Mano a Mano, Cara a Cara, and Feet on the Pavement: MCE Steps Out
100% Pure Shoe Leather
One of my goals for the blog this year is to have a more direct connection with what smaller business owners and managers are facing right now in creating Maximum Customer Experience. I recommend a lot of strategic research for clients, including one-on-one interviews with stakeholders, customers, and prospective customers. So on my own advice, I’ve been hitting the road for the 2008 Interview Series. To take part there’s one criterion: you must be a Delaware or Pennsylvania small business owner.
I live and work north of Wilmington, Delaware. Though clients are not always local, this is where I am both a practitioner, and like you, a consumer, of Experience Design. I have my eyes and ears open everywhere I go. If I spot changes within a business, see new signage, or if a whole new business pops up, I’m taking notes and checking into it on the Internet, as a designer and as a curious local. I read the local business paper, the newspapers, I keep an eye on local blogs. Staying sharp on local companies is part of my job.
The first article in the Interview Series is a piece on encouraging word-of-mouth in the real world. Most of the interview subjects I chose because I am a customer and a fan of the company; some, simply because I have followed their story and want to know more about their progress.
In early April, I started (driving and) walking. For every business on my carefully chosen list, I walked in and introduced myself: [Ask for owner by name, then] “Hi, I’m Kelly Erickson. I write a local blog called Maximum Customer Experience, and I’d really like to interview you.”
Why me?
This tickled some folks pink, and made others skeptical. Why me? Easy to answer, since I really meant it. I explained exactly why them. For most that was enough, and they too moved to the tickled pink stage.
Great so far. I’ve done quite a bit of interviewing, and I know most people are happy to be asked their opinions about their work. (How do I do as an interviewer? I’m enthusiastic, friendly, and a nervous wreck. It’s a thrill.) With nothing “in it for me” except a genuine interest in how they do business, most owners accepted the invitation.
So, what happened?
Only one said, “Now’s a great time.” We sat right down and began. Good thing I prepped before each visit!
About two-thirds set a date and a time, and I returned to do the interview.
The other third set a date to get back to me with a time that worked for them, or agreed to email me their responses. I don’t care for the email option because you can’t take a conversation in a new direction as you talk, but I have great respect for the time these owners are taking for me, so of course I said yes.
Having chosen my time of day wisely, only a few owners were not there when I stopped in. For these I left a card with a member of their staff, printed with the Interview Series information, and a handwritten note on it explaining my interest in interviewing them.
Ready to wear out your own shoe leather? Remember these lessons:
All of the people I made an appointment with, were there and ready to go on the day I came back. I told everyone I would take up less than thirty minutes of their time (and had material for only a twenty-minute interview to make sure I respected that), yet each interviewee thought of more and more associations, and every one kept me for longer than the time I’d promised!
Lesson 1: Get brave and get out there. Face-to-face works!
None of the folks who said they would get back to be with a time or an email interview, did so. After the date we’d agreed to had passed, I sent a polite email asking if they were still interested in participating. Still, none of these owners got back to me.
Lesson 2: “Get back to you on that” is probably NO, in code.
Of the owners I was not able to personally meet and express my interest to, not one contacted me. Again, I sent a polite, personal email as follow-up (and in case they’d never been given the information), and still received no responses.
Lesson 3: See Lesson 1! If you need a YES, you need to be face-to-face with the decision maker.
All of the owners who chose the “get back to me” or email-interview option (and then didn’t) were men.
Lesson 4: I don’t know lesson 4. This is the part that has me baffled. If you’re wondering, the introductory conversations I had with these owners were just as warm, they were just as pleasantly surprised, and seemed just as eager to be part of the interviews.
I know, you don’t want to do interviews, you want to interest prospects in your store, your product, or your service. You want to make your company better known. Networking in this personal way will make your company better known. Do your homework, find an engaging way to introduce yourself, and make your first visit to a prospective customer a time for you to find out more about them. Ask for permission to stop back again, and repeat the process. Be knowledgeable, be interested, and be creative. Do not try to sell while introducing yourself; try to learn.
Remembering that this was a small sampling of local business owners and very unscientific—IS there a lesson 4? Do you think there is a reason why male owners (a) mainly chose the “get back to me” option, and then (b) to a man, didn’t? Is it gender or coincidence?
Grow and be well,
Kelly Erickson
Brand Propheteers: 10 Ways to Get the People You Already Know to Rave About Your Firm, first in the 2008 Interview Series, is coming up at the end of April.
Don’t miss the series! Subscribe to the Maximum Customer Experience Blog for free, and get email or RSS updates using the subscription area at top left.












17 April 2008, 9:01 am
Why did they not get back to you? It SCREAMS gender!!!
Having worked with both sexes at various times in my life (and watched episodes of ‘The Apprentice’!) I have noticed various gender specific behaviours which whilst one doesn’t want to generalize – I think I will!
I find men are not bothered with minutiae and small steps to a destination. Maybe it would be different if you came in offering major slot advertising at say, a football match….a route that is direct and devoid of the subtleties of SLOWLY building relationships, (plus an opportunity to hang out somewhere with testosterone and machismo flying around). Then there’s the generally accepted idea of multi tasking being anathema to men. They are not going to be bothered with something that means they have to think sideways and/or maybe take on another bothersome task on top of their daily obligations to running their businesses, i.e first contacting you and then the interview itself, irrespective of its benefits. Then there is the irrefutable evidence that you…..are not a man! The way in which the majority of men MUCH prefer and value the input of other men when discussing business is not even funny.
Women REALLY have to earn the right to do this (and usually only achieve it when they are older, greyer and considered ’sexless’), whereas even a complete buffoon of a man is preferable to knock heads with over a woman. I find women in this respect more flexible, open minded and less threatened by alternative suggestions (although women seem to be mirroring men more and more to compete with them in business) Sigh……just what I have observed!
17 April 2008, 9:38 am
Were the men being sexist? Maybe. Did they mean to be sexist? Probably not. They probably didn’t realize they were doing anything wrong. It was definitely their loss though. You’d think they’d want to be interviewed and get more business. I would be interested in what would happen if, instead of saying you would interview them at their place of business – what would happen if you interviewed them off-site, like at a local restaurant, and you offered to buy them a beer. I bet they would show up for that. LOL
17 April 2008, 1:49 pm
Rosie and Darla,
It is a tough one. I don’t think “sexist” is where I was going with it, though.
My thoughts were more along the lines of Rosie’s “can’t be bothered” theory… but why only men not setting a time right away, or getting back to me?
Many if not all of the people I did interview (male and female) were at larger and busier places than the people who couldn’t give me a definite time. The first conversations were of the same length with pretty much everybody, so it wasn’t like these folks in particular were swamped when I got there.
“It was definitely their loss though. You’d think they’d want to be interviewed and get more business.”
Darla, that’s the part that puzzles me. Of course it’s not likely to directly generate business, but you can link back to it at your own site if you’re mentioned, or put it in a press release, or use it in thirty other ways to further demonstrate your credibility. None of the owners on my list needs a lift from me, but fresh news is always good news.
Like I said, not a large enough sampling to be positive, but large enough for a strong, but baffled hunch.
Thank you both for your comments!
Regards,
Kelly
17 April 2008, 2:00 pm
I’m curious about the stats here. How many people did you solicit, total? How many were men? How many of those men said “no” in code? How many of the people who you left a note for were men? Is there any relationship between the codified “no” and the type of business, time of day, or other factors beyond gender?
It’s an interesting observation but I’m reluctant to draw conclusions without a bit more context.
17 April 2008, 2:02 pm
You seemed to have the exact same experiences I had back when I worked in sales.
And you know, even the thing with the men. A large percentage of the men would say, “I’ll get back to you” and then – nothing.
Men – can they commit to anything?
(Well, I’m a man, and I can. But maybe I’m unusual?)
17 April 2008, 2:22 pm
I don’t think it necessarily screams gender or sexism…unless we know these individual men and their circumstances, we’re really not in a position to make such an assertion. It’s too simple to just declare that that’s the case.
“All of the owners who chose the ‘get back to me’ or email-interview option (and then didn’t) were men.”–which was only 1/3 of the people surveyed. So, most did respond positively, and how many of those were men?
I’m guessing (though not certain because I wasn’t there) that there were more men owners, period; that would mean more men responded and more men did not respond. That’s the law of averages, not necessarily sexism.
Sexism is real, but it’s too simple to just declare that of course any time a man doesn’t respond the way a woman wants (in business or anything else), it’s always sexism. Sometimes, it’s just an excuse that some women use to justify their incompetence. **I’m not saying that about you in this instance, Kelly; just noting that it’s a tendency we all have to blame others or circumstances when we might should blame ourselves at any given time.**
Finally, getting away from the gender stuff…
I’m betting many small business owners don’t even really know what a blog is, and certainly don’t see any benefit to themselves or their business by giving an interview for a blog.
They’re often type-A types who have a lot on their plate, and don’t necessarily know that much about technology, especially online stuff.
Thus, to many of these guys (and women), someone requesting an interview for the blog is just another interruption in their day equivalent to the constant flow of vendors and door to door salespeople who are constantly vying for their time.
These people are obsessed with ROI and until they come to believe that a blog is something they can effectively utilize (once they even come to know what a blog is), many of them will have very little interest.
So…
1. It’s not necessarily sexism at all.
2. Do these business owners see a real benefit of blogs yet?
Those are my off the cuff thoughts as I read this.
17 April 2008, 2:24 pm
Marvin,
I spoke with over 30 owners in total. Again, again, I know this is not enough to be scientific. Just enjoying hearing your thoughts.
About half were men. Like I said, about a third of the total did the “get back to me” thing, when I spoke with them in person. All of the “I’d like to interview you” intros were done between 1:30–3:00 pm, to avoid lunchtime and I-gotta-get-out-of-here time. Where I am, there’s not even much variation in weather from day to day, so I’ll rule that out for you, too.
“A few” were not in (don’t have the info at hand, but four maybe?). Half men, half women. None of those got back to me, which I attribute entirely to having no personal touch, not a gender thing.
Believe me this post would not be here today if there were any other explanation in my head.
Glad to hear from you, Marvin. The skeptic in me only noticed it when I started compiling things, and I didn’t like the implications any more than you do.
Please c’mon back and draw a conclusion if you like.
Brett,
You are most unusual. Of this there is simply no doubt.
I absolutely do not mean to be bashing men. What’s up, guys? Nice friendly conversation, no downside to doing the interview, postcard with handwritten note tacked to your bulletin board to remind you, ultra-polite email to check back, and *crickets chirping.* What do you think? Why?
—Discuss.—
Until later,
Kelly
17 April 2008, 2:33 pm
Kelly,
Gender thing. Men tend to be task oriented. Focusing on the bright shiny thing right in front of them. The interview itself maybe wasn’t up there on the radar of must do’s.
Is a local blog a media format they know has an ROI? What was in it for them?
Women are team workers, collaborative learners. Even if they didn’t see the immediate ROI, they might be more prone to say, well I like her looks, intelligence, seems to know what she’s about, sure, I ‘ll do it. Oh they’re competitive too. This isn’t a criticism, but it is a gender difference.
Some thoughts. I am looking forward to reading the ones who said yes.
Fondly,
Jan
17 April 2008, 2:34 pm
Sorry, Jesse, you posted while I was typing.
I don’t have the numbers here, but if anything there were slightly more women owners, both because of the subject of the interview (thought they might have more to say on word-of-mouth) and because I tend to follow them more closely. Definitely not law of averages.
I like your points. For someone who is a small business owner, who has worked within businesses of all sizes, and who works with small business owners every day, I still learned a heck of a lot beyond my presumptions from doing this, and it’s only the first in the series! We’ll see where it takes us all, when the article is posted, eh?
At least a third were only vaguely familiar with what a blog is. They all said yes to being interviewed, which I attribute to everyone knowing what an interview is. I also left every bit of contact info with everyone, so if they chose to they could make sure I was legit in between my hello and the date we set.
That was another surprising thing. Out of all the interviews I thought I’d get at least one cancellation, and I did not. I loved that.
Glad to have your input!
Regards,
Kelly
17 April 2008, 2:36 pm
Thanks for the additional info, Kelly.
There’s a lot of food for thought here; it is definitely a bit strange. Was the interview perceived as unimportant to the business? Were you passed on because of your gender? I’ve heard of studies showing that women are better multitaskers; maybe the men just didn’t get around to it.
Regardless of the reason, the real question is what do you do about it? Perhaps a slightly different pitch to the men would work better? Or push harder for an immediate commitment… hard to say. Definitely something to think about.
17 April 2008, 2:41 pm
Ha! Folks are commenting while I’m commenting. [Can I work gender into more posts? Nooo.]
Janice,
Without giving away too much, because I’m not sure how much ROI talk I may do in the finished piece, I’ll just say I lean more toward the “bright shiny thing in front of them” theory, if I’m going to lean toward one.
I am trying hard not to step on a landmine here because I’m just not sure what it’s all about. I love hearing everyone’s ideas!
Until later,
Kelly
17 April 2008, 2:47 pm
Marvin, I agree totally. What I do with the information is the real question.
I sat, I thought. I thought about whether this happens with clients, too (No).
I thought about how I’ll do the next interview pitch differently… or if I’ll do it differently.
I looked all over the Internet to see if anybody else has noticed this (couldn’t come up with anything).
I’m fascinated by all things Customer Experience, so I decided there’s only one way to express my interest in understanding it further—to bring it to you all.
Thanks again. This is a very cool discussion today. You all are making my 99th post rock!
Later,
Kelly
17 April 2008, 2:55 pm
Kelly, thanks for the response.
So, it wasn’t a law of averages thing.
Perhaps it was a gender thing–but not a sexism thing.
I think Janice nailed it when she said:
“Men tend to be task oriented. Focusing on the bright shiny thing right in front of them. The interview itself maybe wasn’t up there on the radar of must do’s.”
And:
“Women are team workers, collaborative learners. Even if they didn’t see the immediate ROI, they might be more prone to say, well I like her looks, intelligence, seems to know what she’s about, sure, I ‘ll do it.”
And as you mentioned,
“At least a third were only vaguely familiar with what a blog is,”
I think that’s key here.
I honestly think the men who didn’t respond didn’t respond because they probably didn’t see a real ROI on doing an interview for a blog–I wouldn’t be surprised if they gave the same brushoff if you were a man.
There are tons of people today who will still ask, “What’s a blog?”
17 April 2008, 3:01 pm
Kelly,
Was it the hobbit shoes?
Anyway, in all seriousness (and you never came across as bashing men, by the way) I agree with Jesse too – Janice hit the mark. A lot of guys would say, “what can this do for me *right now*” rather than thinking ahead.
I was always able to close sales with the female clients, the men, not so much.
-Brett
17 April 2008, 3:04 pm
Jesse,
TONS of people don’t know what a blog is! I was interviewing some pretty fast company, in a local, small-business way, and still a third may not have known exactly what I meant. Overall I think the percentage is higher than that.
Sexism was not my thought at all, though I suppose I can’t rule it out. The initial conversations were all good, so I just didn’t think of that. I absolutely think the brushoff was not about me, and would have been the same no matter who I was. [When my mechanic is mocking me, I know. When (a few) professors grade the ladies differently... I haven't forgotten how to smell a rat.]
Until later…
17 April 2008, 3:09 pm
I just want to say that I completely disagree with the bright shiny theory. Not at all. No way. Doesn’t work with me. Something new in my path? No, no, I stay focused. All the time. 100% concen..tra…
Hey, what’s that over there?
17 April 2008, 3:11 pm
Brett,
Believe it or not (oh by now you know me, you believe it) I was very, very careful about the clothing, just as I am when I go out on a presentation. Not too “creative,” definitely not frumpy, not too loud, not too soft. I learned long ago to match the clothing to the occasion without being too obvious. I don’t just talk the talk around here, I walk the walk…
The black pumps are stylin’ but not Manolos or anything, just classics. With, I kid you not, a hole in the bottom of one. So in addition to everything else, they are now dead.
Who says blogging is low-cost?
Until not much later…
17 April 2008, 3:16 pm
Oh, do be serious, James. (For a sec.)
Do you think that’s the answer? That they couldn’t make an appointment with me standing in front of them… then couldn’t call when they said they would… then couldn’t respond to an email, due to bright shiny syndrome?
If so, how did they all become successful enough with vendors, clients, and colleagues, that they might have made interesting interview subjects? Lordy, don’t say Seat of the Pants.
17 April 2008, 3:49 pm
@ Brett and Jesse- Thanks.
@ Kelly-Love the possibilities here for further inquiry.
@James- Look James, Harry is about to run over a pile of shiny new Blackberries with his Harley… James dashes to the window, catlike..
17 April 2008, 4:47 pm
I have put my sunglasses on to read the comments. They are very very bright. I for one would have done what I said I was going to do. If an attractive lady wants to sit down with me and talk about anything at all… With Momma’s permission I would gladly do it.:)
17 April 2008, 6:19 pm
Kelly,
Oops!!! When I said “hobbit shoes”, I was referring to *my* funny shoes I showed on my blog… hee hee you know, that make me unusual
(sorry about that) I know that you looked *great* when you went out.
-Brett
17 April 2008, 6:25 pm
Ha! Brett, I forgot about those shoes.
Yeah, I wore those with my suit, and the first ten places I walked in called the police.
Mark,
*blushes* Aw, thanks.
Later,
Kelly
18 April 2008, 12:39 pm
I was going to object loudly (competitively?) to Janice getting the kudos for the same point I made, but I think she made it better. ‘Brighty shiny syndrome’ hits the nail on the head. I don’t think it is sexism as you say as I think the same thing would happen if someone else went in.
As for not being in a position to make the assertion about gender because I don’t know these men, I don’t have to know them, my comment was based on years of experience working with both sexes and finding the same sort of results that Kelly found in this instance. It’s a general observation. I also agree with the point that not everyone is au fait with blogs yet. Ooooogh….and I have had so many conversations with my male friends that are just like the one James wrote as a joke….only their not joking.
18 April 2008, 12:42 pm
…eeek! please pretend you don’t notice that I spelt ‘they’re’ as ‘their’…..oh and ‘BRIGHTY shiny syndrome’….I need a rest….
18 April 2008, 1:20 pm
Rosie,
As I said, I like your “can’t be bothered” theory. Maybe even better than “bright shiny things syndrome,” but maybe they’re two sides of the same coin, eh?
“Brighty shiny things” —LOL. (Maybe you’ve coined a new phrase!) My hands sometimes go faster than the mental spell-check, too.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Regards,
Kelly