I wrote the other day about how management at Target and Starbucks seem tone-deaf, prompting MNB reader Patti Pagels to write:
When I read about the new initiatives at Target and Starbucks that seemed tone-deaf to you, my first thought was that Target’s might not be all that bad. I have met with some younger adults who find it difficult to connect face-to-face or “IRL” as they say (text…post…). So, it didn’t seem like such a major faux pas to give some across-the-board guidance to prompt interactions between employees and customers. Still, I realized the key would be for Target to provide employees with the rationale, reinforcing the value of such interaction and, hopefully, some training to ensure everyone had a clear understanding of expectations and how to meet those—from the corporate perspective as well as how to “read the room” when it comes to the customers themselves.
But I was busy and was distracted from sending an email. I did, however, visit a Target the next day, list in hand, as my husband and I continued to prepare for a quickly approaching Thanksgiving-Christmas Combo Celebration.
Then it happened. A young woman acknowledged my husband and me with a friendly “hello, thanks for coming to Target today!” as she passed by. Another kind young woman said, “Let me know if you need any help with that list” as I wandered about. But the topper was when a young man who saw me in the holiday treats department said “Hello”…turned around and added, “You look really lovely today.”
I smiled and continued on my shopping spree, feeling pretty good about myself. And then I remembered. I read about this in MNB. And I have to admit; I was a bit deflated.
Maybe the employees in Auburn Hills are just particularly friendly or their managers were proactive in helping them understand the assignment. In any case, I found it to be a nice experience. I know you have lots of readers as does USA Today. Yet, I also have to imagine plenty of customers in that store will not have that inside scoop, allowing them to enjoy the interactions and maybe, just maybe, believe they were truly appreciated for shopping at Target.
That’s not all bad.
I’m sorry if I ruined the experience for you. I’d give the employees the benefit of the doubt – believe that they smiled and were engaged because they are just like that, not because of some top-down mandate.
Another MNB reader wrote:
KC, you have stated many times that a company has to do things that align with its brand. Target used to support LGBTQ+ communities, now their Pride month merchandise is stuck half to the back of the store and it is uninspiring at best. They turned their back to the BIPOC community by dropping DEI. They had to come up with a policy to have their staff smile and engage with customers. I will give you another bad policy, they charge you for ten plastic bags when you place a pickup order even if they only use one or two bags. That is not providing value to the customer. I find it hard to believe they can’t price out the number of bags that are actually used. They have empty shelves and an empty brand.
I’ve switched to shopping Costco, they have good products, treat their employees well, stick with the LGBTQ+ and BIPOC communities and treat their customers well.
And that’s how you lose your customer base. You forget how you built it in the first place.
One MNB reader had a thought about Atlanta’s city-owned grocery store:
Why does a city not take the approach of making the store a Public Utility.
Usually, they try to run at a not-for-profit basis. If there is money being made it can go into lowering the gross margin, if they are running at a loss the GM can go up, but aiming for zero is the goal.
This would have the effect of the city being able to put stores where they do the most good, keep taxes low and expedite permits. If it’s a coop even better…for-profit in this arena is just going to add cost, because that profit must come from somewhere. If the store must rely on charitable donations to run, then at some point when there is no charity its just going to close, and the whole benefit is lost for an entire community.
On the subject of Amazon’s efforts to supercharge its grocery offerings, MNB reader Steven Ritchey wrote:
I’ve looked at Amazon’s e-grocery offerings, and frankly, haven’t been all that impressed. The only things I’ve bought from them in the grocery segment have been things I’ve not found in stores. And I’m in a lot of stores, calling on nearly 100 per month.
I still think part of the reason their brick and mortar stores haven’t taken off is they think the glitzy technology will bring people in. While technology definitely has it’s place as Lord knows how much supermarket technology has changed in the nearly 50 years I’ve been in the business. It’s still at heart a people business, few things are more personal than the food we eat.
I still say if you show me a store that is clean, well stocked, with competitive pricing AND with decent to above average service, I will show you most likely a successful store.
Having ultra fast delivery is going to be difficult, and expensive. In the area I live in, traffic is miserable. Getting orders filled, packed, loaded on a vehicle and delivered to my front door in less than an hour will be nearly impossible, unless the fulfillment center is around the corner from me. I’m already paying for Amazon Prime, and it seems to go up yearly. I don’t see a way for them to do this without charging a premium price for delivery. While I can see the wisdom in having small fulfillment centers, what happens when they don’t stock an item I want, I might as well go to the store and get it along with the other things I may have ordered.
As they say, I’m waiting to be proven wrong.
Another MNB reader chimed in:
There was one line that struck me in the Amazon Grocery article today. The operation would be staffed by gig workers, (low pay, no health insurance, no vacation days, no paid holidays, etc.) The types of jobs taxpayers have to subsidize because ultra wealthy corporations won’t pay fair wages and benefits. What a sham. Shame on businesses that prop up profits by shortchanging workers. Frankly, this type of “employment” practice should be illegal. If workers don’t win in the arrangement too, it’s not a win for the economy.
From another reader:
My eye-opener was on Monday when I went grocery shopping. One of my stops was in WFM. I’ve found that their pricing on the items that I purchase (I’m a single guy and cook from scratch) and was shocked by the week over week increase in costs. Some items have more than doubled. Me thinks that retailers have sold through their pre-tariffs hoarding and now we’re seeing what the administration hath wrought.
The post Your Views: Benefit Of The Doubt? appeared first on MNB.
View Original Article
