My 5 Cents Worth ...

My 5 Cents Worth

 

A few years back I was friends with a guy who managed a couple of F&B outlets as part of a bigger local chain of restaurants. I used to enjoy eating at the chain as the food was consistent, decent, well-priced, and of course, accessible to my home.

 

Late afternoon one day, I went to pick up some take-away for my dinner from an outlet I didn’t go to that much. The duty manager, as was the SOP, ‘manning’ the till (cash register), taking customer orders and processing payment. My bill: RM 19.95. I handed over my not-so-crisp RM20 note, and awaited my receipt (always ask for a receipt) and my change.

 

I got a receipt, but not my 5 sen (cents).

 

Duty manager shuffled off to get my order from the kitchen. When she returned with my order, I asked “where was my change”?

 

“Its only 5 sen lah, why do you care?” was her response. To which I gave her a very direct response: “Because it’s MY 5 sen and not yours”. She kept trying to debate with me, and was quite adamant it wasn’t worth her effort to open the till.

 

Until … I mentioned to her a particular name (her boss) and that I would be discussing this with him promptly.

 

I got my 5 sen.

 

But that’s not the end of the story. I called my friend. I shall call him Peter (because that’s his name) to highlight the experience.

 

Before hand though, I did a little calculation. In an outlet that’s open 10am to 10pm, seven (7) days a week, with a capacity of 20 tables, and I estimated a turnover of 8 times per day, that’s (at best case scenario) 4480 transactions per month. Now, if this certain staff member is skimming 5 sen off every transaction (which later became apparent) that’s RM 224 per month she is (was) pocketing.

 

Get where I’m going with this?

 

A week later, she had been replaced.

 

Now, let’s turn attention to another local brand that’s been having a bumpy ride over 5 cents.

 

Many may argue it’s a small matter (I mean, its not exactly 2.6 …. I digress), and in the scheme of things it may very well be minor.

 

But the issue here is not the 5 sen; it’s the brand response to the issue, and on the ‘approach(es)’ to mitigate the fallout.

 

Mistake number 1 was short-changing the customer 5 sen, even fleetingly. Claiming they didn’t have the 5 sen, the staff member assumed that the customer wouldn’t mind and proceeded accordingly, rather than providing additional change.

 

That’s simply not acceptable.

 

I recall learning about a case in the 1990s in my law school days. A ‘thief’ was convicted and imprisoned for stealing a broken comb (yep, broken) from someone at a gym. An item of almost zero value, yet a conviction was lodged and upheld. The reason; financial value is irrelevant; utility value and ownership is what is relevant.

 

It’s not the 5 sen; it’s the (perceived) integrity of the brand (represented by the staff member) that’s at stake.

 

Even though said staff member, upon concern and prompting from the victim (yes, that is the correct use of the word here) subsequently passed over an additional 10 sen to the customer, it was simply too late. This ‘10 sen’ should have been the default setting.

 

In the eyes of the customer, the brand failed the integrity test.

Now the customer (as is his right) shared the experience on social media. A little buzz eventuated, but that really should have been the end of it as it would have died a natural death. Brand could have reached out and apologised privately, and everyone could have moved on – I mean, there are other much more significant issues out there – corrupt officials, floods, citizenship rights, post-pandemic economic recovery – 5 sen isn’t worth our time really.

 

Oh, but it is apparently.

 

Enter mistake 2. In an attempt to put things right, and I can only assume channelling the awesome marketeers at Nando’s (“listen listen listen” and the other great knee-jerk campaigns of social significance), the brand team put out an advertisement. Quirky yes; sophisticatedly quirky, NO! A ‘discount promotion’ went viral from them … “For all the 5 sen we couldn’t return … Sorry. Here’s 75 sen off for the inconvenience”.

 

WTF?

 

Remember my story I led with? The brand through its advertising and promotion mechanisms just admitted that this might be a systemic problem, and that probably other customers have been affected in similar ways.

 

Yes, it was ‘meant’ to be tongue-in-cheek and probably trying to make light of the situation and repair any damage, but it fell flat. In fact, it drew extra attention to the original situation, and obviously irked more loyal customers. Not what you want when you are trying to move on from a ‘speedbump’ as this was.

 

Unlike Nando’s ‘responses’ to earlier ‘current events’, it wasn’t sophisticated enough, and it wasn’t external. Nando’s communication sophistication comes from using external events in their advertising gimmicks; never their own mistakes.

 

Whilst the brand will later claim it only took ‘8 seconds’ for the staff to adhere to the customers request to rectify the situation, we need to remember the old phrase “it takes years to build a brand, seconds to destroy it”. Hence, again, the default setting should always be to offer more change if the correct change is unavailable.

 

Anyhow, the public response to this in turn led to Mistake 3 – a Media Statement was issued.

 

A relatively perfunctory statement, quite bland, except for the following: the COO of the brand went on public record as having “concluded that the issue was about a customer sharing his opinion rather than a short-change issue”. WRONG! If confused, refer my lead story above, and refer to Mistake 2 which indicates this is likely not to be an isolated situation.

 

The choice of language doesn’t help to calm the waters.

 

Calling it a “mere five sen” not only tries to minimise the value of the issue, but it also disrespects the customer by giving the impression of positioning them as cheap or petty – of creating an issue over something of little financial value.

 

Remember, INTEGRITY.

 

The brand statement “We do not see this as a case of short-changing but highlighting of personal opinion” simply shows that the brand hasn’t seen it from the customer experience perspective, and it hasn’t learnt from the nuances and perception this incident has raised (nor the brands own ‘admission’). It doesn’t recognise the bigger-picture forces at hand – these forces being integrity, (potentially) legal, and strength of purpose.

 

When something happens, it’s the response in terms of maintaining brand image that is of paramount importance. Don’t dig a deeper grave when initially the soil was barely disturbed.

 

Now, I like this brand. I hope that this bumpy ride showcases for them and for other brands out there the need to think through the implications of their response to an issue raised. And I hope that the systemic changes they implement will mean we don’t have to see news about 5 cents again!