Most of the time, I like to write about things that I enjoy. Amazon.com is definitely something I enjoy, and seeing that my online purchases are in the $30,000 per year range, I think I have some experience with buying things online. The vast majority of these purchases are components for my clients.
From what I understand, "branding" started when cattle ranchers needed a way to differentiate their cattle from other ranchers' cattle. They did this by burning a symbol into their cattle with a hot iron poker. Amazon.com has been quite successful is creating a strong brand, and capitalizing on the associated recognition. It would be hard to surf the web for any significant amount of tine without coming across something associated with Amazon. The Amazon name is everywhere, and Amazon has capitalized on their brand name, as seen with the quick adoption of their Kindle e-reader. As a side note, I find it interesting that brand is considered an intangible asset for many companies, and is sometimes their most valuable asset.
Perhaps Amazon's most valuable asset is their reputation. The company has managed to establish an excellent reputation by providing fast, easy, and reliable services to customers consistently. One of the reasons I have recently shifted a great deal of my purchases to Amazon is because of their "Prime" program, offering free two-day shipping, and $3.99 next-day shipping on all items they stock (assuming that you pay the yearly subscription fee to the Prime program). This allows me to have faster turnaround and better cash-flow. Additionally, Amazon has one of the fastest, easiest ordering systems I have seen on the web. I can usually press a single button online to have an item at my doorstep the next day. For someone who spends at least an hour per day ordering parts online, this is valuable to me. I have had several instances where I need to return items, and Amazon excels at this as well. This is usually a very quick and painless process, which, most of the time, does not even involve speaking to a human (something I value). Amazon's reputation, for me, is hinged on these things - providing a quality product quickly, and supporting the product promptly if there is a problem.
In trying to understand the difference between a brand and a reputation, I find that the two are inextricably linked. Creating a brand seems to be about customer recognition and association with a symbol or name, but in order to have a stellar brand, you need to have a stellar reputation. Customers might come to Coca-Cola because of the brand, but the reason they come back is because of the product that Coca-Cola provides consistently. This is no different with Amazon. People might come to Amazon because of their ubiquitous name, but consumers come back only if they are pleased with the service that Amazon offers.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Saturday, November 2, 2013
The Locations Were Pizza Hut and KFC
I have been involved, in a few instances, on jobs where I act as the agent between two principal actors. There is a staffing company (the name of which I cannot seem to remember) that hired me to do a few jobs over the past few years for Yum! brand restaurants including, but not limited to, virtual private network installation and configuration. In this setting, the work order was submitted by a manager of one of the Yum! brand location managers, and fulfilled by the staffing company located in California. I was contracted to meet with the manager, and the job duties were outlined by the staffing agency.
In this particular instance, the work was completed and done satisfactorily, but things can certainly go awry. One principal, the staffing agency, is concerned mainly with having the job done in a timely manner, and done properly. They were not as concerned with having it done at a certain time of day, and did not seem to be bothered with attire or onsite attitude. The other principal, the manger of the Yum! brands location, may have been concerned with promptness, attire, attitude, and other performance measures that could affect customer morale at the location.
I suppose that this case is curious, however, because Yum! brands always has the option to drop the staffing agency and choose another if the performance of the agent is not up to the manager's standards. The manager cannot directly dispense of the agent in this example. This makes it important for the staffing agency to set the standards for the contractors they use.
As the agent in this circumstance, I am more concerned with satisfying the criteria set by the staffing agency, because, at the end of the day, they write the check to me. The incentives are not aligned so that I am concerned with the demands of the manager of the location. It is strange though, that this would not have constituted as a failure if I had not pleased the manger at the location; perhaps this work setup is not aligned in a way that is sensible for the manager. In this scenario, it would be valuable for the staffing agency to have some sort of code-of-conduct that aligns with the desires of the managers of the locations. This seems to be the best way to avoid any issues regarding different opinions about performance. The staffing agency should, and in practice usually does, understand the needs of the mangers on location. When I think back, there were documents detailing dress code and other behavioral technicalities while on site.
Perhaps another way to resolve tensions would be to give the managers the ability to directly dismiss or dictate to the contractor the work to be done. It seems to me that the manager needs to have more power in this relationship. This might shift incentives in a way so that the contractor is induced to please both the staffing agency as well as the manger.
In this particular instance, the work was completed and done satisfactorily, but things can certainly go awry. One principal, the staffing agency, is concerned mainly with having the job done in a timely manner, and done properly. They were not as concerned with having it done at a certain time of day, and did not seem to be bothered with attire or onsite attitude. The other principal, the manger of the Yum! brands location, may have been concerned with promptness, attire, attitude, and other performance measures that could affect customer morale at the location.
I suppose that this case is curious, however, because Yum! brands always has the option to drop the staffing agency and choose another if the performance of the agent is not up to the manager's standards. The manager cannot directly dispense of the agent in this example. This makes it important for the staffing agency to set the standards for the contractors they use.
As the agent in this circumstance, I am more concerned with satisfying the criteria set by the staffing agency, because, at the end of the day, they write the check to me. The incentives are not aligned so that I am concerned with the demands of the manager of the location. It is strange though, that this would not have constituted as a failure if I had not pleased the manger at the location; perhaps this work setup is not aligned in a way that is sensible for the manager. In this scenario, it would be valuable for the staffing agency to have some sort of code-of-conduct that aligns with the desires of the managers of the locations. This seems to be the best way to avoid any issues regarding different opinions about performance. The staffing agency should, and in practice usually does, understand the needs of the mangers on location. When I think back, there were documents detailing dress code and other behavioral technicalities while on site.
Perhaps another way to resolve tensions would be to give the managers the ability to directly dismiss or dictate to the contractor the work to be done. It seems to me that the manager needs to have more power in this relationship. This might shift incentives in a way so that the contractor is induced to please both the staffing agency as well as the manger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)