Many moons ago I was working for a conference organising company with a reputation for aggressive selling and for various practices that one might describe as being a little on the sharp side. But some of us did what we could to create technology sector conferences that would more than justify the high ticket prices the firm charged. It wasn't always easy to assemble great line-ups of insightful speakers talking about ways in which the companies sending delegates could make or save more money. But often we were quite successful.
One real challenge arose when the firm decided to keep slashing away at the bottom line. This meant hosting the conferences in ever cheaper and shabbier venues. It also meant discontinuing the practice of supplying delegates with copies of the speakers' presentations. So any one attending a second iteration of an annual event would notice that we were delivering less while still charging the same price. Or even charging a bit more. I knew why it was happening. Although our salespeople and people in roles like mine were paid a commission on revenue earned, the company's General Manager was rewarded in line with the firm's performance as measured by profit margin. This meant we were led by someone interested in saving costs, particularly at a time when growing revenue was not without challenge. I understood that, and I didn't really have any philosophical problem with it. That's how the owner chose to run his business. Anyone violently opposed to this approach could have walked away to find a new job at any time. Many of us did, in fact. But for as long as I stayed with the firm, I just thought of it as a fact of life. I also learned that another fact of life was that only the footsoldiers had to attempt to explain or defend the effects of this policy when speaking to unhappy customers. Anyone near General Manager level kept well away from that particular duty, as was their prerogative I suppose. Yes, that is a form of cowardice, but once you realise that such cowardice is part of how the business runs, you just have to deal with it or leave. That said, I did once take the opportunity to seek advice on how to respond to customer disgruntled by what they rightly saw as eroding product quality.
This happened when a new General Manager was hired. He asked to see absolutely everyone in a long series of brief one-to-one meetings. He wanted to hear from the grass roots, learning what was working well and what was not. In my meeting with him, I raised the matter of the poorer quality delegate experience.
"I just ran the third annual version of a conference. I was approached by a number of delegates who had attended last year. I got a lot of complaints that the hotel was shabbier this time and that we've stopped giving out delegate packs with presentation materials."
"Well, you know why we're doing that. We have to keep costs under control."
"Yes, I understand that. But when somebody complains and when they ask me to justify it, what should I say?"
"You're just being negative."
"No, I'm not being negative. I just want to know what the company line is. If someone is really persistent, I can't really tell them nothing. I need to have a response. I don't want just to make one up and then have that bite me on the arse because I've given an explanation that isn't in line with how the firm would want to present it."
"Stop being negative."
"OK, let me put it another way. If you come to my next conference and delegates are making this complaint, what would you say? Imagine you're visibly there as part of our team, wearing one of the company lapel badges we're meant to wear when running an event. Some senior guy from an important company comes and asks you why for the same price as last year he's now getting worse food in a crappy venue and he's not getting any presentation material. What would you say."
"You're just being negative. Let's move on."
When I saw junior Treasury Minister Chloe Smith being torn apart by Paxman last night, I immediately thought of that long-ago conversation with my old GM. Woefully under-prepared and with no coherent Government line to defend, she was sent out to defend decisions made by her boss. Shame on you, George Osborne. You're a fucking coward. But I guess Chloe Smith knows this and chooses to continue in her current position anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment