One Gym, Two Gym, Old Gym, New Gym

Let's face it, there's a lot of competition for gyms, fitness centers, and other workout venues to attract new clients. People are eating more yet burning off fewer calories as they (we) sit behind desks most of the day. So anybody looking to get a workout in will likely consider joining a gym. But how do prospective customers know which one to attend? Well based on my experience with going to gyms (4 different ones in the past 5 years in fact), here are the main determining factors, as far as I can tell:

-Price
-Cleanliness
-Location
-Equipment quality
-Friendliness of staff members

Now consider this comparison, as I switch from my current gym to a new gym:

Old gym: costs twice as much as new gym, always has musty/sweaty gym smell, is located 5 minutes further from my house than new gym, equpiment is fair but noticeably used, the staff members there generally don't even acknowledge me, and even the temperature can get really warm inside during the summer and stay really cool in the winter making for a less pleasant workout.

Yet oddly enough, in some ways, I feel bad about leaving my current gym. I probably would have kept going there if this new gym (which really is new... it opened today) never opened, but when I see what a high-quality competitor has to offer, how can I pass up this new opportunity?

Just goes to show... as a business, you can't depend on maintaining the status quo and continue to please people.

What Happens to E-mails Sent to General Inboxes?

I'm an e-mail guy. Sometimes at work I'll want to contact a company about something that's on my mind (a question, a compliment, a criticism, etc.), but I don't want to call on my company's dime (not to mention sit on hold for 20 minutes) so I'll shoot a quick 1-minute e-mail, generally to the address listed on the token "Contact Us" page. It's convenient for me and should be convenient for the company I'm trying to reach. The theory being that we can both communicate whenever time allows.

In theory that works well... in reality, I'd say I get responses on less than 50% of the e-mails I send. And most of the responses I do get come several days later, which, in modern times, is like an eternity. In other words, that's downright shameful. Terrible way to do business.

So what happens to the e-mails I send to these general inboxes? Are they totally ignored? Are they not getting through the system? Does a magical leprechaun snatch them and hide them in his pot of e-gold? Do they get tumbled through a dryer and never come out, like a sock? What's the deal?

Any marketer worth his salt out there knows that receiving feedback is a top priority for the company. If the company has no idea what the consumer is thinking, how can the company adapt and grow? Or if the customer has a question, that's a prime time to learn how to help the customer and encourage a sale. But apparently e-mailing feedback or a question is a no-no for most companies.

If you have any thoughts on this topic, feel free to e-mail me. Perhaps I'll respond by next year or so. Using a message in a bottle.

Fixing Politics One Issue at a Time

For some reason, a thought about politics just flashed through my weary Monday evening brain. I can't say I've thought this one out a whole lot... more of a fleeting idea, if anything, but perhaps it has some merit. Take a gander...

So I'm thinking about politics in this country. And I'm thinking about how everything else operates in the "real world," because the political life certainly is far from what most people would consider real or normal. The two, for some reason, have gotten so far apart from the original beginnings that perhaps we need to take a look at how this system operates.

Back when this great country of America was started, there were probably a grand total of about five pressing issues, judging based on what was written in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. The main topics were roughly: Giving people rights while having fair representation in government; defending the country from Indians and foreign countries; slavery; taxes; and crime. Granted, there were probably more, but these were the core issues, and collectively these issues could be handled pretty well by elected officials.

Fast forward now to the present day. Think about the vast number of issues on the table at any given time: the current Iraq War (or, more generally, foreign relations); the environment; the economy; taxes; disease control; social security; crime; local interests; abortion; education... the list goes on, and indeed even these main topics each have dozens of sub-topics that are pretty in-depth.

So here's the question I ask: How can any given elected official possibly be able to follow each and every issue and subsequently vote intelligently on such a wide array of bills? Before answering that question, let's take a look at a typical NFL football team for a moment. It has a head coach, an offensive coach, a defensive coach, a special teams coach, a QB coach, an offensive line coach, a.... well you get the idea! Each coach has a specialty and does his best to nail down his particular area of expertise in order to improve the team as a whole.

Another example: If you go to a big-time law firm, you'll find lawyers practicing dozens of different areas of law. Need an environmental attorney? Fifth floor. Need criminal defense? Tenth floor. Looking for a tax lawyer? Eighth floor. Again, you get the idea.

Lastly, think about a major company like Pfizer. There are probably dozens of departments divided throughout the organization, each having a specific job, perhaps focusing solely on specific product lines out of their vast array of products. Everybody's got their defined job, and they do it to the best of their abilities.

Why, then, don't we elect officials to cover specific issues, or a limited umbrella of issues? Specialization has become the name of the game these days. Except in the wild world of politics, where a politician is expected to vote effectively on a frighteningly wide array of issues. I would think that if we had to vote elected officials based on their stance on specific issues, this country would be a lot more efficiently run and the whole "liberal" vs. "conservative" stereotypes and mental blocks would be a thing of the past.

That's all I got for this Monday. Now back to the real world.