This week’s topic for Human Talk is “No Food or Drink” signs. (If you didn’t catch the bold graphic above.)
I was in the mall a few days ago wasting some time before seeing a movie, and I started to notice these signs posted on the outsides of some of the stores. Then I came to a store that had a big sign that said “Grand Opening” in huge letters and posted next to it was a “No Food or Drink” sign. It was your typical mall store for teenage girls that sells clothes and jewelry. It’s not like they were selling something Italian leather jackets and mink coats. So why were they making such a fuss?
This got me thinking, about the purpose of a “No Food or Drink” sign. It is put up in an effort to reduce the risk of a customer dirtying up the store and ruining a product by accidentally spilling their drink or getting Auntie Anne’s pretzel cheese on it. Damaged goods and dirty stores would obviously be bad for business.
Here’s the but…
This is where I think you have to look beyond what you see on paper. What about the percentage of potential buyers that don’t enter at all just because they have a soft drink from the food court in hand? For every 1 slobby customer that puts their frappuccino fingers all over the merchandise, 20 customers may walk on by and never come back just because they don’t want to pitch the $5.00 drink they just bought in the trash.
It’s a bad idea to build a business and enforce policies around changing the habits of customers that you don’t want.
—–
What do you think a better strategy would be?
This post is part of the Human Talk series.
If you would like to contribute your good or bad Human Talk examples, Email me. I’ll accept photos, stories, videos, audio, etc. and give credit where credit is due.
Via RSS
Okay… Devil’s advocate here…
I understand the point of communicating on customers’ terms, but (pertaining to your story) how can you protect your standards just in the hopes of gaining more access to potential customers? If the store in your post allows food and drink to be brought in, then there, albeit minuscule, is a chance of property and inventory damage (insurance regulations?). We also need to think of the store’s policies and the market to which they’ve built those policies to suit. Are they a 5¢ plastic and rubber band jewelry vendor, or a crystal and fine silk boutique?
An acceptable solution -
Provide an area where patrons can leave their food and drinks if they really (really) want to shop there. Some may take you up on the “added value.” And those, like me, will probably still walk by not wanting to leave my Potato Olés and Mountain Dew next to someone else’s germ-ridden sack of goo…
Food for thought. Great series, Chris!
Keep Cooking!
Andrew
The post is obviously aimed at stores in general, since its not focusing on any one. That being the case, then you’d have to look at each store. Having worked retail at a number of places in previous lives, I can say for certain that a ’spill’ can cause a number of problems. While some spills are quick and easy, others can take up one or more people to clean. This costs money in salaries paid out to people who are all of a sudden not waiting on customers. Non waited customers can leave without buying items, causing further loss in sales, or simply cause customers to wait, which may have a negative impact on their shopping experience. A big enough spill can also temporarily shut down a small section of your store, resulting in the possibility of more lost sales of items in that area. Finally, in many mall stores, you are talking about carpeted flooring. Imagine a customer’s impression of your store as they slosh thru a soaked section of flooring.
There is also a fairly well known ‘rule of thumb’ called the 80-20 Rule. It applies to most things in life, such as 20% of your plants will produce 80% of your produce. 20% of your sales force will make 80% of your sales. 20% of your clients will contribute to 80% of your sales. Places like Walmart target the 80% of clients and make their profits on volume. However, a large number of businesses focus on the 20%. If you could make 80% of what you are making now by focusing on only 20% of your client base, how much are you saving in time, effort and expenses? To many, washing themselves of the headache of dealing with 100% of the people and narrowing it down to 20% is worth the loss in revenue.
My question is, how many of the stores w/ the no food, no drink policy have actually taken the time to measure revenue loss to see if it is right for them?
Good post, and a great observation!
(the other) Chris Wilson
Great thoughts guys!
Obviously, the logic of whether or not a sign like this is necessary would have to be decided on a case by case basis.
@(the other) Chris Wilson - The 80/20 rule would be a great place to start.
In order to accurately test these percentages, you would have to do some experimenting with and without the signs to see what effect they have on profits and sales. Without this sort of experimentation there would be no way to accurately calculate how many customers that passed the store by (and moving on to another store without this policy no doubt) because they had a drink and were not allowed to take it inside. This would also be a way to determine if the store was getting more visits when the signs were not in place.
@Andrew - I know I mentioned the value of the stores merchandise in the post, but now I question it’s importance in making a decision for or against the signs.
If the signs were depressing customer visits and buying, then there is a possibility that the percentages of profits vs. losses, between upscale stores and low end stores would be relatively the same.
Again, the only way you could find out if this were true is by testing.
—-
Here are some of my recent thoughts:
How does this study impact this discussion?
Why do we not see these signs in stores like the Gap, and Express?
Think I’ll go by Aithene. Make things simpler.
Anyway, after I wrote my earlier comment, I read this post: Values
It got me thinking that, (stepping away from the specific “no food, no drink” policy and looking at policy making in general) even before testing, a company may lean towards certain policies in order to uphold their ‘brand’. Certainly Whole Foods would make more sales if they offered more condiments, but they made a decision to be true to their brand rather than go for the extra sale.
A couple of other policies that I’ve heard people grumble about in the past belong to Apple and Costco Wholesale.
Apple COULD offer stripped down machines at lower price points, but they choose to build to a higher standard. Its their brand.
Costco COULD offer a wider variety of products, but they choose to limit choices to knock prices down even farther. Its their brand.
But as you’ve noted, if a company does choose to implement a policy such as these, it would certainly help to do as Whole Foods did and express the reasons and benefits to the policy, and even to present them in a more palatable format: Hand Tossed