Back to the Future, or In Search of True Customer Centricity

Oddly enough, many salespeople have to take a step back first in order to take a step forward. In order to grow and thrive, they have to change the way they do business. They have to go back to a time when the customer was most important, when stores were full of salespeople eager to help, and when salespeople could count on customer loyalty in return.

In my 30 years in retail, my views on sales have not changed. Nor have the principles behind my programs changed. What I try to teach people is nothing new. And the reaction that I see from those with whom we work is new. All the time I hear: "That's how it was," or "We used to put the client first, too."

The client comes first.

This is clearly for a reason. Society today is far more concerned with the quality of customer service in stores. Years of silent acceptance of mediocre service are behind us - today customers are much more demanding. They are becoming more demanding not only on the value of the product offered, but also on where to buy it. Why would they go to your store when they can buy the same product online or from a competitor cheaper? It's a good time to think about them.

We recently worked with an organization that can be cited as an example of a new retail philosophy that is just now beginning to emerge. The organization, which has 145 stores, has gone from full customer service to self-service and is now going back to using salespeople on the sales floor. They can no longer afford to lose customers because there is no one on the floor to help them. Among the many organizational changes, they are also making the structure more complex. Each person on staff will be responsible for a specific area. The person in charge of merchandising is not responsible for sales. The reason is simple - sales staff should be free of extraneous tasks.

Managers should put more emphasis on working with individual clients. Managers used to be traditionally interested in each customer. Today, it's more about teaching staff how to open and close the store on time and making sure no one is stealing merchandise. It was as if everyone had forgotten the real reason everyone works in retail.

Personal approach.

My grandmother worked in a hardware store. She enjoyed her work and, what's more, made a fair amount of money. She was an absolute genius at working with the customer. Along with her reputation grew the number of customers who came back to see her. Her method was very simple: she paid attention to everyone and was as responsive as she could be. People came back on their own and told their friends. The need for such salespeople is growing now more than ever. Visitors today are looking for exactly that. And if they do, I'm sure they'll come back, and more than once.

You get what you pay for.

One of the problems retailers face is that salespeople don't expect to stay long and, because of that, don't care about the quality of their work. Too often retail jobs don't even allow people to make ends meet. Managers hire part-time staff: such people will work for less money, but will not be loyal to the store. The rule here is simple: you always get what you pay for. Pay less to the employee - you get a less motivated salesperson. Even a simple commission on sales will allow your salespeople to work harder and better and still earn enough.

Not too long ago, a major retailer faced accusations of a sales commission policy that encouraged cheating customers. I firmly believe it was the managers' fault, not the commission system. This is a classic example of a failed system due to the failure of managers. If your boss says you need to sell X units or he will fire you, you have only two choices: either sell X units or start building a resume. Sales commissions have nothing to do with this at all. Their presence or absence should not change anything for the visitor.

Let's say you own a store with revenues of about a million dollars a year. You have three salespeople-one good, one average, and one terrible. Chances are you pay them equally. With a commission system, the good salesman can make enough to live on, and the other two are likely to leave, and you'll have the opportunity to replace them with the likes of the first salesman.

A new trend is emerging in the marketplace, with companies indicating in their advertising that their salespeople are not as aggressive because they don't get a commission on sales. For example, such a strategy has been adopted by a division of General Motors. You can just come into the store, and a friendly salesperson will help you, without any pressure. Well, let's say they work without commission, but I still find it hard to believe that their salary is in no way tied to the amount of goods sold. If I sell twice as much as my colleagues, but get the same amount, how long will I last? Well, okay, let's say they don't get commissions, but it's entirely possible that the best salespeople still get paid more. Maybe they get paid bonuses tied to the amount of product they sell.

If you have to tell a customer that salespeople aren't pushy because you don't pay them a commission on sales, something is obviously going wrong. Being obnoxious has nothing to do with their salary structure, but depends on the atmosphere of the store and their standards of professional behavior. And these in turn are a result of the managers.

As customers, we used to trust salespeople. As salespeople, we were more responsive. There was much more attention to the customer's needs, and more being done in their best interest. I recently saw a story on a TV program that serves as a great example of what I'm talking about. The program decided to do an experiment - they invited eight different repairmen to fix a broken refrigerator. The whole "breakdown" was that the refrigerator simply wasn't plugged in. Out of eight people, only one turned out to be decent enough to take the frivolousness of the problem into account and not charge for the call. Is it any wonder, then, that trust is such a rarity in our society?

The beginning of the end for the middles

In retail, you can no longer stick to a middle ground. Visitors will either be willing to pay more for first-class service, or will be satisfied with low prices and appropriate service. Sooner or later you will have to decide exactly how to position your store, which side to choose. What is better for you: high prices and a high level of service or, conversely, low prices / poor service?

Apparently, the expectations of visitors change according to the amount of money available to them. For example, if you walk into an expensive clothing store, the salespeople will shower you from head to toe. And if you go into a cheaper store, you should expect simpler service. Ideally, the service should be the same in both places. But most stores only try to maintain service at the level you expect, not exceed it. The general opinion is that people will be grateful if anyone approaches them at all. And in expensive stores, customers expect quality service, and if no one approaches them, they will easily leave for another store.

You're probably thinking by now that everything I've said isn't news. You probably know that you need to provide a high level of service to stand out from the crowd of competitors, that you need to do something that allows the store to be unique. But are you sure you've done everything you can to make sure it succeeds? Are you sure that your store will give every customer quality service and attention?

Maybe managers used to understand something that we don't now. They may not have thought about advertising, they didn't have computers, but they knew exactly how to talk to the customer. They cared. They knew how to build a relationship to keep the visitor coming back. Maybe the solution to our problems should be looked for there, in the past.