FunnyBusiness: Everything About Business Except The Bottom Line

The secret to successful business negotations: Monkey See,Monkey Do

The next time you get mad at your kids for mimicking you - think again. They are actually practicing important negotiation skills.

Anyone who has spent any time around young children have at one time been subjected to  their annoying game of Monkey See. Monkey Do.  Here's the drill. You tell them to clean their room.They repeat what you say verbatim- complete with intonation, hand and face gesture and physical stance. This continues for a couple of minutes until in exasperation you threaten something- anything to get them to stop.

You are annoyed.The  kids melt into a fit of laughter. That's the end of Monkey See. Monkey Do.
However, according to the findings of a new study reported on in The Journal of Social Psychology,Maddux, W. W. et al.,Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: ..., instead of being frustrated at their mimicry, we should encourage it. Turns out strategic behavioral mimicry can facilitate negotiation outcomes.

In one study waitresses who were instructed to verbally mimic their customers(by repeating the orders back verbatim) received bigger tips than those who were instructed not to mimic(Van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert, & van Knippenberg,2003). In addition, being behaviorally mimicked in an initial interaction with someone increases the chances that individuals will perform an altruistic behavior in a subsequent context (Van Baaren, Holland, Kawakami, & vanKnippenberg, 2004).

In the new study the researchers wanted to see how successful mimicry would be in a business negotiation. Their study group included MBA students in a negotiation course. Five minutes before the negotiating exercise they were given this important message:

Successful negotiators recommend that you should mimic the mannerisms of your negotiation partner to get a better deal. For example, when the other personrubs his/her face, you should too. If he/she leans backor leans forward in the chair, you should too. However,they say it is very important that you mimic subtly enoughthat the other person does not notice what you are doing,otherwise this technique completely backfires. Also, donot direct too much of your attention to the mimickingso you don’t lose focus on the outcome of the negotiation.Thus, you should find a happy medium of consistentbut subtle mimicking that does not disrupt your focus.

Members of the control group received a message to focus on their planning document. The researchers conclude:

Our research suggests that mimicking is one way to facilitate building trust and,consequently, information sharing in a negotiation. By creating trust in and soliciting information from their opponent, mimickers bake bigger pies at the bargaining table,and consequently take a larger share of that pie forthemselves.

Image Credit:University of Kentucky

to  The Business Pundit

Lost in Translation: Did or didn't Mattel apologize to China?

Ask the average American consumer about the quality of the "Made in China" label and what you will hear is "not so much." To say that the "Made in China" label is tarnished, tainted and damaged among American consumers would be the ultimate understatement.

So when  it was reported last week that a senior vice president of Mattel recently apologized to Li Changjang, China's product safety chief, people took notice.

The immediate reaction was that Mattel was simply trying to make nice  to an important manufacturing partner in an effort to protect their bottom line .It seemed to reek of  business as usual ethics.

In the days since the apology was first reported, there seems to be a cloud of confusion. Did or didn't Mattel apologize?

The Chinese are saying Mattel did and it was about time.

Mattel seems to be backing away from its full throttle apology.

But, here's a news flash :there are plenty of experts who say China deserved the apology.

Turns out Mattel wasn't kowtowing to China when the alleged apology occurred, they were actually fessin' up for their own mistakes.

That's right. The 17.2 million toys that were recalled for faulty magnets had nothing to do with the manufacturing process in China, it had to do with a design flaw created by Mattel.

What about those toys with lead paint? About 2.2 million Mattel toys were recalled for lead paint and that is a problem China needs to own.

But do the math. 17.2 toys a result of Mattel's design problems. 2.2 million because of China's lead paint.

That was not the impression most of us walked away with last summer. When Mattel apologized profusely to American families, we were left with the distinct impression that the problem lay on the shoulders of "Made In China."  We were left with the impression that the problem had more to do with the manufacturing process and less to do what was done in the corporate offices of Mattel.

Reporting about this issue,  NPR quotes a Canadian study that says 75% of the toy recalls in the past 20 years are a result of the manufacturer's design flaws rather than problems in the manufacturing process (i.e. sloppy work in China.) 

From The Winnipeg Sun,

A University of Manitoba professor says criticism of China in the wake of recalled children's toys were misdirected.

Hari Bapuji, an expert on the issue, said "it didn't seem right" to him when consumers and governments across North America slammed China in recent weeks upon discoveries of unsafe amounts of lead and other dangers in toys produced in the Asian country.

Following extensive recent research, Bapuji issued a report that has garnered worldwide attention in the past couple of weeks.

The report found that during 20 years of toy recalls, more than 75% of products were found to have problems because of flaws in their designs only, and not in the ways the toys were manufactured.

RUNS COUNTER

That, Bapuji suggested, runs counter to blasts of criticism directed at China this past summer.

Bapuji said U.S. toy distribution giant Mattel should get credit for taking some responsibility for potentially unsafe products.

"I'm sure that will go over very well with Chinese people, that Mattel has admitted some responsibility," Bapuji, of the U of M's Asper School of Business, told Sun Media yesterday.

On Monday, The Washington Post  by way of Reuters, reported that China is feeling very vindicated.

"The apology, though delayed, should help dispel the suspicion American customers harbor against Chinese-made products," the China Daily said in an editorial.

"Its (Mattel's) reputation will be impaired when the whole truth about the recalls is finally made public."

But, there is a but to that apology made by senior vice president Thomas Debrowski.

Mattel subsequently issued a statement saying his words had been "mischaracterized" -- though it did not specify how -- and his apology was directed at buyers of its toys.

Huh? From Passport, a blog by the editors of Foreign Policy,

As the Financial Times pointed out, this was in stark contrast to Mattel CEO Robert Eckert's comments to the U.S. Senate last week, where he said, "We were let down, and so we let you down." Mattel obviously realized that with 65 percent of the company's toys manufactured in China, it's clearly not in its interest to blame China or its regulatory environment. A continued backlash against toys made in China would only lead to protectionism, bad news for a country with extensive overseas operations. Mattel's investors seem to have realized the same; the apology prompted a rise in the company's stock price—not a decline.

New York Times Blames It On "A Sales Rep"

In a  half -hearted  mea culpa editorial "Betraying Its Own Best Interests" New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt tries to explain  away  the Petraeus Ad  brouhaha with a corporate standby  expected of  a lesser organization --- they're blaming it on the sales rep.

Now there are really two issues that Clark had to deal with in his editorial. The first was  explaining how the ad was accepted in the first place---The New York Times has an advertising policy that  it does not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.

The advertising editor says he accepted the ad because of the question mark. Okay, fine.

But, to explain how the organization got a discounted "Standby"  ad rate, for an ad that Moveon.org called in as a "rush" ad, this is the paper's explanation:

The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.[...] Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, “We made a mistake.” She said the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, “That was contrary to our policies.”

Say it isn't so, New York Times! How could the venerable gray lady of the 5th estate stoop so low.

It was bad enough when you had the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller scandals, but now you are blaming a senior level decision on "A SALES REP?"

Mr. Hoyt,that statement doesn't pass the smell test. It does not pass the test of public scrutiny.

Good Grief! Do you really think the general public is living in a turnip patch?

Moveon.org is paying the balance due..that's about $80,000 more than they originally played.

The NYT is refusing to name the "so-called" Sales Rep.

If the  tables were turned and the newspaper  was trying to get to the bottom of  a similar scandal at a regular business would they leave it at that? I don't think so. They wouldn't let up until the "Sales Rep" was exposed, humiliated and his/her career destroyed.

It's easy to be a truth-seeker when the spotlight isn't on you.

AT&T sends iPhone Bills in A Box

Amy Gahran at Contentious is definitely not an early adopter when it comes to smart phones. She doesn't own one. She doesn't like to talk on the phone. So now she has decided its time to get a Smart Phone. You can read about her search  here.  She was leaning towards the iPhone until she saw this.

As the video shares, At&T customers can opt to view their bills online and avoid the monthly package. Justine's bill cost AT&T almost $10 to send. 

What could justify a 300 -page  bill?  AT&T evidently details every single access point including TXT messages. Justine sends around 30,000 TXT messages a month. To quote Amy Gahran "Yikes!"

Over at YouTube there is a video of a news story on these boxed bills with one consumer -- who got a 40 page bill-- saying that he saw some benefits particularly if he had kids and they were txting at 2:00 in the morning.

Amy, if you opt for that iPhone you can get summary billing and of course e-billing.

One word of advice, when I switched to my smart phone several years ago I assumed I would use it for all my communication needs. But Smart Phones may be great at sending emails, and having a dynamic calendar, I have found them less than comfy to talk on. That's why I have a Blackberry and a traditional phone.

So as you hunt, don't give up that cell phone so fast. You may want to consider opting for the "family plan" where you can add a line for $10 a month.  That may sound irritating but  after a month of trying to have a conversation on a smart phone you will yearn for your   Tracfone.

Business's Love Affair with the acronym brings us Seattle's S.L.U.T.

From a news perspective. the fact that Seattle was unveiling the first of its $50 million dollar rail system on Wednesday would usually get a big yawn and a deep six from most news organizations.

But in Seattle there is a back story that the media is having a field day with.
For the record, the new transit system is officially called Seattle Streetcar. But, the streetcar originates in a neighborhood of  Seattle called South Union Lake. And thus, the unfortunate and embarrassing business acronym.S.L.U.T.

From Eric Wilkinson at King5 News,

Seattle's slick new streetcar transit system is getting trashed as a tramp due to the very distinctive acronym for its name...Workers point to newspaper articles that show "trolley" was the original name for the system, but that changed to "streetcar" when somebody discovered the unfortunate acronym.     

       Developers call that an urban legend.    

    

       Regardless, the name has stuck like a bad reputation.    

    

Paul Allen owns almost all of the area south of Lake Union where the streetcar will be based.  He's also doing massive redevelopment such as tearing down buildings and tearing up roads.

    

       All the construction has people coming up with a few other choice words.    

    

       Traffic here is often referred to as another derogatory word that        describes a female dog.    

    

There's also the perception of politicians as colorful word for a donkey, for spending millions on a streetcar when there are other pressing problems.

.
Will riders call it the Streetcar or will SLUT become the name the system is known for?

When asked, Seattle's mayor Greg Nickels  responded, "People can call it anything they want as long as they ride it."

Those could be words he regrets one day particularly if the name  really "sticks." And it could.

It's a story to watch. While  the mayor had little choice than to make light of the name  during the streetcar's virgin voyage, it will not be so amusing in a few weeks if the name gets traction. If that happens and S.L.U.T. is the accepted moniker for the transit system, watch for a major  PR  blitz to rehabilitate th name.

If

Certainly, there is interest in the S.L.U.T. T-Shirt where the first 100 have already sold out and more are on order.

to Bill Harris of Making Sense of Facilitated Systems for directing me to this story.

Cartoon Credit: Antagonist Ink: Eric Devericks. The cartoon appeared on the editorial page of The Seattle  Times.

Image Credit: Irregular Bones

Do you pronounce the boss's name: Lana or Lana?

  Few things shout out "you're talking about me "more than this clip from the Canadian TV series, Smart Woman Survival Guide.

To get a sense of what it's like to live with my name, click here.

And to read the trend in entertainment to utilize office-related themes, check out my post at Blogher.

Note to TREO Users: Stop Contacting Susan Getgood

Are there any baby boomers, Gen-Xers, or Gen-Yers who did not, at some point in their life, spend a lovely afternoon randomly calling folks and asking the quintessential phone prank question,

IS YOUR REFRIGERATOR RUNNING?

We were laughing so hard at our mischief that few of us gave a second thought to the people we pranked.

Then there are those unfortunate people whose phone numbers are one digit off from a popular pizza parlor, taxi company, or cable company.

Fast forward to the 21st Century. What happens when your website address is precipitously close to a major smart phone provider?

Such is the case of Susan Getgood, a marketing consultant,whose website address is http://getgood.com.  An address is that unfortunately close to the website address TREO sends new users to download its software.
That address would be get.good.com.

I have blogged about this for nearly as long as I have been blogging.  It took about a year for us to figure out WHY we were getting these calls. You can read my previous posts if you'd like to experience our ongoing discovery.  But earlier this year, we did indeed finally understand what was happening. We thought.

We wondered why folks didn't understand that a marketing consultant was not the support department for their cell phone. But we figured they probably were just so desperate to talk to someone and get their damn phone working that it seemed worth a shot. 

As I've written here before, I've reached out to both Good Technology and their PR agency using addresses found on the Web site, just to see if maybe they couldn't do something to stop this annoyance. I do realize that I am just one person, and it doesn't make sense to redo their software just because I'm regularly interrupted by their customers, but an apology would be nice. Instead my emails are deleted without being read.

 

When folks contact Susan she gives them the correct website address and sends them on their way. But as someone(must have been someone in business) once said, " No Good Deed Goes Unpunished,"

Susan's contact info is now in the SPRINT system.

But today we reached the nadir. Something needs to be done. Today, some poor woman from Colorado was on hold for Sprint tech support and was transferred to my number. Apparently by someone at Sprint. Enough already. Somebody at one of the companies associated with this software, please fix this. That would be Good Technology, Palm (manufacturer of Treo), Motorola (recently acquired Good) and Sprint. And an apology would be nice.

Now this isn't a new problem. It's been going on for years. And for years, the companies have treated Susan as if she were an insignificant gnat.

So, what do you think would be an appropriate apology, and what should the companies do to try to rectify the situation?

For starters, send the folks at SPRINT the right phone number !
 

Southwest Airlines MastersThe Business Apology: Throw a mini-skirt sale, ignore the injured party

It's being called the "Southwest Apology."  But what Southwest  Airlines is calling  an "apology" is nothing more than a mean-spirited dig at Kyla Ebbert.

Here is the so-called apology by way of Upgrade:Travel Better

From a Company who really loves PR, touche to you Kyla! Some have said we’ve gone from wearing our famous hot pants to having hot flashes at Southwest, but nothing could be further from the truth. As we both know, this story has great legs, but the true issue here is that you are a valued Customer, and you did not get an adequate apology. Kyla, we could have handled this better, and on behalf of Southwest Airlines, I am truly sorry. We hope you continue to fly Southwest Airlines. Our Company is based on freedom even if our actions may have not appeared that way. It was never our intention to treat you unfairly and again, we apologize.

For a statement to be an actual apology there needs to be an expression of regret.

Beginning the press release implying that Kyla Ebbert is PR Whore would not fall into my definition of a sincere expression of regret. The airlines comes off as smug, arrogant and definitely not  remorseful.

It's a read my lips, wink , wink, wink, excuse for an apology.

In fact, the airlines never actually apologizes to Ms. Ebbert. They apologize for not having apologized. That's right . No where in there pseudo-apology statement is an actual "mea culpa" to  the way Ms. Ebbert  was treated. Why is the airlines having such a tough time admitting and or believing they did anything wrong?

No where  in  this statement is their reference to how customers should expect to be treated by their airlines.

Instead they focus on the fact that they could have handled this better (that's code for we got some really bad press on this and were definitely not on our game.)

If it were a real apology Southwest Airlines would be offering Kyla Ebbert her own personal  a mini-skirt sale by giving her a year of free flying. If they are doing that , they're not promoting it. So it's fair to say Ms. Ebbert isn't getting free fares.

Instead, they are running a "mini-skirt" sale after realizing even their  most loyal  had "Lost That Loving Feeling" for the LUV airlines.

Will a 'mini-skirt" sale help restore their reputation and image as the airlines flyers love to luv? 

Probably, but the key question still isn't answered? What is your dress code and how can flyers comply?

In Memoriam: TheBusiness World Remembers The Body Shop's Anita Roddick

Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop, died  suddenly Monday, September 10,2007 of a brain hemmorage.Writing in the FC Expert Blog Valerie Maltoni  reminds us that Anita Roddick, didn't just sell innovative cosmetics, she changed the way businesses thought of their customers.

She anticipated the values of her customers, super served them and never wavered. Her success followed naturally.

The Body Shop has been defining the customer experience by telling a different story – one of vision, responsibility, and care. By doing that, they have turned an idea into reality; people and customers come first. Here's to the hope that The New Academy of Business, a masters degree course at Bath University, which she helped launch in 1997 with the aim of reforming business education for the new century will contribute to carrying on those ideals.

Writing in her personal blog, Conversation Agent, Maltoni shared some of Roddick's thoughts on becoming an entrepreneur. This is what Roddick believed.

1. The vision of something new and belief in it that's so strong that it becomes a reality.
2. A touch of craziness.
3. The ability to stand out of the crowd because entrepreneurs act instinctively on what they see, think and feel. And remember there is always truth in reactions.
4. The ability to have ideas constantly bubbling and pushing up inside until they are forced out, like genies from the bottle, by the pressure of creative tension.
5. Pathological optimism.
6. A covert understanding that you don't have to know how to do something. Skill or money is not the answer for the entrepreneur, it is knowledge: from books, observing or asking.
7. Streetwise skills. Most entrepreneurs she met have had an innate desire for social change. They understand that business is not just financial science.
8. Creativity.
9. The ability to mix all these together effectively.
10. And finally, every entrepreneur is a great storyteller. It is storytelling that defines your differences.

 

Liz Fuller, writing in More Than WE Know says that Roddick was one of her role models.

Anita was one of the orignators of the idea of doing business to do good.  Ecological principles were a foundation of her business with its philosophy of re-use, re-fill and re-cycle. Later, she expanded her social activisim to include human rights, animal rights and sustainable environmental practices. Anita traveled the world to gain inspiration and to give assistance.  She was an author, a speaker, a teacher, and an activist.   She was an example for Women Entrepreneurs everywhere who want to achieve success and help the world to be a better place.

From  chinese bood, irish heart,

Promoting and engaging in Fair Trade and eco-friendly business practices may not have been the first order of business for Anita Roddick and The Body Shop, but hell, they've done much more than any company in that industry.One of the first books I read on global warming and fair trade policies was produced by Dame Roddick, so I thanked her for that.She was one of the few that injected some sort of humanity and compassion into the great capitalist and globalisation machine; and no doubt spawned a new type of entrepreuneur that saw globalisation as a means to better the lives of poor people who were disconnected from the frantic world of global...

Want to share your thoughts about Anita Roddick? Visit the Body Shop's Tribute Page.

"Fresh Beets" using social media for legal defense fund in A&P's million dollar"YouTube" Lawsuit

What do you do when you are served with a $1 million dollar lawsuit for posting a gangster rap  parody video on "YouTube?"

You go online and set up a legal defense fund. Check it out at FakeLaugh.com where you can get regular updates on their legal woes, send a complaint to A&P , purchase Fresh Beets T-Shirts, and  if you can't wait until the end of this post, scoot over to watch the video.

The video in question was created by two New Jersey brothers - Mark and Matthew D'Avella who filmed the video after hours in the A&P Grocery Store where they worked.

Claiming the video  caused at least one customer to boycott the store because of the video's "repulsive acts," A&P's parent company, The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc., filed a $1 million lawsuit  in New Jersey's Superior Court and demanded the brothers remove the video from the internet.

Yeah ,right. That was going to happen.  Last I looked ,as of September 13th, the video had been viewed by 100,000 people.
Not only is the video still on YouTube, but reaction by most bloggers is that A&P pulled the litigation trigger a bit too fast.

Here's the back story courtesy of the Associated Press:

The 4-minute, 16-second video features the two college students rapping as they handle fruits and vegetables in different parts of a grocery store.

The brothers - styling themselves as a group called Fresh Beets - stand with bananas suggestively hanging out of their pants at one point. One pretends to urinate on some greens.

The rap's refrain is a rhyming couplet: "It's all about the produce produce, we don't like to kid/It's the lower middle portion of the food pyramid."

The rap never mentions the food chain, but A&P said several lines were "disparaging and disgusting," including, "it ain't safe in our produce paradise." The song also uses an obscenity to describe cut fruit.

The video was posted Aug. 6; the brothers were fired Aug. 23, and the lawsuit was filed Aug. 24

Writing in The Citizen Media Law Project, where you can read a detailed description of A&P's lawsuit ,Sam Bayard says,

I've watched the video (quite a few times).  True, "Double D" and "Razor Blade" (the brothers' stage monikers) do some borderline-lewd things with fruits and vegetables, and at one point Double D (or is it Razor Blade?) appears to be urinating on some parsley.  But I fail to see the connection to A&P, and I can't identify any potentially defamatory statements about A&P.  It's impossible to tell that the video was shot inside an A&P store, unless you've been in that particular store (and even then I'm not so sure). Certainly, part of the humor of the video is that it was shot in the store, but the point is much more "look, it's a grocery store" rather than "look, it's an A&P."  The brothers don't mention A&P by name or prominently display the A&P trademark.

B.L.Ochman's weblog points out:

It seems that neither side thought much about the probable outcome of their actions.

But c'mon A&P, what are you doing? Any time a big, powerful company sues a young person -- rightly or wrongly -- they get no sympathy. It's the same heavy-handed crap corporations were known for before the communications revolution known as the Internet, and apparently no lessons have been learned. And, get this, A&P also cluelessly demands that the video be removed from the Internet.

Granted the brothers, who call themselves "The Beet Patrol" do some disgusting things with and to the produce. (But really, didn't you always think this kind of stuff was happening anyway? That's why you wash fruit and veggies before you eat them. And to get off the noxious chemicals.)

On Y-Pulse Anastasia Goodstein observes,

Nothing taps into the spirit of youth rebellion more than when a corporation uses its power (and army of lawyers) to sue a young person. Whether the company is technically right or wrong, the fact that they are suing "the little guy" inherently paints them in a negative light...

  Update: Shel Holtz wrote a great post on his blog suggesting: Rather than firing and suing (and getting a lot of press), A&P would have been far better off at least considering ways to take advantage of the brothers’ efforts. It would have been easy to make the point that the video doesn’t reflect the way A&P produce workers go about their work while spotlighting the talent of its employees. Playing up the video could have attracted college-age customers to their stores. Now, as 22-year-old Mark noted in the AP story, “If they lose any sales, it will be because of the way they treated two students.”

Indeed, it will be interesting to see if a Facebook activist group forms in support of the boys or calling for a boycott of A&P until they drop the suit. A&P may get its social media lessons the hard way. I’m not suggesting A&P has no grounds for its suit. It’s just not smart when the company could find ways to increase sales and attract new customers instead.

Of course, there’s also an opportunity here for Safeway or some other big grocery chain, isn’t there? Hiring the brothers and applauding their creativity could bring a surge of business, including the patronage of former A&P customers.

By the way, the boys father is the produce manager. And, here's the video. YouTube did give it an 18+ rating.