National Speakers Association (NSA) President Kristin Arnold bemoans the disconnect between what we've done and what we speak about, urging readers to "get yourself some (relevant) experience" before peddling one's wares as a presenter on a topic. You can't simply talk the talk, in other words; you have to have lived it.
Call me naive, but I'm shocked that some leadership speakers haven't been leaders, customer service presenters don't have experience (much less expertise) in that area, etc. because for me there's never been another alternative. I've learned over the last two decades that I simply must have practical AND deeply significant/meaningful experience in what I'm covering in a presentation, workshop, or class. There's no alternative. I've learned that the absence of such a connection results in a presentation that while on the surface might demonstrate the enthusiasm, passion, and even insight I typically bring to the platform, something is missing--and my audience suffers as a result.
Besides, audiences crave the kind of insight that only personal experience with a topic can yield. My students constantly tell me that real value they derive from classes comes from an instructor's insight/experience related to the topic and that conversely those individuals who stick to the text (or offer outdated examples) fail to capture their attention and respect.
I also look at this issue another way: I must love my topic with my both my entire head and heart if I am to realize my potential as a vehicle for connecting with students, audience members, consulting clients, and others with whom I come into contact while discussing it. In other words, I can engage in exhaustive research on a topic (and relish opportunities to do so) yet at some point must get the experience (and continue to keep it fresh and current) if I am to feel totally credible and confident as a presenter on it. This represents an ongoing challenge, but more importantly has emerged as an unshakeable commitment I've come to realize is central to who I am.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
But We Keep All Our Shopping Carts!
I visited the Ross Dress for Less Store in Santa Cruz, CA on Saturday, to assist my sister-in-law with her shopping. I hadn't been to a Ross store in years. Moreover, I normally don't like to shop, and aim to get in and out of stores as quickly as possible. The latter two points are both especially relevant given the experience I relate here.
We grabbed two shopping carts and proceeded to complete our shopping. While paying for our purchases we were informed that the shopping carts could not be removed from the store (they had long poles affixed to them), so we'd have to remove our packages from the carts and carry them to our car.
I'm usually very willing (and able) to carry packages to my car, but this policy struck me as ill-conceived and short-sighted. What about packages that were too heavy or awkward for the customer to carry? Or if it was raining? How would people with disabilities manage? These scenarios, among others, raced through my head, along with the prospect of people in these circumstances having to move their cars to in front of the store to load their packages (and the scene that might ensue).
The sales attendant at the receiving end of my curiosity/irritation about this shopping cart policy could only respond, somewhat curtly: "Well, we're the only one (retailer) around here that keeps all our shopping carts!"
I don't care if Ross keeps its shopping carts or not, much less whether this "success" resulted in some supposed competitive advantage among local retailers. That's their business (and no doubt a bottom-line concern), not mine. My goal is to have a quick, efficient, and pleasant shopping experience, which includes the ability to transport my purchases from the store to my car as effortlessly as possible.
I'm no expert on shopping carts; that said, other options exist that protect retailers' property from theft and accommodate the need for consumers to use them in the immediate vicinity of the store. It's too bad Ross neglected to consider these options, instead putting shopping carts before people--and, at least in my case, losing a future (albeit sporadic) customer.
We grabbed two shopping carts and proceeded to complete our shopping. While paying for our purchases we were informed that the shopping carts could not be removed from the store (they had long poles affixed to them), so we'd have to remove our packages from the carts and carry them to our car.
I'm usually very willing (and able) to carry packages to my car, but this policy struck me as ill-conceived and short-sighted. What about packages that were too heavy or awkward for the customer to carry? Or if it was raining? How would people with disabilities manage? These scenarios, among others, raced through my head, along with the prospect of people in these circumstances having to move their cars to in front of the store to load their packages (and the scene that might ensue).
The sales attendant at the receiving end of my curiosity/irritation about this shopping cart policy could only respond, somewhat curtly: "Well, we're the only one (retailer) around here that keeps all our shopping carts!"
I don't care if Ross keeps its shopping carts or not, much less whether this "success" resulted in some supposed competitive advantage among local retailers. That's their business (and no doubt a bottom-line concern), not mine. My goal is to have a quick, efficient, and pleasant shopping experience, which includes the ability to transport my purchases from the store to my car as effortlessly as possible.
I'm no expert on shopping carts; that said, other options exist that protect retailers' property from theft and accommodate the need for consumers to use them in the immediate vicinity of the store. It's too bad Ross neglected to consider these options, instead putting shopping carts before people--and, at least in my case, losing a future (albeit sporadic) customer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)