Rule Number One of my approach to marketing is to treat the customer right. As I say in my books, it’s far cheaper to bring back an existing customer than to have to go out and recruit a new one. And even in the following case, where there is no likelihood of a repeat purchase, it still would have made more sense to honor the request. A business owner never knows when a customer will tell a very large circle of people about either a good or a bad experience. And in this particular case, I’m prepared to escalate and the merchant may find itself with neither the money nor the merchandise, just for being stupid about customer service.

For right now, I won’t name the company; we’ll see what kind of response I get. But here’s a letter I wrote that I should never have had to write:

On January 12, 2010, we purchased two bags at your Lincoln Mall store in Miami Beach, a few minutes before closing time. We came into the store because my wife needed a replacement for her everyday purse. She found one that was a little larger and considerably heavier than her current purse, and I found a fanny pack, which I’d been looking for. It wasn’t ideal but she thought she could make it work. However, walking the few blocks back to where we were staying, it became obvious that the weight would be a problem. We actually took turns carrying it, and she decided we’d bring it back the next day.

The purse never left the [name of store] plastic bag. It was exactly as it had been when we took it out of the store. But when we returned the next evening, the store refused to refund her purchase (we’re keeping the fanny pack). They pointed to the sales receipt, which stated that all returns would be for exchanges, not refunds.

However, this information is not posted anywhere in the store. There is no way to know about the policy until after you’ve made the purchase and the store considers you bound by it.

As it happens, I’ve written several books on marketing, and while not a lawyer, I have at least a basic understanding of consumer law. One of the requirements of a valid contract is that it’s entered into voluntarily by all parties. In this case, the terms of the contract were essentially changed by one party after purchase. The standard for American retail is to take back unused, salable merchandise within a reasonable time after purchase, and where the conditions are different, they need to be visibly posted so the customer is aware. Handing someone a sales receipt with different conditions is not something likely to hold up to scrutiny.

However, the store did not accept this argument and refused to issue a refund; we spoke to four different people. We did look around to see if here was anything else we needed, but we had come to the store specifically to buy the purse, and couldn’t find anything else even remotely suitable.

I am writing to you because I’d rather we work this out as reasonable people. We were only visiting Miami Beach and have left the area, so we can no longer bring the item back in person. However, we would be glad to return the bag if you refund our purchase price ($29.95 plus $2.10 sales tax, total $32.05) and issue a prepaid call tag from UPS or any other carrier. We will not pay to ship it back, since it was not our fault that the store refused to take it back when we went in person.

I’m sure we’d both rather avoid a credit card chargeback, and therefore, a refund is the better path.

Thank you,
Shel Horowitz

I’ll let you know what happens.

Another Case of Customer Service Stupidity is a post from: Principled Profit

OK, so everyone knows by now, bottled water is uncool if you live in a place where the water is fit to drink (and that includes most of the U.S., Canada, and Europe, as well as many other parts of the world). Issues include environmental impact, cost, depletion of public resources, and centralization of corporate power.

On the other hand, the health benefits of water are very clear—and having suffered a kidney stone, I personally make a priority of drinking water a whole lot.

So…what do you do when you need that second (or third, or eighth) drink of water, but you’re out and about? Triple Pundit just featured a free service that matches those offering water with those who need it.

And quite correctly, TP spent some time on the advantages to businesses of participating: getting people in the door, positive word-of-mouth, and more—but they missed a big promotional opportunity: This clever idea, called TapIt, so far has database listings only in New York City and Orlando, but the concept is infinitely scalable. If you have a physical location and can wash a few extra dishes, visit the TapIt site and click “become a partner.” And then, smart marketer that you are, send out a news release in your local area announcing that you’re the very first business in (location) to participate in this environmentally friendly act of good will.

An easy way to promote your store/office–with the power of water is a post from: Principled Profit

Fascinating article on BNET about how Microsoft’s much-ballyhooed Bing search engine is no Google killer–because, as I’ve been saying for years (including in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First), branding is not about how much money you pour into the marketing, but about the superior service or product or experience you can deliver.

Which is, after all, how Google achieved search dominance in the first place, as anyone who remembers searching with clunky tools of the mid-90s will attest.

The article does have a solution for Microsoft, though: it identifies a core weakness of Google’s and gives Microsoft an exact recipe to exploit this vulnerability.

I won’t spoil the surprise. Go read it.

BNET: Why Bing Won’t Bother Google–and What Microsoft Should Do Instead is a post from: Principled Profit

When a lot of people think of crowd-sourcing–harnessing the network of common wisdom–they probably think first of Wikipedia, which is written by its users. But Wikipedia, and Wikis in general, are only the most visible piece of an amazing phenomenon that dates back to the earliest days of the Net. Maybe eight or ten years ago, I was interviewed in some publication about how to get support and problems-solving for free or very low cost. And I described, among other things, how I got technical support from my then-most-current social media strategy: e-mail discussion groups.

It’s usually easy to find an informed and intelligent group of people who are delighted to answer your question. Online communities have been solving people’s problems for several decades. The form keeps evolving–from BBSs to -L listservs to yahoogroups, and now, to communities like Twitter, groups on Facebook, LinkedIn, Plaxo, etc. But just as TV did not replace radio and radio did not replace print, this is an additive process; the old ways still work.

Just today, I ran into a problem with my home phone somehow forwarding to my business line. I didn’t set this up and couldn’t figure out how to turn it off. So I posted on Twitter, and a few minutes later, I had the answer. But I also have an issue with Amazon.com’s Advantage program, and I won’t look for the answer on Twitter or Facebook. I’m going to be asking on the two yahoogroups publishing discussion lists I follow. I expect I’ll find the answer. Knowing which audience makes sense for which kinds of questions makes a difference. And it also makes a difference if you consistently provide value to others within the community; people will be much more helpful if you’re seen as one of the “good guys.”

So…with all this free consulting (not to mention free information on the Web, already posted)…why do people still need consultants? Simple: Responses on social networks are typically off-the-cuff, general advice that may or may not be relevant to a specific situation. Even if someone spends 20 or 30 minutes answering a question, that person doesn’t know your specific situation, and won’t be expected to go into depth. In fact, social networks are an excellent way to demonstrate that you know what you’re talking about, so that when people do need to go deeper, they turn to you.

Yes, this really works; I’ve actually built my business on it. And just as an example of the free-to-fee model, I’ve given you the skeleton here. If you want to know the nuts and bolt, I have various infoproducts that can help, including my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First.

The Democratized Encyclopedia: Social Networks is a post from: Principled Profit

Just yesterday, I blogged about the massive user outcry over Facebook’s new Terms of Use. Last night, CNet reported that the social networking giant had retreated.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged the controversy, saying, “we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”

And better still, this time the process will be collaborative–which is especially appropriate, given that Facebook exists because of content its users create:

If you’d like to get involved in crafting our new terms, you can start posting your questions, comments and requests in the group we’ve created—Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. I’m looking forward to reading your input.

I think I’ll sign up for that group!

Facebook Bows to Pressure, Reverts to Old TOS is a post from: Principled Profit

Lostremote.com has an astounding post: a traditional print journalist ranted that a TV station allowing its viewers to select one story for the nightly newscast was the death of standards. The station, in best-practices Web 2.0 fashion, invited him on the show to debate the issue publicly.

And this is how the journalist responded:

“I’m told that this multiple-choice reporter has called me out with a public invitation, on her blog or her twitter or whatever, to debate her before her ubiquitous Web camera with its on-line audience of literally dozens of voyeurs and three or four lonely, misfit bloggers who spend all their time communicating only with each other. I need not lend my experience and credibility to draw her a crowd.”

Talk about clueless! This kind of arrogance might have worked for The New York Times 100 years ago, but it sure doesn’t work now for an unknown journalist working for a newspaper in Arkansas! What he doesn’t get is that he has no credibility with the audience he’s rejecting (other than he apparently writes a blog on politics)–and that his appearance on the show might have built credibility for his position, and might have gone viral, being seen by tens of thousands.

Now, mind you–I am trained as a traditional print journalist. I have enormous respect for people who follow the old principles and standards–who do research before they write, who understand the importance of objectivity, and who try to tell the important stories that are very hard to find on mainstream broadcast media–and I’m horrified by the decline both in journalistic standards within a story and in the general willingness to go after a tough (and expensive) but important story. That failure in part led us to the Iraq debacle. Journalists absolutely need to ask hard questions, grapple with the answers, and filter the world for their public. In an era where we all have far too much information and limited ability to process it, we still need traditional journalists as intermediaries. Citizen journalism is vital, but it’s not the whole thing. Professional journalism is crucial, still.

But I think you can have both journalistic standards and an openness to listening to your readers/listeners/viewers. You can have deep investigative journalism and a viewpoint, even in nonprint media–look at the amazing radio/TV show, Democracy Now, if you want an example. And you can have dialog without threatening your position. I think this journo was extremely short-sighted.

With Attitudes Like These, No Wonder Traditional Journalism Is Dying is a post from: Principled Profit

Back in March, I got the kind of call that every writer dreams about. An editor at a major publisher telling me she loved the proposal, and could we talk? The last time I got a call like that from a major publisher was back in 1991.

Of course we could talk! We talked and talked and talked. The first contract they sent me arrived in June, and was unacceptable. I flagged over a dozen areas that I wanted changed. And we kept talking, although there were periods of several weeks when they seemed to disappear and didn’t return my calls. But then, just when I would start to think they’d changed their minds, they’d be back in my inbox and on my voicemail, ready to move forward. And usually, right about when they showed up again was when my co-author’s literary agent would go incommunicado for another few weeks.

In mid-September, another draft of the contract arrived. It didn’t give me anywhere near everything that I’d asked for, but it was a huge improvement. I was almost ready to sign, but two “deal-breaker” clauses had to be changed. One of them was the original due date of October 1, 2008, to submit the manuscript, and the other had to do with my existing intellectual property. And the co-author also had one clause to change.

Just this week, the third draft arrived. And this time, it’s something that we can all sign. Yippee!

It’s been a long process, but I’m not sorry.

As you can imagine, the temptation was strong to go flying off the handle, accuse people, or otherwise engage in behavior that might have felt good at the moment but would have done nothing except to dig myself into a deep hole. I resisted the temptation. I stayed positive and confident, even while pressing my demands in a friendly but firm way.

No matter how many times I called and got voicemail, I never left a negative message. No matter how many weeks went by with no communication, I always approached each new call without recrimination. I listened politely to the editor complain about the agent, and on other calls, the agent complain about the editor. But when I needed to complain I vented to someone who had no involvement in the deal.

And now, finally, we have a deal that all four parties–I, my co-author, his agent, and the editor at the publishing house–are all happy with.

This has been a long, drawn-out exercise in the principles I discuss in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First: of being truly people-centered, of getting what you want by being nice, and of thinking long-term.

In fact, those principles got me the contract in the first place. There’s a well-known author who originally came to me as a customer; he ordered my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit through my website. We began a relationship, I sent him an essay (unpaid) for one of his books, he did an appearance on my radio show…and he asked me, out of the blue, after over a year of corresponding, if I’d like the contact information for his editor at this publishing house.

In other words, this stuff works.

And I started work on the new book yesterday. I think it’s gong to be the best and most important book I’ve done, and I’m fully expecting that it’ll be a best-seller.

It’s an exciting journey. I’ll be sure to keep you posted.

The Power of Patience, Persistence, and Positivity is a post from: Principled Profit

Lauren Bloom has a sweet new book, “The Art of Apology,” which I really enjoyed. She’s sending me a guest blog for posting on Wednesday–just in time for Yom Kippur (starts Wednesday night)–the Jewish day of asking forgiveness.

Meantime, if you want a preview, she’s giving away a chapter at http://www.ArtOfTheApology.com/preview

Watch This Space: Art of Apology Wednesday is a post from: Principled Profit

For years, I’ve been a proponent of viral marketing; as one among may examples, it’s the main tool I’ve used to gain support for the Business Ethics Pledge.

One of the best viral marketers I know is Ken McArthur, known for his joint-venture Internet marketing conferences. I met Ken several years ago at one of Fred Gleeck’s book marketing conferences, and then again a few years later at Mark Victor Hansen’s book marketing conference. We’ve stayed in touch. And since meeting him, Ive noticed that he crops up absolutely everywhere.

Yet even though he’s obviously been gong to book marketing conferences for years, he didn’t have a book. Now, he’s finally about to release IMPACT: How to Get Noticed, Motivate Millions and Make a Difference in a Noisy World (yes, its an affiliate link). I’ve been one of his many informal advisors, and even commented to him a few months ago that I also have a book title that ends with “in a Noisy World” (Grassroots Marketing: Getting Noticed in a Noisy World, published in 2000 by Chelsea Green

Frugal marketing genius that he is, Ken wouldn’t be content with an ordinary book launch–so he created one of the most powerful viral marketing ideas I’ve ever seen. I wish I’d thought of it.

You know the concept of internships: students donate labor in exchange for training. Ken has taken this to an extreme: he recruited over 100 people to be his unpaid Internet marketing corps, in exchange for learning all his tricks via a series of conference calls. What a perfect example of the Abundance Principle at work! The six-week program started tonight.

I decided that one of my contributions to the effort would be to chronicle it here. So thus, my key takeaways from call #1:

This is an easy one for me, as I know a lot of people in the independent publishing sector. Except that I can’t really separate influencers from JV partners. But because what he’s doing is newsworthy in the publishing world and in the Internet marketing world, I have a number of people I could approach to let them know about what’s going on, including John Kremer, Dan Poynter, Fern Reiss, Patricia Frey, and Joan Stewart–all very big names in the world he’s trying to reach.

Ken being Ken, he makes it quite worthwhile to visit his site, offering a truckload of quality resources just for dropping by.

Is this your chance to learn from a master launcher, without paying thousands of dollars for a product? I think it might just be.

Ken McArthur’s Grand Viral Marketing Experiment is a post from: Principled Profit

I love discovering fresh, articulate voices who discuss important things. And today I discovered Mike Wagner, of OwnYourOwnBrand.com. He writes elegantly on the brand as based in the customer’s own experience. I particularly enjoyed his story of the broken minor promise that cost a hotel $30,000 in lost future revenue, and also of the receptionist who made him feel special.

What especially interests me is the way I found him. I participate fairly passively on several Web 2.0 social networking sites. This morning, I logged onto Plaxo and found that someone in one of my groups had posted a link to the Thinking Blogger Awards. And Mike was one of the five honored Thinking Bloggers. Is that cool, or what?

If you’re not starting to harness Web 2.0 in your own business, maybe it’s time to start.

A New Discovery…And a Web 2.0 Moment is a post from: Principled Profit