Blog

Can you learn about leadership and teamwork from rowing? Definitely!

I love rowing. I've been a competitive rower for over 20 years, racing in everything from singles to eights. Most competitive rowers are type A, driven to win, training hard, and with immense discipline. You'd think that putting up to eight of them together in a boat is a recipe for disaster. Quite the opposite.

Even the double, with just two rowers in it, teaches a lot about teamwork and leadership. This is the boat that I've raced the most over the last two years. My rowing partner and I are driven to win, and we have to work together to achieve that. We each have our own unique but equally important role in the boat.

• He sets the rhythm, and I steer.

• He has to have a feel for the boat speed and know when to bring the rate up or down. I have to know where we are on the course, keep him updated, and call out our race strategy.

• He has to trust me that I keep us on the best course. I have to trust that he'll keep the right pace.

Rowers have to work together. Each has to be a team player and a leader. Each has their own assignment, but it can't be done alone. Each rower is both a leader and a follower. Nothing in rowing is siloed, just like nothing should be siloed in a company. 

I just read about recent A/B studies that highlighted two important points:

1. Clarity is more important than simplicity.

2. Sticking to basics in messaging wins.

The first gives an example from Peloton with one CTA ("shop now") vs two CTAs ("see details" & "add to cart"). At first glance, we might think that the single CTA wins, but the opposite is true. Think about how many times you've shopped online and clicked on "shop now" for a single product, only to be taken to another page that is more confusing, has loads of product details, and upsells the seller wants you to consider. The A/B test showed that this resulted in lower conversion. 

The second example showed two initial messages on Mailchimp's home page. One message was "Get down to business and grow sales." The other message was "Turn emails into revenue." The second one out for being clearer. It more accurately defined the value prop, the key benefit that Mailchimp provides. Yes, this may be the same thing a competitor provides, but now you have the visitor's attention and the ability to explain why Mailchimp is the right choice.

As marketers, we often try so hard to squeeze every bit of information about a product or service into a small space that it backfires. It overloads the potential customer with information, confuses them as to the core value prop, and potentially drives them to a competitor that is more succinct.

When it comes to companies with a lot of products, we often overload visitors with too many upsells, trying to attain that margin target but at the cost of overall sales. A simple good/better/best lineup is better than five pages of options whose differences are impossible to discern.

This isn't just true for e-commerce sites. This holds true for complex enterprise sales too. The buyers have a lot of product information to dig through, and the easier we make it for them to be enticed and click on that "get demo" button, the higher sales will be. Sales experts can cut through the noise, determine what truly matters to the buyer, and sell them on a specific feature set. The website is just there to give enough information to want more.

So next time you're updating a site or putting together a flyer, don't forget to keep it simple. 

Why do luxury hotel brands consider self-service technology to be the antithesis of luxury? They act as if introducing it would cheapen the experience.

I stayed at a very nice hotel in DC last weekend, but the first experience I had was anything but luxurious.

I was fourth in line to check in. There was one person available to check guests in (out of a max of two - it wasn't a large hotel). It took at total of 15 minutes to check in with just three people ahead of me. While I was waiting in line, a guest came by an asked if he could cut in line because he needed a new key card.

This hotel brand allows you to check in using the app, but it doesn't really mean much. You still have to show your ID and credit card at the front desk again. And that is despite having status with the brand.

Mind you, this is not a pitch for Virdee per se. Yes, we can solve all of this by enabling web-based check-in, digital key on the phone, and the option for a key card at a lobby kiosk.

This is more a plea to all hotel brands to please consider ANY technology that removes the mind-numbingly boring task of standing in line to check in. (Then, you'll come to the conclusion that Virdee is the best. 😊 )

Imagine waltzing into the lobby having already checked in before arriving, walking over to a kiosk, scanning a QR code (just like at the airport) and grabbing your room key in a matter of seconds. All the while, hotel staff is there to welcome you, give you a rundown of the hotel's features, and answer any other questions you may have.

That's luxury! 

An example of a forced change to a company brand that makes its disingenuity painfully obvious to its customers.

I'm currently sitting in a Starbucks having a coffee and doing some work. During the hour I've been here, a few dozen customers have come and gone. With each person that enters, three to four staff all yell "good morning!" It's not directly aimed at the customer. They're not necessarily making eye contact with the customer. You can tell that they've been directed to do so.

Along with the messages that staff are required to write on cups, these efforts are a nice try but will fail at the overall goal of making Starbucks more than just a grab-and-go coffee shop again.

I'm from Vienna. A city with arguably the best coffee house culture in the world. Customers are greeted, and customers often also greet the staff first when walking in. This isn't just at coffee houses. It's also in bakeries and other smaller stores. It's just part of the culture. It's not forced.

What's the difference? It has to come from the heart.

You cannot wave a magic wand and expect thousands of baristas to suddenly be more personable. It requires proper training and time to change the culture of a company. Otherwise, you end up alienating both your customers and your staff. 

As a marketing leader of a hospitality tech company, I often think about my daily experiences in context of how they reflect in the hospitality industry. This happened to me recently when being forced to download an app when there was an easier way and how it mirrors when we do at Virdee.

Unless I use a specific service a lot, I hate having to download an app just to order a meal or check in to a hotel. A local Austin bar has a food truck, which doesn't allow you to order at the window. You have to order online. The kicker is that it requires downloading an app to do so. There is no logical reason why this has to happen. In contrast, there is a restaurant I frequent that has online ordering. You sit down, scan the QR code at your table, and order. It's all web-based using Toast. You can even log in and use your stored cards.

I visit Starbucks regularly. Even then, why is there no web option for ordering? Over 60% of Starbucks customers use the app, split about evenly between paying in store and ordering ahead. I wonder whether having a web version would increase usage even more. What is the cost of maintaining app and web versions vs the increased usage and revenue associated with higher customer loyalty? 

Generally, if you want to increase adoption, you make it as easy as possible. The optimal combination is web, no sign-up, no password. This doesn't work in every case, but it works in many. The restaurant I mentioned earlier uses Toast for their mobile ordering and payment. No account is required, but if I have an account, it's even faster because I can save my payment information. As a kicker, I also receive loyalty points. The value of using the web service with an account is higher than using it without one. 

What you begin to notice here is the land-and-expand approach. Prove that there is value in the product or solution in return for little-to-no information or money. Once that value is proven, show promise of higher value in return for personal information, money, etc. 

This is the progression that you can see with services like Toast, which has made it so successful. 

1. Web-based without login

2. Web-based with login

3. App-based with login

Going back to Virdee, how does this connect to hotels? Well, Virdee lets hotels offer the ability for guests to check in without downloading an app. Guests use a web-based portal to verify identity, provide payment, and sign terms and conditions. The value they get is a faster check-in process and straight-to-room at the hotel, and no app download needed. It's in the hotel's interest to get guests to adopt this because the hotel saves on staffing costs and avoids the negative impact of long lines on guest satisfaction. Once at the hotel, guests can download the app if they want to do more like order room service, chat with staff, and use a digital room key. More value is shown in return for more effort.

The easier you make it, the more people will use it. It's that simple. Show value for little in return. Build trust. Expand.

I'm a marketer. I'm not a product designer. I'm have no knowledge of UX design.

I am, however, a customer. When I use a product that is convoluted for no specific reason other than for the sake of being convoluted, I get frustrated. I immediately start thinking of the marketing impacts as well.

Apple may make good-looking and reliable devices, but there are some basic functions that make you scratch your head. I'd like to talk about one of those today.

Some background: I'm generally a Windows user. I've been required to use a Mac for a few specific tasks recently. There are, of course, differences between the two operating systems. That's understandable. There are some things on a Mac that will cause me to never use one by choice.

The delete button.

In a normal world, the delete button works as intended. You highlight the item. You press delete. Done.

I had to Google how to delete something on a Mac. You have to hold command and then press delete. Mind you, I'm a computer nerd. I love computers. I've built my own. I know technology. Never in a million years would I have thought that I have to press command + delete for the delete button to work.

Requiring a user to Google how to use the delete button is not a good product design. It goes against how anyone with a bit of computer experience would expect a delete button to function.

Someone may say that this is for safety reasons so that you don't accidentally delete something. Well, deleted items end up in the trash bin. They can be restored. On Windows, if deleting something that cannot be restored, a popup warns you about this before deleting.

While a relatively small issue, it's a basic functionality that has been redesigned by Apple for no apparent reason. I can imagine a marketing campaign touting how Microsoft Windows has the basics down. A big delete button with the words "it does what it says."

Small issues can result in tongue-in-cheek campaigns that resonate with customers. Be careful. 

Companies spend years building a brand, developing a reputation around a product name, making it recognizable as a leader in the market. Then, in a matter of minutes, they can destroy it all.

Dell joined the ranks of those companies when it scrapped names like Latitude and XPS in favor of copying Apple (kind of) with Dell Pro and Dell Max names replacing the likes of Inspiron, XPS, and Latitude. There's also a base model just called "Dell."

That naming would have theoretically worked had Dell stopped there. It went further and added base, plus, and premium tiers within each model line. In one screenshot below from the Dell website, you see two laptops. Both with the same max specs. It's impossible to understand the difference between these two without having to dig deeper into the details. That is anything but customer-friendly.

But wait. There's more!

When applied to desktop form factors, you can apparently end up names like Dell Pro Max Micro and Dell Pro Max Mini... each with base, plus, and premium tiers. This could create a Dell Pro Max Micro Plus.

This sentence from a CNET review of the new laptops gives me a headache.

"The Dell Pro 13 and 14 Premium models are available today at launch along with the Dell Pro 13 and 14 Plus. The Dell Pro 13 Plus will follow and start shipping on Feb. 25."

Dell spent decades establishing the XPS and Latitude brands as leaders in the market. The XPS laptops are sleek, use high-quality materials, and have performance to match. Latitude is reliable and can withstand the abuse employees will heap on a laptop over years. Customers are now left to wonder and try to understand what the new options are. The kicker is that customers are not that brand loyal. They will jump ship to a different brand if they cannot easily understand the product options.

Time will tell how this new naming convention treats Dell. 

I'm very supportive of hybrid and remote work. I was mostly remote back during several of my Dell years as 99% of my time was spent on the phone... in a cube. It just didn't make sense to waste my time driving to/from the office just to sit in a cube by myself. It worked for me.

While nice on paper, the way Dell seems to be implementing the hybrid approach seems to be disingenuous at best, at least based on articles and employee reports. Forcing a certain percentage of time in the office by threating withholding promotions isn't exactly what anyone would call "flexible."

I was at Dell when Michael called out a plan for 50% of the workforce to be remote by 20xx (don't remember the target year). Then COVID helped accelerate it for the better. I was asked to give up my cube and go officially remote as I didn't have direct reports in Austin. Now, I'd be forced back for an arbitrary amount of time each week.

I know of Dell employees that went fully remote to support their spouse for a better job in Houston. Now they stand in front of either stalling their own career or being forced to quit. Again, that "flexibility" is missing.

Amazon may be forcing employees back five days per week, but what Dell is doing isn't much better. Collaboration is great. In-person collaboration is even better. Forced collaboration is destructive.

For all the managers out there, think about the individuals on your team during 100% remote work compared to and today with hybrid or in-office work. You'll notice employees that flourished while 100% remote and some that are now flourishing while back in the office. Do yourself, your team, and your company a favor: don't force where and how your team works. Figure out what drives the best performance, and let your team take it from there. 

Presentations are no longer presentations.

I've seen the video of Jeff Bezos talking about how Amazon uses written reports instead of presentations 100 times, and it resonates every single time it pops up on my timeline. In today's business world (at least in the US), it's rare to get a chance to present an idea without being interrupted with 20 questions that go horribly off topic before you even get through your first slide. Half of what you say is "I have a slide on that later in the presentation," but, you never actually get there because you run out of time.

Presentations in today's world aren't even presentations anymore. They are full sentences being read to you by the presenter. At best, they are the mutant love child of a presentation and a memo... and good at being neither. Effective presentation standards are rarely used. (See below.)

While I wish all companies would transition to the method used by Amazon, it's unlikely. Rather cynically, I don't see many of today's employees able to sit for 20-30 minutes and read a memo without stopping to check their email every five minutes. I doubt many would be able to WRITE such a memo. It would require a huge top-down restructuring of how internal work is done, but it would pay off every single time. People would internalize the topic, critically think about it, and be engaged. Better work would get done.

If we can't have the best option, then maybe we can at least go back to having real presentations, ones where presenters get to cover their topic fully. Effective presentation techniques include the following:

- 28 point font (minimum)

- 15-20 words per slide

- Animations to control the flow

- And for God's sake putting the slides in PRESENTATION MODE!

One of the best trainings I ever had was from a company called iSpeak, and it covered effective presenting. It completely changed my view of and approach to presentations. Alas, while the company I was working for at the time paid for its employees to take the course, the techniques were not championed by the leadership, and the money was wasted as we were forced back into the old style of creating slides... not presentations. 

Hotel amenities can be a sore subject, especially when it comes to housekeeping. I'm here to say that reduced housekeeping frequency is a good thing. My main motivation for refusing housekeeping at nearly every hotel I stay at is to reduce waste. I've personally stayed at two different hotels in the last two weeks where one offered housekeeping every two days and the other every four days. Mind you, these were mainstream hotels, not budget properties. I still refused housekeeping.

One the one hand, you can argue that having housekeeping on a daily basis provides jobs. By refusing or reducing housekeeping, you are taking jobs away. We have to remember that although hotel employment levels may be back to pre-pandemic levels that hotels are still struggling with finding enough employees, just like they were before the pandemic. Wage pressure also makes it harder for hotels to keep the same level of staffing.

On the other hand, you can argue that no one needs fresh towels on a daily basis. You don't change your towels or your sheets at home every day, and it's even unlikely that you change them once per week. According to a survey of 1,000 Americans, sheets are changed at home every 24 days. That's right. When it comes to towels, people tend to wash them once per week or even only once per month.

Experts recommend washing sheets every one-to-two weeks and towels at least every week. That means that unless you are staying at a hotel for a week, there is no need for your sheets and towels to be changed.

The benefit of reducing housekeeping is the environment. By unnecessarily washing hundreds or thousands of sheets every day, a lot of water, soap, and electricity are wasted. Our carbon footprints are already large enough from our travel. There is no need to unnecessarily add to it. Yes, it saves the hotels money, and maybe they're doing it under the guise of "being green." Regardless of the motivation, you cannot argue that it reduces the use or resources.

It's easy to call the front desk to ask to have trash emptied or for more soap to be sent up. Thankfully, technology is also starting to make it easier to request these items without having to pick up the phone.

Next time you're at a hotel, think about whether you really need housekeeping.