I just came back from a family vacation (with good friends) in Mexico. With six small kids between us, fun on these breaks is all about keeping them very busy through many different activities (so that the adults can find some relaxation). We decided to try an all-inclusive resort called the Cancun Palace because of this.
Neither my wife nor I are big fans of any all-inclusive getaway. Although my experiences are limited, we've found that while the food is plentiful, it usually is also substandard. On some Caribbean islands, service always comes with an attitude (see Almond Beach in Barbados for this). And, although this will certainly come off as snobby, the level of clientele sophistication (that would be hotel guests) and overall ambiance within these beach front facilities typically leaves something to be desired.
That's why we were all pleasantly surprised with our week in the Cancun Palace. Here's what made it a success for us.
For starters, the resort was new, contemporary and even a tad luxurious. And, the food (at pretty much all five different themed restaurants) was very good. That, in itself, made my wife's trip.
All the other basic wants and needs were positive as well. Employees were very happy and always attentive. The facilities, from tennis courts, to fitness center, to the pool and beach were all well-manicured and taken care of. Most importantly, with the exception of the lobby ATM machine, everything always worked. We loved that. I managed to keep a little more cash in my bank account, to boot.
There is one factor that really stuck out at me, though. And, that's why I'd recommend this place to any family. Even with a very affordable price, the Palace never chose to nickel and dime us on a hundred little items (like most resorts tend to do). So, we weren't paying extra for top shelf alcohol, or offsite excursions. With the Palace, all-inclusive really means that everything is included. From what friends have told me, that is very rare indeed.
If I had to use one phrase to describe the Cancun Palace it would be consistently very good. (Here is a link to them on Trip Advisor) Nothing about our experience was bad or even mediocre. As the days went by, we could feel just how hard this superior resort tried to make its guests' vacation great. As I went into this vacation, my expectations were set fairly low so as not to be disappointed. Every once in a while, it's nice to be so surprised the other way.
February 23, 2011
January 26, 2011
Dinner and a movie redefined
My wife and I took nearly a dozen 11-year olds to the movies this weekend to celebrate our son’s birthday. We had heard a lot about AMC Movie Theaters’ progressive, new offering "Fork and Screen" which includes actually eating a ‘gourmet’ dinner while watching the movie. Naturally, everyone was wondering how the set-up, food choices and overall experience would change from what had always been the norm. Here’s my own Siskel and Ebert review on the New AMC experience.
For starters, there’s no doubt that this is a true transformative change to the consumer movie experience.
For those who’ve yet to experience those first theaters that have been altered, AMC recreated its lobby to look more like a swanky bar. And, its theater has been completely redone to feel more like a dark lounge where one might come to listen to Robert Goulet or Burt Bacharach perform their singing acts versus watching an action flick (like the Green Hornet). There is definitely a more positive upbeat vibe about the theater, as well. The seats are much more comfortable leather recliners. Every row has long, black tables in front of them and because they’ve removed probably about forty percent of the seats, there’s enough leg room to make you believe you’re not in a move theater anymore.
Then there’s the menu. That’s the biggest change. Lobster ravioli and steak tips. Fancy drinks and high end beers. And, cheesecakes and mousses for desserts. Of course, they offer run of the mill appetizers (potato skins, wings) and the typical popcorn, candy and soda for everyone who comes to the movies expecting some of the same.
I thought it was all pretty cool. We never tried any of this new fare, but some of the guests near us commented that it beats the Olive Garden. Of course, that comment could be taken many different ways (for the record, we represent T.G.I Friday’s, a competitor in the marketplace). Even the overall price of everything combined was appealing. The movie itself now cost $20-$23 per ticket. That seems awfully expensive. But, it isn’t once you realize that the theater also provides a $10 credit on each ticket for food. Since 11 kids really only ate popcorn, some candy and sodas, I probably saved a little money in the end. My guess is that AMC’s real target here are adults who will eat more substantively and drink numerous alcoholic beverages. That’s probably the money maker for them.
The most bizarre part (because my senses just didn’t expect it) was the waiters delivering pints of beer, margaritas and full entrees throughout the movie to various tables. It didn’t interfere with my movie experience, although I found myself on half a dozen occasions staring at trays, wondering what beverages or foods people were ordering.
The only negative experience we had (and it did take away from the movie) was the service. In the past, it was pretty simple. I bought popcorn and soda in the lobby and then went directly to my seat and started eating during previews and throughout movie. Now, they take your orders when you’re in the seats before the movie starts. First we received our drinks, but that wasn’t until after the previews had ended. Then, everyone was handed popcorn about 10 minutes into the movie. Finally, the kids received their candy approximately 15 minutes after that. Kind of a buzz kill from a desired eating standpoint. And, instead of watching the movie, you’re left staring at the doors wondering when the rest of your food will arrive.
At Peppercom, we’ve started focusing more and more on how our clients’ customers experience their brand and how that may differ from the messages and overall positioning that the client is currently communicating. It’s really fascinating to see how and where break downs typically occur. My guess is that AMC is still in the early stages of tinkering with this new business model. It’s clearly a game changer for the industry. By understanding the good and bad of these first customer experiences, AMC can clearly create a more consistent, appealing and successful consumer offering moving forward. Let’s see if they utilize these comments to improve.
My review so far, two thumbs up.
August 10, 2010
Why some are always destined to fail
We decided to go into restaurant row in the center our town to eat an enjoyable meal at a very popular and trendy place (we’ll call it Restaurant A for now). On that particular day, the sun was out and the day was marvelous, so we were hoping to sit outside to enjoy the weather. Naturally, a restaurant that attracts so many people didn’t have an open seat in (or outside) the house. And, the waiting line ran upwards of 30 minutes long.
That just wouldn’t do. So, we immediately glanced at the dining establishment next door (we’ll refer to this place as Restaurant B for now). I did a double take, because I thought my eyes deceived me. This seemingly trendy establishment had almost every outdoor table open and very few diners were inside, as well. Although the lunch hour was still young (maybe 12:15), it seemed very strange.
We were torn. Restaurant A is a known quantity. Great service, very good food and just an all around great dining experience. Restaurant B had only been open for a few months. But, it had a good look to it (sans the fact that no one was eating there) prime real estate (next to A and on the nicest street in Montclair). So, we threw caution to the wind, and walked 10 yards to this new comer to ask for a table outside.
In total, we had six of us that day. We couldn’t see any tables that would fit our larger party, so we waited patiently outside for someone to greet us and get us seated. After 10 minutes of waiting and watching waiters walk by us (doing almost nothing), I asked where the Host was because we wanted to be seated. She finally appeared after another 7-8 minutes (no one quite knew where she was) and we were off to the races… or so we thought. We asked this seemingly friendly hostess to put together a medium and small table so we could fit six comfortably and that’s when she said, “sorry I can only put two smaller tables together (which fit four) because we’re expecting a very busy lunch hour.” My wife and I kind of chuckled. You had to be there, but that was pretty funny because Restaurant B was literally empty and had the capacity to probably sit 30 tables.
My wife is no shrinking violet. So, I sat back and watched as she said something to the tune of, “Excuse me, but there isn’t anyone here… at all. Don’t you think the restaurant can take care of us by just combining a medium and small table together to fit us all… or we will be squeezed in.” Once again, the hostess said, “We just can’t do that. We’re way too busy….”
I’m not sure I ever experienced a situation so ridiculous before. There was literally no one at the restaurant (while Restaurant A had at least 6o guests sitting outside with another 15 huddled around the side waiting for a table). Anyways, we were hungry and although we were peeved at how idiotic the bad customer courtesy was, the Moeds sat down and ordered.
You’re probably wondering with anticipation what went wrong next, right? Sorry to disappoint, but the food wasn’t terrible and we didn’t get food poisoning. It was simply OK. Clearly, not at the level of Restaurant A, though. But, what was interesting is that throughout the hour long meal, only 5-6 tables filled up. So, unless a giant party canceled at the last minute, the hostess’ lapse in smart customer service really made little sense.
The thing that really put us over the top though was when we received the check. I experienced another first. The waitress threw in an automatic tip (no big deal, we had a party of 6). But, the tip that she personally wrote in was for 30 percent of the meal. Whoa… what kind of restaurant allows for that? My father was picking up this meal. So, he asked our waitress what gives? She apologized and came back with a new check that was fixed with a… 25 percent tip. Can you say over zealous?
We paid it and quickly left. This waitress made her money, but Restaurant B (also known as 32 Church) will never be frequented again by anyone in my family. So, in the end, what small amount was gouged from interested customers will be lost in any future sales that 32 Church could have received from us. And, that’s the morale of this story.
Every day, thousands of “32 Churchs” go out of business because they simply can’t see how short sided their views of business and building customer loyalty are. On the flip side, there exists very few Raymonds (known as Restaurant A in this story), who have the staying power to last and flourish year after year because something in their DNA consistently offers exactly what customers want and need. I’m not quite sure why the management of 32 Church doesn’t have a clue. But, if I was a betting man (and at times I am), I give this restaurant no more than six months before it shutters its doors for good.
October 26, 2009
Is there such a thing as a “dumb city?”
I’ve been around Atlantic City (AC) for the last 25 years or so (living in NYC and New Jersey.) And, over this time period, I’ve watched this once promising gambling resort destination deteriorate to become nothing more than a cesspool at the sea. Think about it. That really isn’t an easy thing for any town, municipality or city to achieve when so much of its prime real estate lays on miles and miles of truly beautiful beach front property. Nothing is certain in life. But, any real estate destination that offers ocean views and sandy beaches should have among the best chances of flourishing. Unfortunately, almost since its inception, this city of false hope has been mismanaged, misappropriated and misguided by so many inept politicians, business executives, promoters and municipal guardians who promised prosperity and instead brought nothing but shame.
That’s why this article, entitled, “Can Atlantic City Raise the Stakes?” makes me twinge. This city had every opportunity and expectation of becoming the Las Vegas of the East Coast (or even bigger.) It’s hard to believe that after so much colossal failure, once again there are a few believers out there who are doubling down on their bet that Atlantic City can make a comeback. The old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” is what comes to mind here.
Here’s my question: After how many blunders can someone (or in this case someplace) officially be labeled dumb? Seriously. The Mob first owned Atlantic City in the early days and boy did it start with a big bang. (And I don’t mean gun shots.) Those early casinos on the boardwalk (like Resorts) were so jammed back, that tourists would wait hours to see a show or have a chance to hit a casino table.
The way I see it (though) is that even when the Mob left, wide scale corruption never stopped. And through all of this, Atlantic City continues to make the worst type of decisions. Here are a few of them:
• What happened to gentrification? We’ve probably read about 10 plans over the last 30 years to root out all the inner city crime and turn the bad part of Atlantic City (that’s about 90 percent of it) into middle class, or at least more respectable neighborhoods. This city is too far gone for that to happen now. Allowing all the bad in this city to grow and fester out of control has certainly been the major reason behind its downfall.
• Who would create casinos on the beach and not take advantage of them? I just can’t figure that one out. These casinos could have created truly sustainable properties that wouldn’t live and die on pure gambling (all subject to economic highs and lows in our economy) if they had the foresight to build these beaches into major consumer destinations (i.e. maximize their beaches as full swimming/boating/drinking resorts.) Walk along a typical AC casino boardwalk and see how poorly the beaches are actually utilized to make money.
• The Indian Tribes just left them in the dust. First it started in Connecticut (Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun) and then it exploded with tribes opening up casinos in PA, NY State and now Delaware. AC casino operatives had their heads buried in the sand trying to find a way out of their junk bond miseries, while their savvy and nimble upstart competitors moved swiftly to offer a better entertainment product that is much closer to where they live. This had helped to really put the nail in AC’s coffin.
• Current modernization is still flawed. I went to Caesars Casino this summer for a night of dinner and gambling. On the one hand, it was nice to see how millions of $$$ have been pumped into this property to keep it afloat. (A new mall with restaurants and shops has been developed.) Unfortunately, the entire décor is designed in an 80s feel and that is just very strange. From the music, to the shops, to even the architectural design, if felt like we were being transported back in time. I’m just not sure why anyone would find that appealing.
Maybe there’s something in the water they drink near and within Atlantic City, but I firmly believe that the “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” when it comes to the clarity by which some people think and make decisions in that neck of the woods. As a case in point, about 15 years ago one of the first prospects that called upon Peppercom was something called The Atlantic City Golf Association. Steve and I were excited because this qualified lead is an association that managed all the beautiful golf courses in the greater Atlantic City area and its Board was looking for a small, strategic firm to help immediately.
The first problem was that most target consumers/business people didn’t even know these golf resorts existed. The bigger challenge was that they were looking for a new way to position the association to compete with really “hot” golf vacation destinations such as Myrtle Beach and South Florida.
This looked like the perfect early client opportunity for us. We could really help them articulate a new brand positioning that would be both exciting and real and then our little firm could promote the heck out of these picturesque golf courses. That was until we had our last meeting (before being hired) when two of the association Board members were adamant that they knew exactly what the new positioning should be. Not wanting to sound like know-it-alls, we listened… and then we laughed… and then we realized it wasn’t a joke.
They wanted to position their golf courses as, “The Perfect Place to Golf ALL YEAR ROUND.”
We tried to explain to the powers at large that this wasn’t actually true. It isn’t possible to golf on these courses in the middle of January or February when six inches of snow are on the ground. But, they wouldn’t listen. Nope, they were adamant that technically golfing is still possible then (maybe it’s called frozen golf?) and they wanted to reposition themselves in this way to compete with the warmer climate destinations. Then they curtly said that we could take this or leave them. So, we did just that… we left them.
After that experience, I realized that sometimes people in life just make very little sense. And, there’s nothing you can do to change their perspective or how they go about making business decisions. Are they dumb? Well, you’ve read my story. So, now I’ll let you be the judge of that.
August 25, 2009
A few things definitely get a whole lot better with age
No, I’m not speaking about my body. Now, that I’ve officially hit my middle age stride, aches and pains are the norm for me after any sort of physical exercise. That’s not fun.
I’m actually referring to wine. And for the purposes of this post, let’s not focus on the obvious point that the older the wine, the tastier it is.
My spin on this is different. Every month, I find myself appreciating newly discovered bottles of wine that much more. In fact, I can honestly say that these days I’m much more excited about speaking to a sommelier at the onset of a fine dinner out, then actually looking at the menu. And, I just love finding a new bold and beautiful red that tastes like heaven in a bottle. Last night, I tried a 1994, Heitz Cabernet. It was simply divine. This recommendation came directly from a very knowledgeable sommelier at a place called The Washington Inn in Cape May (a little advertising for him can’t hurt). The other day, a friend told me to try a 2003, Baldacci Cab. This is a not so well known private vintage of Stag’s Leap Vineyard. Boy, does my friend have great taste. A glass of this full bodied and colored wine went down so well (a bold start with a smooth as silk finish) with my steak dinner. I highly recommend Baldacci to everyone who is reading this.
Here are two key thoughts that might be interesting:
1) When I was in my 20s, I couldn’t tell the difference between Ernest and Julio Gallo and Robert Mondavi. Wine, beer, cordials…whatever. I had no appreciation and my palate had no taste (literally and figuratively). My thirties came along and like most, I started to drink some whites (I think the oaky/buttery chardonnays and 500 types of Pinot Grigios were big then (yuck, personally I hate them all now). I also was first introduced to reds by my wife (who has always had a good wine sense). But, the reality is that one wine pretty much tasted the same as the next. My palate still couldn’t discern between subtle flavors and even the obvious nuances that separate a Pinot Noir from a Merlot. Or, a Syrah from a Bordeaux.
Now that I’m in my 40s (and for the last few years), I’m realizing just how wonderful a great bottle of wine is. And, the older I get, the more enthusiastic I am about trying new blends and types of wine (almost always red) that are recommended by others. Clearly, my palate has matured (at least in the wine tasting sense). I’m having fun because with each new bottle, my sense of taste is exploring and learning to appreciate and savor entirely new aromas and flavors. Learning throughout life is so important to being fulfilled…I think wine is filling up at least a small piece of that fulfillment box for me.
2) Wine is one of those consumer products that can (and should) leverage viral, word of mouth marketing (like none others) to be successful. While wineries need to have great distribution to wine stores and restaurants for consumers to actually enjoy their products, a great recommendation from some trustworthy source will push the masses to purchase and try it.
Most of the larger, high end wineries like Mondavi, Caymus, Silver Oak and Opus One really don’t have to worry about this. They have fantastic distribution and are also continually rated by the leading wine publications. These vineyards typically have something like Wine Spectator “91” next to a given brand and year. That ensures credibility and appeal by the masses. These “big guys” have it made.
It’s the little known, or smaller wine makers who need to have advocates spreading the gospel about a particular vintage that is truly special. With social media tools like Twitter and Facebook, these smaller players can learn how to leverage the playing field to create visibility for their brands and real fans in their products. In truth, all they need to do is find a bunch of real consumer evangelists who have fallen head over heels for their tasty grapes. They’ll do all the necessary work and it will be completely organic and transparent.
There isn’t much that I like about growing older. Becoming a wiser wine connoisseur ain’t half bad, though.
March 06, 2009
Marketing Contributes to Growth of Brand Trial- But to Excess and Abuse?
Today, Michael Dresner, president of our licensing division, has written the following special guest post.
A March 2009 study in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine revealed that “among those who
don’t drink alcohol, ownership of alcohol-branded merchandise predicts both the initiation of alcohol use and binge drinking.” Key licensed products of focus– and subsequent controversy– are baseball caps and clothing.
The chicken/egg debate– whether marketing influences behavior, or merely reflects it– has raged since advertisers started purchasing media space. Let’s not kid ourselves– if marketers didn’t think their efforts would generate awareness and trial, they wouldn’t waste their time on ads, sweepstakes, websites or licensed merchandise.
So, I find merit to the argument that alcohol-branded merchandise leads to product trial. That said, I just don’t believe in the validity of research linking licensed wearables to binge drinking. Our agency has seen enough market research protocols in which clients manipulate the variables and questionnaire to get the answers they want to hear. Hence, my theory: the Archives wanted to promote the link between t-shirts, hats and binge drinking within academic and business media vehicles. Otherwise they would not have sent out the press release.
Efforts to curb binge drinking should be honored. My question is– why is licensed merchandise an area of such vital focus? Full disclosure– my experience with adolescent psychology and substance abuse is low. But doesn’t common sense indicate that binge drinking– a disease– is a byproduct of peer pressure, education, home life, genetics, and mental health? If that is true, shouldn’t the Archives be spending more time on those issues?
Licensing plays a role in product trial. No question. But trial and excess are two different subject matters. Licensed product plays an insignificant, and arguably non-existent, role in excess and abuse. Will the absence of such licensed product take away the other factors leading to binge drinking? No way.
If I sound like an advocate of licensing– it’s because I am. People who love the Corona brand should have the opportunity to enjoy its t-shirts, hats, bathing suits, and beach towels. Corona should not have to cease its merchandising strategy because people find an unrelated way to sadly abuse alcohol. I am also an advocate of objective market research, particularly efforts without underlying motive that pinpoint genuine causal factors of damaging health problems.
I hope the Archives wish to reduce binge drinking. To solve the problem, I also hope they focus on what really causes the affliction in the first place, rather than wasting resources displacing responsibility on inanimate objects that nobody is under any obligation to buy.
February 19, 2009
Instant coffee will most certainly water down the Starbucks' brand.
Yes, I'm writing about Starbucks again. Contrary to what you might think, I’m not obsessed with this coffee
chain. It's just that I find the consistent business decisions by this company's leadership to be so inconsistent with what it takes to build a successful brand. And, that makes the topic interesting to comment about.
Today, Starbucks announced that it is expanding into the instant coffee business. Howard Schultz (company CEO), claims that "This is not your mother's instant coffee." More to the point, he states that thousands of people have tasted this coffee blind and that he plans to reinvent this category with a greatly improved level of smooth tasting instant coffee.
Schultz goes on to also say that this is not a desperation move to increase sinking revenues and profits in the current recession.
Some will view this brand extension as a "mug is half full" opportunity. After all, Starbucks has successfully extended its brand through licensing into products like ice cream and added new distribution lines by selling coffee on airline flights and in packages directly through supermarkets. These strategies have made the company money and served to positively extend the brand experience because the attributes associated with Starbucks (high end, luxury, gourmet taste) were duplicated (or at least not diminished) through these business decisions.
I applaud Starbucks for leveraging the brand's potential in all of these cases.
Now, think about instant coffee. Yes, there is money to be made. (It's a $700 million industry.) But in the US market, this product is most associated with those who can't afford to buy any type of gourmet/expensive foods, or who are simply too old to care.
Starbucks is taking a tremendous risk with its brand by extending it into such a low-brow food category. It's betting the farm that it's new recipe for instant coffee is so good that it can either raise the brand attributes associated with instant coffee, or if it doesn't, the product will still have enough appeal (at a low enough cost) to prevent bastardizing the Starbucks image and cannibalizing what it currently sells at the retail front.
Starbucks has shown bouts of schizophrenia before. The company ventured into other lower end foods in the past and failed miserably. Breakfast sandwiches (with egg and sausage) served at its own stores took away from the coffee aroma and European barista atmosphere that the company so carefully created over two decades ago. Understanding this, Schultz banished those foods last year when he became CEO again.
When its main retail coffee experience lost control of quality and the products took on an inferior taste, the brand suffered as well. Once again, its CEO stepped in to bring standards up to snuff.
Any organization looking to extend its brand needs to truly understand why it has equity and trust with its customer base. And, then it needs to protect those critical attributes and qualities that keep customers always coming back.
Starbucks newest extension feels less like innovation, and more like desperation to increase short term sales at the expense of its long term brand. Even if that isn't the case, this company will water down its image through instant coffee.
January 29, 2009
Starbucks's CSR campaign asks “Are you in?”
Sadly, more and more of its employees are out these days because of job cuts. And, clearly the last few
years haven’t been kind to this global, retail coffee king. The company lost its mojo by expanding much too quickly into neighborhoods, towns and specific spots that didn’t fit its customer base. On top of that, Starbucks greatly diluted its brand by lessening coffee brewing standards (that had made it the champion in the first place) and by offering so many other foods (like sausage breakfast sandwiches) which greatly changed the atmosphere and experience at the actual store.
All of this negative commotion has seemingly taken away some credit that the company deserves for continually leading the way in giving back to communities and the world. And, that’s too bad. Since the beginning, Starbucks has been a leader in making sure that its products (coffee beans) are grown, harvested, transported, etc., in the most environmentally friendly way. The company also pays strict attention to taking care of the local resources and indigenous people where its coffee originates from. And, if you go to Starbucks’ web site, one can find countless programs that the company offers to promote giving back to worthwhile causes.
A few weeks ago, Starbucks launched another very smart and caring program called “Are you in?” Based on President Obama’s mandate to be more civic minded and conduct community service, Starbucks is asking consumers to pledge just five hours of service within his/her community and it will do its part by handing out a large, free cup of hot coffee. There’s a special pledge page on the company’s web site to get started.
Starbucks received some nice publicity when this program came out (I remember seeing it on one of the national morning shows.) I would imagine that the company is pleased with that because every organization wants to be recognized for these cause programs. But for Starbucks, this is really just a drop in the bucket. Giving back and standing tall around causes that matter are part of this company’s DNA. Some would say its Starbuck’s signature on the society we live in.
Lots of companies start, stop and start again various programs to help causes. Many do it because they really care (but are torn between what issues to stand behind.) Others simply want the exposure and good will that often comes with it but don’t care enough to make any one program sustainable. I submit that it doesn’t really matter what cause or issue your company puts its resources behind. Like Starbucks, it needs to take on a higher meaning and should become a signature-like program that is tied to your business.
Only in this way, can companies always see just how strategic those causes are to make the organization a deeper, more caring part of that community or constituent base, and to realize that it actually is helping to grow business as well. One would hope that this type of signature program would become a part of the company’s fabric, which would end the all too frequent starts and stops that take place because of bad economic conditions, new leadership or any other reason.
Recent Comments