retail news in context, analysis with attitude

MNB Archive Search

Please Note: Some MNB articles contain special formatting characters, and may cause your search to produce fewer results than expected.

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    by Michael Sansolo


    Because Father’s Day was this past weekend, the news was awash in stories about modern families. And it’s news that the food industry had better read very closely.

    Two stories caught my eye. In the first, USA Today reported last week about the changed parenting styles of older men (late 40s to 60s) who are having second families and raising them very differently than their first.

    Then on Sunday, the New York Times ran an article on the changing face of today’s American family. More interesting than the article was an interactive feature on the Times website that allows the reader to see how many families are like yours.

    I won’t be killing a surprise ending by telling you that the world of families is changing rapidly. The USA Today article painted a picture of these older dads who are far more involved with their second set of children then they were with their first. For a host of reasons, these guys are spending more time with their families, more time with their young children and more time on chores and duties that they simply didn’t take on when they were younger.

    Likewise, the Times article and the interactive chart paints a clear picture of the American family that exists today. The “traditional family” of mom, dad and two kids is something of a rarity - making up only 7.25% of today’s households. Even married couples living alone constitute less than 21.5%. Households of just a single male or a single female make up a larger percentage of the population than that.

    The picture gets even more complicated. In some parts of the country, retired couples now outnumber those with children. In high cost areas, the percentage of families whose adult-aged children have moved back home during the economic downtown is on the rise. In other words, the picture of a family takes on an incredible number of aspects depending on where you are.

    And therein lies the challenge and opportunity for the food industry. The opportunity sends me back to a topic I touched on last week - facing up to the shifts all around us that are moving more shopping trips to late in the day and weekends. That column touched a nerve with reader Kayla Anderson of Minnesota:

    “As a 26-year-old urban professional, it’s near impossible to get errands or shopping done. My friends and I constantly gripe about this: Banks close at 5, many retail stores at 9. Cashing a check takes planning and by the time we get to the grocery/mass/clothing store after a long day of work, the staff is sparse and truculent. What I wouldn’t do to go to a store that is expecting me?” Kayla says the same holds for doctors and dentists and she admits she’d gladly pay more for services that fit her schedule.

    That’s where the opportunity lies. Especially in tough times, when sales building seems so hard, creativity may win out. It comes in finding a way to cater to these new shoppers whether they are young adults racing through their days or older dads trying to cook to be a bigger part of the family. The needs have changed and the products, services and stores need to change with them.

    But don’t overlook the challenges. Local demographic information is more important than ever to ensure that the right products for the right households are on the right shelves each and every day. If your store is set for the “Ozzie and Harriet” family keep in mind that the vast majority of Americans weren’t alive when that television show went off the air, and the only Ozzies they know are either Osbourne or Guillen.

    The facts are simple: The Nelsons run ended 45 years ago; 50% of Americans are 36.9 years old or younger. Makes you think, doesn’t it?


    Michael Sansolo can be reached via email at msansolo@morningnewsbeat.com . His book, “THE BIG PICTURE: Essential Business Lessons From The Movies,” co-authored with Kevin Coupe, is available by clicking here .
    KC's View:

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    by Kevin Coupe

    There was a piece on Salon.com the other day that reinforced a point that has been made in other ways here on MNB, but is worth making yet again. It also plays into the theme explored by Michael Sansolo above - the importance of being keenly attuned to the nature of one’s customer base, and not making broad generalizations.

    The Salon piece was about a new website being launched by the Huffington Post, and headlined by actress Rita Wilson (who also happens to be Mrs. Tom Hanks). The site is called Huff/Post 40, and it is designed to be for women older than 40.

    The announcement of this new sit, Salon wrote, “was yet another reminder of the vast cliff we are perceived to jump off at the end of our 30s. Long past that golden 18-35 demographic, we are instead one big lumpy swarm, just eating fiber together and buying products with the word ‘mature’ somewhere on the label ... The implication is that after 39, who wants to keep track anyway? Magazines like More vaguely allude to ‘the richest years’ of a woman's life and offer tips on how to dress ‘modern’ and the best makeup ‘trends.’ Earlier this year, Moviefone paid tribute to ’40 Actresses Over 40’ - a list that put 40-year-old Jennifer Connelly right next to 64-year-old Glenn Close, and 41-year-old Rachel Weisz next to 63-year old Dianne Wiest.”

    And that’s the real point - and the completely valid objection to this classification: “There's something downright silly about the idea that all of us born prior to 1972 are part of the same tribe, that we have the same experiences, interests or vitamin formulas. The 41-year-old Tina Fey, who is expecting her second child this year, isn't the same ‘over 40’ as 65-year-old Helen Mirren.”

    Exactly.

    Salon goes on, “We are not living in narrow times. The graying boomers and Gen-Xers are listening to the same Radiohead and Black Keys and Springsteen music their kids and grandkids are, playing the same Nintendo, and borrowing each other's ironic T-shirts.”

    Precisely. And it isn’t just women.

    This is the point I was trying to make not too long ago when I objected to A&P creating a discount promotion for people over 55, and saying it was for “Senior Citizens.” (I saw a sign on the door for this promotion when I walked past an A&P the other day. I kept walking. On principle. I may be over 55, but I’m no Senior Citizen. I may not think of myself that way when I’m over 75.)

    Some of this is media driven, and some of it comes from people’s quite natural desire to categorize groups in the easiest possible way. It makes them easier to deal with that way. Less muss and fuss.

    That’s something that marketers need to resist. Just as all women over 40 do not have the same needs, concerns and desires, not all people who fit into the Baby Boomer category are focused on exactly the same issues.

    I was born in 1954, right in the middle of the Baby Boom. My attitude toward life is likely to be significantly different from someone born in the late forties or the early sixties.

    This is worth keeping one’s Eyes Open about. Because of you market to the broadest common denominator, you may be marketing to the lowest common denominator. And that’s not smart marketing.
    KC's View:

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    The New York Times reports this morning that while Walmart may have won a big victory in the US Supreme Court yesterday in a gender discrimination suit, challenges to its employment practices are by no means over.

    As reported yesterday by MNB, the court ruled unanimously that a class action gender discrimination lawsuit against Walmart cannot proceed, essentially saying that as many as 1.6 million plaintiffs must now pursue their cases individually.

    The decision, which overruled last year’s ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, takes the position that the cases were too dissimilar to link together.

    The Times writes this morning that “even though the company says it has substantially increased the percentages of women in managerial positions, the plaintiffs in the longstanding case said the company should expect several more years of challenges to its employment practices ... Joseph M. Sellers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he would pursue three routes: filing individual claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; slicing the giant class action lawsuit into smaller ones that would have a better chance of advancement; and pursuing individual discrimination cases. ‘Instead of one case, this case will be splintered into many pieces,’ he said in a call with reporters.”

    Walmart’s lawyers, however, said that they read the ruling as prohibiting any class action suits in the case, that it gave the plaintiffs no running room to pursue any sort of combined legal approach.

    One of the challenges to the plaintiffs in the case seemed to be that despite what seemed to be inequities in terms of position and pay - cases where there were more women on the front lines than in management, and where women were being paid less than men for similar jobs - it was hard to prove any sort of systemic and deliberate bias. The court said that because Walmart has an anti-discrimination policy, it could not be held liable - at least not in a class action suit - for isolated incidents that did not reflect corporate attitudes.

    Here’s how Bloomberg dissects the case this morning:

    “The female plaintiffs claimed that they had been illegally denied pay and promotions despite a company policy against sex discrimination. The suit relied largely on statistics, which seemed damning enough.

    “Women filled 70 percent of Wal-Mart’s hourly jobs, yet made up only 33 percent of management employees. Women were paid less than men in every region, even when they had higher performance ratings and seniority.

    “The plaintiffs bolstered their case with affidavits detailing the experiences of 120 individuals. One female worker said she was told to ‘doll up’ if she wanted a promotion.

    “Wal-Mart devastatingly turned the numbers against the plaintiffs. One brief filed on behalf of the women cited Census Bureau figures showing that U.S. median earnings of women in 2009 were 77 percent of men’s earnings. The company pointed out that women at Wal-Mart earned between 85 percent and 95 percent of what male colleagues earned. They actually did better at Wal-Mart than in the country at large.

    “As for the affidavits, the company said they represented just one-thousandth of one percent of women employed at the retailer since December 1998.”

    Bloomberg goes on:

    “In the end, what the women were really trying to prove is that Wal-Mart has a corporate culture that favors men. Some of the briefs filed with the court claimed that promotions were characterized as a ‘tap on the shoulder,’ with local managers having great discretion in deciding whose shoulder to tap. Vacancies were not regularly posted. Employees were discouraged from discussing their compensation, presumably to prevent comparisons.

    “As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a partial dissent, such behavior could be a cover for bias against women. It will be up to other courts to make sure Wal-Mart doesn’t use its decentralized management to escape legal responsibility. But those cases should be dealt with on their individual merits -- and unique facts.

    “This opinion is likely to make litigation harder for other employment class actions that bind together disparate litigants in a single class. But a class of 1.5 million employees faces an appropriately high hurdle. This class didn’t clear it.”
    KC's View:
    There are a lot of people on the left hand side of the aisle who are up in arms about this decision, feeling that it represents a broader attitude on the part of the Supreme Court that could affect civil rights rulings in the future. That may be so, though I’m not a lawyer and I am unqualified to even speculate about what Supreme Court rulings mean.

    As I said yesterday in my analysis after the story broke and MNB put out a Breaking News alert, there’s not much doubt in my mind that Walmart never officially sanctioned discrimination. That said, it is not hard to imagine a kind of good-old-boy network that favored men, that thought men needed promotions and raises more than women to support their families, that was more comfortable with other guys sitting around the table. It certainly wasn’t everyone, and it may not have risen to the level of being systemic.

    But cultural discrimination, and opposed to official and sanction discrimination, is no less an ethical and moral offense. And as I said yesterday, this is the day on which Walmart - and every other retailer - ought to make very clear to everyone in their organizations that such offenses will not be tolerated. They ought to go through their books and see where the inequities are, and fix them. And they ought to make a very public commitment to rooting out and eliminating every sort of bias that exists among their people, in their stores and in their divisions.

    Walmart dodged a legal bullet yesterday, though it remains to be seen whether it could end up being death by a thousand cuts, if all these women start filing individual suits.

    There are bigger issues there than the legal one, and there is time like the present for Walmart - and all of its brethren to say and do the right thing.

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    The New York Times this morning reports on the challenges facing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as it tries to grapple with the “waves of imported food and drugs” that are overwhelming FDA’s ability to monitor them.

    According to the story, “On Monday, the F.D.A. released a rare special report titled Pathway to Global product Safety and Quality that is likely to win praise not so much for the four ‘building blocks’ it outlines for dealing with imports but for the frank way it acknowledges the problem.”

    Here’s how the Times explains it:

    “A decade ago, the F.D.A. was responsible for policing six million shipments annually coming through 300 ports. This year, the number of shipments is expected to grow to 24 million, the report noted. Nearly two-thirds of all fruits and vegetables and three-quarters of all seafood consumed in the United States now come from outside the country.

    “The situation with drugs and medical devices is even more daunting. More than 80 percent of the active ingredients for drugs sold in the United States are made abroad - mostly in plants in China and India that are rarely inspected by the F.D.A. Half of all medical devices sold in the United States are made abroad. Many kinds of antibiotics, steroids, cancer medicines and even aspirin are no longer produced in the United States, or in many cases anywhere in the Western world.

    “Government investigators estimated in 2008 that the F.D.A. would need 13 years to check every foreign drug manufacturing plant, 27 years to check every foreign medical device plant and 1,900 years to check every foreign food plant at its rate of inspections at the time. And with imports growing faster than the agency’s inspection force, those numbers have only mounted.”

    But here’s the problem. The Times notes that “the FDA won new powers to police foreign foods in legislation signed by President Obama in January, but with those new powers came new responsibilities. The law directed the agency to inspect at least 600 foreign food facilities within a year, then increase that number every year afterward. But instead of increasing the agency’s budget to perform those inspections, House Republicans voted last week to cut it.”

    The story says that “many in the food industry, angered by contamination scares that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, have volunteered to pay fees directly to the F.D.A. to underwrite more inspections. Consumer groups have cheered this suggestion. But some Republicans in the Senate have so far refused to consider such fees, calling them an unacceptable tax. Polls have shown overwhelming and bipartisan support among voters for strengthened federal oversight of the food system.”

    The FDA apparently is trying to find ways around the threats to its budget, like forging voluntary agreements around the world that can help it do a better job monitoring imports. But there are limitations ... and as a result, concerns about whether the FDA can live up to its responsibilities.
    KC's View:
    Let’s try a metaphor.

    Most people would generally agree that it is better to engage in preventive medicine than reactive medicine, right? That it is better - and ultimately, less expensive - to do things to prevent a heart attack or stroke or cancer from ever happening, as opposed to treating those problems once they have occurred.

    In this case, it seems to me, that’s what the FDA is trying to do, and what the new food safety law is trying to achieve - the creation of a system better able to handle changing global food safety issues. It is great that the US food supply is better than 99 percent safe ... but it seems to me to be a no-brainer to realize that if we do not remain vigilant, if we do not anticipate and respond to changes in circumstance, we could be behind the wave to a degree that will shake confidence in the food supply, and create economic and societal repercussions that will cost us greatly for years to come.

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    CNBC has a piece suggesting that Walmart’s loss of three senior executive sin China over the past month or so reflects a broader and harsher reality - that despite the fact that it has 333 stories and $7.5 billion in revenue there, its market share is diminishing to some degree because “it has not reacted fast enough to key trends. Wal-Mart needs a strategy re-think because it faces increasing headwinds as new sales channels like e-commerce; soaring real estate and labors costs; and evolving consumer preferences change the Chinese retail landscape.

    “Wal-Mart made the mistake of leaning too heavily on the big box retailer format like in the U.S., rather than smaller, conveniently located retail outlets. Expecting China to develop the same way towards big box retailing, as America did, is the same mistake Home Depot and Best Buy made. Both of those retailers ultimately retreated from the market. China may have high compound annual revenue growth rates, but traffic and the lack of free parking means consumers often prefer to shop in neighborhood stores. A government ban on free plastic shopping bags has also resulted in consumers shopping more often, and buying less each time, further fueling the popularity of stores closer to home.”

    The story goes on: “Wal-Mart surprisingly has struggled with consumer perception and their branding. They espouse the 'everyday low price' concept, yet are positioned relatively high in the market when compared to street vendors that are truly low price.
    KC's View:

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    The Nielsen Company has signed a deal with MyWebGrocer that will allow for the measurement of US online grocery sales, which the two companies say will provide consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies with the industry’s first comprehensive view into consumers’ online supermarket purchases and behavior.

    According to the announcement, “Nielsen has acquired a license to MyWebGrocer’s e commerce sales information aggregated from 60 U.S. supermarket retailers. Planned for CPG manufacturer availability in Q3 2011, Nielsen Online Basket View will provide regular insights on online supermarket shopping sales, including online shopping basket purchases. Nielsen will provide insights for its retail clients included in the online grocery universe supplied by MyWebGrocer.

    “Nielsen plans to measure approximately 30 percent of all online supermarket sales in the U.S. Currently, no aggregate reporting of actual online supermarket sales data is available in the industry.”

    While online purchases represent only two percent of total U.S. CPG sales, some estimates suggest that they are expected to more than double, from $12 billion to $25 billion, by 2014.

    Full disclosure: MyWebGrocer is one of MNB’s longest and most loyal sponsors. However, MNB would have run this story even if it were not ... so it hardly seemed appropriate to penalize the company for its good taste.
    KC's View:
    The simple reality, it seems to me, is that if you are not paying attention to this segment - if you have somehow convinced yourself that these aren;t your customers, that it isn’t competitive with or important to your business, or that online grocery shopping won;t amount to much - you are kidding yourself ... or, at the very least, risking irrelevance.

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    • In the UK, the Daily Telegraph reports that Simon King has quite his job as COO at Walmart-owned Asda Group after just six months in the job. King previously ran Tesco’s operations in Turkey; no reason for the departure was given.

    • Walmart announced yesterday that it has closed the deal giving it a 51 percent stake in South Africa-based Massmart, a move that is designed to give the company a foothold in Africa, allowing it to expand there.

    KC's View:

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    • The Los Angeles Times reports that fast feeder Jack in the Box has stopped offering free toys with kids’ meals, and at the same time has begun offering “apple bits with caramel”as an option in children’s meals.

    According to the story, the moves have been lauded by nutrition advocates, who have been “pressuring fast food companies to stop giving out toys to children, saying the practice makes it too tempting for kids to want to eat fast food and contributes to the epidemic of childhood obesity.” In fact, California's San Francisco and Santa Clara counties have each “enacted so-called Happy Meal bans, which prohibit restaurants from offering toys to children with meals that are high in calories, sugar, salt and fat.”

    • The Detroit Free Press reports that “Borders Group hopes to name a bidder by July 1 and sell itself by the end of that month, according to bankruptcy court filings ... The Ann Arbor-based bookseller, which filed for bankruptcy protection in February, said in papers filed Friday that it plans to name a ‘stalking horse’ bidder by July 1. A ‘stalking horse’ is an initial bidder for a company in a bankruptcy auction. A higher bidder may materialize.”
    KC's View:

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    • The Kroger Co. announced that Michael J. Donnelly has been named Senior Vice President of Merchandising. Donnelly has been President of the company's Ralphs Grocery Company division, based in Los Angeles, CA, since August 2007.

    According to the announcement, “Donnelly will also join the board of dunnhumbyUSA, the leader in personalizing customers' experience of retailers and brands. He will relocate to Cincinnati mid-summer. He will remain a member of the Coca-Cola Retailing Research Council.”
    KC's View:

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    MNB yesterday wrote about a long Washington Post piece that looked at executive compensation and drew some stark comparisons between what top executives and front line employees make, and how the chasm has grown over the last 40 years.

    In my commentary, I wrote the following:

    It reflects a lot of trends.

    It reflects a trend toward short-term thinking, because CEOs need to get their money now, because the average CEO tenure in America is so short.

    It reflects a “whoever dies with the most toys wins” philosophy in America.

    It reflects what could be argued is a growing disconnect between the people at the top and the people on the front lines - the people who get laid off in tough times, news of which often generates cheers among investors. Even though those layoffs mean that these people no longer can stimulate the economy by buying food and clothing and cars and houses.

    It reflects a certain hypocrisy among people at the top who argue that unions are irrelevant and that union leaders are out of touch with their membership ... an argument, one could suggest, that is a little tough to make from the penthouse of a corporate skyscraper.

    Now, this is America.

    The nature of capitalism is that success is rewarded, and that greater success often is rewarded in opulent fashion. This didn’t start in the last four decades.

    In many cases, layoffs may be necessary, and unions may be irrelevant and out of touch.

    But to me, senior executives ought to read this story with their Eyes Open.

    It ought to make them think about how they define success. And, as was argued at the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) Summit, the nature of growth.

    It ought to make them think about their responsibility to their employees, and their shareholders, and if they are doing their best and fairest.

    It ought to make them think about how they are perceived in the marketplace, by the very people who they hope will buy their goods and services.

    And it ought to make them wonder if their companies are headed down an unsustainable path.

    They ought to think about these things with their Eyes - and their minds - Open.


    One MNB user responded:

    The liberal class warfare rhetoric is getting old.  Maybe the reason why the wages of those union employees haven't kept pace is BECAUSE they are unionized.

    Really? That’s what you get from my commentary? That I was espousing “liberal class warfare rhetoric”?

    Read it again. Because I think it was anything but.

    I suspect you read the first few lines about the salary chasm, and jumped to a conclusion about where the story was headed.

    MNB user Mike Franklin wrote:

    There is so much immediate reward and lack of investing in America…or said another way predatory capitalism…or said another way…GREED, that the only recourse left for middle America is stalled consumerism…selective boycott…scaled back purchases until corporate  leaders understand they need us to buy their products, and together we need to reinstate the compact between upper and middle class America.

    Another MNB user wrote:

    I've often felt that CEO pay today is ridiculously high and should not be.   I am a capitalist, but feel that way.   Seems to me that some CEOs could inspire their troops by declining some of their pay and turning those amounts over to charity or dedicated to the betterment of their lower-paid employees.

    MNB user Evan Hughes wrote:

    I would like to know how much the local and national union head makes compared to 40 years ago.  Would one find the same disparity?

    I have no idea. But I’d guess that out-of-touch labor leaders are guilty of the same sins as out-of-touch senior executives.

    MNB user Pete Deeb wrote:

    Great piece on CEO compensation and the historical comparisons! You mentioned the “short term” view that CEO’s have based on their job expectancy. However, many of these people are recycled and thus have several opportunities not only for enormous compensation packages but also to do the right things for their companies and employees. It is interesting that many of the family owned companies in the Food business don’t have these same issues.

    MNB user Mark Raddant wrote:

    I really like your blog.  You are unafraid to speak (write) about some difficult and challenging issues and I am certain you will get a ton of negative feedback about today’s article...

    I have a daughter who just graduated high school and who wanted to visit her big brother in Haiti, where he works for a disaster relief organization called “All Hands”.  (Do a YouTube search, they are an amazing outfit.)  Last night we skyped for Father’s Day.  Among many things she has done and learned in her ten days so far, is that the Haitian kids she meets are the happiest kids she has ever seen, but when she walks them home, they live in indescribable poverty.  All the Haitians she has met are loving, happy, and terribly poor.  Her friends back home are mostly affluent in global term, but not nearly as happy.  Lesson?

    For Father’s Day, my wife and 14 year old son took me to see the movie “I am”.  I recommend you go see it and while a degree of skepticism is recommended, I have to think there is something there.  It may well make us happier to do with less and be of service to others, and connected to others in a bigger way.  Not only we, but perhaps all of creation may be wired that way.  We may be on the cusp of figuring that out.

    There is no reason one person needs or deserves to consume that much of the world’s resources.  The idea that “it is OK because I can” hopefully is an idea we may grow out of.  The lion may be the best killer, but he only kills what he needs.

    Thanks, and keep up the good work!


    Thank you.




    On the subject of the Consumer Goods Forum Global Summit coverage, MNB user Chris Anstey wrote:

    This story from Barcelona is so much a story of these post crunch years.

    The debate and discussion in company events around the world works on two levels: What we say and what we do.

    Some of those companies have made proper, hard and measurable commitments. Unilever, Walmart, Mars, Tesco. That’s just a few of them. They are doing it. Mostly they don’t know how, but they’re finding out, usually with each other.

    The rest of those companies just haven’t made such commitments. That’s most of them. They aren’t doing it. They are waiting to see what happens.

    The leaders think that there is only a future with no consumer choice. The co called ‘choice editing’ means everything will be sustainable.

    The laggards haven’t really thought about it.

    There are some big bets being placed and as father of a few of the next ‘Next Generation,’ I know who I’m rooting for. Go Commitment!

    As ever – love the ideas and debates on your pages...





    I was ranting yesterday in a number of commentaries about corruption in general - the kind of corruption that allows bankers (who I described as “cronies”) to give campaign contributions (that I described as “bribes”) in order to get their way., The same goes for companies trying to undermine the new food safety law, or ban the sale of GM salmon.

    One MNB user responded:

    It's nice to see that you have the same feelings about how "representative" our elected officials are. They have become so beholding to special interest that they can no longer govern effectively. I told my mom that I was planning on moving out of the country. When I did she said "what about the corruption?". I told the only difference in the corruption in other countries and the corruption here was the price to play the game. I can afford it there, I can't afford it here. There is no other difference. The only lawmaker that seems to put the countries best interest first is Senator Tom Coburn. But I'm afraid he is out numbered by the likes of the Anthony Weiners of the world. More worried about their own legacy and keeping their power than moving the country forward in a responsible manner. But I guess that is to be expected by someone who has never had a "real" job.

    So much negativity!! :)  Thanks for the rant. See you tomorrow!!


    MNB user Doug Campbell wrote:

    Our food supply is 99% safe so there is no need, according to the Republican Party, to fund additional food safety measures or to help feed the poorest women and children, who for the most part are likely Democrats.  Wonder what the 1% of those who get sick, or watch their children suffer from a completely avoidable E. coli infection think about this?  I bet there will not be a dime cut from oil industry subsidies.  Apparently, Republicans are immune to foodborne illnesses.  My impression is that today’s Republican Party simply doesn’t care about people, unless they generate profit.  I used to be a registered Republican.

    I actually conceded yesterday that my rants might leave the impression that I was a little cranky. But one MNB user thought something else was at work:

    Actually, the entire column was your best audition yet for The Daily Worker.

    That was, by the way, a fairly predictable rejoinder. For some folks, the best way to respond to someone is to demonize them.
    KC's View:

    Published on: June 21, 2011

    She likes your store. The products. The atmosphere. The prices.

    But the reality is that most customers can be convinced to shop elsewhere. You can lose her to a competitor with a superior offering, or maybe just a good selection of coupons this week.

    Which means that you have to compete - relentlessly and effectively - every day.

    Here’s a secret.

    A Program That Drives Sales, Profits And Loyalty Shouldn’t Be Too Good To Be True.

    And it isn’t. TCC has been working with retailers since 1991 to build marketing programs that can create a differential store advantage, change shopper behavior, and deliver measurable growth that goes right to the bottom line.

    Click on the video. Listen to Mom. Hear what she’s saying. Understand what she’s looking for in a shopping experience.

    And then contact TCC by clicking here.
    KC's View: