Sony Incentives to Gamestop Employees...

[tha_con]

Point blank, if a consumer is willing to throw down $400 to $600 on a videogame console without knowing anything themselves, they can afford it, and they very well deserve to be sold whatever the sales employee talks them into.

Because anyone else who is going to drop $400 to $600 on a console KNOWS what they are looking for and getting into. Soccer Moms, afterall, are not buying the 360 or PS3.

 

[patsu]

Clearly, at the end of the day, the salesperson decides how they will act. That's not the point. The point is that this introduces incentive for those that have the propensity to put the customer LAST with misinformation, to do exactly that.

Hmmm... sales people already decide what best (from their own perspectives) to sell based on the margin and their commission. Yet not all sales people behave selfishly.

As usual, there are positive and negative sides to everything. The incentives may also motivate busy/clueless salespeople to understand PS3 better, and be more effective in selling them to the right people.

 

[expletive]

Point blank, if a consumer is willing to throw down $400 to $600 on a videogame console without knowing anything themselves, they can afford it, and they very well deserve to be sold whatever the sales employee talks them into.

Because anyone else who is going to drop $400 to $600 on a console KNOWS what they are looking for and getting into. Soccer Moms, afterall, are not buying the 360 or PS3.

You're approaching this from a very narrow and shortsighted perspective. Its not specifically about PS3s but the precedent it sets for what gamestop will allow. What if they did this for EA sports games vs. 2k (or whomever)? Dont you think a bunch of salespeople telling customers that the EA version of basketball is FAR superior to 2K sports based on a sales incentive would be very bad?

Don't pigeon hole this example to the PS3, think broader and how it could hurt smaller devs or manufacturers with superior products down the line too.

 

[expletive]

Hmmm... sales people already decide what best (from their own perspectives) to sell based on the margin and their commission. Yet not all sales people behave selfishly.

As usual, there are positive and negative sides to everything. The incentives may also motivate busy/clueless salespeople to understand PS3 better, and be more effective in selling them to the right people.

Not if they dont get a commission and not if the company puts customer satisfaction ahead of margins between competing products, which is the way i would EXPECT a company to behave. Even if they are on commission, they are better off making ANY sale by listening to the customers needs than trying to push something they dont need on them.

If understanding the PS3 is the problem, its not best solved by an incentive like this, its solved by training, or firing people who dont know the facts about the products the sell. It is their JOB to know that information. Otherwise you get something like this? :

Company: "Make sure we're giving our customers all the information they need to make an informed purchasing decision"

Employee: "But i dont know anything about the PS3"

Company: "well, this is your....um job to learn that"

Employee: "i dont wanna"

Company: "what if we let Sony give you credit to buy their games if you learn it?"

Employee: "ok!"

 

[infinity4]

salespersons tend to brainwash people, but hey, as far as they don't lie with their comments they are in no trouble imo. if this is multi hundred dollars/pounds equipment customers are purchasing, it is always stupid not to do unbiased research to see what is best for them. and it isn't only salesperson who brainwash people anyway, children brainwash them too
my point: err, don't make decisions based on what you only know few about, parents are hardly likely to know much about gaming stuff. they definitely need good advisors.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You're approaching this from a very narrow and shortsighted perspective. Its not specifically about PS3s but the precedent it sets for what gamestop will allow.

How is it a precedent for future possibilities when it's already common practice? Sony aren't leading the way in trying to influence sales staff with incentives - they're just following the business practice rulebook.

 

[patsu]

Not if they dont get a commission and not if the company puts customer satisfaction ahead of margins between competing products, which is the way i would EXPECT a company to behave. Even if they are on commission, they are better off making ANY sale by listening to the customers needs than trying to push something they dont need on them.

Still doesn't change my point. If they are not on commission and they do a sloppy job in selling PS3, then the incentive may work better. If they are already doing a good job, then the incentive rewards them for their hard work.

If some are pushy, the incentive could possibly encourage them further... but customers may get turned off. It's all balanced by human factors.

As for what work best for sales people and their companies, they should know better. Everyone already knows they need to pay attention to customer needs to sell better. Everyone has their own selling style and approaches. That's why I don't think the incentive will ruin Gamestop or their customer experience. In practice, the incentive merely serves to encourage them to explore/think/act better to close a deal (e.g., It is possible for a pushy salesman to ask, "Am I too pushy ?" in the process).

If understanding the PS3 is the problem, its not best solved by an incentive like this, its solved by training, or firing people who dont know the facts about the products the sell. It is their JOB to know that information. Otherwise you get something like this? :

Many performance-related issues can be fine tuned by tweaking the reward structure. Training can only go so far. Also I don't know if it's easy to hire and retrain game store sale people (In other retail industry, turn over can be high). At the end of the day, you seem to be concerned about the incentive bastardizing people's selling approach. Do you have any first hand experience ?

 

[Xalion]

That's all well and good as long as both further the same end. The problem lies in the 'influenced' opinion being non-ideal with the customer's wants.

I understand that - and this is the heart of the problem I was trying to point out. The only way you can assign an absolute "bad" and "good" to this is if the sales person does something they "shouldn't". (Keep in mind that the words in quotation marks are subjective under any circumstance, hence the quotation marks).

I can come up with equally valid examples where the 'influenced' opinion comes up exactly within the customers wants, or where the sales person learns more about an individual product and is able to give better answers because of such promotions. This is why I claimed such promotions aren't always bad for the customer. Yes, they can be bad. They don't need to be though. When you boil things down to their simplest parts - the root cause of all of these problems is an uninformed consumer. That can hardly be blamed on a company running a promotion.

I am also not saying I expect all consumers to be 100% educated on everything they buy. There just isn't any way to be. I know I am not, so I work hard to make sure I can trust various retail outlets. Even when I know exactly what I want I will often ask questions just to find out how much the sales person really knows. I've had some that were honest to the point of saying "Well, there is an employee incentive program on this model right now, but I think you'd like this other one to be honest". I've had others who have tried to push products that obviously don't suit my needs. Guess where I shop - especially when I don't know the details on every product out there?

At the end of the day, every consumer must accept responsibility for their own actions. That is harder in some cases with others. With medical problems many times you have to "trust" what someone says. You can get multiple opinions, but in the end we aren't doctors. No such excuse exists for purchasing a toy like a console though. If you are buying a toy, you should understand what you are buying.

 

[expletive]

How is it a precedent for future possibilities when it's already common practice? Sony aren't leading the way in trying to influence sales staff with incentives - they're just following the business practice rulebook.

Well I guess not a precedent in the truest sense of the word i.e. "the first time it had ever been done". But to me, its a wakeup call of what actually is being allowed. Personally, i had never heard of anything like THIS happening. Also, its not about Sony, its about gamestop. No need to defend Sony, theyre just maximizing what the channel will allow, this is about gamestop.

Still doesn't change my point. If they are not on commission and they do a sloppy job in selling PS3, then the incentive may work better. If they are already doing a good job, then the incentive rewards them for their hard work.

If some are pushy, the incentive could possibly encourage them further... but customers may get turned off. It's all balanced by human factors.

As for what work best for sales people and their companies, they should know better. Everyone already knows they need to pay attention to customer needs to sell better. Everyone has their own selling style and approaches. That's why I don't think the incentive will ruin Gamestop or their customer experience. In practice, the incentive merely serves to encourage them to explore/think/act better to close a deal (e.g., It is possible for a pushy salesman to ask, "Am I too pushy ?" in the process).?

Youre missing the point that THIS promotion incents the employees to be partial to a particular product rather than the customers needs. The reward system should reward employees equally for sales goals and it should come from within the company.

Many performance-related issues can be fine tuned by tweaking the reward structure. Training can only go so far. Also I don't know if it's easy to hire and retrain game store sale people (In other retail industry, turn over can be high). At the end of the day, you seem to be concerned about the incentive bastardizing people's selling approach. Do you have any first hand experience ?

Again, if theres an issue with performance it should be addressed at the company level and down. It shouldnt be addressed with a vendor program that promotes partiality.

Yes my first 2 jobs out of college were in sales. One was for a large candy company in NA, the other was for a large temporary staffing company. Then i became a nerd and started posting on forums.

 

[patsu]

Well I guess not a precedent in the truest sense of the word i.e. "the first time it had ever been done". But to me, its a wakeup call of what actually is being allowed. Personally, i had never heard of anything like THIS happening. Also, its not about Sony, its about gamestop. No need to defend Sony, theyre just maximizing what the channel will allow, this is about gamestop.

:| bu... but that has been the case since the concept of retail shop was borned eons ago. Different product has different margin, shelf life, ... etc. Even if a sales person is not commissioned, the boss of a retail shop may have a slant towards a particular product and may instruct/incent his staff to push a particular brand. A retail shop also has "promotional" period with different vendors from time to time too. So it is very common for a sales person to be biased towards various products at any one time.

He/she needs to serve the customers' needs while making a few more bucks. This is day to day business, with or without the incentive.

Youre missing the point that THIS promotion incents the employees to be partial to a particular product rather than the customers needs. The reward system should reward employees equally for sales goals and it should come from within the company.

Again, if theres an issue with performance it should be addressed at the company level and down. It shouldnt be addressed with a vendor program that promotes partiality.

See above.

 

[nelg]

Actually, the incentive is not geared towards someone buying the console, but those who are selling the console.

It is incentive for the sales person and influence towards the consumer

I was pointing out that there is a benefit to those who already own the console if another gets sold. Hence the person selling the console is helping those who already own them. If the person selling the console sells games to people who own PS3s - that means he is helping his customers.

Then you must also agree that that benefit extends to the community of any console that the consumer buys. Which is why it is of no significance.

The argument that it hurts the consumer requires that the store selling the console has no other customers who own the console.

See above.

This has nothing to do with what I said. As a matter of fact it is so far from what I said I have trouble understanding how you got there.

Quick example:

Consumer A walks into a store wanting to buy a console.

Sales Person 1 decides that to get a reward he is going to lie, cheat, swindle, and do everything possible to sell a particular system to the customer.

Sales Person 2 knows a lot about a particular system because of an incentive. He passes that information on to the consumer who then chooses to buy the system as the best to meet his needs.

Now, who decided what was good or bad for the consumer? In both cases, the consumer got the same system. In both cases, the consumer was affected by the promotion. So which is good or bad?


In one case, the consumer left without an understanding of what he was buying. That was "Bad" for the consumer in the sense that you mean. He will probably get frustrated as he discovers what he bought is not what he thought it was. In the other, the consumer left educated about what he was buying. He will get exactly what he was expecting and feel good about his purchase.

The key here - who decided which experience the customer had? The sales person - not the customer.

They are both bad. Number one is self explanatory. Number two because the job function of the sales person is to be knowledgeable about all the products his/her company sells. Not just the ones he is getting rewarded for selling.

An example with a doctor would be as follows.

A doctor goes to a drug lunch (drug lunches are when a large drug company purchases lunch for medical professionals in return for those professionals attending a short seminar on their drug).

Docter A decides that to get more drug lunches, he is going to push the drug the company sells at all costs and begins to perscribe it more than the generic.

Doctor B learns that the generics he has been perscribing can vary up to 20% the given strength of the name brand. He begins to perscribe the name brand more often for people who are likely to need the entire dose.

In both cases the doctors increase the number of perscriptions given. In both cases, the patient sees the same result. However, in the second case patients actually benefit from it. In the first, they may or may not benefit from it.

Once again, the sales person will decide whether he acts honestly with the promotion or whether he acts dishonestly - not the consumer. The sales person decides whether or not the consumer will benefit from the promotion - not vice versa. If your argument is that the consumer is hurt by dishonest business practices, then the ONLY person who can be responsible is the sales person. No one else in the world is capable of making that person act dishonestly.

I am aware of many instances where treatment algorithms were ignored. To the detriment of patients. At least the doctors are getting a good lunch.

 

[expletive]

:| bu... but that has been the case since the concept of retail shop was borned eons ago. Different product has different margin, shelf life, ... etc. Even if a sales person is not commissioned, the boss of a retail shop may have a slant towards a particular product and may instruct/incent his staff to push a particular brand. A retail shop also has "promotional" period with different vendors from time to time too. So it is very common for a sales person to be biased towards various products at any one time.

He/she needs to serve the customers' needs while making a few more bucks. This is day to day business, with or without the incentive.

You're welcome to accept these kinds of business practices on the grounds that its been this way for eons, I wont. If company wants to push a prticular product, promote and price it accordingly to drive sales, don't ask your employees to lie on your behalf.

EDIT:You accept the 'seedy underbelly' of retail as common or even 'good' business practices. Not sure why you aren't demanding more or even acknowledging what is the 'seedy underbelly', as such.

 

[patsu]

You're making the assumption that the sales person has to lie to get the incentive/close the sale. He (she) doesn't have to.

 

[expletive]

You're making the assumption that the sales person has to lie to get the incentive. He/she doesn't have to.

Of course not, but it puts them in the position where they are compromised and more likely to, I've stated that several times already.

 

[patsu]

The sales process is "compromised" (or influenced) by many factors. Said incentive is just one of the many marketing programs people are exposed to. The point I'm trying to make is:

The incentive does not automatically make sales people go bad. It incent them to do a better job. Like many things in life, it can have both positive and negative side effects depending on how it is applied.

It may be overly simplistic to assume a particular selling approach these people will take. Sales guys/gals are already subjected to many pressures and face their customers day to day. I think most should be able to do the right thing in the field.

Again as usual, should the incentive does not work out (e.g., not effective). Sony and Gamestop will refine their strategies (as we should expect them to).

 

[Xalion]

Of course not, but it puts them in the position where they are compromised and more likely to, I've stated that several times already.

With this as a standard I have another question for you.

Oxygen causes the body to "rust" from the inside out. It causes people to be more likely to die. Of course it is not the only factor that causes death, but it can definitely contribute under certain circumstances.

So, according to your definition oxygen is bad right? We should avoid oxygen?

Another example - most forms of surgery make other life altering side effects "more likely". An example would be the increased risk of heart attacks in those who have had open heart surgery. Does that make these types of surgery bad?

Basically the question is simple:

When does the possible inclusion of an outcome justify banning or labeling such practices as bad?

Just so you know I am not picking on you or this practice entirely there was recently a drug called Vioxx that was removed from the market. The drug treated Arthritis among other things. The drug was shown to increase the risk of heart attack. On the other hand, for extreme cases of Arthritis it was the only form that many people said worked for them (there are two other Cox II inhibitors but some claimed the others didn't work). The decision was made to remove it from the market because many people took your stand. The "more likely" was enough to label the drug as bad and force it to be removed. Even people who know the risk cannot take the drug because currently the prevalent attitude is that people aren't smart enough to know for themselves.

It seems you are taking the same stand with this type of practice. You are saying customers aren't smart enough to know for themselves and hence should be protected from a possible negative side effect even though there can be positive side effects as well. I am curious to know where the line is drawn with such protection - because it sounds very 1984ish to me.

 

[rbushner]

Your analogy is flawed. Look up to crazygambit's "who cares" post. That is exactly what is happening here. It's a kickback.

I don't see expletive calling for legislation, I see him saying he doesn't like the practice and doesn't want to support it.

Saying there are positive benefits to kickbacks, is ummm an interesting philosophy. I'm sure many U.S. military contractors and pharmaceutical companies agree with you.

I don't see how Gamestop allowing kickbacks from Sony to it's employees somehow relates to government controlling individual freedoms. Ironically the absence of ethics coupled with apathy will lead to opressive governments.

 

[Xalion]

Your analogy is flawed. Look up to crazygambit's "who cares" post. That is exactly what is happening here. It's a kickback.

It isn't a kickback, it is a contest. It is far different than a kickback. A kickback is when one party facillitates business for another in return for a portion of that parties earnings. Who could this possibly be a kickback for? Maybe if Sony was selling consoles to Gamestop at a lower price in return for a larger portion of the profit, but that isn't what is happening. Noone is guarenteed anything for running this contest - not even Sony or Gamestop.

It is exactly the situation that I stated. A program exists that is both healthy for Gamestop and Sony. It helps Sony give incentive to Gamestop to sell consoles. It helps Gamestop give incentive to their employees to sell consoles. So what is wrong with it?

The claim is that it is immoral and "wrong" because employees are "more likely to" engage in dishonest behavior to sell a console. Just like my example, Vioxx was removed from the market because those who took it were "more likely to" have a heart attack. In both cases, the parties claiming it is wrong and immoral are trying to protect "innocent" (and by that we really mean ignorant) consumers from potential danger. In both cases, that danger is not guarenteed. Hence my question:

Where do you draw the line with this type of "protection"?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Oxygen causes the body to "rust" from the inside out. It causes people to be more likely to die. Of course it is not the only factor that causes death, but it can definitely contribute under certain circumstances.

So, according to your definition oxygen is bad right? We should avoid oxygen?

Another example - most forms of surgery make other life altering side effects "more likely". An example would be the increased risk of heart attacks in those who have had open heart surgery. Does that make these types of surgery bad?

Basically the question is simple:

When does the possible inclusion of an outcome justify banning or labeling such practices as bad?

The thing with the unwanted aspects of the above examples is that they are vastly outweighed by the benefits. If the benefits of having sales staff taking backhanders outweighed the loss of unbiased objectivity, you'd have a point.

 

[rbushner]

How exactly is the government forcing a product from market in anyway related to this discussion? I don't see anyone saying that at all.