit for your organization."
And, Bob, is almost certainly going to want to meet me, because *his* trusted friend/source/colleague has just done the most awesome networking wingman/referral one could hope for.
Think about your own contacts on LinkedIn, and then ask yourself -- which of your connections could you writing something like that about? And, which of your connections could you send that referral to? Because, if you can't write about a connection and you don't know a connection well enough to make the referral, why are they a connection? I don't care if you have 13,000 connections -- I'll always take the 500 quality connections.
And, if *I'M* connected to you, and you don't feel comfortable writing something like that about me; reach out to me. We clearly need to "fortify" our LinkedIn relationship.
But, I think some people don't really know how to use it effectively.
Let me preface this, by saying - this doesn't apply to recruiters. Recruiters have a different purpose on LinkedIn, and they need to be able to see as many full profiles as they can. Because of LinkedIn's policies (that you can only see full profiles of your second degree connections), it's nearly imperative that recruiters make as many connections as they can; so they can better see full profiles of potential candidates.
Everyone else, though, I think is missing the boat.
Each week, when I send out resumes, I head to LinkedIn to check out which companies I may be connected to. I'm only looking at second-degree connections -- that indicates someone who shares a mutual connection with me. I'll then email my connection and ask them if they wouldn't mind recommending me to their connection.
A lot of times, I get back a response of, "Yeah, I don't really know that person."
And, this confuses me. Why would you be connected to someone that you don't really know? And, far more importantly, what's the purpose overall? You're certainly not getting anything out of that relationship.
Last week, I went through my LinkedIn connections. I have more than 500. Some I realized were recruiters -- those are necessary, even though I don't know them as well. I need to see when they're posting jobs. The remainder were people I knew well, and people I didn't know well. Rather than chalking up the people I didn't know well, I emailed them, one-by-one. I said, "We don't know each other very well; and that should change. We're connected on LinkedIn (I don't always remember who reached out to whom), but, in all honesty, if we don't form a relationship, the connection is useless. For me, right now, I'm looking for work. I don't expect you to have a position for me; but it's far more likely you'll know someone who might. And, I cannot expect you to recommend me, if you don't actually know me."
Some have responded already, and I've had a handful of sitdowns and phone conversations. To me, this is more valuable than "growing" my network; I'm fortifying it.
And, I think my connections recognize this value as well -- after all, what purpose do I have to them, if I don't know them really well? So, it's win/win.
I'm not someone who gets into having thousands and thousands of connections. I'd far rather have 500 really strong connections who have strong bonds with their connections. By extension, *I* have strong bonds (because, a connection who's willing to recommend you is someone that can be that vital liaison for you).
And that brings us to the referral.
My last post discussed the need for a networking wingman, and, in truth, a referral/recommendation is just an extension of that. Honestly, if you were looking to hire someone, which approach would impress you more?
1 - a candidate approaches you at a networking event (or online) and tells you he's awesome and you should really get to know him, because he'll help out your business, immensely.
2 - someone you trust approaches you at a networking event (or online) and tells you about an awesome individual you should get to know, because he'll help out your business, immensely.
If anyone DIDN'T say #2, I'd be amazed. We trust the people we trust, and we expect them to give us good advice (and we're more willing to take a chance on their advice). The same candidate (as above) is perceived differently, depending upon the way they're introduced.
So, when I ask people to make the referral for me, I'm basically asking them to do something I'd be happy to do for them.
"Hi Bob, so a friend of mine is really interested in working with your company. He's an award-winning communications executive, and he's got a great track record of helping companies reach goals -- both internally (he's increased employee engagement and morale and trust) and externally through press releases, getting his companies more well-known. He's bright, he immerses himself in the company (so he can be even more useful than just in communications functions -- he's worked in organization development and efficiencies) and he's been a valued and trusted confidant to the CEO of a company. Maybe even as importantly, he's friendly and really funny ... he's a great fit for your organization."
And, Bob, is almost certainly going to want to meet me, because *his* trusted friend/source/colleague has just done the most awesome networking wingman/referral one could hope for.
Think about your own contacts on LinkedIn, and then ask yourself -- which of your connections could you writing something like that about? And, which of your connections could you send that referral to? Because, if you can't write about a connection and you don't know a connection well enough to make the referral, why are they a connection? I don't care if you have 13,000 connections -- I'll always take the 500 quality connections.
And, if *I'M* connected to you, and you don't feel comfortable writing something like that about me; reach out to me. We clearly need to "fortify" our LinkedIn relationship.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Needed: Networking Wingman
People don't believe me when I tell them I'm an introvert. Most people say, "oh, you're so outgoing and talkative" -- and, maybe when I know someone, I can appear that way.
But, compare me to any successful salesperson, and you see how much less extroverted I am; especially when it comes to talking about myself (or, more to the point, talking about something else, with the *goal* of talking about myself).
Now, this has not been an issue in my career -- in journalism, editorial and communications, the ability to ask good questions and listen (and *not* talk about yourself) is key. But, when it comes to job-seeking, there's no alternative. You can't be modest; and you can't be shy. And, when it comes to networking, it's even more important that you be skilled in small talk. And, for someone who doesn't like talking about himself, that's difficult.
So, I took out a book from the library: "Networking for People Who Hate Networking," thinking it would provide some nugget of information that would clear up this uncomfortability. Sure enough, they described the exact scenarios we all despise -- you've just walked into a cocktail hour and everyone is chatting; how do you get involved in the conversation?
The solution, according to the author? "Just Do It." Well, that's not the revolutionary concept I was hoping for.
Then, I started thinking -- what could make the situation less painful? And, I thought about one of my favorite TV shows, "How I Met Your Mother."
Now, obviously, a successful 'introduction' is usually done with a little more thought and build-up, but in truth, what is more powerful than a strong introduction done by a trusted source? And, I realized: I need a networking wingman.
One of my Three Laws of BusinessTM (a post I may make sometime in the future), is that nearly everything in life comes down to two questions:
A job I had a while back used to say they'd never let an exceptional candidate leave without an offer, even if they didn't have a position for them at that moment. That mentality led to pretty strong growth for about five consecutive years (with the recession finally slamming the lid on both the growth and the practice); but it made a lot of sense. They evaluated each candidate based on those above questions -- and, if the net outcome made sense, they hired the person.
I've been fortunate, with my last two roles, to have had the opportunity to discuss what I can offer to a company in meetings with the company executives. In both cases, I was probably ahead of my time, unfortunately.
Not every company is ready for someone with my energy and ideas. Some prefer to keep things "the way they've always been done" because it's worked in the past. It remains to be seen if this is a wise choice, but I think the past five years have shown that "doing things the way they've always been done" more than likely ends badly. The world is littered with failed companies that once were quite successful that were incredibly resistant to change.
My suggestions are pretty liberal -- from an internal communications perspective, I'm a huge proponent of using social media/web 2.0 inside the enterprise, resulting in better knowledge management and employee engagement. I'm also equally adept from an external communications perspective. When I've been able to do things, the outcomes have been significant (including increasing the level of trust and morale in an organization by more than 10 percent in one year -- and that happened at each of my last two companies).
I don't say this to boast (as I mentioned above, I really don't enjoy talking about myself). I do this to explain who I am, for the purposes of my prospective networking wingman.
I'm looking for someone who's already accomplished in his/her line of work *and* who is well-connected *and* who also thinks I'm worth the effort -- and that is truly a powerful combination. Once I have that introduction; once they've already piqued the interest in someone, to get them curious as to how I can help their business excel, I can speak comfortably and confidently about my abilities.
I'm currently accepting applications for this role. :)
But, compare me to any successful salesperson, and you see how much less extroverted I am; especially when it comes to talking about myself (or, more to the point, talking about something else, with the *goal* of talking about myself).
Now, this has not been an issue in my career -- in journalism, editorial and communications, the ability to ask good questions and listen (and *not* talk about yourself) is key. But, when it comes to job-seeking, there's no alternative. You can't be modest; and you can't be shy. And, when it comes to networking, it's even more important that you be skilled in small talk. And, for someone who doesn't like talking about himself, that's difficult.
So, I took out a book from the library: "Networking for People Who Hate Networking," thinking it would provide some nugget of information that would clear up this uncomfortability. Sure enough, they described the exact scenarios we all despise -- you've just walked into a cocktail hour and everyone is chatting; how do you get involved in the conversation?
The solution, according to the author? "Just Do It." Well, that's not the revolutionary concept I was hoping for.
Then, I started thinking -- what could make the situation less painful? And, I thought about one of my favorite TV shows, "How I Met Your Mother."
Now, obviously, a successful 'introduction' is usually done with a little more thought and build-up, but in truth, what is more powerful than a strong introduction done by a trusted source? And, I realized: I need a networking wingman.
One of my Three Laws of BusinessTM (a post I may make sometime in the future), is that nearly everything in life comes down to two questions:
- What can/will this do for me?
- How much will it cost me?
A job I had a while back used to say they'd never let an exceptional candidate leave without an offer, even if they didn't have a position for them at that moment. That mentality led to pretty strong growth for about five consecutive years (with the recession finally slamming the lid on both the growth and the practice); but it made a lot of sense. They evaluated each candidate based on those above questions -- and, if the net outcome made sense, they hired the person.
I've been fortunate, with my last two roles, to have had the opportunity to discuss what I can offer to a company in meetings with the company executives. In both cases, I was probably ahead of my time, unfortunately.
Not every company is ready for someone with my energy and ideas. Some prefer to keep things "the way they've always been done" because it's worked in the past. It remains to be seen if this is a wise choice, but I think the past five years have shown that "doing things the way they've always been done" more than likely ends badly. The world is littered with failed companies that once were quite successful that were incredibly resistant to change.
My suggestions are pretty liberal -- from an internal communications perspective, I'm a huge proponent of using social media/web 2.0 inside the enterprise, resulting in better knowledge management and employee engagement. I'm also equally adept from an external communications perspective. When I've been able to do things, the outcomes have been significant (including increasing the level of trust and morale in an organization by more than 10 percent in one year -- and that happened at each of my last two companies).
I don't say this to boast (as I mentioned above, I really don't enjoy talking about myself). I do this to explain who I am, for the purposes of my prospective networking wingman.
I'm looking for someone who's already accomplished in his/her line of work *and* who is well-connected *and* who also thinks I'm worth the effort -- and that is truly a powerful combination. Once I have that introduction; once they've already piqued the interest in someone, to get them curious as to how I can help their business excel, I can speak comfortably and confidently about my abilities.
I'm currently accepting applications for this role. :)
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Guitar Tournament - The Champion
After 41 days and 13 rounds of voting, from a field of 320 songs, one has emerged triumphant in the Greatest Guitar Solo Tournament.
America has spoken -- although not quite to the tune of 30 million votes, as per American Idol ... but close!
Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" claims the top spot.
This is incredibly surprising to me -- I don't think of the solo as being one of the best known; or one of the most technically proficient; or one of the most audacious. But, consistently, this song dispatched its competition, so convincingly, that there can be no doubt.
I had thought a Pink Floyd song would be in the finals -- although, I had thought it would be "On the Turning Away," which was eliminated earlier on. Clapton's "It's in the Way that You Use it," was another contender in my eyes, but it ran up against "My Sharona" (which, as I posted about last time, was my top choice).
In retrospect, this was *a lot* of work -- and it was overly ambitious. And, the limits placed (to make it at least manageable) didn't work the way I'd hoped (there are many, *many* amazing guitar solos in songs that never hit #1 on a chart; but then, this survey would never be over!)
I think I'll stick to significantly smaller surveys from now on -- maybe 128 total entries (and, preferably 32 or 64) -- the sheer number wasn't even what made it so lengthy; it was also the amount of days. 41 days is a long time to hold interest -- and the tournament definitely saw voting interest wane towards the middle and pick up at the end.
Thanks again to everyone who stuck with it; and -- if you're one of those who voted in *every* round ... you may need help!
(Tomorrow, I hope, I'll be returning BACK to the focus of this blog again -- with a post on networking and the need for a wingman)
America has spoken -- although not quite to the tune of 30 million votes, as per American Idol ... but close!
Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" claims the top spot.
This is incredibly surprising to me -- I don't think of the solo as being one of the best known; or one of the most technically proficient; or one of the most audacious. But, consistently, this song dispatched its competition, so convincingly, that there can be no doubt.
I had thought a Pink Floyd song would be in the finals -- although, I had thought it would be "On the Turning Away," which was eliminated earlier on. Clapton's "It's in the Way that You Use it," was another contender in my eyes, but it ran up against "My Sharona" (which, as I posted about last time, was my top choice).
In retrospect, this was *a lot* of work -- and it was overly ambitious. And, the limits placed (to make it at least manageable) didn't work the way I'd hoped (there are many, *many* amazing guitar solos in songs that never hit #1 on a chart; but then, this survey would never be over!)
I think I'll stick to significantly smaller surveys from now on -- maybe 128 total entries (and, preferably 32 or 64) -- the sheer number wasn't even what made it so lengthy; it was also the amount of days. 41 days is a long time to hold interest -- and the tournament definitely saw voting interest wane towards the middle and pick up at the end.
Thanks again to everyone who stuck with it; and -- if you're one of those who voted in *every* round ... you may need help!
(Tomorrow, I hope, I'll be returning BACK to the focus of this blog again -- with a post on networking and the need for a wingman)
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Guitar Tournament -- the Championship
The next-to-last round of the Guitar Solo Tournament is up: The Final Four! You can access the survey now.
This round will continue through Tuesday, May 21 (in the evening), with the winner announced that night!
For me, my #1 choice was finally eliminated. The impetus for this tournament was to prove a theory to myself -- that "My Sharona" was the most underrated guitar solo ever (because for an extremely "poppy" song, it definitely has one of the most energetic solos). However, Pink Floyd (which was my #2 choice, overall -- although not this song (the "On the Turning Away") song, ousted The Knack for a spot in the finals.
The other song is Tom Petty's "Runnin' Down a Dream," which handily won its matchup against The Black Crowes.
Here is the updated bracket!
Thanks for playing. The round will end Tuesday evening, with the winner announced that night!
This round will continue through Tuesday, May 21 (in the evening), with the winner announced that night!
For me, my #1 choice was finally eliminated. The impetus for this tournament was to prove a theory to myself -- that "My Sharona" was the most underrated guitar solo ever (because for an extremely "poppy" song, it definitely has one of the most energetic solos). However, Pink Floyd (which was my #2 choice, overall -- although not this song (the "On the Turning Away") song, ousted The Knack for a spot in the finals.
The other song is Tom Petty's "Runnin' Down a Dream," which handily won its matchup against The Black Crowes.
Here is the updated bracket!
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Guitar Tournament - Round 7 - The Final Four
The next-to-last round of the Guitar Solo Tournament is up: The Final Four! You can access the survey now.
This round will continue through Saturday, May 18 (in the evening), and a championship matchup will be announced that night!
This has been an interesting tournament. We will definitely have one "Southern"-influenced song in the finals (as one matchup features The Black Crowes and Tom Petty). The other matchup pairs Pink Floyd (the most 'prog'-group remaining) against The Knack, with the poppiest-song in the tournament.
Van Halen, with its 11 songs in the tournament, is eliminated.
Here is the updated bracket!
Remember, this round will end Saturday evening!
This round will continue through Saturday, May 18 (in the evening), and a championship matchup will be announced that night!
This has been an interesting tournament. We will definitely have one "Southern"-influenced song in the finals (as one matchup features The Black Crowes and Tom Petty). The other matchup pairs Pink Floyd (the most 'prog'-group remaining) against The Knack, with the poppiest-song in the tournament.
Van Halen, with its 11 songs in the tournament, is eliminated.
Here is the updated bracket!
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Guitar Tournament - Round 6 - Elite 8
The sixth round of the Guitar Solo Tournament is up. We're up to the Elite 8! You can access the survey now.
This round will continue through Wednesday, May 15 (in the evening).
No band has more than one song remaining. It's truly anybody's guess at this point.
Definitely, a case could be made that some of the songs have gotten this far due to some favorable match-ups. That being said, "Jump" was eliminated, which certainly indicates people aren't just voting favortes.
Here is the updated bracket!
Remember, this round will end Wednesday evening, with the Final Four posted that evening!
This round will continue through Wednesday, May 15 (in the evening).
No band has more than one song remaining. It's truly anybody's guess at this point.
Definitely, a case could be made that some of the songs have gotten this far due to some favorable match-ups. That being said, "Jump" was eliminated, which certainly indicates people aren't just voting favortes.
Here is the updated bracket!
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Guitar Tournament - Round 5 - Sweet 16
The fifth round of the Guitar Solo Tournament is up. We're down to the Sweet 16. You can access the survey now.
This round will continue through Sunday, May 12 (in the evening).
Continuing our comparison (in the first round, there were 28 bands with 3+ songs in the tournament), here's the current list of bands with 2+ songs):
2: Van Halen
Some big surprises (to me) last round ... Queen's "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" eliminated "I'm No Angel;" "Light My Fire" eliminated "Caught Up in You" (as two big western-rock songs fell hard), and "Here I Go Again" took out "Hotel California" - which may be one of the shockers, so far.
This round is bittersweet, as my two early favorites (what I would've thought might have ended up 1-2 if they had the opportunity to play) face off against each other. Only one will continue.
Here is the updated bracket!
Remember, this round will end Sunday evening (and the Elite 8 will be posted that evening!)
This round will continue through Sunday, May 12 (in the evening).
Continuing our comparison (in the first round, there were 28 bands with 3+ songs in the tournament), here's the current list of bands with 2+ songs):
2: Van Halen
Some big surprises (to me) last round ... Queen's "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" eliminated "I'm No Angel;" "Light My Fire" eliminated "Caught Up in You" (as two big western-rock songs fell hard), and "Here I Go Again" took out "Hotel California" - which may be one of the shockers, so far.
This round is bittersweet, as my two early favorites (what I would've thought might have ended up 1-2 if they had the opportunity to play) face off against each other. Only one will continue.
Here is the updated bracket!
Remember, this round will end Sunday evening (and the Elite 8 will be posted that evening!)
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Guitar Tournament - Round 4 - Round of 32
The fourth round of the Guitar Solo Tournament is up. You can access the survey now.
This round will continue through Wednesday, May 8 (in the evening). With fewer songs (down to 32 now), the amount of time for each round is minimized, as well.
Continuing our comparison (in the first round, there were 28 bands with 3+ songs in the tournament), here's the current list of bands with 2+ songs):
3: Van Halen
2: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
And that's it -- and, Van Halen is going to lose one this round (since they're facing off against each other).
The biggest "surprise" in the tournament (to me) is Muse's Uprising, which continues to march on; but I think the 32 songs here are all solid contenders (and two of my three early favorites are still in the tournament; although they *cannot* face each other for the championship, due to the bracket setup (my third favorite was eliminated two rounds ago)).
Here is the updated bracket!
Remember - this round will end Wednesday, 5/8.
This round will continue through Wednesday, May 8 (in the evening). With fewer songs (down to 32 now), the amount of time for each round is minimized, as well.
Continuing our comparison (in the first round, there were 28 bands with 3+ songs in the tournament), here's the current list of bands with 2+ songs):
3: Van Halen
2: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
And that's it -- and, Van Halen is going to lose one this round (since they're facing off against each other).
The biggest "surprise" in the tournament (to me) is Muse's Uprising, which continues to march on; but I think the 32 songs here are all solid contenders (and two of my three early favorites are still in the tournament; although they *cannot* face each other for the championship, due to the bracket setup (my third favorite was eliminated two rounds ago)).
Here is the updated bracket!
Monday, April 29, 2013
Guitar Tournament - Round 3 - Round of 64
The third round of the Guitar Solo Tournament is up. You can access the survey now.
This round will continue through Saturday, May 4 (sometime in the late afternoon). We're down to 64 songs in total; but you can always do some of the survey and save your work, and come back to it later.
From here, it just gets easier (in terms of time) - we'll be halving the number of songs each round. On the other hand, the choices, almost certainly, will become more difficult.
For comparison sake - remember that in the first round, there were 28 bands with three or more songs. Here's the current list of bands with 2+ songs:
5: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Van Halen
3: Eric Clapton
2: Def Leppard, Pink Floyd, The Beatles
ZZ Top - went from 5 songs to just 1. The Black Crowes went from 4 songs to just 1. And a whole lot of surprises happened in the last round.
One of my *favorites* to win the tournament was bumped (Pink Floyd's "On The Turning Away" -- in fact, it got only ONE vote (mine!)). Other surprising eliminations included No Rain (Blind Melon), Be Yourself (Audioslave), Let's Go Crazy (Prince) and Rest in Peace (Extreme), as well as Kenny Wayne Shepherd's "Blue on Black."
But, ultimately, they all would have fallen at some point. Only one can be the champion, and now, we have one bracket to track.
I'd be lying if I told you it was getting easier.
Remember - this round ends this Saturday!
This round will continue through Saturday, May 4 (sometime in the late afternoon). We're down to 64 songs in total; but you can always do some of the survey and save your work, and come back to it later.
From here, it just gets easier (in terms of time) - we'll be halving the number of songs each round. On the other hand, the choices, almost certainly, will become more difficult.
For comparison sake - remember that in the first round, there were 28 bands with three or more songs. Here's the current list of bands with 2+ songs:
5: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Van Halen
3: Eric Clapton
2: Def Leppard, Pink Floyd, The Beatles
ZZ Top - went from 5 songs to just 1. The Black Crowes went from 4 songs to just 1. And a whole lot of surprises happened in the last round.
One of my *favorites* to win the tournament was bumped (Pink Floyd's "On The Turning Away" -- in fact, it got only ONE vote (mine!)). Other surprising eliminations included No Rain (Blind Melon), Be Yourself (Audioslave), Let's Go Crazy (Prince) and Rest in Peace (Extreme), as well as Kenny Wayne Shepherd's "Blue on Black."
But, ultimately, they all would have fallen at some point. Only one can be the champion, and now, we have one bracket to track.
I'd be lying if I told you it was getting easier.
Remember - this round ends this Saturday!
Monday, April 22, 2013
Guitar Tournament - Round 2 Kicks Off
The second full round of the Guitar Solo Tournament is up. You can access the survey now.
This round will continue through Sunday evening (4/28) -- remember, even though there are a decent amount of songs (128 in total) -- you can always stop and continue the survey later (from the same computer). No need to do it all in one sitting.
From here, it just gets easier (in terms of time) - we'll be halving the number of songs each round. On the other hand, the choices, almost certainly, will become more difficult.
For comparison sake - remember that in the first round, there were 28 bands with three or more songs. Here's the current list of bands with 3+ songs:
8: Van Halen
6: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
5: ZZ Top
4: The Black Crowes
3: Eric Clapton, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones
This round will continue through Sunday evening (4/28) -- remember, even though there are a decent amount of songs (128 in total) -- you can always stop and continue the survey later (from the same computer). No need to do it all in one sitting.
From here, it just gets easier (in terms of time) - we'll be halving the number of songs each round. On the other hand, the choices, almost certainly, will become more difficult.
For comparison sake - remember that in the first round, there were 28 bands with three or more songs. Here's the current list of bands with 3+ songs:
8: Van Halen
6: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
5: ZZ Top
4: The Black Crowes
3: Eric Clapton, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Guitar Tournament - Play-In Round
The second play-in round is up -- this is where we see if the Modern Rock tracks can match up with their Pop/Mainstream Rock counterparts.
This survey closes Sunday evening, with the next round up Monday.
This survey closes Sunday evening, with the next round up Monday.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Guitar Tournament - First Round - Part V (the last part)
The link to the survey for the final batch of 64 solos vying for the title of "Greatest Guitar Solo Ever" is up now.
Why are there now FIVE groups? Turns out, I'd forgotten one chart -- the Alternative/Modern rock chart. So, there are now 64 more songs, courtesy of that chart. I don't think many of them will advance particularly far; but a few of them may surprise.
Interestingly - today's Modern Rock chart is basically the closest to the 80s guitar rock that inspired this poll. Mainstream Rock (which used to be guitar rock) has transformed. Back then, it used to be Huey Lewis and the News; today, it's Godsmack.
Modern Rock - early days - had a lot of synth, and, truth be told, there's not a lot of all-out guitar solos (in many cases, the guitar work is happening while the singer is singing).
In any event, the addition of these songs means there'll be one more round -- these winners will be merged into the field for "play-in games" - and then we'll resume with a new field of 128 (total) and head towards our Final Four.
These songs also change the "leader board" for bands with the most songs in the list. Here's an updated tally (only those with 3+ songs):
11: Van Halen
8: Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tom Petty (and Heartbreakers)
6: Beatles, Black Crowes, U2, ZZ Top
5: Rolling Stones
4: Bon Jovi, Collective Soul, Eric Clapton, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, REM, Shinedown
3: Aerosmith, Bryan Adams, Bush, Def Leppard, Green Day, Huey Lewis and the News, Jane's Addiction, John Mellencamp, Nirvana, Richard Marx, Rush, Stone Temple Pilots
Remember - you're voting on the guitar solo; not the song, itself. You should be listening to the solo, because you may be surprised that some songs you remember had some pretty great guitar solos. You may like one song more, but find the guitar work is better in the other song. Of course, you can listen to the whole song as well, but the poll isn't about the song; just the guitar.
Why would you listen to the whole song?
1. You want to rediscover the song.
2. You want to learn something new about it.
3. It's reminiscent.
4. You have nothing better to do than listen to 320 songs (this is a judgment-free zone).
Here is the bracket for this group (the New Order division):
So, at last, here are ALL the links to all the surveys. These surveys will close on Wednesday, April 17, around 10:30pm EST.
Hendrix Division (part I)
Satriani Division (part II)
Emmett Division (part III)
Malmsteen Division (part IV)
New Order Division (part V)
Why are there now FIVE groups? Turns out, I'd forgotten one chart -- the Alternative/Modern rock chart. So, there are now 64 more songs, courtesy of that chart. I don't think many of them will advance particularly far; but a few of them may surprise.
Interestingly - today's Modern Rock chart is basically the closest to the 80s guitar rock that inspired this poll. Mainstream Rock (which used to be guitar rock) has transformed. Back then, it used to be Huey Lewis and the News; today, it's Godsmack.
Modern Rock - early days - had a lot of synth, and, truth be told, there's not a lot of all-out guitar solos (in many cases, the guitar work is happening while the singer is singing).
In any event, the addition of these songs means there'll be one more round -- these winners will be merged into the field for "play-in games" - and then we'll resume with a new field of 128 (total) and head towards our Final Four.
These songs also change the "leader board" for bands with the most songs in the list. Here's an updated tally (only those with 3+ songs):
11: Van Halen
8: Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tom Petty (and Heartbreakers)
6: Beatles, Black Crowes, U2, ZZ Top
5: Rolling Stones
4: Bon Jovi, Collective Soul, Eric Clapton, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, REM, Shinedown
3: Aerosmith, Bryan Adams, Bush, Def Leppard, Green Day, Huey Lewis and the News, Jane's Addiction, John Mellencamp, Nirvana, Richard Marx, Rush, Stone Temple Pilots
Remember - you're voting on the guitar solo; not the song, itself. You should be listening to the solo, because you may be surprised that some songs you remember had some pretty great guitar solos. You may like one song more, but find the guitar work is better in the other song. Of course, you can listen to the whole song as well, but the poll isn't about the song; just the guitar.
Why would you listen to the whole song?
1. You want to rediscover the song.
2. You want to learn something new about it.
3. It's reminiscent.
4. You have nothing better to do than listen to 320 songs (this is a judgment-free zone).
Here is the bracket for this group (the New Order division):
So, at last, here are ALL the links to all the surveys. These surveys will close on Wednesday, April 17, around 10:30pm EST.
Hendrix Division (part I)
Satriani Division (part II)
Emmett Division (part III)
Malmsteen Division (part IV)
New Order Division (part V)
Friday, April 12, 2013
Guitar Tournament - First Round - Part IV
The link to the survey for the next batch of 64 solos vying for the title of "Greatest Guitar Solo Ever" is up now.
You can access the survey, here.
Here is the bracket for this batch:
This constitutes the full 256 "songs" vying for the crown ... or so I thought. I realized, late last evening, I may have overlooked one chart. I'll know for certain tomorrow if there'll be one more round, merging those songs (if there even are any) with these. In either event, the next round will kick off with 128 songs.
Stay tuned!
You can access the survey, here.
Here is the bracket for this batch:
This constitutes the full 256 "songs" vying for the crown ... or so I thought. I realized, late last evening, I may have overlooked one chart. I'll know for certain tomorrow if there'll be one more round, merging those songs (if there even are any) with these. In either event, the next round will kick off with 128 songs.
Stay tuned!
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Guitar Tournament - First Round - Part III
The link to the survey for the next batch of 64 solos vying for the title of "Greatest Guitar Solo Ever" is up now.
You can access the survey, here.
Here is the bracket for this batch:
You can access the survey, here.
Here is the bracket for this batch:
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Guitar Tournament - First Round - Part II
The link to the survey for the next batch of 64 solos vying for the title of "Greatest Guitar Solo Ever" is up now.
You can access the survey, here.
Here is the bracket for this batch:
You can access the survey, here.
Here is the bracket for this batch:
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Introducing: The All-Time Greatest Guitar Solo "April" Madness Tournament!
I mentioned on Facebook about a week ago that I would be starting a pretty indepth "survey" again. We'd done this a few years back, when we elected Freddie Mercury the all-time greatest frontman for a rock band.
I've had this idea for a while, and I just knew it would be a lot of work (and it was a LOT of work). Trying to nail down the all-time greatest guitar solo is a daunting task.
So, there were a few guidelines. The song had to hit #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 *OR* the Mainstream Rock 100 charts (that still left more than 1300 songs). I narrowed that down to 256, and rated them (which is how the seeding is established). Originally, I'd thought I could have room for some darkhorses, but eventually, mostly just the cream of the crop remained. I did remove any songs that essentially constituted nothing more than screaming (goodbye most of the Mainstream Rock from the past decade) and also any where the videos were simply disturbing (thankfully, there weren't many of those left, once the screaming songs were discarded).
The survey is set up into FOUR groups of 64 (which will be combined into one, after the first two rounds). I'll put up ONE group of 64 each day for the next four days, and all of them will close NEXT Wednesday. You can save and continue at a later time.
Clicking on the song title will bring you to the video of the song; or you can click on the next link and see JUST the solo (which, after all, is what we're talking about). I urge you to listen to the songs (or at least the solos) - you may be reminded of some long lost memories; or you may even find that songs had pretty sick solos that you wouldn't have expected. I was also surprised at which bands aren't even really represented (either because they didn't end up with a lot of #1 songs (Kiss) or because they weren't really guitar-driven bands (Nirvana, Linkin Park)
Here's a little trivia before we get started (future posts will simply have the link to that day's survey). Here is a list of the bands that had more than one song on the list (no surprise at the top):
11: Van Halen
8: Tom Petty (and Heartbreakers)
6: Beatles, Black Crowes, ZZ Top
5: Rolling Stones
4: Bon Jovi, Collective Soul, Eric Clapton, Metallica, Pink Floyd, Shinedown, U2
3: Aerosmith, Bryan Adams, Def Leppard, Huey Lewis and the News, John Mellencamp, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Richard Marx, Rush
2: Audioslave, Bob Seger, Bruce Springsteen, Cars, Chicago, Creed, Dire Straits, Don Henley, Eagles, Grand Funk, Green Day, Hall & Oates, Heart, Ozzy Osbourne, Pearl Jam, REM, REO Speedwagon, Santana, Soundgarden, Steve Miller Band, Stone Temple Pilots, Theory of a Deadman, Three Dog Night, Tommy James and Shondells, Velvet Revolver, Yes
And, with that, here's the link to the first group of 64.
Here are the brackets for this first group:
P.S. - Regular blog posts, of a more professional nature, will return, once this contest/tournament is completed!
I've had this idea for a while, and I just knew it would be a lot of work (and it was a LOT of work). Trying to nail down the all-time greatest guitar solo is a daunting task.
So, there were a few guidelines. The song had to hit #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 *OR* the Mainstream Rock 100 charts (that still left more than 1300 songs). I narrowed that down to 256, and rated them (which is how the seeding is established). Originally, I'd thought I could have room for some darkhorses, but eventually, mostly just the cream of the crop remained. I did remove any songs that essentially constituted nothing more than screaming (goodbye most of the Mainstream Rock from the past decade) and also any where the videos were simply disturbing (thankfully, there weren't many of those left, once the screaming songs were discarded).
The survey is set up into FOUR groups of 64 (which will be combined into one, after the first two rounds). I'll put up ONE group of 64 each day for the next four days, and all of them will close NEXT Wednesday. You can save and continue at a later time.
Clicking on the song title will bring you to the video of the song; or you can click on the next link and see JUST the solo (which, after all, is what we're talking about). I urge you to listen to the songs (or at least the solos) - you may be reminded of some long lost memories; or you may even find that songs had pretty sick solos that you wouldn't have expected. I was also surprised at which bands aren't even really represented (either because they didn't end up with a lot of #1 songs (Kiss) or because they weren't really guitar-driven bands (Nirvana, Linkin Park)
Here's a little trivia before we get started (future posts will simply have the link to that day's survey). Here is a list of the bands that had more than one song on the list (no surprise at the top):
11: Van Halen
8: Tom Petty (and Heartbreakers)
6: Beatles, Black Crowes, ZZ Top
5: Rolling Stones
4: Bon Jovi, Collective Soul, Eric Clapton, Metallica, Pink Floyd, Shinedown, U2
3: Aerosmith, Bryan Adams, Def Leppard, Huey Lewis and the News, John Mellencamp, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Richard Marx, Rush
2: Audioslave, Bob Seger, Bruce Springsteen, Cars, Chicago, Creed, Dire Straits, Don Henley, Eagles, Grand Funk, Green Day, Hall & Oates, Heart, Ozzy Osbourne, Pearl Jam, REM, REO Speedwagon, Santana, Soundgarden, Steve Miller Band, Stone Temple Pilots, Theory of a Deadman, Three Dog Night, Tommy James and Shondells, Velvet Revolver, Yes
And, with that, here's the link to the first group of 64.
Here are the brackets for this first group:
P.S. - Regular blog posts, of a more professional nature, will return, once this contest/tournament is completed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)