Are you taking full advantage of your website?
For instance, your web site likely has a search functionality for people to find your location/locations. Do you track where those searches come from and what people are looking for? Can your website and analytics tell you where you should put your next store? If you have 25,000 searches in a month in an area where you don't already have a presence, should you?
The tools are there -- we just need to make sure we're using them all as intelligently as possible.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Customer Service is back in style...
I'm a believer.... in eBay.
I'm sitting on my couch in near complete disbelief. I saw a trend starting early in the 1990's (some will say earlier or later) where customer service became scarce and unimportant and the focus was on becoming bigger, better, more efficient, less caring, less individual and always -- more profitable. It was a concerning trend because people were not the focus, money, tech and growth were. It made for a great bubble and made for some quick millionaires. It was also extremely short-sighted and led immediately afterward to the natural byproduct of greed and hubris -- a fall! We've all seen the effects of that.
In any case, this is a long-winded way to say that I'm becoming a believer in customer service coming back in vogue, and some very big companies leading the charge. Take, for instance, eBay. I had written a scatching blog entry detailing an issue I had with eBay, the Post Office and a seller who didn't quite follow his own rules. I took issue mostly with eBay, because they had a program in place to provide buyer protection when customers were short-changed or didn't get what they ordered. It's a wise move on their part to have a program like that, particularly because there are some less than reputable folks selling on eBay. They also do have programs in place to eliminate that kind of chaff -- and I've always felt like doing business on eBay was pretty safe. So I was blown away when I contacted their buyer protection team and got shut down completely. Then I received an e-mail talking about how valuable this program was, which included the CEO's name. It was somewhat like throwing kerosene on a fire -- I was still pretty irritated with eBay. I hadn't shopped on their site, told everyone about my experience, and posted here and on all my other social media outlets that eBay wasn't taking care of the situation. So I Googled John Donahoe and found his e-mail address and forwarded him the message that had his name and eBay's buyer protection commitment on it -- expecting that in the best case scenario, I'd get some campy form response telling me how valuable my feedback was (why do people do that? Just proves it's not!).
eBay didn't take the easy way out. I got a phone call this morning from a great gentleman on their team who had received the e-mail directly from John Donahoe with a request to look into it. Apparently the boss takes customer service and the concerns of members quite seriously... we talked for a while about the case, the details of which are in my old blog post here, if you're curious. In the end, eBay is taking care of the loss by crediting me with eBay credit (a perfect solution, actually -- it keeps my business with them). But more importantly, it demonstrates that they are interested in taking care of me -- an individual. I appreciate that more than I can say -- and so I am recanting my blast of eBay -- and I'm telling you that this company deserves a good look -- they're doing something very, very right. :-)
During my recent case, I'm about 95% certain the fault was with the USPS -- that's an organization that never has cared about customer service at its highest levels (and I still hold out that this is true; I challenge anyone to prove otherwise!). eBay, though, rocks.
Thanks for restoring my faith!
Joe
I'm sitting on my couch in near complete disbelief. I saw a trend starting early in the 1990's (some will say earlier or later) where customer service became scarce and unimportant and the focus was on becoming bigger, better, more efficient, less caring, less individual and always -- more profitable. It was a concerning trend because people were not the focus, money, tech and growth were. It made for a great bubble and made for some quick millionaires. It was also extremely short-sighted and led immediately afterward to the natural byproduct of greed and hubris -- a fall! We've all seen the effects of that.
In any case, this is a long-winded way to say that I'm becoming a believer in customer service coming back in vogue, and some very big companies leading the charge. Take, for instance, eBay. I had written a scatching blog entry detailing an issue I had with eBay, the Post Office and a seller who didn't quite follow his own rules. I took issue mostly with eBay, because they had a program in place to provide buyer protection when customers were short-changed or didn't get what they ordered. It's a wise move on their part to have a program like that, particularly because there are some less than reputable folks selling on eBay. They also do have programs in place to eliminate that kind of chaff -- and I've always felt like doing business on eBay was pretty safe. So I was blown away when I contacted their buyer protection team and got shut down completely. Then I received an e-mail talking about how valuable this program was, which included the CEO's name. It was somewhat like throwing kerosene on a fire -- I was still pretty irritated with eBay. I hadn't shopped on their site, told everyone about my experience, and posted here and on all my other social media outlets that eBay wasn't taking care of the situation. So I Googled John Donahoe and found his e-mail address and forwarded him the message that had his name and eBay's buyer protection commitment on it -- expecting that in the best case scenario, I'd get some campy form response telling me how valuable my feedback was (why do people do that? Just proves it's not!).
eBay didn't take the easy way out. I got a phone call this morning from a great gentleman on their team who had received the e-mail directly from John Donahoe with a request to look into it. Apparently the boss takes customer service and the concerns of members quite seriously... we talked for a while about the case, the details of which are in my old blog post here, if you're curious. In the end, eBay is taking care of the loss by crediting me with eBay credit (a perfect solution, actually -- it keeps my business with them). But more importantly, it demonstrates that they are interested in taking care of me -- an individual. I appreciate that more than I can say -- and so I am recanting my blast of eBay -- and I'm telling you that this company deserves a good look -- they're doing something very, very right. :-)
During my recent case, I'm about 95% certain the fault was with the USPS -- that's an organization that never has cared about customer service at its highest levels (and I still hold out that this is true; I challenge anyone to prove otherwise!). eBay, though, rocks.
Thanks for restoring my faith!
Joe
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
We The People -- only need you for one term, thanks...
Cross posting from a comment I made on friend's Facebook wall post:
Brian's got a point - we waste a lot of services to keep stupid people alive -- unfortunately, they're probably the same stupid people who are voting the tea bag way. Ben's got a point that people don't want to spend money that they worked hard to earn on things they don't see as valuable. Government doesn't appear valuable because they suck at doing things efficiently. If we can improve their efficiency, we'd have a lot easier time to justify paying their salaries and expenses.
The problem with the tea-heads is that they think all government is evil and that the Constitution prohibits all forms of government not explicitly called out by the framers. Couple things wrong with that assertion --
1. It has nothing to do with any local, state or non-Federal government. That's up to the state Constitutions and local government bylaws and guidelines. A locality can't say it's okay to murder, but they can say "We're not going to charge you taxes to live here." They wouldn't survive, because taxes are a necessity, but they could theoretically say that.
2. The framers wrote the Constitution 224 years ago. We've made a few revisions since then, many of them valuable ones, clarifying the intent of what our society believes is right. "Giving" women the right to vote should have been in the original document, but society at the time didn't think they were competent to the task. That was obviously an error in judgement. Why would we think that other errors in their judgement didn't exist? Why do we hold this document up as infallible, when we've got clear evidence it had bugs?
3. The image that most tea-heads have of government is an "us-vs-them" mentality. Government is of the people and by the people, remember? Those idiots up there running "government?" They were working at the office down the street last week. Remember that those government incompetents in office (all public governments in the US) were elected by the people. If the people really thought they were doing the job that poorly, they could replace them, even mid-term if necessary. The problem is that we've built up this image that politiicans need to be political and need to serve more than one term. If we could get our public servants to serve us for a single term, focus all their energy on solving problems and not on getting re-elected, getting their friends elected (while in office), etc., we'd be able to really get the people who were interested in taking time to get the thing done right. Imagine, for instance, if you didn't have to worry about what you were doing to do when your term came up -- that you didn't have to spend time and effort fund-raising, smearing your opponents, etc.; that you could focus on doing the job at hand and answering only for the body of work that you put out, not the life that you lived for the 40 years before you got into office. Great examples of this: who thinks that anything Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens or Joe Biden did in their last days in office was their best work? Did they accomplish a few things? Sure. Were they fired up to get the will of the people done? Eh, not so much. They wanted to stay in power. Why would we have someone doing the same job for 51 years (Byrd) when he wasn't even able to read the legislation the last few years of his life? Why would we allow them to shape the future of our country?
It's time to get the future out of the hands of a few old grumpy men and women (Nancy Pelosi? Get outta here!) It's time to return to people who don't want to spend their lives consumed with the need to stay in power and in charge. George Washington wasn't necessarily a great man, but he had a great idea of service -- serve the Country and the greater good for a little while and get out. Abe Lincoln was nervous as hell when we got elected President -- and with good reason, as he had a pretty rough road to walk. The road right now is equally rough (albeit for different reasons) -- we need to find someone who will take on the task and then go home. I think all political office should be for a single term; there are plenty of people who are capable of running for and excuting the various political offices. For those who say there's a need for continuity -- continuing what? Bad polcy-making, bad power-grabbing, greed and other evils? Why? If we really need continuity in office, cascade the terms of related offices and have each change of office include a period of time for transition where the incumbent keeps the office and authority for the first half while training the new occupant, then switch for the other half. People do this in corporate America all the time -- CEOs (arguably much more difficult a transition than most political offices), VPs, Chair of the Board, etc.
If we want to eliminate the waste and fluff from government, we've got to stop people from focusing on the short-term -- and the only way I can see to do that is get them stop focusing on themselves, their careers and their cronies and to focus on what WE THE PEOPLE need. What say ye?
Brian's got a point - we waste a lot of services to keep stupid people alive -- unfortunately, they're probably the same stupid people who are voting the tea bag way. Ben's got a point that people don't want to spend money that they worked hard to earn on things they don't see as valuable. Government doesn't appear valuable because they suck at doing things efficiently. If we can improve their efficiency, we'd have a lot easier time to justify paying their salaries and expenses.
The problem with the tea-heads is that they think all government is evil and that the Constitution prohibits all forms of government not explicitly called out by the framers. Couple things wrong with that assertion --
1. It has nothing to do with any local, state or non-Federal government. That's up to the state Constitutions and local government bylaws and guidelines. A locality can't say it's okay to murder, but they can say "We're not going to charge you taxes to live here." They wouldn't survive, because taxes are a necessity, but they could theoretically say that.
2. The framers wrote the Constitution 224 years ago. We've made a few revisions since then, many of them valuable ones, clarifying the intent of what our society believes is right. "Giving" women the right to vote should have been in the original document, but society at the time didn't think they were competent to the task. That was obviously an error in judgement. Why would we think that other errors in their judgement didn't exist? Why do we hold this document up as infallible, when we've got clear evidence it had bugs?
3. The image that most tea-heads have of government is an "us-vs-them" mentality. Government is of the people and by the people, remember? Those idiots up there running "government?" They were working at the office down the street last week. Remember that those government incompetents in office (all public governments in the US) were elected by the people. If the people really thought they were doing the job that poorly, they could replace them, even mid-term if necessary. The problem is that we've built up this image that politiicans need to be political and need to serve more than one term. If we could get our public servants to serve us for a single term, focus all their energy on solving problems and not on getting re-elected, getting their friends elected (while in office), etc., we'd be able to really get the people who were interested in taking time to get the thing done right. Imagine, for instance, if you didn't have to worry about what you were doing to do when your term came up -- that you didn't have to spend time and effort fund-raising, smearing your opponents, etc.; that you could focus on doing the job at hand and answering only for the body of work that you put out, not the life that you lived for the 40 years before you got into office. Great examples of this: who thinks that anything Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens or Joe Biden did in their last days in office was their best work? Did they accomplish a few things? Sure. Were they fired up to get the will of the people done? Eh, not so much. They wanted to stay in power. Why would we have someone doing the same job for 51 years (Byrd) when he wasn't even able to read the legislation the last few years of his life? Why would we allow them to shape the future of our country?
It's time to get the future out of the hands of a few old grumpy men and women (Nancy Pelosi? Get outta here!) It's time to return to people who don't want to spend their lives consumed with the need to stay in power and in charge. George Washington wasn't necessarily a great man, but he had a great idea of service -- serve the Country and the greater good for a little while and get out. Abe Lincoln was nervous as hell when we got elected President -- and with good reason, as he had a pretty rough road to walk. The road right now is equally rough (albeit for different reasons) -- we need to find someone who will take on the task and then go home. I think all political office should be for a single term; there are plenty of people who are capable of running for and excuting the various political offices. For those who say there's a need for continuity -- continuing what? Bad polcy-making, bad power-grabbing, greed and other evils? Why? If we really need continuity in office, cascade the terms of related offices and have each change of office include a period of time for transition where the incumbent keeps the office and authority for the first half while training the new occupant, then switch for the other half. People do this in corporate America all the time -- CEOs (arguably much more difficult a transition than most political offices), VPs, Chair of the Board, etc.
If we want to eliminate the waste and fluff from government, we've got to stop people from focusing on the short-term -- and the only way I can see to do that is get them stop focusing on themselves, their careers and their cronies and to focus on what WE THE PEOPLE need. What say ye?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
I was driving in Dallas a few minutes ago, trying to find a radio station to listen to. I stumbled across 90.5 KTXG. They were talking about today's vote on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and were espousing every single power phrase they could think of to incite the far-right looney bin voter to "stop this deviant behavior."
Except that their arguments and logic are all based on false statements, half-truths, fear-mongering and lies. Take, for instance:
"Homosexual behavior is unnatural and homosexuals put together parts of the human body that weren't meant to ...be combined." -- Right, because oral and anal sex aren't part of any non-homosexual relationship. What lunacy is this?
"Eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell is giving homosexuals special rights" -- no, moron, it's giving them equal rights. The equal right to serve OUR country and to defend our freedom, including the close-minded ignorant bevavior practices by this particular talking head (by schedule, it appears to be the brainchild of Bryan Fischer) and hundreds of others.
"Hating homosexuals isn't bigoted" -- really? From our friends at Merriam Webster: "bigot. n. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" So yeah, they're bigots. And anyone espousing such an obviously inaccurate statement shouldn't be permitted (by social limitation, not regulation) to speak in any public forum. Clueless in the extreme.
"This bill repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be a bellweather to gay rights." -- Great! The more we can focus on being good to one another and acting as Christ would instead of as these blow-hard buffoons (see: Pharisees, Saducees, other intolerant religion-selling blind men), the closer we'll get to being true followers of His.
So, to all my friends -- gay, straight, Christian, agnostic, atheist, polytheist, Wiccan, etc. -- thank you for keeping your minds open and your radio dials away from idiots like these who continue to lead some down the path of ignorance and intolerance. We pretend to have all the answers and to know all -- we don't. We're made in His image, but not with His knowledge. Omnipotence and omniscience are His alone -- judgement too.
Except that their arguments and logic are all based on false statements, half-truths, fear-mongering and lies. Take, for instance:
"Homosexual behavior is unnatural and homosexuals put together parts of the human body that weren't meant to ...be combined." -- Right, because oral and anal sex aren't part of any non-homosexual relationship. What lunacy is this?
"Eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell is giving homosexuals special rights" -- no, moron, it's giving them equal rights. The equal right to serve OUR country and to defend our freedom, including the close-minded ignorant bevavior practices by this particular talking head (by schedule, it appears to be the brainchild of Bryan Fischer) and hundreds of others.
"Hating homosexuals isn't bigoted" -- really? From our friends at Merriam Webster: "bigot. n. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" So yeah, they're bigots. And anyone espousing such an obviously inaccurate statement shouldn't be permitted (by social limitation, not regulation) to speak in any public forum. Clueless in the extreme.
"This bill repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be a bellweather to gay rights." -- Great! The more we can focus on being good to one another and acting as Christ would instead of as these blow-hard buffoons (see: Pharisees, Saducees, other intolerant religion-selling blind men), the closer we'll get to being true followers of His.
So, to all my friends -- gay, straight, Christian, agnostic, atheist, polytheist, Wiccan, etc. -- thank you for keeping your minds open and your radio dials away from idiots like these who continue to lead some down the path of ignorance and intolerance. We pretend to have all the answers and to know all -- we don't. We're made in His image, but not with His knowledge. Omnipotence and omniscience are His alone -- judgement too.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Policies are bad...
I've been following Seth Godin for a while. He's a smart guy, and I think his books really reach out to making the world around him a better place. He's not always right, and sometimes he reaches to make a point -- but he still makes a point.
I've been a child of the same mind and soul-crushing establishment that Godin speaks against for quite a while, but fortunately have maintained a somewhat adversarial relationship with it in that I tend not to blend in, to accept blindly or to toe the company line -- it's just not my style. The customers I work with (my customers in my mind) appreciate the candid nature I bring to the table, because they know I'm not going to blindly adhere to doctrine espoused by anyone.
But it seems that this is a growing breed of problem -- the tendency to follow blindly the rules set in front of oneself. Perhaps it's just that the economy is forcing people to "play it safe" to keep their jobs; perhaps it's just that people don't have the same interest in being customer-centric, but an interaction I had this weekend really showed me why being a "policies and procedures" organization doesn't work.
For those who know me, I drink iced tea. A lot. One might almost consider it an addition. I was at a popular theme park in the Orlando area which offers Joffrey's coffees and tea products. I had been to several of the Joffrey's stands to purchase iced tea; for some inexplicable reason, some stations had prepared iced tea, while others did not. This is a common experience for those of us not into drinking soda or coffee, so I have a backup plan -- hot tea and a cup of ice (You'd be amazed at how many people don't realize this is possible -- frightening!). All of the Joffrey's folks had been willing to sell me the hot tea and provide me with a cup of ice (cost to them: $0.25; tea, for those who are unaware, already has a very high profit margin, so they weren't losing anything on the deal) -- until I went to one particular stand. This one was in front of a "highway in the sky" mode of transportation and while my companion waited for me, I proceeded to have this dialogue with the "barista", Orladny. (Not sure of spelling on the name).
Me: I'd like a large iced tea.
O: We don't have that here.
Me: Okay, I'll take a large hot tea and a cup of ice.
O: I can't give you a cup of ice.
Me: Can I buy a cup of ice?
O: No, I can't sell you a cup of ice.
Me: Really? Every other Joffrey's I've been to in the past 3 days has been able to do this for me... (confused look on my face, but still patience in my voice)
O: I can't do that. Next customer?
Me: Can you call your manager for me?
O: She's not here right now.
Me: Can you call her so that I can speak with her, or otherwise provide me with a manner of bringing this to her attention?
O: I'm not allowed to use the cell phone while I'm working.
The conversation ended, because I was, at that point, arguing with a not all that intelligent (although quite shrewd) robot. She was parroting policies that got her out of doing additional work or providing any service beyond that which was on her "I must do" card. Unfortunately, the type of rule-based organizations we are creating where people are replaceable cogs is leading directly to this type of interaction more and more frequently (online chats with "customer service", script-based tech support, etc.) We are commiditizing people to the point where we are eliminating the need for them entirely; why should this store have even had employees? Why not just a machine with push-buttons? It might actually have salvaged the sale -- surely a cup of ice would have been a value-added option on a machine!
In the end, I reported her name to the theme park management, and while I expect that they'll make a reasonable effort to follow it up with the Joffrey's folks, I don't expect anything will come from it, because she was "just doing her job" after all -- she didn't break any rules, she followed the company's policies (no freebies, no giveaways, no sales of items that aren't on the menu) blindly and to the letter -- but without any thought to what that might mean to a customer. Are you doing the same thing in your organization?
I'd bet you are...
I've been a child of the same mind and soul-crushing establishment that Godin speaks against for quite a while, but fortunately have maintained a somewhat adversarial relationship with it in that I tend not to blend in, to accept blindly or to toe the company line -- it's just not my style. The customers I work with (my customers in my mind) appreciate the candid nature I bring to the table, because they know I'm not going to blindly adhere to doctrine espoused by anyone.
But it seems that this is a growing breed of problem -- the tendency to follow blindly the rules set in front of oneself. Perhaps it's just that the economy is forcing people to "play it safe" to keep their jobs; perhaps it's just that people don't have the same interest in being customer-centric, but an interaction I had this weekend really showed me why being a "policies and procedures" organization doesn't work.
For those who know me, I drink iced tea. A lot. One might almost consider it an addition. I was at a popular theme park in the Orlando area which offers Joffrey's coffees and tea products. I had been to several of the Joffrey's stands to purchase iced tea; for some inexplicable reason, some stations had prepared iced tea, while others did not. This is a common experience for those of us not into drinking soda or coffee, so I have a backup plan -- hot tea and a cup of ice (You'd be amazed at how many people don't realize this is possible -- frightening!). All of the Joffrey's folks had been willing to sell me the hot tea and provide me with a cup of ice (cost to them: $0.25; tea, for those who are unaware, already has a very high profit margin, so they weren't losing anything on the deal) -- until I went to one particular stand. This one was in front of a "highway in the sky" mode of transportation and while my companion waited for me, I proceeded to have this dialogue with the "barista", Orladny. (Not sure of spelling on the name).
Me: I'd like a large iced tea.
O: We don't have that here.
Me: Okay, I'll take a large hot tea and a cup of ice.
O: I can't give you a cup of ice.
Me: Can I buy a cup of ice?
O: No, I can't sell you a cup of ice.
Me: Really? Every other Joffrey's I've been to in the past 3 days has been able to do this for me... (confused look on my face, but still patience in my voice)
O: I can't do that. Next customer?
Me: Can you call your manager for me?
O: She's not here right now.
Me: Can you call her so that I can speak with her, or otherwise provide me with a manner of bringing this to her attention?
O: I'm not allowed to use the cell phone while I'm working.
The conversation ended, because I was, at that point, arguing with a not all that intelligent (although quite shrewd) robot. She was parroting policies that got her out of doing additional work or providing any service beyond that which was on her "I must do" card. Unfortunately, the type of rule-based organizations we are creating where people are replaceable cogs is leading directly to this type of interaction more and more frequently (online chats with "customer service", script-based tech support, etc.) We are commiditizing people to the point where we are eliminating the need for them entirely; why should this store have even had employees? Why not just a machine with push-buttons? It might actually have salvaged the sale -- surely a cup of ice would have been a value-added option on a machine!
In the end, I reported her name to the theme park management, and while I expect that they'll make a reasonable effort to follow it up with the Joffrey's folks, I don't expect anything will come from it, because she was "just doing her job" after all -- she didn't break any rules, she followed the company's policies (no freebies, no giveaways, no sales of items that aren't on the menu) blindly and to the letter -- but without any thought to what that might mean to a customer. Are you doing the same thing in your organization?
I'd bet you are...
Friday, May 14, 2010
eBay Customer Service commitment -- bogus!
I try not to allow my personal issues to creep into my blogging -- I try to keep this out of being a bitchfest about anyone or anything in particular (myself included).
That said, I'm making an exception today to call out eBay for having shoddy customer service and their false commitment to Buyer Protection. They started this new great program that they advertise on EVERY PAGE OF THEIR SITE where if you don't receive an item or if it is not what you wanted, they will help make it right. Sounds great, right?
Except they lie. They don't actually mean it. The cowards in their customer service department hide behind e-mail facades, refusing to speak with customers. Their "appeals" process is a single e-mail chain and then being cut off entirely. I'm pasting the reply from their "customer service agent" below (I use the title in quotes to illustrate their lack of ability to actually carry through on their intent).
The short version of the story. I bought an XM radio from a guy in North Carolina. His ad said he would ship it Priority Mail. He shipped it parcel post with delivery confirmation (cost difference? about $2!). That by itself should be enough cause for them to see there's a problem. They didn't. I digress.
I waited the 2 weeks for the package to show up. Finally, USPS updated their tracking system saying that it was out on the truck for delivery. I called the hotel to check to see if the package arrived (note: during the week, I live in a hotel in Dallas). It hadn't. Then I checked again, every day. Eventually the package got marked as "delivered" on the USPS' site (it wasn't). The hotel has scoured their mail room and back offices looking for my package. It's nowhere to be found. USPS swears they delivered it. I spoke to the mail carrier twice (directly in person). I went to the post office that said they delivered the package twice. They hace NO idea where it is. Regardless, I don't have it. I figured eBay's guarantee would help me -- that a big company who could absorb $68 of loss would do so. I was wrong.
So -- eBay, I'm calling you out. Your advertisement for Buyer Protection is pure fraud and I think you're lying to customers. What are you going to do about it?
And for all those who read this blog -- take care what you buy on eBay. Make sure not to use USPS for shipping, because their "tracking" is incompetent. If you can do business anywhere else, I'd suggest it.
eBay -- your move.
Quoted e-mail from eBay's non-customer service agent:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear joefox97,
Thank you for contacting eBay in regard to item #320511926105. I can
certainly appreciate how frustrating this situation may have been for
you as you have not received the item you paid for.
I have reviewed this case thoroughly and see that it was decided in
favor of your seller. I understand that you have still not received the
item, so I would like to explain our decision in further detail.
Your seller was able to provide us with a valid tracking number showing
the item was delivered to the address registered on your eBay account. I
hope you can understand why this led to our decision. As for your
appeal, I regret to inform you that we are not able to issue you a
refund because the tracking shows the item was delivered. It would be
unfair to the seller to overturn our decision when they have proof of
delivery.
Now I understand and believe that you have not received this item. It is
very possible that a mistake was made by the mail carrier. The package
may have never been delivered or could have been delivered to the wrong
address. In either scenario, I really do hope you can understand that we
have to make our decisions with the information available to us. When a
tracking number shows the item was delivered, we have to take that as
proof of delivery.
At this point, I would first recommend you contact the mail carrier used
to see if they could provide further details of the package's
whereabouts. If they are unable to provide you with further information,
you may consider asking neighbors if they received the package in error.
I realize this wasn't the answer you were looking for, but I hope I've
been able to explain things clearly and I thank you in advance for your
understanding.
This is eBay's final decision. No further contacts about this case will
be responded to. If you have any further questions about other issues
not related to this case, please click "Contact Us" at the top of any
eBay page.
Sincerely,
Jordan E
eBay Buyer Protection
Original Message Follows:
------------------------
Subject: GS=CU0779 | Appeal claim to CS, I didn't receive an item I paid
for or I received an item that is not as described
User Feedback: 35
User State: 01
Browser info:
Home > ResolutionCenter > Resolve Problem > Appeal
Contacting member: joefox97
Claim #: 5002108255
Item number: 320511926105
Transaction ID: 0
Problem reported:
Additional message: Maybe I'm confused -- the ad for eBay Buyer Protection clearly says "We'll cover your full purchase price plus original shipping if it your item doesn't arrive or it's not what you expected." -- My item hasn't arrived. What more do I need to say? No other reason was given, no detail as to WHY I won't be issued a refund.
Feel free to call the hotel and ask them about the package that didn't
arrive -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (confidentiality). They can all tell you that I ask about my package everyday and it's not arrived. Or try talking to the post office to find out when and if it was delivered -- their delivery confirmation service is bogus at best. And then the seller DID NOT SHIP the package with the correct method -- his ad said "Priority Mail." He used Parcel Post. There is no way that I should be out $70 when I did nothing wrong. Be sure that if eBay decides not to assist that this will NOT be the final action I take.
--------------------------------------------------------------
That said, I'm making an exception today to call out eBay for having shoddy customer service and their false commitment to Buyer Protection. They started this new great program that they advertise on EVERY PAGE OF THEIR SITE where if you don't receive an item or if it is not what you wanted, they will help make it right. Sounds great, right?
Except they lie. They don't actually mean it. The cowards in their customer service department hide behind e-mail facades, refusing to speak with customers. Their "appeals" process is a single e-mail chain and then being cut off entirely. I'm pasting the reply from their "customer service agent" below (I use the title in quotes to illustrate their lack of ability to actually carry through on their intent).
The short version of the story. I bought an XM radio from a guy in North Carolina. His ad said he would ship it Priority Mail. He shipped it parcel post with delivery confirmation (cost difference? about $2!). That by itself should be enough cause for them to see there's a problem. They didn't. I digress.
I waited the 2 weeks for the package to show up. Finally, USPS updated their tracking system saying that it was out on the truck for delivery. I called the hotel to check to see if the package arrived (note: during the week, I live in a hotel in Dallas). It hadn't. Then I checked again, every day. Eventually the package got marked as "delivered" on the USPS' site (it wasn't). The hotel has scoured their mail room and back offices looking for my package. It's nowhere to be found. USPS swears they delivered it. I spoke to the mail carrier twice (directly in person). I went to the post office that said they delivered the package twice. They hace NO idea where it is. Regardless, I don't have it. I figured eBay's guarantee would help me -- that a big company who could absorb $68 of loss would do so. I was wrong.
So -- eBay, I'm calling you out. Your advertisement for Buyer Protection is pure fraud and I think you're lying to customers. What are you going to do about it?
And for all those who read this blog -- take care what you buy on eBay. Make sure not to use USPS for shipping, because their "tracking" is incompetent. If you can do business anywhere else, I'd suggest it.
eBay -- your move.
Quoted e-mail from eBay's non-customer service agent:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear joefox97,
Thank you for contacting eBay in regard to item #320511926105. I can
certainly appreciate how frustrating this situation may have been for
you as you have not received the item you paid for.
I have reviewed this case thoroughly and see that it was decided in
favor of your seller. I understand that you have still not received the
item, so I would like to explain our decision in further detail.
Your seller was able to provide us with a valid tracking number showing
the item was delivered to the address registered on your eBay account. I
hope you can understand why this led to our decision. As for your
appeal, I regret to inform you that we are not able to issue you a
refund because the tracking shows the item was delivered. It would be
unfair to the seller to overturn our decision when they have proof of
delivery.
Now I understand and believe that you have not received this item. It is
very possible that a mistake was made by the mail carrier. The package
may have never been delivered or could have been delivered to the wrong
address. In either scenario, I really do hope you can understand that we
have to make our decisions with the information available to us. When a
tracking number shows the item was delivered, we have to take that as
proof of delivery.
At this point, I would first recommend you contact the mail carrier used
to see if they could provide further details of the package's
whereabouts. If they are unable to provide you with further information,
you may consider asking neighbors if they received the package in error.
I realize this wasn't the answer you were looking for, but I hope I've
been able to explain things clearly and I thank you in advance for your
understanding.
This is eBay's final decision. No further contacts about this case will
be responded to. If you have any further questions about other issues
not related to this case, please click "Contact Us" at the top of any
eBay page.
Sincerely,
Jordan E
eBay Buyer Protection
Original Message Follows:
------------------------
Subject: GS=CU0779 | Appeal claim to CS, I didn't receive an item I paid
for or I received an item that is not as described
User Feedback: 35
User State: 01
Browser info:
Home > ResolutionCenter > Resolve Problem > Appeal
Contacting member: joefox97
Claim #: 5002108255
Item number: 320511926105
Transaction ID: 0
Problem reported:
Additional message: Maybe I'm confused -- the ad for eBay Buyer Protection clearly says "We'll cover your full purchase price plus original shipping if it your item doesn't arrive or it's not what you expected." -- My item hasn't arrived. What more do I need to say? No other reason was given, no detail as to WHY I won't be issued a refund.
Feel free to call the hotel and ask them about the package that didn't
arrive -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (confidentiality). They can all tell you that I ask about my package everyday and it's not arrived. Or try talking to the post office to find out when and if it was delivered -- their delivery confirmation service is bogus at best. And then the seller DID NOT SHIP the package with the correct method -- his ad said "Priority Mail." He used Parcel Post. There is no way that I should be out $70 when I did nothing wrong. Be sure that if eBay decides not to assist that this will NOT be the final action I take.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Hotels and Long Distance
Why do hotels still charge for long distance? Didn't long distance (at least domestic long distance) in the US go the way of the dodo quite a while ago? Are there still people out there who pay for domestic long distance on their home and business lines and not as part of the bundled price? If so, and you do any amount of long distance whatsoever (even just a little) -- WHY?
There is no reason to continue to pay long distance charges, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
There is no reason to continue to pay long distance charges, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Tony Stark -- Walt Disney's son?
So I just got back from watching the opening of Iron Man 2 locally at the midnight showing. I've made my fair share of midnight film openings -- I think this one ranks as one of the best I've attended (the most recent Star Trek was the best, for those who are curious).
This movie was a dream for me -- lots of technology, a veritable geek cornucopia, abetted by a few subtle (and some not-so-subtle) Walt Disney references, including a film that is so much a copy of the Walt introducing EPCOT concept video that if Marvel weren't owned by Disney, it would be in danger of being sued for infringement. That said, it was splendidly done and the cinematography and special effects were engaging and extremely realistic. If our computer interfaces could do half of what Tony's did in this film, we'd have arrived at that Sci-Fi mecca of the "future world."
Also present in the film (and only if you were really paying attention) -- a tune from none other than the half the brother-composing team of "A Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow" and "It's a Small World", Richard Sherman. I heard the song start during the credits and it had a Disney park-esque feel to it -- and then the credits confirmed it -- Dick Sherman wrote a Carousel of Progress-style tune for this superhero-universe pic. Unbelievable. It's Disney chic meets high-tech geek. I think I had a moment somewhere along the line.
Oh -- and it didn't hurt that Pepper Potts and Natalie the new assistant nearly got into blows -- and Natalie nearly got out of her clothes. But I digress. :-)
SO -- in summation -- the review in the USA Today is way off-base; this film had believable characters who played the parts very well. There were a few bits that were just over the top, but in Stark's world, it fits in and doesn't distract. I, for one, am salivating for the day I can model with 3D graphics the way they did in this film -- even if all I ever use it for is replaying this movie (and Scarlett Johannsen's scenes in particular).
GO see Iron Man 2!
http://www.isthmus.com/isthmus/article.php?article=29108
This movie was a dream for me -- lots of technology, a veritable geek cornucopia, abetted by a few subtle (and some not-so-subtle) Walt Disney references, including a film that is so much a copy of the Walt introducing EPCOT concept video that if Marvel weren't owned by Disney, it would be in danger of being sued for infringement. That said, it was splendidly done and the cinematography and special effects were engaging and extremely realistic. If our computer interfaces could do half of what Tony's did in this film, we'd have arrived at that Sci-Fi mecca of the "future world."
Also present in the film (and only if you were really paying attention) -- a tune from none other than the half the brother-composing team of "A Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow" and "It's a Small World", Richard Sherman. I heard the song start during the credits and it had a Disney park-esque feel to it -- and then the credits confirmed it -- Dick Sherman wrote a Carousel of Progress-style tune for this superhero-universe pic. Unbelievable. It's Disney chic meets high-tech geek. I think I had a moment somewhere along the line.
Oh -- and it didn't hurt that Pepper Potts and Natalie the new assistant nearly got into blows -- and Natalie nearly got out of her clothes. But I digress. :-)
SO -- in summation -- the review in the USA Today is way off-base; this film had believable characters who played the parts very well. There were a few bits that were just over the top, but in Stark's world, it fits in and doesn't distract. I, for one, am salivating for the day I can model with 3D graphics the way they did in this film -- even if all I ever use it for is replaying this movie (and Scarlett Johannsen's scenes in particular).
GO see Iron Man 2!
http://www.isthmus.com/isthmus/article.php?article=29108
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
A Ray of Light...
And no, not the song by Madonna.
The President gave a commencement speech the other night calling for civility and an end to partisan-only politics. That by itself wouldn't be shock-inducing -- but that mainstream media outlets are posting stories like this is -- supporting the President and his call to end the madness. I am hopeful that this is the first of many rays of light -- let's focus on getting things done for the good of all!
The President gave a commencement speech the other night calling for civility and an end to partisan-only politics. That by itself wouldn't be shock-inducing -- but that mainstream media outlets are posting stories like this is -- supporting the President and his call to end the madness. I am hopeful that this is the first of many rays of light -- let's focus on getting things done for the good of all!
Giving back...
I work for Pearson -- and our Foundation has started a new EXCELLENT program called "We Give Books" where when you read a book online (to yourself, to a child, etc.), they give a real book to a child in need. It's a brilliant cause, and quite simple, really -- so take a peek and do what you can to give back?http://www.wegivebooks.org
Incredibly haunting...
Just when I give the lefties and righties a hard time, I find a song that makes me want to take sides again.
If you've never listened to the song "The Island", written by Paul Brady, most recently performed by Celtic Thunder -- you owe yourself the listen. The lyrics are haunting and challenging -- and Keith's voice lamenting sorrowfully will pull at your heartstrings in ways that perhaps no other song ever has. Here's a YouTube link to it -- check out the other Celtic Thunder stuff whilst you're there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dr3ZmSZ8yOW8&sa=U&ei=nkjgS_CnMY_cNZqygL4H&oi=video_result&ct=res&cad=12643405470278760815&ved=0CCEQtwIwBA&cd=5&usg=AFQjCNEf9aT_msQNktwTVk9sDUJtzUB5hg
Excerpt of Lyrics:
Women and children dying in the street
And we're still at it in our own place
Still tryin’ to reach the future through the past
Still tryin’ to carve tomorrow from a tombstone...
Up here we sacrifice our children
To feed the worn-out dreams of yesterday
And teach them dying will lead us into glory...
Now I know us plain folks don't see all the story
And I know this peace and love's just copping out
And I guess these young boys dying in the ditches
Is just what being free is all about
And how this twisted wreckage down on main street
Will bring us all together in the end
And we'll go marching down the road to freedom... Freedom... Freedom.............
If you've never listened to the song "The Island", written by Paul Brady, most recently performed by Celtic Thunder -- you owe yourself the listen. The lyrics are haunting and challenging -- and Keith's voice lamenting sorrowfully will pull at your heartstrings in ways that perhaps no other song ever has. Here's a YouTube link to it -- check out the other Celtic Thunder stuff whilst you're there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dr3ZmSZ8yOW8&sa=U&ei=nkjgS_CnMY_cNZqygL4H&oi=video_result&ct=res&cad=12643405470278760815&ved=0CCEQtwIwBA&cd=5&usg=AFQjCNEf9aT_msQNktwTVk9sDUJtzUB5hg
Excerpt of Lyrics:
Women and children dying in the street
And we're still at it in our own place
Still tryin’ to reach the future through the past
Still tryin’ to carve tomorrow from a tombstone...
Up here we sacrifice our children
To feed the worn-out dreams of yesterday
And teach them dying will lead us into glory...
Now I know us plain folks don't see all the story
And I know this peace and love's just copping out
And I guess these young boys dying in the ditches
Is just what being free is all about
And how this twisted wreckage down on main street
Will bring us all together in the end
And we'll go marching down the road to freedom... Freedom... Freedom.............
Monday, May 3, 2010
No, I can't get behind that...
I just received an e-mail from MoveOn. I subscribe to the list because I like to hear great ideas, regardless of the source. MoveOn is a very left-leaning, liberal group and so it comes as no surprise that I disagree with several of their ideals. For those who are unaware, I'm a moderate, and I find both polar regions to be far too chilly (left OR right).
But it's e-mails like these that make me wonder how we can ever get anything done. Here's a quote from the e-mail from Justin at MoveOn:
"Dreaming of a clean energy future? Dream on. Thanks to the energy companies, legislation being debated in the Senate right now would actually expand nukes, offshore drilling, and coal.
Want to make sure every job pays a living wage and that all workers can choose the protection of a union? Probably impossible, as long as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spends nearly $150 million per year on lobbying alone—not even counting campaign contributions.1
How 'bout closing the widening gap between the rich and the poor? How 'bout investing enough in education so every child gets a decent education and every family can afford college? How 'bout making workplaces really work for people with families, including paid sick leave and parental leave?
Right now these proposals would get you laughed out of the room in Washington. Because they all face overwhelming opposition from powerful, entrenched interests. "
What just kills me about this is the "My way or no-way" approach that both sides are shown to take. What's left out is the moderate voter -- me. And that chafes me a bit.
I dream of a clean energy future. Unfortunately, I also dream of space travel, being a rock star, and solving all world hunger. Like all of these dreams (with the exception of being a rock star), the best steps we take are the seemingly small ones. We can't eliminate oil and coal immediately. But we can implement a clean(er) and safe(r) nuclear program that allows us to generate electricity. It should be a short-term gap cover until we can find a better solution. We should be spending money on that medium and longer term solution now, but in the interim, we should be working toward a mutually agreeable middle ground -- nuclear seems to be the least of the possible evils at the moment -- but neither side is willing to get us there.
Do I want every job to pay a living wage? That's a tough question to answer. Should someone be able to make a living for flipping burgers? Should people be able to use unions to force a job to pay more than that job is worth (read: ALL jobs at the car companies, particularly on the production line)? Of course not! Unions have jacked the price of labor to the point where the work is being sent wherever they're not. Unions are self-fulfilling prophesies of doom and Seth Godin and numerous other brilliant people foretell an even more dire future for those who stake their livelihoods on these dying organizations. I won't get started on lobbying -- I think the entire practice should be banned, the offenders tried for treason, etc. I also think we should eliminate lawyers and journalists who are more interested in their ratings than the truth.
Do I want to close the widening gap between the rich and the poor? Again, tough question. I don't, if it means the rich just throwing money at the poor. This is not a good investment! If people don't earn their way, they won't appreciate it. The perfect example are rich kids -- they (for the most part) are smarmy, worthless little snots who take every bit of good fortune for granted -- and why shouldn't they? They don't know what it means to earn a living, and they can't appreciate what it means to do so. The same happens when you drop money on an unsuspecting poor person -- they don't know how to handle that situation. I can attest that as I've moved up the proverbial corporate and financial ladder, I've had my own foolishness exercised with newfound monies. I am still in more debt than I should be because of some of these decisions. I'm underwater on my house because of it. We would make the situation worse for many of these folks if we pulled this on them. Should we help them get better jobs? Sure! As long as they can provide value to those jobs and companies. Why wouldn't we give people a hand up? Again -- that's the middle ground: A hand up, not a hand out. Lefties want to give a hand out, righties want to keep it all for their greedy selves. I do totally agree with Justin on improving access to college -- but not on making it free for everyone. Who's going to foot the tab on that? Other nations have done it -- but they have way higher tax rates to make it happen (see: Norway). Is this a valid use of tax money? Sure! But what's going to make the education system as good as it is now? What kind of competition will there be? This all ties back to one of the main problems with socialism in any form -- barring intrinsic motivation (which has been proven unreliable in a general population) -- what motivates people when they have all their needs met and don't have to work to get anything they need? It's a riddle for the ages.
Should we force companies to provide benefits on the most basic of jobs? Maybe. But who's going to pay for that? The consumers? We're already talking about moving jobs out of the country (see unions above) -- if we increase the cost of items to offset the additional costs, we lose more jobs. This is actually very simple math. It is beyond the reach of most lefties, though. That or they want to paint over it and move on to "But it's better because everybody's equal!" The righties say "Bah, humbug" to the whole thing -- employees are cogs in the machine and nothing more. These are fallacious assumptions as well.
So when MoveOn (or anyone else on the fringe) asks if I can get behind them, vote their way, throw money at them, etc. -- no, I can't get behind at all. When you (and all the rest of the fringe) start to realize that concession and compromise are the language of the vast majority of the country, THEN we'll get behind you and start to follow and believe that this country is capable of working together and not pointless, petty bickering --- until then, NO.
But it's e-mails like these that make me wonder how we can ever get anything done. Here's a quote from the e-mail from Justin at MoveOn:
"Dreaming of a clean energy future? Dream on. Thanks to the energy companies, legislation being debated in the Senate right now would actually expand nukes, offshore drilling, and coal.
Want to make sure every job pays a living wage and that all workers can choose the protection of a union? Probably impossible, as long as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spends nearly $150 million per year on lobbying alone—not even counting campaign contributions.1
How 'bout closing the widening gap between the rich and the poor? How 'bout investing enough in education so every child gets a decent education and every family can afford college? How 'bout making workplaces really work for people with families, including paid sick leave and parental leave?
Right now these proposals would get you laughed out of the room in Washington. Because they all face overwhelming opposition from powerful, entrenched interests. "
What just kills me about this is the "My way or no-way" approach that both sides are shown to take. What's left out is the moderate voter -- me. And that chafes me a bit.
I dream of a clean energy future. Unfortunately, I also dream of space travel, being a rock star, and solving all world hunger. Like all of these dreams (with the exception of being a rock star), the best steps we take are the seemingly small ones. We can't eliminate oil and coal immediately. But we can implement a clean(er) and safe(r) nuclear program that allows us to generate electricity. It should be a short-term gap cover until we can find a better solution. We should be spending money on that medium and longer term solution now, but in the interim, we should be working toward a mutually agreeable middle ground -- nuclear seems to be the least of the possible evils at the moment -- but neither side is willing to get us there.
Do I want every job to pay a living wage? That's a tough question to answer. Should someone be able to make a living for flipping burgers? Should people be able to use unions to force a job to pay more than that job is worth (read: ALL jobs at the car companies, particularly on the production line)? Of course not! Unions have jacked the price of labor to the point where the work is being sent wherever they're not. Unions are self-fulfilling prophesies of doom and Seth Godin and numerous other brilliant people foretell an even more dire future for those who stake their livelihoods on these dying organizations. I won't get started on lobbying -- I think the entire practice should be banned, the offenders tried for treason, etc. I also think we should eliminate lawyers and journalists who are more interested in their ratings than the truth.
Do I want to close the widening gap between the rich and the poor? Again, tough question. I don't, if it means the rich just throwing money at the poor. This is not a good investment! If people don't earn their way, they won't appreciate it. The perfect example are rich kids -- they (for the most part) are smarmy, worthless little snots who take every bit of good fortune for granted -- and why shouldn't they? They don't know what it means to earn a living, and they can't appreciate what it means to do so. The same happens when you drop money on an unsuspecting poor person -- they don't know how to handle that situation. I can attest that as I've moved up the proverbial corporate and financial ladder, I've had my own foolishness exercised with newfound monies. I am still in more debt than I should be because of some of these decisions. I'm underwater on my house because of it. We would make the situation worse for many of these folks if we pulled this on them. Should we help them get better jobs? Sure! As long as they can provide value to those jobs and companies. Why wouldn't we give people a hand up? Again -- that's the middle ground: A hand up, not a hand out. Lefties want to give a hand out, righties want to keep it all for their greedy selves. I do totally agree with Justin on improving access to college -- but not on making it free for everyone. Who's going to foot the tab on that? Other nations have done it -- but they have way higher tax rates to make it happen (see: Norway). Is this a valid use of tax money? Sure! But what's going to make the education system as good as it is now? What kind of competition will there be? This all ties back to one of the main problems with socialism in any form -- barring intrinsic motivation (which has been proven unreliable in a general population) -- what motivates people when they have all their needs met and don't have to work to get anything they need? It's a riddle for the ages.
Should we force companies to provide benefits on the most basic of jobs? Maybe. But who's going to pay for that? The consumers? We're already talking about moving jobs out of the country (see unions above) -- if we increase the cost of items to offset the additional costs, we lose more jobs. This is actually very simple math. It is beyond the reach of most lefties, though. That or they want to paint over it and move on to "But it's better because everybody's equal!" The righties say "Bah, humbug" to the whole thing -- employees are cogs in the machine and nothing more. These are fallacious assumptions as well.
So when MoveOn (or anyone else on the fringe) asks if I can get behind them, vote their way, throw money at them, etc. -- no, I can't get behind at all. When you (and all the rest of the fringe) start to realize that concession and compromise are the language of the vast majority of the country, THEN we'll get behind you and start to follow and believe that this country is capable of working together and not pointless, petty bickering --- until then, NO.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Repost: Seth Godin shares a Linchpin session
To help offset Seth's bandwidth, I'm hosting this file on my server -- feel free to pass along and share with friends, per Seth on his blog here:
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/04/aprillinchpin.html
To download the session, click here:
http://www.webcruiser.org/sethgodin_linchpin/linchpinsessionsethgodinapril.mp3
or browse the directory there to save to your machine locally.
Seth Godin is a ray of light into an occasionally bleak business and political world -- he really helps to frame the discussion for how to improve things. Now we just need to get the word out. How can you help make the world better? Are you a Linchpin?
Joe
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/04/aprillinchpin.html
To download the session, click here:
http://www.webcruiser.org/sethgodin_linchpin/linchpinsessionsethgodinapril.mp3
or browse the directory there to save to your machine locally.
Seth Godin is a ray of light into an occasionally bleak business and political world -- he really helps to frame the discussion for how to improve things. Now we just need to get the word out. How can you help make the world better? Are you a Linchpin?
Joe
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Disappointed...
I am so disappointed in our political system. I am disappointed with our country. I'm disheartened by the lack of intelligent conversation (not debate, necessarily) about the problems that plague our nation. I'm disgusted by the threats being made on the lives of our elected officials. Regardless of whether I think these people are vermin (many of them are) or how I feel about the whole health care situation and how it's being rammed forcibly down our throats, I'm disappointed that we can't do better than this.
We are a largely intelligent people. We communicate and create new ways of communicating (including this blog, all the technologies that make it possible, etc.) daily. And yet for all the tools and words at our disposal, we settle on the most barbaric of methods -- threats on individuals' lives, their families, their homes, etc.
This isn't an attack on any particular group. I don't care who is perpetrating these acts, whether it's a Tea Party or PETA. It's wrong. Out-shouting the person next to you doesn't make you right. It just makes you louder -- and in my case, less likely to be saying something of any value.
It's time to end the sophomoric prattling and sword-rattling; it's time to discuss, to decide a best path and to take action together.
It's time to end the us vs. them mentality; it's time to realize that compromising what we believe in is not the only way to move forward, to realize that it is possible to come together and find the best possible path for the common good.
People -- let's start being what we said we were -- "United States" -- with a common goal.
Take a look here -- what do these words mean to you?
We are a largely intelligent people. We communicate and create new ways of communicating (including this blog, all the technologies that make it possible, etc.) daily. And yet for all the tools and words at our disposal, we settle on the most barbaric of methods -- threats on individuals' lives, their families, their homes, etc.
This isn't an attack on any particular group. I don't care who is perpetrating these acts, whether it's a Tea Party or PETA. It's wrong. Out-shouting the person next to you doesn't make you right. It just makes you louder -- and in my case, less likely to be saying something of any value.
It's time to end the sophomoric prattling and sword-rattling; it's time to discuss, to decide a best path and to take action together.
It's time to end the us vs. them mentality; it's time to realize that compromising what we believe in is not the only way to move forward, to realize that it is possible to come together and find the best possible path for the common good.
People -- let's start being what we said we were -- "United States" -- with a common goal.
Take a look here -- what do these words mean to you?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
¿Que Ingles?
A friend of mine, whom I think very highly of, posted a story about having found a store in her area (Arizona) where the majority of the signage were in Spanish rather than English. From what I can tell, she took offense from the fact that Spanish was the predominant language of the establishment. To me, if the primary clientele speaks Spanish, Spanish makes sense. But there's a part of me that thinks that all signage should be in the primary language of the country it resides in also... I posted a response on FaceBook and realized I'd like to re-post it and see if anyone out there has a thought on it.
Reposted from Facebook reply:
I think life would be better for all if we were all multilingual -- regardless of what other language it is. I don't think it's outrageous to ask people to learn a second language. Canadians learn French and English (most do, at least) and they are more able to communicate with others outside their borders. Learning another language is a window in to other cultures and helps to stop being so insular and close-minded about people who are "different" than we are. It's a short step between "English only" and other forms of elitism and bigotry (not implying anything to any particular person -- just an observation).
That said, English is the primary (if not official) language of the United States, and it should be the de factor language for any form of communication, just as it is in Canada. Learning it should be required for citizenship and for other services. As Mary pointed out -- the citizenship test wasn't available in German, French, Creole, Vietnamese, Latin, or dozens of other worthy (and widely used) languages -- why are we showing preference to Spanish? Because there are more people who come in from Spanish-speaking countries? Or because the people who do are unwilling to learn our primary language? That's a more difficult question to answer.
As a challenge to those who say "Just Learn English" -- as an adult, try to pick up a new language. You'll find it's not as easy as one would like it to be. I've been trying to learn Spanish and French for the last 5 years and am still struggling. I am reasonably certain that I sound like a backwards hillbilly when I try to speak French. English is arguably one of the most difficult non-Kanji languages to learn, with it's complex structure and an exception to nearly every rule. I've noticed I'm much more patient after I realized that I couldn't do what I was asking them to do. As the saying goes, before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes -- at least then, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. :-)
Reposted from Facebook reply:
I think life would be better for all if we were all multilingual -- regardless of what other language it is. I don't think it's outrageous to ask people to learn a second language. Canadians learn French and English (most do, at least) and they are more able to communicate with others outside their borders. Learning another language is a window in to other cultures and helps to stop being so insular and close-minded about people who are "different" than we are. It's a short step between "English only" and other forms of elitism and bigotry (not implying anything to any particular person -- just an observation).
That said, English is the primary (if not official) language of the United States, and it should be the de factor language for any form of communication, just as it is in Canada. Learning it should be required for citizenship and for other services. As Mary pointed out -- the citizenship test wasn't available in German, French, Creole, Vietnamese, Latin, or dozens of other worthy (and widely used) languages -- why are we showing preference to Spanish? Because there are more people who come in from Spanish-speaking countries? Or because the people who do are unwilling to learn our primary language? That's a more difficult question to answer.
As a challenge to those who say "Just Learn English" -- as an adult, try to pick up a new language. You'll find it's not as easy as one would like it to be. I've been trying to learn Spanish and French for the last 5 years and am still struggling. I am reasonably certain that I sound like a backwards hillbilly when I try to speak French. English is arguably one of the most difficult non-Kanji languages to learn, with it's complex structure and an exception to nearly every rule. I've noticed I'm much more patient after I realized that I couldn't do what I was asking them to do. As the saying goes, before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes -- at least then, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
