Linda's Marketing Leverage Blog

Apples and Oranges: JCP learns the hard way

Following the travails of JCP (the retail presence formerly known as JC Penney), it's no surprise that CEO Ron Johnson is out of a job.

Johnson, who formerly headed Apple's retail division, was brought in less than 2 years ago with much excitement and fanfare to remake struggling JC Penney.

He was certainly a breath of fresh air--redo the stores, change the logo, change the business model (no more discounts and regular sales). What could be wrong with that?

Well, a lot, actually.           

Johnson was correct in thinking he had to shake up the old Penney's. The trouble was he shook things up so much that the old brand was unrecognizable and the new one was indistinguishable in the retail landscape. We knew it wasn't the old Penney's, we knew they no longer had sales to drive us into the store on certain days (a tradition that goes back as long as retail's been around)--yet we didn't know what JCP stood for or why we should shop there.

We know Nordstrom's stands for service, Target for cheap chic, WalMart for just plain cheap, Macy's for reasonably priced fashion and lots and lots of special sales.  But JCP didn't stand for anything, except what it wasn't---which alienated those few loyal customers who HAD been purchasing from the store recently.

I'm sure Penney's board of directors thought they couldn't go wrong with the rockstar who set up Apple's stores. But Apple's retail operations are a physical manifestation of an existing strong brand--they continue and extend the Apple brand we are all familiar with and expecting to see.

Not only did JCP not have that kind of brand, it didn't have a core offering of strong products to anchor it's stores and drive traffic, the way Apple does.

In fact, there isn't much that JCP and Apple have in common, except for a few common ex-employees.

This fiasco is another reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Start with your customers, understand what they want and what they DON'T want. Understand that every action has an equal and opposite reaction--try to anticipate how major changes will affect and possibly alientate your loyal customer base.

And don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Everyone loves a sale. Look at Black Friday or Cyber Monday if you don't believe it. Why mess with what people want and love?

Instead, make decisions that build on your successes, rather than mixing up what's already working, as small as it might be. Fruit salad, anyone?

 

No, I Can't Help You No Matter What You Need

A big Marketing Hall of Shame award goes to the customer service rep at ComputerShare who told me this morning that she couldn't help me--as soon as I got on the phone.

"How do you know you can't help me, before you know what it is I need done?" I asked. "How about if I tell you what I need and THEN you tell me whether or not you can help me.

Lo and behold, two of the three issues I had she was able to help me with immediately. Imagine that! (On the third, she left me on interminal hold so I eventually hung up.)

What good does it do to jump to conclusions before finding out what the customer really is looking for to start?

In cases like this, "customer service rep" doesn't really fit. It should be "customer disservice department."

 

Top of Mind Thoughts: I'm Sorry Lance is Still News

Am I the only one who is tired of the fact that Lance Armstrong is still dominating our news and entertainment space?

The man lied for years about whether he had taken performance enhancing drugs. Now he's finally decided he needs to tell the truth--on his terms. But is it the whole truth? How can we ever believe anything he says? And, furthermore, why do we care?

Oprah may have built ratings for her interview but all she and the rest of the media are doing is enabling this kind of inappropriate behavior.

Time to move on, Lance. Go back to Texas. Ride your bike, run marathons. Just leave the rest of us alone.

Cutting Off Your Hand to Spite Your Face: What on Earth is the NFL up to?

A confession: I'm not a football fan. In fact, I bleed orange and black for the NL West Division champion San Francisco Giants. And I didn't even watch the NFL game last night between the Seahawks and the Packers.

But even before the game was decided, I'd heard about the major gaffe of the replacement refs which cost Green Bay the game.

And all I could think was, NFL Owners: what on earth are you thinking? The integrity of your product is falling apart right in front of you. And for what, to beat down the referee union?

Granted, this is not a life or death situation. It's just a football game. But this was not the only wrong call. They have been the rule not the exception since the season started. When they change the nature of who wins the game, it impacts the entire season.

This is not the first time striking workers have been replaced by substitutes. But in most other cases, whether it involved teachers or nurses or air traffic controllers, replacements were found that were good enough to keep the organization running effectively.

That's not the case here. Not only are these refs not up to the job, they're failing in a very public way.

Time and time again it's been proven that you can't have happy customers with unhappy employees. Employee satisfaction can make or break a brand. Obviously the refs were unhappy enough to give up the season for a strike. My question is simple: Is it really worth it to destroy brand equity with substitutes that are unqualified and incompetent?

The real fumble last night was the NFL.

Absolutely, Positively a Problem: Fedex, you've got some work to do

By now, you may have already seen the video of the over efficient Fedex driver who pulls up to an address, takes a computer monitor, and throws it over the fence to the recipient's driveway--all captured by a perfectly placed security camera.

Fedex promptly apologized and said the driver in question was "no longer working with customers."

That would be fine if it was only one driver. However, unless he's been working on my route for the last few months or he has a clone, this is NOT an isolated incident.

Don't get me wrong: I *love* Fedex--packages get where they should be when they're supposed to be there, they're easy to track, and most times things show up in one piece. However, over the last several months I've had Fedex delivery people dump packages in the *middle* of my long driveway, where I just managed to avoid running them over at the last minute or ask people coming down the driveway to carry the package for them.

I've tried to alert Fedex about this, but when I call I get a call center agent in some distant place who apologizes profusely and says she will make a note in my file. There's no way to talk to the people at the local distribution center who would know exactly who has been on my route, dumping packages out of the side of the truck. I don't feel confident that this won't happen again--especially after looking at this video.

There are 2 customer service problems here, Fedex. The first is obvious--your delivery people need to be trained to treat the packages they carry as if they were their own and not like hot potatoes to be dumped as quickly as possible.

The second is more subtle. It's not easy to communicate with you about the delivery experience. Make it easier for us to get to the right person and file a complaint when something goes wrong. The best recourse should NOT be to post a video to the Web (with over 5 million hits so far!).

We've told you what's wrong. Let's absolutely, positively see some improvement, Fedex.

 

 

Return to Sender: Netflix's Misguided New Pricing and Branding Strategy

In my Brand Management classes, one of my favorite activities is looking at some of the really absurd mis-steps big, well-known brands have taken in the past.

We all know about Coke and New Coke, but there was also Colgate's ill-fated entry into frozen dinners (can't you just taste the mint in that chicken dish? Mmmh!), LifeSavers brand soda (bet dentists love that one), and my absolute favorite, Bic branded cologne for men (that must have been on everyone's holiday shopping list).

This week we have a new candidate for what I call the Whatever Were They Thinking Award: Netflix.

Recently, Netflix decided they wanted to be in the streaming business, not the DVD-shipping business, so they dramatically raised their rates on movies by mail.

Then this week we saw an email apology from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings apologizing for the confusion and telling us he hadn't shared all the good news: The original DVD part of the business is being spun off into Qwikster, while the streaming business retains the Netflix name.

Now, those of us who still are backward enough to like DVDs (shame on us!) will need to go to a new website, start a new movie queue and build a whole new set of recommendations over again, since our old information won't transfer.

Hastings tries to explain the company's logic in wanting to be in the streaming video business, not the DVD business. However, he's totally missing the point.

Netflix is in the business of delivering  entertainment to consumers --easily and seamlessly. Period.

Whether that entertainment is via DVD, streaming video, on my Nintendo, my iPad, or some other newfangled way yet to be invented is totally irrelevant.

Netflix had developed strong brand equity in the entertainment delivery business, so much so that they put Blockbuster out of business. Now not only are they introducing a new brand, but they've dramatically raised prices, they're making their customers do a significant amount of additional work just to get the same service they had before at a higher price, and, by the way, there will be fewer offerings available  moving forward because several large content providers are cutting ties with them.

To Netflix, all I can say is Whatever were you thinking?

The lesson for the rest of us is do NOT force your customer to deal with you in a specific prescribed way. Give them multiple choices to work with you. Make it easy not hard.

Wall Street has already reacted negatively to this, as have many consumers who are cancelling their service.

This strategy should be stamped Undeliverable and returned in a red envelope back to Netflix. Or is that now Qwikster?

Spam from InformationWeek: What Part of "No" Don't You Get?

Among the truths I believe should be self-evident is that when a customer says "No, thank you, I don't want any more," the provider should acknowledge this and stop marketing to the customer.

I know this doesn't always happen, but my expectations are higher for providers in the technology industry, particularly so for publishers whose content includes newsletters on IT policies and best practices, as well as network and data security.

Which is why I am so absolutely frustrated with Information Week and their publisher, United Business Media. Several years ago I made the mistake of accepting a free subscription to the paper version of InfoWeek and giving them my email address. It's been impossible to extricate myself from their calling and mailing lists ever since. I cancelled my paper subscription a couple of years ago, which resulted in ongoing written renewal campaigns, emails, and finally a series of nearly-stalking phone calls. It got so that I recognized the phone number and refused to answer their calls. Finally, they stopped calling me.

However, this seems to be like the Hotel California: You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave. Recently I found myself on several UBM mailing lists, including one for Dark Reading, which is focused on database security. This e-newsletter includes the standard CAN-SPAM unsubscription notice, which takes me to a webpage that allows me to unsubscribe. I then get a message that I will be unsubscribed shortly, but I may still receive one more weekly newsletter.

This has been going on for months. I have completed the unsubscribe process no less than 4 times, to no avail. In fact, yesterday I commented on Chad Barr's blog about this process.

Just for spite, a paper renewal form for Information Week showed up in my mailbox yesterday (please tell me they are kidding). And guess what showed up in my email today! That's right--another copy of the Dark Reading newsletter.

So what started out as something I was mildly uninterested in has turned into communications that really irk me, to the point where I am now blogging about them by name. I wonder if the UBM folks actually track and read comments in the blogosphere about themselves--or are they too busy trying to figure out how to ignore legitimate requests to unsubscribe to their publications?

The lesson for the rest of us is listen to your customers. No, means no--not yes or maybe or I was only kidding. Not listening to what your customers are telling you is the best way to turn a "No, not now" into "No, not ever, in your wildest dreams."

Why the Spirit Doesn't Move Me...and Other Lessons from Air Travel

It seems every time you turn around, an airline is trying to find another way to charge passengers to use their services.

The latest episode involves Spirit Airlines' recent decision to charge passengers for carry-on luggage. This comes after most airlines have adopted the policy that charges all but their best customers for checked luggage.

I understand the need for airlines to find a way to make money, but really, guys, this is bordering on the absurd. What's next--pay toilets? Fees for oxygen consumed? How about weighing us all before we get on the plane and charging us for the amount of fuel it takes to transport us? Extra fees for being furthest away from a screaming child? (Wait, they already do that--it's called Business Class.)

This is not to say that the carry-on situation isn't out of control. Granted, there are too many people trying to stuff too many bags into overhead bins. I was on a Delta flight not too long ago where one of the flight attendants was grumbling to another passenger about how  out of control she thought the carry-on situation was. "Why do these people need to bring so much onboard with them? They can't possibly use all of that stuff during the flight!"

The passenger quietly explained to her that it was not so much about bringing things onboard to *use* during the flight but that people didn't want to either pay for their luggage or spend the time waiting for it when they land, or worse, have their luggage not make it to the final destination when they did. She didn't quite understand that perspective.

And, there, dear friend, lies the rub.

Our flying experience has already been picked apart and made more complicated by the TSA in a post-9/11 world. We've had to adjust to that. However, most airlines seem to be doing their best to remind us how difficult we as customers make their lives, and how much of a burden we are putting on them by actually insisting that they get us from point A to point B, on time, with our luggage, and in reasonably good spirits. 

What they're forgetting is that *we* are the customers--we are the ones who pay their salaries, and without us, they're out of business.

Now many of us may be forced to fly on airlines that treat us with disdain, simply because we have no other choice. (Try to find a reasonable schedule into Atlanta that doesn't include Delta, for example). That doesn't mean we like it or that they aren't doing a marvelous job of creating massive customer satisfaction. We may not be able to do anything about it today, but someday in the future when an alternative appears, we will be beating a path to the door of Someone Who Doesn't Treat Me Badly, Inc.

Spirit may have taken this to the extreme, but they're not the only ones doing this. United now charges extra to be in the premium part of coach (the part where you actually have room for your legs), and will actually leave this section empty and squish passengers in the back of the plane if they choose not to pay for the privilege of real circulation during a flight.

Of course there are those who continue to resist the short-term pressure to bleed every penny from their passengers for every little thing. Southwest still doesn't charge for checked bags and Virgin and JetBlue offer extra little things that aren't added to your ticket price. None of these airlines are perfect, but at least they're trying.

It's not the spirit of air travel that's changed--it's the way airlines are approaching their customers that's gone downhill. The long-term winners will be those who remember that it's the spirit of taking care of your customers that really moves us.

Avis: No Longer Trying Harder

You just can't make this stuff up:

I walked into the Avis Rental Car Office at Boston's Logan Airport yesterday. The customer service rep very efficiently handled my reservation and asked me if I'd like to get a GPS for the car. I told her no, but I would like a map.

"We no longer do maps," she said.

"What? You don't offer maps? Is that because you want people to rent GPS systems instead?" I asked.

"Oh no," she said, quite seriously. "We're trying to save money, so we stopped printing maps. The economy is so bad, we're laying off a lot of people. We're all going to lose our jobs soon!"

Saving money by not printing maps? How sad that an industry leader like Avis has stooped this low. As I got in the car, I wondered if they'd also checked the air in the tires lately, or changed the oil and, when I had to stop suddenly, how recently they'd tested the brakes.

Looking around the rental car office, at first glance I noticed at least 4-5 different printed pieces that could have been eliminated to save money, but instead Avis chose to eliminate maps.This is not a way to make customers feel warm and fuzzy and secure when renting a car in New England in winter. When I hit a traffic jam on the Mass Pike  a half hour later, I thought how nice it would have been to have a local map to find an alternative route.

It's a shame that Avis doesn't do maps anymore. It looks like Trying Harder is out of vogue these days.

The Most Expensive Five-Cent MasterCard Bill in History

Case Study in how not to do customer service...

My mother recently received a Citibank MasterCard bill for five cents. No, that's not a typo. The bill, which arrived via US Mail was for five cents, as in one single solitary nickel.

Her first thought was this must be a mistake. Then she realized what happened: She had gone to the automated postage machine at the post office to buy stamps when the postage rate increased last month. The machine took only credit cards. She swiped a credit card and attempted to buy several types of stamps, starting with five one-cent stamps to cover the new rate. The problem was the post office machine only allowed one purchase per credit card swipe, so she took her five one cent stamps and left, rather than spend all day at the machine generating multiple small transactions to get her stamps.

Fast forward to this week. A MasterCard bill arrives with this single five cent transaction on it. She calls Citibank where one of those paid-to-read-the-screen, not-to-have-an-original-thought call center representatives tells her she must pay the five cent bill by the due date, there are no options. The account rep does tell her that yes, there is another transaction that will appear on the following month's bill, however it is not acceptable to wait until the following month's billing to pay this month's five cent charge together with next month's charge. If she does this, the account will be considered overdue and both interest and late fees will apply. (Most credit card late fees start at $29/month; some are even higher.) Furthermore, in this age of subprime mortgage crisis, if her payment is late, her account will be reported as delinquent.

A long conversation ensued in a futile attempt to convince the rep how ridiculous this is (not to mention how costly to the credit card company as well as to the consumer). Still no luck. Finally, my mother says, fine, if that's the way you insist on treating me, cancel the credit card.I have plenty of others I can use.  Immediately, the rep's attitude changes and she transfers her to someone in card retention.

The next conversation goes something like this:

Card Retention Rep: I see you have been a card holder with us for over 22 years.
My Mother: That's correct. And you can also see I always pay my account on time, which is why I think you should just wait till next month for the five-cent charge.
CRR: I'm sorry ma'am. We can't do that. [Sort of reminds you of the computer HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey, doesn't it?]
Mom: I don't understand why. It obviously cost you more than 5 cents to generate the bill, it will cost me more than that to mail the check, and it will cost you more than that to process and deposit the check. Why can't you add this to the following month's bill?
CRR: It's not in our policy.
Mom: Well, like I told the last rep,  your policy is pretty stupid. It is costing both you and me money so why don't you just cancel my card.
CRR: We really don't want you to cancel your card. Maybe I can look into this. Can you call back next week?
Mom: Why? What will be different then?

As of now, the situation is unresolved. In the meantime, Citibank has spent a ton of money on bill processing, payment and call center resources, a long-time cardholder is mad as hell and not willing to take it anymore, and, as mistreated and frustrated customers usually do, she is telling everyone she knows about this ridiculous situation. And, I, in turn, am telling you. All for a lousy five cents, which is less than 1/8th the cost of a first class stamp to begin with.

Here's how I see it:

Cost of five one-cent stamps                                                                                                                                           $.05
Cost to process statement for five cent balance                                                                                                   Several dollars at least
Cost for Citibank Master Card to mail statement for five cent balance                                                     $ .42 (slightly less if bulk mail)
Cost of toll free number and at least two call center resources tied up for over an hour on this call                          $100? Maybe more

Cost to Citibank MasterCard of alienating a long-term customer and propagating this stupidity through the blogosphere...          PRICELESS.

Airlines Miss the Boat in Hawaii: How United and American blew a great opportunity to build customer loyalty

The collapse of ATA and Aloha Airlines left many unhappy stranded travelers in Hawaii last week. With virtually no notice, the two carriers shut down and those holding tickets were stuck with paying large amounts of money and/or waiting days to find a flight back to the mainland.

The airline business is a mess in general. Even supposedly well-run airlines can't seem to make much money, and just about all airlines are in the unenviable position of having customers who feel unappreciated, underserved, and often ill-treated. The attitudes are so engrained that they can't even see an opportunity to build goodwill and loyalty when it comes up and hits them in the face.

Here's how. Each of the two big carriers would run an extra plane or two to/from Hawaii to the mainland and make a public offer to carry all of those stranded passengers for a nominal fee (perhaps the $100 normally charged for changed tickets), enroll each passenger in their frequent flier club and give them credit for their entire round trip flight to Hawaii (including the part actually flown on ATA or Aloha), as well as a $100 voucher good on their next trip to Hawaii within the next 12 months.

Would it cost some money upfront? Yes, but with the media attention given to this situation, the amount of PR and free advertising generated would more than make up for the actual costs borne by the airline. Not only that, but the goodwill generated amongst not only these passengers but the general flying public, not to mention the media and regulators, would be incredible. How often does one get the opportunity to come out a hero?

Instead, here's what a spokesman for American Airlines said, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, April 8, 2008:

"We didn't have a code-share relationship of any kind with any of these airlines, so anything we do to offer people a discount is basically out of the 'goodness of our hearts.' " Mr. (Tim) Wagner said. "Any discount we give is revenue lost, and we won't be getting anything out of their bankruptcies. So in a $100-a-barrel oil environment, anything that any airline does is generous."

Generous? How many people reading this actually thought American's actions here were generous? In fact, this whole approach seems very short-sighted to me. But wait, maybe American didn't have any planes available last week, because they were busy grounding a thousand or so flights to conduct maintenance checks. Their "generosity"  must have been taxed by all the ways the airline was helping the passengers stranded by the MD80 checks, right?

So United where were you? Hawaii has been a key market for you for decades. Instead of gloating about the fact that competitors who have been driving prices downwards (helping consumers) are now gone from your backyard, you could have been building goodwill and customer loyalty instead of more animosity.

Instead, both of you really missed the boat.

Those Pesky Little Fuel Surcharges

Very high on my list of Pet Peeves of how to irritate a customer: Add a surcharge to your bill for oil, gas, delivery, etc. because the price of fuel has gone up.

Excuse me, but when oil is $100 a barrel, it impacts everyone. So not only has your cost gone up, but so have the costs of your customers and the people who work for you. Yet most of us don't go around adding "fuel surcharges" to our invoices.

The cost of delivering your product is part of your cost of doing business. If you've priced your product appropriately, you shouldn't have to tack on these irritating little surcharges.

Besides, when was the last time a company gave you a fuel credit because the price of fuel went down?  Instead, these charges become a permanent part of the invoices and another way for companies to generate revenue.

If you're going to charge me for these types of things, at least have the courtesy to credit me for all the things I do that help save you money (starting with the fact that it costs less to keep and grow an existing customer than to have to go out and market to get new business).

Or deep six the surcharges.

They Still Just Don't Get It: Arrowhead Water

Last year Arrowhead Water informed me that they were making my home water deliveries less frequent to accommodate their needs, not mine. They would also give me more water bottles to make sure I was covered for the longer duration, which, to me, looked like a way to push more product to the customer.

This month an insert in my bill tells me that starting immediately they have a minimum purchase requirement for deliveries. So now, not only are deliveries less often, but I'm also required to buy more. Is this supposed to be improved customer service?

Perhaps someone should tell Arrowhead (and their corporate parent Nestle) that they ought to be working harder to convince me to buy their products--not making it more difficult. Today's customers know they have a myriad of options to choose from--including no longer buying bottled water but using tap water instead to be environmentally conscious. So shouldn't suppliers be taking care of *me* the customer, instead of *them* the supplier?

This strategy is pretty washed up to me.

Food Makers in the Dog House

Today's focus is on the pet food industry—in the spotlight due to the recent finding of tainted dog and cat food, resulting in renal failure and a yet unknown number of pet deaths.

There are so many places to pin blame and shame here it’s almost hard to list them all: The Chinese wheat gluten supplier who provided the tainted raw material, the Canadian food supplier who didn’t ensure the quality and safety of their products, the FDA for not adequately performing its oversight of the pet food industry.

But let’s not forget the pet food suppliers themselves, who it appears are actually marketers rather than manufacturers of pet food. What’s become apparent as a result of this situation is that whether you buy the low-cost economy pet food at Wal-Mart or the high-end specially formulated food from Eukanuba/IAMS, the actual food ingredients all come from the same supplier with the same main ingredient.

What’s wrong with this picture?  While all pet food manufacturers will now need to prove to the public that their pet food is safe to eat, the premium manufacturers will also have to prove to pet owners like me why I should continue to pay top dollar for their products when they are basically identical to what’s sold in Wal-Mart, Safeway or under private label. If the ingredients are the same, then what’s different? The packaging? This is a great example of how apparently identical products have been successfully positioned at various price points without the consumer understanding how similar the products themselves actually are.

We talk about products being only part of a total solution that includes service, customer experience, image/branding and competitive environment. However, the bottom line is that there needs to be enough differentiation in the total solution to justify selling different versions at different price points.

Sellers, you are all forewarned: Hell hath no fury like millions of pet owners scorned.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

Ever wonder how clueless some businesses can be about customer service, basic business strategy and lacking in just plain common sense?

Check out this list of the 101 Dumbest Moments in Business, courtesy of Business 2.0 Magazine.

My favorite (although it was hard to choose) is the Comcast cable repair guy who falls asleep on a customer's couch, while waiting over an hour on the phone for support help from HQ. The customer records this and puts the video out over the web. The cable guy is fired, but we don't know whether or not the customer ever got his system fixed.

Saving Trees or the Ultimate Hypocrisy:?

From Chad Barr of CB Software, here's a great example of  TJDGI Syndrome (They Just Don't Get It):

http://www.chadbarr.com/?p=36

Stuck in Lodi Again...

...at the Microtel Motel.

Remember the old John Fogerty song where he was "stuck in Lodi again?" Well, we spent the weekend in Lodi for a club soccer tournament.

Turns out that Lodi is not such a bad little town. It has a quaint little downtown, a number of wineries (which we did not stop at) and the requisite shopping center with Target, Starbucks, Quiznos, Pantera, Chilis, etc. In fact there were 4 different Starbucks we found while we were there.

The problem is we were stuck at the Microtel Inn right off of I-5. We came in with reasonably low expectations--this was obviously not going to be the Ritz Carlton. I booked the reservation on the internet, which gave me a choice of rooms, rates (discount for AAA), etc. Very simple.I did pay a little extra for a "suite", which I figured was the type of divided room w/a door you get at Embassy Suites and other similar places. However, it turns out that for the Microtel Lodi, a room becomes a suite by removing one of the double beds, replacing it with a sofabed, adding a small cube fridge and a microwave, and renaming it a suite.

The desk clerk, who was unfailingly polite, first asked me to sign the checkin form before filling in the daily rate. Good think I didn't do this, because he had an incorrect rate. After finding out that their version of the word suite was different than ours, I had another discussion with said clerk. He informed me that that really WAS a suite. And, besides, if we wanted a regular double room, he was out of those and was therefore upgrading all of the other double requests to "suites" for the lower price.

Thisdid not compute, so I asked if he could then give us the lower rate, since what we had was more like a double than a suite anyway. He smiled and said of course, then proceeded to cross out the old price on my credit card receipt and write in the new one. When I told him that wasn't going to work, he obliged to credit the old charge and recharge it. However, he had forgotten that I was booked on the lower AAA rate, so he had to go back and do that again.

In the middle of the night we discovered that the toilet in our "suite" was blocked and didn't flush right. The last thing we wanted to do was have the desk clerk come up in the middle of the night and try to fix this himself, so we waited till morning to tell the clerk about the problem.

A different clerk was on duty. She listened to me describe the problem, then said with a smile, "Well, those things happen. Maybe it needs to be plunged." Then she walked away.

Let me reiterate what did NOT happen in this interchange:

• She didn't apologize for the incident
• She didn't offer to make any amends for not having a working toilet in the room
• She didn't even write down the room number to get the problem solved

In discussing this with another guest, I found that her room had a bathroom that was both dirty and full of bugs. Yuch.

I should say this was my first interaction with the Microtel Inn chain, and it may very likely be my last. My impression is that Microtel hires clerks that are invariably polite, but untrained in basic check-in systems (crossing out a credit card receipt to do a refund?), ignorant of even Customer Service 101 (how about apologizing for a problem to start?), and totally oblivious to health and sanitary concerns.

Maybe I was out of line in expecting a suite in a motel in Lodi to have a door separating one part from the other. But flushing toilets and clean bathrooms are pretty much nonnegotiable.

Next time if we can't find another place in town, we'll drive to another town to stay. Better than being stuck in the Microtel in Lodi again.