Time, Time, Time...

I was browsing blogs of retailers and ran across an interesting post. Kaari Meng, proprietress and creative director of the remarkable and remarkably successful retail store French General in Los Angeles, wrote about her take on 'hours of operation' for her business. You can read it here. It's a funny post, but it also addresses an interesting dilemma that many retailers face: conducting business in a way that you prefer and your customers respond well to. In Kaari's case, it has to do with days & hours of operation.

Her message - and the resulting comments left by readers - runs parallel to thoughts I've had lately. Thoughts about why it is that some of us in the world choose to start-open-have our own businesses, what that really entails, and how we deign to order our days-lives-kingdoms, all too often in the face of debate-defiance-complaints from others.

This all boils down to a few questions: Is it necessary to conduct business 'as usual' or 'as expected' in order to succeed? (And really, who is defining that success, anyway?) Or can a person set up their business in a way so as to provide them with a living and a fulfilled life AND happy customers? Isn't that the POINT of owning our own businesses? Where is the balance point?

If you will, check out Kaari's post and let me know how your business handles this kind of thing. I'm curious to hear things from retailer's AND consumer's points of view.

02/15: Thank you for your comments! Keep 'Em Coming.....

Truth, Lies, and Retail

(Mmmmn, no, sorry, you can't actually 'click to look inside!'....I snagged that photo from amazon). Today on AOL, there was a news blip about the tricks retailers ('them') play to lead the public ('us') to purchase more product. (Question: If 'we' are 'them', then are we also 'us'?) Click here to check it out.

The information contained in the article is based on findings by Martin Lindstrom in his new book, Buy*ology. Nice play on words and sounds there, did you catch that? Yes, his work is based on the basic biolologic responses of humans to external stimuli, and how those responses can be triggered intentionally to create a desired response.

What? Well, for example, one study in a wine shop led to the result that playing Italian music sold more Italian wines. Ditto for French music and French wine. Martin says it comes from a brain mechanism that equates what is heard with a suggestion... hear French music, grab a bottle of Bordeaux. The methodology equates to being the angel and devil sitting on every consumer's shoulders - and winning either way.

Martin is a Swedish 'brand futurist' and 'retail anthropologist', in the vein of retail author & expert Paco Underhill (he of 'Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping' and 'Call of the Mall', and who also wrote the forward to Martin's book), and divulges the findings from his unorthodox research on retail practices. What I'm trying to figure out is this: Did he write this book for retailers, to give them more tools with which to 'lead' the public into buying more, or - and the article on AOL seems to bear this out - is he promoting it to the public to underscore what a subversive lot retailers are, and what 'we' resort to to influence purchasing behavior? That move seems a little counter-intuitive to me. The subtitle 'The Truth and Lies of Why We Buy' doesn't really answer that question, either.

Martin's web site features a video of him talking about his work. It also offers you an opportunity to sign up for free newsletters and a chapter from the book. There is a wealth of useful information here for retailers, marketers, and those wishing to build their brand...the trick will be utilizing it without letting customers know you are playing the game. Especially those customers who read AOL.

An Update on the CPSIA

Here is the latest from the CPSC website:

" WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission voted unanimously (2-0) to issue a one year stay of enforcement for certain testing and certification requirements for manufacturers and importers of regulated products, including products intended for children 12 years old and younger. These requirements are part of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which added certification and testing requirements for all products subject to CPSC standards or bans.

Significant to makers of children’s products, the vote by the Commission provides limited relief from the testing and certification requirements which go into effect on February 10, 2009 for new total lead content limits (600 ppm), phthalates limits for certain products (1000 ppm), and mandatory toy standards, among other things. Manufacturers and importers – large and small – of children’s products will not need to test or certify to these new requirements, but will need to meet the lead and phthalates limits, mandatory toy standards and other requirements.

The stay of enforcement provides some temporary, limited relief to the crafters, children’s garment manufacturers and toy makers who had been subject to the testing and certification required under the CPSIA. These businesses will not need to issue certificates based on testing of their products until additional decisions are issued by the Commission. However, all businesses, including, but not limited to, handmade toy and apparel makers, crafters and home-based small businesses, must still be sure that their products conform to all safety standards and similar requirements, including the lead and phthalates provisions of the CPSIA."

Visit this release from the CPSC website for full details.