8 Signs You Might Be Boring Someone
A recent Psychology Today article by Gretchen Rubin provides a list of clues that you might be boring someone during a conversation. I’ve certainly been trapped in conversations with people who didn’t understand how to pick up on subtle clues that their long narrative about a weird dream they had or a particularly awesome golf game they played were boring the heck out of me — and just the same, I’m sure I’ve been oblivious to those signs in others, as well. Have you been on the giving or receiving end of any of these signs?
1. Repeated, perfunctory responses.
A person who repeats, “Oh really? Wow. Oh really? Interesting.” isn’t particularly engaged.
2. Simple questions. People who are bored ask simple questions.
“When did you move?” “Where did you go?” People who are interested ask more complicated questions that show curiosity, not mere politeness.
3. Interruption. Although it sounds rude, interruption is actually a good sign, I think. It means a person is bursting to say something, and that shows interest. Similarly…
4. Request for clarification. A person who is sincerely interested in what you’re saying will ask you to elaborate or to explain. “What does that term mean?” “When exactly did that happen?” “Then what did he say?” are the kinds of questions that show that someone is trying closely to follow what you’re saying.
5. Imbalance of talking time. I suspect that many people fondly suppose that they usually do eighty percent of the talking because people find them fascinating. Sometimes, it’s true, a discussion involves a huge download of information desired by the listener; that’s a very satisfying kind of conversation. In general, though, people who are interested in a subject have things to say themselves; they want to add their own opinions, information, and experiences. If they aren’t doing that, they’re probably keeping quiet in the hopes that the conversation will end faster. Or maybe you just aren’t letting them get a word in — recently I was talking to someone who, though fascinating, didn’t want to let me contribute to the conversation. I enjoyed it, but not as much as if I’d been able to talk, too.
6. Abrupt changes in topic. If you’re talking to someone about, say, the life of Winston Churchill (I have a tendency to dwell at length on this particular subject), and all of a sudden the other person says, “So how are your kids?”, it’s a sign that he or she isn’t very interested or perhaps not listening at all. When someone makes this kind of switch, I have to fight the urge not to drag the topic back to what I want to talk about – but the fact that someone has introduced a completely different subject is a sure sign that the subject is not engaging.
7. Body position. People with a good connection generally turn to face each other. A person who is partially turned away isn’t fully embracing the conversation. Along the same lines, if you’re a speaker trying to figure out if an audience is interested in what you’re saying:
8. Audience posture. Back in 1885, Sir Francis Galton wrote a paper called “The Measurement of Fidget.” He determined that people slouch and lean when bored, so a speaker can measure the boredom of an audience by seeing how far from vertically upright they are. Also, attentive people fidget less; bored people fidget more. An audience that’s sitting still and upright is interested, while an audience that’s horizontal and squirmy is bored.
The article goes on to list a number of topics which are almost universally boring — so if you find yourself delving into one of these, be sure and gauge your listener for any of the above signs of disengagement!
1. A dream.
2. The recent changes in your child’s nap schedule.
3. The route you took to get here.
4. An excellent meal you once had at a restaurant.
5. The latest additions to your wine cellar.
6. An account of your last golf game.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Competition Brings Out The Best
Competition Brings Out The Best
By Brian Tracy
In a free market society like the U.S., there is a continuous competition for talent and skill. Every business knows that the critical constraint on its ability to grow is competent to people who can get results. Like cream rising to the top, people who can do a good job are hired sooner, paid more, and promoted faster. People who are not competent or motivated are not. No laws can change this. They can only mask it temporarily.
Compassion or Condescension
Compassion can quickly become condescension. Minority groups can become victims of what President George Bush called “the soft bigotry of reduced expectations.” People begin to judge them by lower standards and expect less of them in comparison with others. This is completely unacceptable in America. The way to bring the best out of people is by challenging them-by setting high standards, by demanding their “best game.”
A System Gone Astray
The U.S. education system, once the best in the world (and still the best at the University level), has become a tragedy and a trap for more young people caught in it and unable to escape. In 1947, 97 percent of Americans were literate, reading several books a year, and often each month. By 2004, fully 47 percent of Americans could not read above the seventh grade level. People who have not mastered the three R's by the time they leave school are destined to lifetimes of low income, under achievement, and wasted potential.
"Reach Your Maximum Level of Achievement"
While many people have "dreams and aspirations" about how they want their futures to turn out, very few people actually have a plan to get there. No matter what your dreams and aspirations are, one thing is certain: To achieve them, you must have the right tools to guarantee your success.
Failing Schools
Today, African American students test at four grade levels below white and Asian students in the same schools. Even worse, they are not allowed to escape their failing schools, especially in the inner cities. They are trapped into lifetimes of below-average incomes, insecurity, and eventually envy, resentment, and feelings of victim-hood.
Enter the Unions
The first teachers union was formed in the 1950's. In a few years, driven by expediency, the focus of teaching shifted from student achievement to teacher pay and benefits. As Albert Schanker, head of the American Teachers Federation, once said, “When the children start paying union dues, then we'll start caring about the children. ”
Competition is Key
The Economist magazine wrote on June 11, 2005, “The schools the poorest Americans attend have been getting worse rather than better.” This is partly a problem of resources, to be sure. But it is even more a problem of bad ideas. One poll of 900 professors of education found that 64 percent of them thought that schools should avoid competition. The only way to reverse the educational system is to change the structure of incentives in such a way that academic excellence is pursued and rewarded. Without competition, there is no motivation to improve.
Action Exercise
Get involved in your children's education, and whenever possible, vote for the betterment of the educational system.
By Brian Tracy
In a free market society like the U.S., there is a continuous competition for talent and skill. Every business knows that the critical constraint on its ability to grow is competent to people who can get results. Like cream rising to the top, people who can do a good job are hired sooner, paid more, and promoted faster. People who are not competent or motivated are not. No laws can change this. They can only mask it temporarily.
Compassion or Condescension
Compassion can quickly become condescension. Minority groups can become victims of what President George Bush called “the soft bigotry of reduced expectations.” People begin to judge them by lower standards and expect less of them in comparison with others. This is completely unacceptable in America. The way to bring the best out of people is by challenging them-by setting high standards, by demanding their “best game.”
A System Gone Astray
The U.S. education system, once the best in the world (and still the best at the University level), has become a tragedy and a trap for more young people caught in it and unable to escape. In 1947, 97 percent of Americans were literate, reading several books a year, and often each month. By 2004, fully 47 percent of Americans could not read above the seventh grade level. People who have not mastered the three R's by the time they leave school are destined to lifetimes of low income, under achievement, and wasted potential.
"Reach Your Maximum Level of Achievement"
While many people have "dreams and aspirations" about how they want their futures to turn out, very few people actually have a plan to get there. No matter what your dreams and aspirations are, one thing is certain: To achieve them, you must have the right tools to guarantee your success.
Failing Schools
Today, African American students test at four grade levels below white and Asian students in the same schools. Even worse, they are not allowed to escape their failing schools, especially in the inner cities. They are trapped into lifetimes of below-average incomes, insecurity, and eventually envy, resentment, and feelings of victim-hood.
Enter the Unions
The first teachers union was formed in the 1950's. In a few years, driven by expediency, the focus of teaching shifted from student achievement to teacher pay and benefits. As Albert Schanker, head of the American Teachers Federation, once said, “When the children start paying union dues, then we'll start caring about the children. ”
Competition is Key
The Economist magazine wrote on June 11, 2005, “The schools the poorest Americans attend have been getting worse rather than better.” This is partly a problem of resources, to be sure. But it is even more a problem of bad ideas. One poll of 900 professors of education found that 64 percent of them thought that schools should avoid competition. The only way to reverse the educational system is to change the structure of incentives in such a way that academic excellence is pursued and rewarded. Without competition, there is no motivation to improve.
Action Exercise
Get involved in your children's education, and whenever possible, vote for the betterment of the educational system.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Are entrepreneurs born or made?
Are entrepreneurs born or made?
By Ian Mount
When Bill Gates's children become adults, they'll probably launch their own businesses.
And not just because of their father's example. Entrepreneurial tendencies -- including the ability to recognize business opportunities -- are heavily influenced by genetic factors, according to a study co-directed by Scott Shane, a professor of entrepreneurial studies at Case Western Reserve University.
Shane and his fellow researchers compared the entrepreneurial activity of 870 pairs of identical twins -- who share 100% of their genes -- and 857 pairs of same-sex fraternal twins -- who share 50% -- to see how much of entrepreneurial behavior is genetic and how much is environmental.
The mathematics behind quantitative genetic modeling are rather complicated, but the upshot was fairly straightforward: Entrepreneurs, the researchers concluded, are about 40% born and 60% made. Ten to 15 years from now, genetically advantaged entrepreneurs might be identified through DNA testing or psychological surveys, Shane says.
Some academics go further: University of Cambridge clinical neuropsychology professor Barbara Sahakian, lead author of a recent study on entrepreneurial risk taking published in Nature, says that drugs used to manipulate dopamine levels might be employed to enhance entrepreneurship.
"Nature" theories like these don't sit well with professionals in the booming "nurture" field of entrepreneurship education. (The number of undergraduate majors, minors and certificates offered in entrepreneurship rose from 104 in 1975 to more than 500 in 2006, according to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City, Mo., think tank.)
For Heidi Neck, a professor of entrepreneurial studies at Babson College, nature studies hinder the democratization of entrepreneurship.
"If entrepreneurship is the path to economic development, to the American dream and out of recession, I think it's dangerous to say it's hereditary," Neck says.
Others are even more adamant in their distaste.
"Even if you were able to identify specific genes, then what would you do -- inject them into people who lack them?" asks Donald F. Kuratko, executive director of the Johnson Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation at Indiana University. The very idea, Kuratko says, is reminiscent of the Nazis' World War II eugenics program.
There is more than academic turf at stake. Startups are responsible for more than a third of all new jobs created in the U.S., and firms less than five years old accounted for all net job growth between 1980 and 2005, according to the Kauffman Foundation.
For Bo Fishback, vice president of entrepreneurship at the foundation, entrepreneur gene studies are largely curiosities. What's most important for Fishback is opening the possibility of entrepreneurship to more people. Shane himself suggests that psychological surveys based on his findings could be used to identify potential entrepreneurs at a young age so they could be exposed to opportunity early, helping, for example, to turn a future entrepreneurial gang leader into a budding business founder.
Exposure seems to have an effect: A recent study at Munich's Ludwig Maximilians University found that a compulsory entrepreneurship course led about 18% of students who hadn't planned to launch a company to reconsider. The class also vastly increased the students' confidence that they knew what was necessary to start a business.
This confidence seems warranted in light of a 2006 study led by Yale University economics professor Dean Karlan, which focused on a banking program for female microentrepreneurs in a Peruvian village and determined that the women who took business-training classes had 16% higher sales than those who didn't.
Educators are not surprised by such findings. "I do believe that you can teach entrepreneurship skills," says Randy Komisar, a partner at Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, who teaches at Stanford University. Classes, he observes, give students basic tools and reinforce the desire to take risks and question the status quo.
But he doesn't totally dismiss nature's role. "For someone without aptitude, I don't think those things can be taught," he says. "I can't make a librarian into a Broadway performer."
The debate will probably heat up soon. A book by Shane and his colleagues, Born Entrepreneurs, Born Leaders: How Your Genes Affect Your Work Life, is due from Oxford University Press in March 2010.
By Ian Mount
When Bill Gates's children become adults, they'll probably launch their own businesses.
And not just because of their father's example. Entrepreneurial tendencies -- including the ability to recognize business opportunities -- are heavily influenced by genetic factors, according to a study co-directed by Scott Shane, a professor of entrepreneurial studies at Case Western Reserve University.
Shane and his fellow researchers compared the entrepreneurial activity of 870 pairs of identical twins -- who share 100% of their genes -- and 857 pairs of same-sex fraternal twins -- who share 50% -- to see how much of entrepreneurial behavior is genetic and how much is environmental.
The mathematics behind quantitative genetic modeling are rather complicated, but the upshot was fairly straightforward: Entrepreneurs, the researchers concluded, are about 40% born and 60% made. Ten to 15 years from now, genetically advantaged entrepreneurs might be identified through DNA testing or psychological surveys, Shane says.
Some academics go further: University of Cambridge clinical neuropsychology professor Barbara Sahakian, lead author of a recent study on entrepreneurial risk taking published in Nature, says that drugs used to manipulate dopamine levels might be employed to enhance entrepreneurship.
"Nature" theories like these don't sit well with professionals in the booming "nurture" field of entrepreneurship education. (The number of undergraduate majors, minors and certificates offered in entrepreneurship rose from 104 in 1975 to more than 500 in 2006, according to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City, Mo., think tank.)
For Heidi Neck, a professor of entrepreneurial studies at Babson College, nature studies hinder the democratization of entrepreneurship.
"If entrepreneurship is the path to economic development, to the American dream and out of recession, I think it's dangerous to say it's hereditary," Neck says.
Others are even more adamant in their distaste.
"Even if you were able to identify specific genes, then what would you do -- inject them into people who lack them?" asks Donald F. Kuratko, executive director of the Johnson Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation at Indiana University. The very idea, Kuratko says, is reminiscent of the Nazis' World War II eugenics program.
There is more than academic turf at stake. Startups are responsible for more than a third of all new jobs created in the U.S., and firms less than five years old accounted for all net job growth between 1980 and 2005, according to the Kauffman Foundation.
For Bo Fishback, vice president of entrepreneurship at the foundation, entrepreneur gene studies are largely curiosities. What's most important for Fishback is opening the possibility of entrepreneurship to more people. Shane himself suggests that psychological surveys based on his findings could be used to identify potential entrepreneurs at a young age so they could be exposed to opportunity early, helping, for example, to turn a future entrepreneurial gang leader into a budding business founder.
Exposure seems to have an effect: A recent study at Munich's Ludwig Maximilians University found that a compulsory entrepreneurship course led about 18% of students who hadn't planned to launch a company to reconsider. The class also vastly increased the students' confidence that they knew what was necessary to start a business.
This confidence seems warranted in light of a 2006 study led by Yale University economics professor Dean Karlan, which focused on a banking program for female microentrepreneurs in a Peruvian village and determined that the women who took business-training classes had 16% higher sales than those who didn't.
Educators are not surprised by such findings. "I do believe that you can teach entrepreneurship skills," says Randy Komisar, a partner at Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, who teaches at Stanford University. Classes, he observes, give students basic tools and reinforce the desire to take risks and question the status quo.
But he doesn't totally dismiss nature's role. "For someone without aptitude, I don't think those things can be taught," he says. "I can't make a librarian into a Broadway performer."
The debate will probably heat up soon. A book by Shane and his colleagues, Born Entrepreneurs, Born Leaders: How Your Genes Affect Your Work Life, is due from Oxford University Press in March 2010.
Change Your Definition of Marketing
Change Your Definition of Marketing
By Dan Kennedy
In my 35 years working with business owners, entrepreneurs and big corporate clients on marketing, I've seen many different definitions of marketing govern peoples approaches to it, and unfortunately, most versions are narrow, limiting and--well--wrong. Marketing shouldn't just be a cog in the wheel or a link in the chain of moving prospects to buyers or products to market.
Of late, the entire U.S. economy has been weighed down by a massive over-supply of look-alike, do-alike, painfully ordinary businesses doing ordinary things in ordinary ways. About one-third are unnecessary duplicates.This column's space prohibits full discussion of everything marketing is and isn't, should and shouldn't be. But one of the best functions of marketing has always been business reinvention, and there's never been a better or more necessary time for that.
In No B.S. Ruthless Management of People and Profits, I tell the story of a Disney executive describing "the million dollar piece of gum"--how gum left on the ground might cost the company a million dollars. Walt originally included park cleanliness as a marketing function, not a cost of operations. He defined the core of good marketing as doing what you do so well and so uniquely that people can't resist telling others about you. Disneyreinvented the traditional amusement park. Initial reinventions included: single entry and exit rather than open design--forcing customers to exit through the main shopping area and all the souvenir stands, an innovation now replicated in the exit paths from individual rides and attractions within the parks; price per day vs. individual tickets for rides; and the aforementioned cleanliness.
Similarly, Howard Schultz reinvented the coffee shop as "the third place"--Starbucks--and is now trying to reinvent for the developing New Economy and "un-invent" some sins committed in his absence.
Aradical approach to innovation and marketing isn't restricted to big corporations--there are plenty of small businesses ahead of the curve. Let me tell you about a few of our Glazer-Kennedy Insider's Circle members who have reinvented the concept of fractional ownership.
Diana Coutu ofDiana's Gourmet Pizzeriain Winnipeg doubled her business' sales and size last year selling pizzas priced from $22 to $38, thanks to innovations not at all common to pizza places, including levels of membership with fees automatically charged to customers' credit cards every month (stabilizing income and locking in use in advance, thus protecting customers from competitors' seductions); multiple ways to take home the products--cooked and ready to eat, frozen and ready to heat, "from scratch" baking kits (for family fun nights), raw dough--and with comprehensive direct-to-customers marketing built around a newsletter and website.
Nigel Worralreinvented the business of renting out homes to Florida vacationers with different clubs, bundled excursion and adventure activities, and extraordinary marketing with an emphasis on the experience, not 'X' number of bedrooms plus a pool for 'Y' dollars a day, marketing--and his business is booming even as other Florida travel destinations cry about the recession.
Chris Hurn, CEO ofKennedy's All-American Barber Club, reinvented by combining a classic men's barber shop that offers straight razor shaves with a men's club atmosphere and different programs of membership--as opposed to cafeteria-style pricing.
In all these cases, marketing is not being used as a means of getting a customer or making a sale. Instead, it's in the context of dynamically changing the business itself and delivering an entirely different customer experience. With this comprehensive approach, the businesses thrive.
The hierarchy of income:
• Bottom is commodities.
• Next--products and services discussed in terms of features and benefits, provided by vendors and salespeople.
• Next--solutions to problems and fulfillment of unmet desires, provided by experts.
• At the top, exceptional experiences provided by experts in "categories of one."
Begin here: Question and be willing to throw out any and every industry norm, tradition, current belief, idea and practice now defining your business, as you advertise, market and operate it and as customers perceive it. Then search for opportunities to make your business something entirely different and more meaningful to the customer than just a provider of goods and services. Very, very, very few business owners are willing to engage in such radicalism. We have a term for them: multimillionaires.
Widely celebrated as "the millionaire maker," Dan Kennedy has a long record of taking entrepreneurs to 7-figure incomes. A serial entrepreneur directly influencing over 1 million business owners as a business coach, he's the author of the popular No B.S. series, including the forthcoming No B.S. Sales Success for The New Economy, accessible for free preview atwww.NoBSBooks.com.More information about Dan can be found atFreeGiftFrom.com/entrepreneurpress.
By Dan Kennedy
In my 35 years working with business owners, entrepreneurs and big corporate clients on marketing, I've seen many different definitions of marketing govern peoples approaches to it, and unfortunately, most versions are narrow, limiting and--well--wrong. Marketing shouldn't just be a cog in the wheel or a link in the chain of moving prospects to buyers or products to market.
Of late, the entire U.S. economy has been weighed down by a massive over-supply of look-alike, do-alike, painfully ordinary businesses doing ordinary things in ordinary ways. About one-third are unnecessary duplicates.This column's space prohibits full discussion of everything marketing is and isn't, should and shouldn't be. But one of the best functions of marketing has always been business reinvention, and there's never been a better or more necessary time for that.
In No B.S. Ruthless Management of People and Profits, I tell the story of a Disney executive describing "the million dollar piece of gum"--how gum left on the ground might cost the company a million dollars. Walt originally included park cleanliness as a marketing function, not a cost of operations. He defined the core of good marketing as doing what you do so well and so uniquely that people can't resist telling others about you. Disneyreinvented the traditional amusement park. Initial reinventions included: single entry and exit rather than open design--forcing customers to exit through the main shopping area and all the souvenir stands, an innovation now replicated in the exit paths from individual rides and attractions within the parks; price per day vs. individual tickets for rides; and the aforementioned cleanliness.
Similarly, Howard Schultz reinvented the coffee shop as "the third place"--Starbucks--and is now trying to reinvent for the developing New Economy and "un-invent" some sins committed in his absence.
Aradical approach to innovation and marketing isn't restricted to big corporations--there are plenty of small businesses ahead of the curve. Let me tell you about a few of our Glazer-Kennedy Insider's Circle members who have reinvented the concept of fractional ownership.
Diana Coutu ofDiana's Gourmet Pizzeriain Winnipeg doubled her business' sales and size last year selling pizzas priced from $22 to $38, thanks to innovations not at all common to pizza places, including levels of membership with fees automatically charged to customers' credit cards every month (stabilizing income and locking in use in advance, thus protecting customers from competitors' seductions); multiple ways to take home the products--cooked and ready to eat, frozen and ready to heat, "from scratch" baking kits (for family fun nights), raw dough--and with comprehensive direct-to-customers marketing built around a newsletter and website.
Nigel Worralreinvented the business of renting out homes to Florida vacationers with different clubs, bundled excursion and adventure activities, and extraordinary marketing with an emphasis on the experience, not 'X' number of bedrooms plus a pool for 'Y' dollars a day, marketing--and his business is booming even as other Florida travel destinations cry about the recession.
Chris Hurn, CEO ofKennedy's All-American Barber Club, reinvented by combining a classic men's barber shop that offers straight razor shaves with a men's club atmosphere and different programs of membership--as opposed to cafeteria-style pricing.
In all these cases, marketing is not being used as a means of getting a customer or making a sale. Instead, it's in the context of dynamically changing the business itself and delivering an entirely different customer experience. With this comprehensive approach, the businesses thrive.
The hierarchy of income:
• Bottom is commodities.
• Next--products and services discussed in terms of features and benefits, provided by vendors and salespeople.
• Next--solutions to problems and fulfillment of unmet desires, provided by experts.
• At the top, exceptional experiences provided by experts in "categories of one."
Begin here: Question and be willing to throw out any and every industry norm, tradition, current belief, idea and practice now defining your business, as you advertise, market and operate it and as customers perceive it. Then search for opportunities to make your business something entirely different and more meaningful to the customer than just a provider of goods and services. Very, very, very few business owners are willing to engage in such radicalism. We have a term for them: multimillionaires.
Widely celebrated as "the millionaire maker," Dan Kennedy has a long record of taking entrepreneurs to 7-figure incomes. A serial entrepreneur directly influencing over 1 million business owners as a business coach, he's the author of the popular No B.S. series, including the forthcoming No B.S. Sales Success for The New Economy, accessible for free preview atwww.NoBSBooks.com.More information about Dan can be found atFreeGiftFrom.com/entrepreneurpress.
How to profit from customer complain
How to profit from customer complaint
By Marie Moody
Obstinacy can push an entrepreneur to persevere when any sane person would quit. But obstinacy can also kill your business if it keeps you in denial.
Because I am obstinate, I pursued my dream of creating a premium pet-food company that sells what it claims to sell and not some unidentifiable substance in a dressed-up bag. Stella & Chewy's ingredients include organic fruits and vegetables and meats that are free of antibiotics and hormones.
Originally we packaged our foods in transparent bags. In fact, transparency became our guiding philosophy. Today we offer open plant tours, publish our meat sources and test every batch of food for salmonella and E. coli using codes that can match each bag to its lab result online.
To launch the company in 2003, I pounded the pavement, visiting every pet-food store in Manhattan -- where I lived then -- and some outside the city. By 2006 Stella & Chewy's was sold in 250 stores, mostly in New York City. In 2007 I moved the company to Muskego, Wis., where I opened a manufacturing plant. That year our revenues were almost $500,000.
But getting my product into stores was just the beginning: I then had to persuade pet owners to buy it. We were competing against much bigger pet-food companies whose monthly marketing budgets dwarfed our annual sales. So we invested in brochures and a Webs ite and even stood on sidewalks distributing samples. Eventually we developed a loyal following.
With more customers came more feedback -- much of which I dismissed. Your dog doesn't eat lamb? He's allergic to blueberries? You hate the name Stella & Chewy's? You're concerned about where the cows sleep? We responded diplomatically to these concerns. Still, my gut told me that I knew what was best for my company.
I was also fielding complaints about ice crystals on the food. Ice crystals form when the air temperature changes. Practically every frozen food item develops ice crystals by the time it hits the retail store because of slight temperature changes during transport. For this reason, most frozen foods are packaged in opaque bags or boxes. Studies have proved that ice crystals have little, if any, effect on either the quality or the taste of the food. Basically, there's nothing wrong with a little ice.
So I ignored the complaints. After all, I told myself, we were better than competitors that wouldn't even reveal their products. We weren't hiding anything.
In 2007, the popularity of frozen pet food soared after some of the bigger American pet-food manufacturers issued recalls. Some of their products had been contaminated by melamine, a chemical found in an ingredient many of those companies imported from China. Thousands of dogs and cats died from the tainted food, so consumers sought smaller pet-food vendors that they hoped would have better control over their ingredients. Suddenly we had more competition.
Our sales kept growing, but not as fast as those of our rivals. Retailers told me that consumers who were new to the frozen pet-food category -- crucial customers for sales growth -- were choosing products packaged in opaque bags. Hearing this over the phone from a store employee or from the occasional customer was one thing.
However, when I visited the stores and forced myself to consider my product objectively, I had to agree: The ice crystals undercut the look I wanted. The food didn't appear fresh; it looked as if a blizzard had hit the inside of the bag.
We switched to opaque bags and overhauled our in-plant freezers so that the food would freeze faster, resulting in smaller ice crystals. Customers responded: In 2009 Stella & Chewy's was sold in 2,500 stores across the country. Annual revenues should exceed $5 million this year.
Today we can afford to use consumer focus groups. It's tough to sit behind a one-way mirror and listen to people criticize the brand. "Is this a treat or a meal? Why no pictures of cats on the bag? Why does Stella [one of my dogs] look like a Cyclops on the logo?"
But now I take a deep breath and remember that the critics might just be right.
By Marie Moody
Obstinacy can push an entrepreneur to persevere when any sane person would quit. But obstinacy can also kill your business if it keeps you in denial.
Because I am obstinate, I pursued my dream of creating a premium pet-food company that sells what it claims to sell and not some unidentifiable substance in a dressed-up bag. Stella & Chewy's ingredients include organic fruits and vegetables and meats that are free of antibiotics and hormones.
Originally we packaged our foods in transparent bags. In fact, transparency became our guiding philosophy. Today we offer open plant tours, publish our meat sources and test every batch of food for salmonella and E. coli using codes that can match each bag to its lab result online.
To launch the company in 2003, I pounded the pavement, visiting every pet-food store in Manhattan -- where I lived then -- and some outside the city. By 2006 Stella & Chewy's was sold in 250 stores, mostly in New York City. In 2007 I moved the company to Muskego, Wis., where I opened a manufacturing plant. That year our revenues were almost $500,000.
But getting my product into stores was just the beginning: I then had to persuade pet owners to buy it. We were competing against much bigger pet-food companies whose monthly marketing budgets dwarfed our annual sales. So we invested in brochures and a Webs ite and even stood on sidewalks distributing samples. Eventually we developed a loyal following.
With more customers came more feedback -- much of which I dismissed. Your dog doesn't eat lamb? He's allergic to blueberries? You hate the name Stella & Chewy's? You're concerned about where the cows sleep? We responded diplomatically to these concerns. Still, my gut told me that I knew what was best for my company.
I was also fielding complaints about ice crystals on the food. Ice crystals form when the air temperature changes. Practically every frozen food item develops ice crystals by the time it hits the retail store because of slight temperature changes during transport. For this reason, most frozen foods are packaged in opaque bags or boxes. Studies have proved that ice crystals have little, if any, effect on either the quality or the taste of the food. Basically, there's nothing wrong with a little ice.
So I ignored the complaints. After all, I told myself, we were better than competitors that wouldn't even reveal their products. We weren't hiding anything.
In 2007, the popularity of frozen pet food soared after some of the bigger American pet-food manufacturers issued recalls. Some of their products had been contaminated by melamine, a chemical found in an ingredient many of those companies imported from China. Thousands of dogs and cats died from the tainted food, so consumers sought smaller pet-food vendors that they hoped would have better control over their ingredients. Suddenly we had more competition.
Our sales kept growing, but not as fast as those of our rivals. Retailers told me that consumers who were new to the frozen pet-food category -- crucial customers for sales growth -- were choosing products packaged in opaque bags. Hearing this over the phone from a store employee or from the occasional customer was one thing.
However, when I visited the stores and forced myself to consider my product objectively, I had to agree: The ice crystals undercut the look I wanted. The food didn't appear fresh; it looked as if a blizzard had hit the inside of the bag.
We switched to opaque bags and overhauled our in-plant freezers so that the food would freeze faster, resulting in smaller ice crystals. Customers responded: In 2009 Stella & Chewy's was sold in 2,500 stores across the country. Annual revenues should exceed $5 million this year.
Today we can afford to use consumer focus groups. It's tough to sit behind a one-way mirror and listen to people criticize the brand. "Is this a treat or a meal? Why no pictures of cats on the bag? Why does Stella [one of my dogs] look like a Cyclops on the logo?"
But now I take a deep breath and remember that the critics might just be right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
