Monday, June 8, 2009

Embracing the Single Payer System for Health Care

Thomas Hinton
President & CEO
American Consumer Council

There was a time when the United States of America provided the finest health care in the world. Today, the United States is a good example of how not to build a health care system for patients.
What happened? While the answer is simple, the solution to fixing our health care system is complex because of politics, profits, and protecting special interests. The solution requires political courage and leadership. It also requires a grass roots movement on the part of millions of Americans who believe the health care system must change and health care should become a right for all Americans and not a privilege for the few who can afford high health insurance premiums.
Consider these facts. There are 305 million Americans. Some 46 million Americans are uninsured. That’s just over 15% of our population. Nationwide, 202 million Americans are covered by private insurance programs. The average annual premium for a family policy on the open market is nearly $5,800. But, with premiums rising, and private insurance programs being more selective in who they will cover and how much they will pay for certain medical procedures, there is serious concern that premiums will increase while the number of insured Americans will drop significantly because they can no longer afford basic health insurance.
There is a solution that would produce better quality, more research, healthier patients, and entice more health care professionals to return to their chosen profession. It is the Single Payer System.
Regrettably, the Single Payer System solution isn’t even on the table as the president and Congress grapple with how to fix America’s broken health care system. While President Obama should be commended for bringing together key health care industry leaders representing the various factions to create a solution to the current health care mess, the patient -- the American people -- is dying of neglect!
As long as the entrenched health care insurance companies control the Congress and the White House through their lobbyists and campaign contributions, meaningful reform will never happen. Our system has been corrupted at the highest levels of government by profits and greed when action is required, and now!
It is time the political leadership in Washington showed real courage by standing up to the health insurance industry and its lobbyists and changed the way health care is purchased and delivered in the United States. Specifically, President Obama, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid must step forward and endorse the Single Payer System. This would eliminate the need for health care insurance companies and streamline the current system saving an estimated $400 Billion annually -- more than enough to cover those 46 million uninsured Americans who are at risk.
While the naysayers will argue that such a system will ruin health care and compromise the delivery of outstanding care, they are flat wrong. In fact, if we do not move quickly and boldly to correct our broken health care insurance system, more Americans will suffer, die, and face serious financial hardships because they will be shut out from obtaining insurance and, therefore, receiving proper health care.
In the words of Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee which oversees health care reform, “Our health care system is in trouble: costs are rising at an unsustainable rate, too many Americans are uninsured, and quality of care isn’t up to par. High costs are making it increasingly difficult for Montana’s families and businesses to afford comprehensive health insurance, which means that Montana’s rate of uninsured is growing rapidly. Although the United States spends twice as much on health care as any other country, we clearly don’t have twice as much health care.
Ironically, it is Senator Max Baucus, the one elected official who could jump-start serious health care reform, who is blocking Single Payer legislation like HR 676. Why? Because, Senator Baucus is one of those Washington politicians who is beholden to the health care insurance industry! Senator Baucus is the third-largest recipient of contributions from the health care and pharmaceutical industries since 2005. Senator Baucus has received $413,000 in donations from health care and pharmaceutical companies and lobbyists. This is according to a March 8 article by Dan Eggen in the Washington Post (''Health Sector Has Donated Millions to Lawmakers''). While this money might be significant to the senator’s campaign fund, it is surprising that -- in the scheme of things and the greater good that could be done by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee-- such a small amount of money could skew Senator Baucus’ judgment, shade his thinking, and compromise his leadership at a time when Americans desperately need his direction to change the status quo in health care.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why, at the recent Senate Finance Committee hearings on Health Care Reform, chaired by Senator Baucus, he refused to invite anyone who supported the Single-Payer System to appear as an expert witness. Senator Baucus did ensure several slots for his cronies from the health insurance industry as well as association leaders and others who endorsed President Obama’s simplistic health care ideas.
Also disturbing was the fact that Senator Baucus had several Single Payer advocates, who tried to speak out at his hearings, escorted from the Senate hearing room and arrested. This raises serious questions about Senator Baucus’ objectivity, balance and sincerity when it comes to championing health care reform. It’s clear that the United States needs a new health care champion who is objective and untainted by health insurance contributions. Is there such a politician who has the courage and will to stand up against the greedy insurance companies? We’ll see.
The number of uninsured Americans is growing at an alarming rate of nearly 14,000 people every day due to the economic recession and mounting job losses. This is unacceptable. But, what is also unacceptable is the band-aid approach by the president and Congress to keep our greed-driven health insurance system in place while more Americans suffer and die as a result of the policies, rules and procedures dictated by health insurers who only carry about profits, not patients! It is time for a change in how Americans pay for and receive health care.
Let’s define what a Single Payer System is and is not. In a single-payer health system, everyone has health insurance. It is either obtained through a private insurance company like Kaiser or Blue Cross/Blue Shield, or through a government funded program such as Medicare. Also, every person is free to choose their own doctors, hospitals and related health care services. When patients receives care or treatment, they sign a statement that verifies the services they received from their health care provider (doctor, nurse, hospital, etc.). The health care provider then sends a bill for services rendered to the Single Payer -- that is, a national health care administration created by Congress to pay the health provider for your treatment. It’s simple and straightforward.
The Single Payer System does not limit or dictate the type of treatment you can receive. Those decisions are made by you and your doctor. The Single Payer System will not dictate who can treat you. It only affects how your health care provider is paid. And, yes, it eliminates the need for all the health insurance companies currently in business which cost taxpayers about $400 billion annually.
According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people in the United States die every year because they lack health insurance. That’s two people every hour. The United States also has a higher infant mortality level (more children under 1 year of age die) than many other democratic countries.
For many decades, several medical associations claimed that “health care is a privilege not a right.” In an era of human development, certainly the wealthiest nation in the world should make health care a right. The Single Payer System is a step in the right direction to establishing that right.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Who Needs Banks When You Can Join a Credit Union

by Tom Hinton

There's a great deal of consumer unrest sweeping across the United States. Many consumers are frustrated with their banks because we can't get loans, the interest rates on our credit cards are excessive, and banks are charging excessive fees on everything from checking to ATM transactions in order to squeeze a few extra dollars out of their preferred customers.

But wait! There is another option that your bank will never tell you about because they don't want to lose your business despite nickel and diming you! The option? Join your local credit union!

I realize changing your banking relationship is almost as much fun as having your wisdom teeth extracted. But, nowadays, joining your local credit union is simple and credit unions are eager to enroll new members. Also, they have money to lend at very reasonable terms. And, as far as credit cards are concerned, why pay 18-24% on your Visa or Mastercard when you can get the same credit card and benefits through your local credit union at low interest rates ranging from 4-9%. This is not rocket science, folks!

How can credit unions charge such modest rates? Consider the fact that credit unions are non-profit, member-owned organizations. They exist to serve their members. While they need to show a reasonable return-on-investment, they are not greedy like so many banks that must answer to shareholders. And, they are fully insured by the federal government up to $250,000 per account -- just like the banks. Gee, you can get the same protection for your money and pay lower rates... it makes sense to me!

So, stop your whining and go online and join your local credit union. To make it easy for you, there's a list of outstanding credit unions from California to New Jersey that are sponsoring members of the American Consumer Council. You can join them at no cost through the American Consumer Council by visiting ACC's website at: http://www.americanconsumercouncil.org/affiliates.html

Let me know how it goes!

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Customer Service Champs or Chumps

by Tom Hinton

In the March 2, 2009 issue of Business Week, the magazine’s cover story was entitled Extreme Customer Service. Business Week touted a list of 25 companies they referred to as “Customer Service Champs.” I’m wondering if there was a typo. Perhaps, it should have read “chumps.”

Frankly, these types of annual customer satisfaction lists amount to little more than beauty contests. In this case it appears that Business Week wiggled and waggled the criteria in so many different ways, the Wicked Witch of the North might have come out a winner! Consider how Business Week arrived at its results. First, Business Week tinkered with the credible criteria of its sister-company, J.D Power & Associates. Next, Business Week padded the scoring with bonus points for industry leaders while punishing companies like Starbucks, which scored high among readers, but was penalized because none of its peers-competitors scored well (duh!). Finally, Business Week included the randomly subjective views of 1,000 of its own BusinessWeek Market Advisory Board. Seriously, folks, this is how Business Week gets us to their Top 25 Customer Service champs. Hmmm? It causes me to wonder if this exercise is about crowning customer service champs or selling more issues of their popular weekly magazine?

As I examine the rankings of the top 25 companies, I note that nearly half, 11 in all, of the 25 companies cited for customer service excellence received a grade of B+, B, or B- on one or both of the major criteria -- Quality of Staff and Efficiency of Service. This begs the question: How can a company that scores less than an “A” be crowned as a customer service champ?

Another consideration for the scoring was a company’s industry ranking. What does that have to do with customer service excellence? A company either gets it right with its customers -- like a Starbucks -- or it doesn’t. Incidentally, I only mention Starbucks because by Business Week’s own admission, Starbucks might have deserved to be on their top 25 list, but was not included because its industry peers scored poorly. So what? If that principle was followed across all industry sectors I seriously doubt a single automaker would be listed. But, somehow Business Week came up with four credible selections from the auto industry to grace their top 25 list of customer service champs. How interesting.

Another question I have regarding Business Week’s criteria is how does a customer judge the Quality of Staff? It’s superficial criteria because rarely do customers get close enough to an organization to competently judge its quality of staff. Just because Joe Hustler or Susie Saleswoman smiles and remembers my name does not mean they have superior product knowledge or customer service skills. Quality of Staff is tied to a company’s hiring and training process. It’s determined by a company’s culture and level of investment in people. Certainly, customer satisfaction is a byproduct of Quality of Staff, but to suggest a reader of Business Week would know the intricacies of how Amazon.com or Lexus develops its staff is nonsense.

And, what in the world does “Efficiency of Service” have to do with customer satisfaction? The answer is nothing. If Business Week had called it “Effectiveness of Service” I would be impressed. But “Efficiency of Service” is nonsense.

Let me offer an example that demonstrates the difference. This week I met a client for breakfast in a well-known chain restaurant. Miguel, the waiter, was friendly and efficient. When we asked for coffee or juice, he responded. When we requested a refill, he responded again. If I used Business Week’s criteria, the chain would score an A+ because Miguel was efficient. But, despite Miguel’s positive demeanor, the order was wrong. The bacon was not crispy and the scrambled eggs were dry. Yes, he served us quickly but that was not our criteria for customer satisfaction. We wanted him to get the order right! When a customer needs to flag down the wait staff to request more coffee or hot water that’s not deserving of an A or a B score. When the cashier failed to add the gratuity to our final check as requested causing us to wait until he could reprocess our credit card, that’s not deserving of an A or a B score. Efficient? Yes! Effective? No!

But, let’s set aside the flawed methodology of Business Week for a moment and examine their top 25 customer service champs. Maybe, by some stroke of luck, they got it right. Among the 12 companies that scored ratings of A+, A, or A- are: Amazon.com, USAA, Jaguar, Lexus, The Ritz-Carlton Hotels, Publix Super Markets, Zappos.com, Hewlett-Packard, Ace Hardware, Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, Cadillac, BMW, and JW Marriott Hotels. At first glance this appears to be a solid list. But, what’s disturbing to me is that between #1 Amazon.com and #25 JW Marriott, there’s a spread of 170.14 points. What’s wrong with this picture?

The answer lies in the “B” squad results. You see, 11 companies -- T.Rowe Price, KeyBank, Nordstrom, Enterprise Rent-a-Car, American Express, Trader Joe’s, JetBlue Airways, Apple, Charles Schwab, True Value, and L.L. Bean -- all outranked JW Marriott (#25) despite the fact that their grades included a B+, B, or B-. Are you kidding me? So, you can see how a flawed criteria can skew the scoring results.

On that subject, I seriously wonder how three of these companies even made the list. Based on my personal experience and knowledge of their service performance I am amazed that Enterprise Rent-a-Car, American Express, and JetBlue Airways got past the first cut. For the past year, American Express has been canceling credit worthy card members to reduce its exposure in tough economic times. That’s understandable, but it's not good customer service. And, my experience with Enterprise Rent-a-Car has been disastrous. In three rentals, Enterprise never got it right. Of course, their rental car competition leaves much to be desired as well. And, fair or unfair, JetBlue Airways cannot possibly be considered a serious contender for customer service champ as long as the image of passengers left stranded on JetBlue airplanes for up to 11 hours during an ice storm at JFK on Valentine’s Day 2007 remains fresh in our minds. Sorry JetBlue, but that’s a deal-breaker in my book. For what it’s worth, Business Week scored JetBlue Airways above Apple, Charles Schwab, and BWM among others. Go figure?

Of the remaining 8 companies on the “B” Squad, I seriously question how top performers such as Charles Schwab, which rates a perfect score based on my personal experience, and Apple, which continues to run circles around its competitors as the leader in consumer electronics innovation, rank below the pathetic “Double B” score of Enterprise Rent-A-Car? Business Week can’t be serious!

Perhaps it can be argued using valid data that companies like Nordstrom, the once-legendary customer service role model, and True Value, the hardware store that only scored a pair of B+s, should have scored higher in the Business Week customer service poll. But, these are tough times and some companies have cut staff and training to save money. If that’s the case, they don’t belong on the top 25 list.

KeyBank of Cleveland and T. Rowe Price, the brokerage firm, get a pass. I cannot dispute their service performance since I have no personal experience with either company, nor have I studied their customer service ratings.

I do find it interesting that four automakers -- namely, Jaguar (#3), Lexus (#4), Cadillac (#14), and BMW (#22) -- all scored A+ ratings with Business Week despite the fact that most consumers rank the auto-buying experience just below a visit to the dentist. Perhaps, Jaguar has done some remarkable things in the past 12 months to earn its position as the customer service champ of automakers. But I doubt it. Jaguar would have to be wizards to push ahead of Lexus and BMW on their customer service scores.

So, there you have it, folks. The top 25 customer service champs. With all due respect to Business Week, the numbers just don’t add up. Having said that, I do consider Business Week to be among the top 25 business publications in America!

About the Author. Thomas Hinton is president & CEO of the American Consumer Council, a non-profit consumer education organization which administers the Green C Certification program for companies and organizations. For more information, visit: www.americanconsumercouncil.org

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Empowering People to Act

by Bill Kalmar

I think most of us would agree that there are a handful of attributes that separate average companies from those that should be held up as role models. Some of those traits would be: a strong and achievable strategic plan, management interaction with staff and customers, well-trained employees, a passion for excellence, a silo-free organization, an open-door policy, and a team of professionals who are empowered to perform their job without constant management intervention, to name just a few.

Of all those traits, I would place empowerment at or near the top. Organizations that properly train and empower their staff operate more efficiently and do a better job of meeting and exceeding expectations of customers. There’s a minimum of lag time in resolving problems or disputes with customers because each employee can take the appropriate action without kicking it upstairs.

In examining the reasons for employees’ lack of power, one has to conclude that managers are afraid to let go of their decision-making domain. Carrying that concept a bit further, I contend that quality is greatly diminished in an organization unless people are empowered.

Most of us have at some time been involved in a transaction that required a company’s agent to seek guidance or approval or permission from another person. This is a time-consuming practice that irritates customers and humiliates employees because he or she realizes that they’re nothing more than a figurehead lacking authority to perform even the most mundane tasks.

Permit me to provide you with two examples of an extreme lack of empowerment. In my tenure as director of the Michigan Quality Council, my office was at a major university. Once when I needed a meeting room, the conference rooms in my department were all occupied, so I wandered onto another floor seeking an unoccupied room. There was an available room in the history department, but my request would have to be approved by the department head, who was out for the day. No one else could give the OK, because he hadn’t deputized anyone to act in his stead.

The receptionist said that if the Keeper of the Keys learned that the room had been used without his approval there “would be trouble.” Armed with that information and the theory that it’s “better to seek forgiveness than approval,” I used the room anyway, much to the dismay and consternation of the history department. For the absent professor, I left a short write-up on the advantages of empowerment with the receptionist. I wish he had responded.

The second example is from a national restaurant chain where my wife Mary and I frequently dine. As with numerous other dining establishments, this restaurant provides their guests with a card whereon visits are logged—after the purchase of eight meals you get a free dinner. We dutifully bring in our cards each time and have the cards stamped by the staff. After we surrendered our cards for a free meal, we discovered that the restaurant had exhausted their supply of new cards. We were to bring in our receipt at our next visit, when more cards would have arrived. I’m nosy, so I asked why someone hadn’t noticed earlier that the supply of cards was low and ordered more.

It seems that a vice president at headquarters, let’s call him the King of Cards, is the only person responsible for ordering these cards. All requests have to be routed through the king, who then doles out the cards to the various restaurants. My suggestion that each restaurant be responsible for ordering its own cards met with agreement from the restaurant management, but as in many organizations, altering an existing procedure through a labyrinth of senior management is cumbersome and difficult. I’d like the Keeper of the Keys to meet with the King of Cards and see what other blockades they could invent to stifle productivity. Both of these management dinosaurs should be jettisoned from their organizations, or at least made to write the phrase “Empowering my staff adds to customer and employee satisfaction” a thousand times on a blackboard.

Baseball and showerheads
Motoring to New York recently to watch the Detroit Tigers play the Yankees at Yankee Stadium taught me two life lessons: Mayor Michael Bloomberg is genuinely a man of the people, and when it comes to height standards at a national hotel chain, size does matter. Permit me to explain.

For my 65th birthday my son and I attended opening day at Comerica Park in Detroit. The Tigers lost but the day was salvaged when my son presented me with tickets for an upcoming Tigers/Yankees game in New York on his birthday and, as most baseball fans know, this is the last year for The House That Ruth Built—Yankee Stadium.

I wanted to surprise my son with upgraded seats, so I contacted Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Governor David Paterson, and Yankee owner George Steinbrenner and suggested that, if their seats for the game weren’t being used, perhaps a couple of out-of-town fans could be the new occupants.

Well-run organizations always respond to customers whether by phone, e-mail, or snail mail. I have made a habit of contacting organizations when I receive excellent service or when I have a complaint. Organizations that value their relationships with customers always respond, and those are the ones that retain my business and admiration. Then there are the companies that never acknowledge the contact, and that tells me everything I need to know about the management. Their lack of concern cascades onto everyone in the organization. No wonder service is shoddy.

Mayor Bloomberg took the time to respond, stating that he in fact doesn’t have season tickets but he sent a personalized letter to my son for his birthday hoping that he would enjoy his stay in New York. This reflects why he’s so revered in the Big Apple. On the other hand, judging from the poor condition of the reserved box seats, Bloomberg may be waiting for the new stadium to purchase season tickets.

We never received the courtesy of a response from Steinbrenner or Paterson. I realize that both of them receive numerous letters and requests every day but a simple “No, are you crazy?” response to my letter would have been a nice gesture. So Bloomberg goes to the top of my list of world-class mayors.

Let me say at the outset that the staff, the ambience, the food, and the surroundings at the Hampton Inn were first class. What was a bit disturbing was the showerhead, of all things. Entering the shower in the morning was like being a Lilliputian in a Brobdingnagian world. I’m 5'10", and the showerhead was positioned so high that I could adjust the water stream only by standing up on my toes. I’d just turned 65 and already I seemed to be shrinking. Upon checking out later that morning, I mentioned my experience to the front desk staff. Their response was simple and straightforward: Hampton Inns had done a survey and determined that the majority of their business traveler guests were 6'2", and the showerheads were adjusted to accommodate them. They raised the sinks, too.

I sent an e-mail to Hampton Inn management regarding this incident, which elicited the following response from the general manager: “Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience you experienced with our showers. Our hotel was constructed to Hampton brand standards, which specify showerhead heights. Until these specifications change, a solution would be to request a room with accessible features that have handheld showerheads”. In response I asked what would happen if I returned with a broken arm. How would I hold the shower wand, and would the hotel supply someone with a loofa to help me bathe. As with Steinbrenner and Paterson, I haven’t received a response.

All in all, it was a great trip. The Tigers swept the Yankees, and I’m doing stretching exercises in the event we return to New York and I need to take a shower.

As you read this, I’m resting comfortably after June 2 robotic prostate cancer surgery at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. The hospital is the pioneer in this type of surgery, having performed more than 3,000 such operations for people from all over the world, so I knew I was in good robotic hands. What makes it even more appealing (if surgery can be appealing) is that the hospital has partnered with the local Ritz-Carlton Hotel and thus patients for this procedure are transported back and forth to the hospital by hotel staff, and special arrangements are made at the hotel for pre- and post-surgery dietary needs. If one has to experience this type of operation—I’m told one in six males will—it’s comforting to have the best at one’s disposal.

As I relax in my hammock contemplating my next column, I just might arrange for a conference call with the Keeper of the Keys and the King of Cards so we can discuss empowerment. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

About the author
William J. Kalmar has extensive business experience, including service with a Fortune 500 bank and the Michigan Quality Council, of which he served as director. He has been a member of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Board of Overseers and a Baldrige examiner. He’s also been named quality professional of the year by the ASQ’s Detroit chapter. Now semiretired, he’s a freelance writer for the Detroit News and writes a monthly column for Mature Advisor newspaper. Kalmar is a mystery shopper for several companies and a frequent presenter and lecturer. He also does radio voice-overs and competes in duathlons.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

How to Avoid Green Schemes When Getting Green Certified

by Thomas Hinton


Last week, during a speech to business executives, I was asked about the proliferation of Green schemes and how a company could evaluate the credibility of a Green Certification Program. Given the number of misleading web sites and schemers who are trying to make a fast buck from the Green Movement, here are five questions your company should ask before applying for a Green Certification program.

1. Is the Green certification program sponsored by a credible non-profit organization?

I strongly encourage companies to avoid for-profit ventures that claim to offer certification programs but, in fact, are fronts for some money-making scheme. The leading Green Certification programs are administered by viable non-profit organizations or associations that are legal entities and led by volunteers and a professional staff. Most non-profit organizations have been established for the public good and have bylaws and members. While non-profit organizations will charge a fee for their certification program, they do so to sustain their programs and pay their professional staff. Among the leading non-profit organizations that offer outstanding Green certification programs are the U.S. Green Building Industry Council, the American Consumer Council, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Green Steam, and Green-e, which is operated by the Center for Resource Solutions. They are many more credible non-profit organizations, but these non-profit organizations are leading the way in the area of Green Certification.

2. Does the Green Certification program have written criteria and standards that govern the application and certification process?

Yesterday, someone sent me a link to an online green certification program managed by a mom-and-pop website. The alleged certification consisted of 32 yes/no questions. If the applicant answered a majority of the questions correctly, they earned the right to affix the website’s green-certified logo on their company materials. This type of green certification is bogus and does a disservice to the many valid green certification programs that have formal criteria and rigorous standards. Any Green Certification program that does not require your company to complete a detailed application and respond in-depth to serious questions regarding environmental compliance and sustainability is suspect. I should note that Green Certification for a specific product is even more rigorous and often requires some type of ISO-related certification compliance.

3. Does the Green Certification Program have a verification and validation process as part of its certification?

Two common elements among all credible sponsors of a Green Certification program are the verification and validation of the information contained in a company’s application for certification. In order to verify and validate the contents of a company’s application, an independent team of assessors or auditors is trained and certified to review the contents of the application against the criteria and, in some cases, conduct a site visit to verify that certain claims by the applicant are, in fact, being performed.

The certification of assessors or auditors should be done by the sponsoring organization or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). In the case of the American Consumer Council, our Consumer Green Council is responsible for recruiting, training, and certifying its Assessors. Only then are certified Assessors assigned to review an application. Also, an independent Board of Judges reviews all recommendations for certification prior to any certification being awarded. In this way, there can be no collusion or conflicts-of-interest. This process ensures that only qualified applicants receive ACC’s Green C Certification designation. Other non-profit organizations have a similar process in place to ensure the integrity of their certification program.

4. Once your company is Green Certified is there an accountability step and a process for continuous improvement?

The most progressive Green Certification programs not only have contemporary standards and a strong verification process, but they also have a way to hold certified companies accountable to those standards after certification has been earned. In other words, a company cannot earn its Green certification and then engage in practices that violate the spirit of the certification program. Organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the American Consumer Council have high standards in this regard and frequently review the practices of certified companies to ensure they are in compliance and striving to reach higher levels of certification.

5. Does the Green Certification Program have credibility in the marketplace?

Let’s face it, most companies are not altruistic. Very few businesses decide to go Green because they want to save the rain forests. Instead, their motives range from increasing their profits to boosting market share. Frankly, that’s fine. As long as there is integrity in the certification process, it doesn’t matter what motivates a company to get certified.

Based on my observations over the past few years, I can say that consumer acceptance of a brand or product that bears the Green C certification (or some other Green designation) is a strong reason for any company to go Green and get certified.

I’ve also witnessed an interesting transformation among executives as their companies go through a Green certification program. Typically, three things happen to executives. First, they begin to truly appreciate the growing number of Green Consumers and their purchasing power. Secondly, they begin to understand that their company is capable of doing many small, but significant things, to sustain our natural environment and planet. Thirdly, executives realize that their employees genuinely care about our planet and going Green is a smart way to engage employees in the workplace and stimulate innovative solutions to reducing costs and making their company more efficient.

About the Author: Thomas Hinton is president of the American Consumer Council and serves as the executive director of the Consumer Green Council, which administers ACC’s Green C Certification Program. He can be reached in San Diego, California at tom@americanconsumercouncil.org

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Lufthansa Airline is Customer-Focused

by Thomas Hinton

Recently, I flew Lufthansa Airlines round-trip between Los Angeles to Frankfurt. While I have traveled internationally many times, this was my first international experience with Lufthansa. Given the mediocre in-flight service I’ve received from various U.S. carriers in both coach and business class, I must confess my expectations for Lufthansa were not very high. Boy, was I surprised! Not only were the Lufthansa airport representatives and in-flight personnel exceptional, their courteous service in both coach and business class exceeded my expectations.

While courtesy, kindness, and in-flight comfort aren’t rocket science, very few airlines have mastered these simple pillars of superior customer service. It’s too bad because studies show that good service breeds customer loyalty. Lufthansa understands this simple equation because Lufthansa has analyzed its’ in-flight customer experience and determined how to make a ten hour flight a pleasant experience instead of agony and torture like many of their competitors.

I realize there are certain costs associated with providing passengers warm hand towels, a free glass of wine, complimentary newspapers and magazines, and in-flight entertainment programs including two movies. But, these simple in-flight niceties demonstrate that Lufthansa has moved beyond the “bean counter mentality” and makes operational decisions using a higher principle. That principle, namely, is customer satisfaction! Lufthansa has figured out that customer loyalty generates repeat business and repeat business is money in the bank!

While there’s still (leg) room for improvement -- especially in terms of the leg room and hobbit-sized seats most airlines use in coach class -- I think Lufthansa earns kudos for its exceptional service and challenging its airline competitors to raise the customer service bar! I look forward to my next exceptional experience on Lufthansa!

About the Author: Thomas Hinton is a frequent contributor to GlobalBizExcellence.com and he can be reached at tom@tomhinton.com

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Not Another Survey!

by William J. Kalmar

As customers, we have all come to understand the importance of customer surveys. Customers are the lifeblood of any organization and to achieve a certain level of success, the needs, wants, and expectations of customers must be understood. Role-model companies exceed the expectations of customers.

My take on the subject of customer surveys is fairly simple: No new product or service should be launched without first involving customers in a review process. Failure to do so could result in a process that is shunned by your clients or, worse yet, in customers flocking to another company.

The Checkbook Debacle
Let me give you an example of just such a scenario. When I worked for a large national bank, we prided ourselves in having an extensive training program modeled after the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The goal was to introduce every employee in the organization to the Baldrige criteria for performance excellence. The training went on for years, and we emphasized the concept of being in lock step with customers.

Somewhere along the line, we lost sight of this very important concept when it came to something as mundane as new checkbook orders. Our demand deposit department, in meeting with a vendor, learned that by eliminating one style of check reorders, the bank could save $500,000 a year. It meant that instead of offering side- or top-stub tear offs, we would only be offering checks that were attached to the stub across the top. Now $500,000 is nothing to take lightly, so it was full steam ahead to implement this new process.

Well, guess what? When customers began to reorder checks and discovered that their favorite way of tearing checks from the folder had been eliminated, there was an uproar. The branch offices were filled with irate customers, and phone lines in the customer service areas were swamped with customers threatening to move their funds to banks that offered both features.

Someone in management asked for the customer survey that was done before we made this change--of course, there wasn’t one. The bank quickly retrenched and again began offering both features for check reorders. The upside was that we used this as an example of what happens when customers are not brought into the brainstorming process. Weighing the loss of many customers and good will against a savings of $500,000 was a no-brainer.

Health care Focus Group:
As a follow-up to this concept of customer involvement, I recently participated in a focus group staged by a major health care company. The organization was exploring the introduction of some new products that would supplement Medicare. There were ten of us in the group--people who had just signed up for Medicare and others in the throes of reviewing their various options. I have participated in many focus groups over the years, and this one stood out: It was well organized, it kept on point, and it paid each of us $75 at the conclusion of the two-hour session. (Expediting the payment for our involvement was key in my accepting a role in the focus group, which I will expand on.)

As I participated in the roundtable discussion, my thoughts wandered off to this article on customer surveys. As a result, I concluded that more organizations should avail themselves of this technique before launching any new product or service. The participants represented a cross-section of the target audience, and the participants were allowed to voice opinions on subjects not originally outlined in the instructions. The health care organization came away from this with a clear understanding of the expectations of its customers.

Various Paths to Information
Other organizations have approaches to surveying customers as varied as the organizations themselves. In addition, we as consumers often look to the results of survey recommendations before we buy a particular product or service. How many of us have viewed a movie only because it was given “two thumbs up” by a certain pair of reviewers? How often have we eaten at a particular restaurant or stayed at a resort because a survey has designated it four stars? As consumers, we seem to depend on survey results to guide us to the best establishments. Let’s examine for a moment how some of these establishments entice us to participate in their surveys.

I mentioned earlier that the focus group I was involved with provided us with payment, as promised, at the conclusion of the session. In fact, being the cynical person that I am, my participation hinged on their paying me for my time and doing so at the end of the session. As a retiree I no longer offer advice pro bono.

Many companies conduct customer surveys on their receipts. Here is just a small sampling:

• OfficeMax--”Tell us about your shopping experience and enter to win one of five prizes.”

• Walgreens--”How are we doing? Enter our monthly cash sweepstakes. This month the prize is $3,000 cash.”

• Panera Bread (Saint Louis Bread Co.) --”Tell us how we are doing and you may win $2,000.”

• Montana ’s Cookhouse -- ”Please tell us about our serv ice and you could win $1,000.”

• Caribou Coffee Co. --”Tell us how we are doing. We would like to hear about your Caribou experience. Enter our monthly sweepstakes. Ten $100 Caribou Coffee gift cards awarded monthly.”

• Romano’s Macaroni Grill --”Win $1,000--a winner every week.”

• Meijer--”How are we doing? Rate your shopping experience and you may win a $1,000 gift card.”

Are you seeing a pattern here? These companies want our opinions, and if we participate, we may win a prize. Candidly, I am not inclined to assist them, because, as I mentioned earlier, I am somewhat mercenary: I want instant gratification. When I complete the survey, I want a coupon that I can download for a free coffee at Caribou, or a complimentary donut at Panera Bread, or a $5 coupon at a department store.

Here’s my quandary: While at each of these establishments, I have queried the employees about these surveys and information on any of the winners, and to date no one has been able to share with me the names of winners, or details of any payouts. Do I think that these promotions are bogus? Well, until someone comes forward to contradict it, my answer is yes! Therefore, don’t expect me to spend my time commenting on my veal piccata at the Macaroni Grill unless there’s a complimentary cannoli in it for me.

Some companies that have survey information on their receipt and promise nothing--Kohl’s, Macy’s, and On The Border, to name just a few--are saying, “We want your opinion and feedback, but unlike other companies who promise you a chance at a prize but may not deliver, we are being straightforward in telling you that there is no prize. The prize will be better customer service if you participate.”

These are what I would call after-the-fact surveys. I think a more effective way of exploring the needs, wants, and expectations of customers is to survey them while they are involved in the service or sampling the product. I call this method on-site, live surveys. A company that does it best in my estimation is the two-time winner of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award--The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. Let me give you a recent example of this methodology.

It’s no secret that the “Ladies and Gentlemen” (as the staff are called) of the Ritz-Carlton constantly update a guest database that contains each guest’s special preferences. For instance, if a staff member notices that a guest prefers a specific wine, that information is entered into the database so that upon a return visit, a similar bottle of wine will be in the room upon check in. Permit me to provide you with a couple of personal examples.

While dining at our local Ritz-Carlton in Dearborn, Michigan, I opted for an appetizer of scallops. Our waitress overheard me remark to my wife, Mary, that “these are the best scallops I have ever eaten.” Evidently that information became part of the on-site, live survey information that was entered into the database, because every time we dine at a Ritz-Carlton establishment, I receive a complimentary scallop appetizer.

Then there’s the incident that occurred about a year ago that to this day still resonates with me. Mary and I periodically enjoy high tea at the Ritz-Carlton. It’s decadent, very soothing, and relaxing. On one occasion I requested extra finger sandwiches. Our waitress, a lovely lady named Anoushka, smiled and kept bringing me the sandwiches, much to my delight. Moving the calendar up two months found Mary and me enjoying another high tea. As we sat down, our waitress came up to us and said, “Anoushka is on vacation in Florida, but she called moments ago to make sure we provided you with extra finger sandwiches.” Now that’s service and an example of taking survey information to the next level. Is it any wonder that the Ritz-Carlton regularly ranks at the top of surveys when it comes to meeting and exceeding guests’ expectations?

Rather than survey guests at the conclusion of their stay, this hotel conducts surveys on an ongoing basis. This is a methodology that other companies should implement because it demonstrates to current customers that they are valued. The hotel also provides survey cards in each room.

Besides surveying customers about their services, many organizations hire mystery shoppers to conduct on-site reviews. I am one of those mystery shoppers. My responsibilities include visiting restaurants, fast-food chains, national department stores, and even a national transportation company. What I have been most impressed with is that clients take it as a given that their food is going to be delectable or that their products will be care-free, so the emphasis is on customer service. Naturally I review the food and the products, but the bulk of my report is about interacting with the employees. Absent great service, it doesn’t matter how good the food is or how sound the products. If employee service is mediocre, customers don’t return.

Conclusion
It is critical to be in lock step with your customers, and there are myriad ways to do so. Each organization needs to establish a pipeline of information from its customers and then make sure that those needs are met or exceeded so that the company will attain legendary status. Don’t get caught up in some money-saving gimmick without first surveying your customers.

Also, please don’t provide me with a receipt and a chance at a cash prize. If you want my opinion or feedback, I prefer a reward on the spot--a coupon for a free dessert or a free coffee would make my day.

Well, time to go. I have to complete a survey from the local hospital where I was a patient recently. They are offering a drawing for a free lobotomy. Who knows, it might just be on the level. If I win, it would be an opportunity to somehow put this dreadful, frigid, Michigan winter out of my mind.

About the Author:
William J. Kalmar has extensive business experience, including service with a Fortune 500 bank and the Michigan Quality Council, for which he served as director. He has been a member of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Board of Overseers and a Baldrige examiner. He’s also been named quality professional of the year by the Detroit Chapter of ASQ. Now semi-retired, he’s a freelance writer for the Detroit News and other national newspapers; serves on the USA Today vacation panel; writes a monthly column for Mature Advisor newspaper; writes a monthly column titled “Hammock Thoughts” for Quality Digest’s e-newsletter QualityInsider ; is a mystery shopper for several companies; is a frequent presenter and lecturer; does radio voice-overs; and competes in duathlons.