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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)