The music industry has announced yet another scheme they hope will from lure consumers away from downloading music and to maintain their 1900’s distribution model of getting people to physically go to the store to buy music. It begs the question - why? Why do I need to go through the process of buying a physical chip, opening packaging (which will be most likely impossible with bear hands), insert the chip into my music device (if compatible) and transfer the songs (if possible) so I can listen to the song. So why would I want to go through all this effort when I can just go to iTunes via a wireless network and quickly and easily download my songs with a minimal amount of fuss?

SanDisk and it’s consortium of four of the worlds largest record companies have developed the ridiculous idea is to begin putting full albums onto smart memory disks, as opposed to CD’s. The idea being people are carrying around devices capable of the next generation smart memory chips, so they ask themselves - why not sell consumers traditional albums?

D.O.A. this is just the final proof any consumer needed to see that the record industry is truly out of touch with the desires of consumers. Why won’t the music industry just let people to easily buy music online, DRM free? Really that’s what people have been seeking for more than a decade now.

So Coke Cola has developed a new PET bottle, with a lower profile bottle cap.  The new bottle cap is an amazing tactile experience that will help enhance the dominate beverage manufactures position.

A cap of the bottle could be considered a small trivial element to put much though into.  But Coke has finally developed something that when touched is reminiscent of the old classic glass bottle.  The cap has the same grooving that was found on the metal lids of days long gone by.

What I really was impressed with is the fact that the bottle cap is so distinctive that when at a live show recently I knew what the beverage was before even seeing the packaging.  With the feel of my hand I could distinctively tell that it was a Coke manufactured beverage.

Read more at Packaging News

So Paul Godrey the CEO of the Toronto Blue Jays has found a way to crush someone’s Olympic dreams!  Good going.

On July 30th right before Team Canada is planning to leave for Bejing Olympics - the Toronto Blue Jays call up Scott Richmond, a minor league pitcher for his first Major League start.  Just days before he was to leave to represent Canada - a once in the lifetime opportunity.

Why on Earth would Paul Godfrey destroy someone’s dream?  And you wonder why the stands are empty of fans?

So what Paul Godfrey should have done - called Scott Richmond up a few weeks ago - allowing fans to become familure with him.  Then let him go to Bejing as to increase his exposure and maybe even win a metal.  Even if they only get a ribbon - the Jays could celebrate upon his return that they have an Olympic Athelete in the mix.  And remember Scott is from Vancouver, helps the Jays improve their image as Canada’s baseball team.  It’s goodwill all around.
It’s a no brainer.  It’s not like the Jays are suddenly going to get good!  Clearly the Jays need to learn a thing or two about marketing - but when your owner is Rogers - that goes a long way to explain it all!

I’ve noticed that one of the ‘nicer’ patio’s in downtown is all but deserted virtually all day long.  The patio in question is located at College Park in a beautiful, isolated part of square - removed from street traffic.  The patio also gets late afternoon summer sun, a rarity in Toronto.   But there’s something wrong with the patio - it’s always empty of people.  Sure maybe you’ll see one or two people sitting out, yet a patio in this location within spitting distance of thousands of residents should be packed.

So, what’s the problem.  I think the problem is a barrier to entry that Richtree has created for itself.  I enjoy their dining experiences at Brookfield (BCE) Place, yet I also get a large bill to boot.  Everything from coffee to a pint of beer will cost me more than any other bar downtown Toronto.

What I think is happening is people have a distrust of this Richtree restaurant. I presume that people expect that sitting out having a coffee will be an expensive endeavor in comparison to the nearby Tim Horton’s or Second Cup.  If I was Richtree, I would try to encourage the ‘loitering’ student customer.  Establish a Wi-Fi network, promote $1.99 coffee’s.  Generate the traffic, create it as a go too destination.  Get greeters out there inviting people in.

The second force working against this location is the extensive fencing around the restaurant in the patio area.  The enterance isn’t clearly marked.  And its human nature to want to avoid embarrassment by admitting that they don’t know how to properly enter an establishment.  What I would recommend is that Richtree create a beautifully crafted Bavarin inspired gateway as to celebrate the outside entrance.  An universal welcome.  Place the menu’s out so they can be seen.  Become more welcoming to the passerby’s.
Barrier to entry is something rarely noted in good experiential design, yet it’s an important consideration.  Barriers don’t help the cause.  Regardless if the barrier is based on price, psychological or physical their influence on consumer behaviour should be acknowledged and dealt with.

This applies to all fields, but I’ll focus on something we commonly encounter and that’s the wobbly table at a coffeeshop or restaurant.

Will it make or break your enjoyment whilst sitting there alone or with company? No. But it’s an annoyance that we all appreciate, and surely most people must wonder - “can’t they fix this?”.  A company needs to be pre-emptive - remove the annoyances before the customer even notices.  The goal needs to be creating a seamless link from experierienc to experience.  Just like a bad actor can ruin a movie, an annoyance the customer faces could also turn them sour on their time with you.

Be proactive and look for the little annoyances - stay on top of them - and maintain the mindset of operating under a state of good repair.

This is a great, yet minor example of greed getting in the way of a good customer experience.

In Brookfield Place (formally BCE Place) stands the Great Canadian Newstand.  A magazine shop with one of the largerst selections of magazines I’ve ever seen for a retailer.  One of the wonderful things about this store was the fact that it has a large flatscreen above the magazine racks blasting out CP24 or CBC Newsworld.  So as people browsed through the store, they’d pick up and listen to the latest news, maybe look to see the weather forecast.  Or a big sporting match was on often the channel would be flipped to broadcast it with a few curious onlookers mulling around to view the screens.

Well in another attack on creating good experiences upper management though that they could capitalize on the captive eyes.  So they converted the television into an advertising only channel.  Similar to the elevator screens, displaying an endless reel of boring ads.  It’s such an insult to the senses and the consumer.  It’s mocking the consumer.

Clearly the owners of the company don’t understand great expereince making, nor are they familure with the consumer behaviour at that location.  The television I’m sure was part of some customers daily experience.  I’m sure there’s been times when breaking news has been happening that people have popped into the store because they knew they would have a chance to see the latest headlines.

We can also get into satistical analysis that shows that the longer consumers spend looking at periodicals the more likely they will purchase.  Having a non-intruseive broadcast like a news channel playing in the background I’m sure actually encouraged longer shopping visits.  And at the core of the whole issue is the fact that this is a NEWS store - by having news on the television screen they send the message that they are current, relivant and supporters of the products they sell.

It never surprises me when greed ends up ruining the good little things in life.

Well Forbes is reporting that a class-action lawsuit is now underway in Ontario where two disgruntled franchisee operators are unhappy with changes in the Tim Horton business model.

One area of concern is the mass-manufacture of donuts by an outside company. Tim Hortons traditionally made and baked donuts on-site. But now these donuts are made in bulk at an off site factory, partially pre-baked and frozen. The frozen have baked donuts are taken to the stores where they are reheated utilizing microwave technology. The reasoning for the system may have been sound, but it doesn’t offer consumers the experience of going to a donut shop for freshly baked donuts.

It’s a curious decision for a Canadian culinary staple to provide customers with a less than authentic experience. The business reasoning clearly came from the Wendy’s side of the operation where fast food giants are the masters of efficiency. It’s even more ironic when you have Wendy’s proudly announcing that their beef is never frozen!

The logic of not having a baker on site is reasonable, you don’t have to no longer worry about the guy in the back showing up at 4 am - now the cashier can press the buttons on the box and make donuts herself. But Tim Horton’s is toying with what made it successful in the first place. They are now offering a disingenuous product - a freshly baked donut made from scratch. Companies often wonder when the tipping point occurred and this could be it. Foolish greed is supplanting experience. Now if only CoffeeTime would step up to the plate and take advantage of this corporate blunder.

To read the full class action lawsuit story as covered in the Calgary Herald read here.

Hold it in, or go to the back of the queue

Well surprise, surprise, customers at Canada’s Wonder - a large Amusement park - north of Toronto have finally begun to complain about the long lines for the various rides.

We’ll no fault of new management - Cedar Parks, the reality is that Paramount Parks under their 10 plus run of the park never gave any consideration to the overall design of the theme park. Instead it’s worth questioning the merit of their ownership and tenure as operators.
Paramount management nicked and dime’d the park to death, all but destroying any illusion of theming the park once held. It was obvious during their first year of ownership that they held little regard for any forum of themeing. When Paramount took over the theme park their first ill conceived idea was to turn the park into a quasi movie studio. Not because it made for a better experience but rather it was a way for the California company to flog new film releases and resell ‘classics’. One of their first rides is the ill conceived Top Gun roller coaster ride. The line is one of the most boring and painfully excruciating waits in the park. The sun drenched walkway has only one respite a metal ‘hanger’ that once displayed ‘Top Gun’ish’ displays. The whole ride lacks any conceptual theme except that supposedly guests get to fly in a jet? There is no storyline to this attraction, and it’s clearly evident that Paramount hired accountants and not designers to implement the ride.

This gets to the heart of one of my biggest complaints about Wonderland for some years, that they’ve degraded themselves from a Theme Park to merely an Amusement Park. The destinations are huge. Walt Disney felt that the line-up was part of the ride, that a guest whole experience in the park was one continuous story telling flow. That at no time were visitors in and out of story. Meaning that the ride was a mere extension of the overall tale being told. Herein lies the difference. An Amusement park is merely an collection of rides, with little regard to how they fit in with the overall park. A good comparison would be the carnival that simply consists of rides, maybe with some unique signage, but really the only attraction is the ride itself.
This is the core problem with the current structure of Wonderland. The bean counters under Paramounts tenure could not see the purpose in the additional expense needed to properly theme the site. In particular spending money to make the lines a compelling experience.

Often those without a creative bone can not see value in systems that don’t directly translate to the bottom line. Yet as I’ll continually stress in my articles, the overall experience actually is more profitable then the core product. The overall experience actually garners bigger dividends long term than the thrifty approach so often taken by shortsighted companies.

So, what Canada Wonderland do now? Well I would suggest that a multi-year campaign of redesigning the secondary elements to the park be put in place as to create a more unified and satisfying guest experience.

Second class citizen on a second world airline is how I would describe my recent experience with American Airlines. Frumpy staff on dumpy planes. Maybe a bit of their bitterness was advance knowledge of upcoming layoffs but for a consumer the downtrodden attitude towards providing customer service was highly noticeable. I would relate my experience to that of going to the fair. When you go to the fair, it’s all about efficiency, there are no additional frills it’s all about making as much money as possible. Which yes works, but as Disney clearly understood that the costs involved in creating a memorable experience is far more profitable and sustainable than simply milking consumers for all the money in their pocket.

So what is American Airlines doing that is so wrong? Well its the notion that everything has a price, yet I don’t see where the money is going. Everything I experienced was all about maximizing profit, and nothing about making me enjoy my time on the plane. The poor VHS quality video display didn’t have any exciting motion graphic commercials showing passengers the virtue of flying with AA, instead during the episode of some sitcom a lower third graphic kept reminding me how I could watch the show Thursday nights on CBS. So you begin to wonder are they showing me this because they think passengers might enjoy a snipit of 60 Minutes, or are they treating us as a captive market to flog their wears. I go with the latter. Other little details, the safety brochures utilized photography to demonstrate safety procedures. Now this is a little thing, but I think they used photos as it’s cheaper than hiring a skilled artist with the ability to create distinctive pictographs.
In the dirty jet, and what I mean by dirty is finger prints on the overhead bins that clearly aren’t recent and have gone with out cleaning, seats that look worn out, etc.

I wrote to Air Transat a few years ago asking them to raise ticket prices the $2 to $5 it would cost to offer free soda on international flights. It was just the concept that whilst cammed in your tiny seats they wanted you to pull out your wallet scrounge for change just to get a Coke on a long flight. Really, if your so cheap that your put off by an extra $5 ticket you shouldn’t be flying anyways. The point was that having a beverage and nice meal served to you in flight without cost is far more enjoyable to users and a pleasant experience vs. having to pay. And lets face it you never remember the times you had a free glass of orange juice but you do remember those times you paid $3 for a bag of chips.

Getting back to AA other than water or basic drinks on a 5 hour flight the airline was charging $10 for a sandwich and $4 or $5 bucks for a bag of chips. We were reminded of this a few times over the intrusive PA announcements and by the stewardesses as they passed through the cabin. You feel like your being hustled at every corner. Charge me $12 more a ticket and give me a sub-par sandwich, I’ll be happier, I won’t be hungry and I’d be less likely to notice all the other flaws of the airline.