National broadband internet is actually a good idea

In 2010, the internet is a vital emerging utility service like electricity was in the early to mid-1900s. I've been fortunate enough to be able to both have access to and afford broadband access since 2001 and I viewed it as vital even back then when my only other option was dial-up which seemed slow even then.

Different people will see it differently. To many, internet access has no value but I am increasingly finding those people asking those who do have internet access to "look this up" or "order this for me". Even though they know that they have no need for internet access, they still see its value which speaks volumes to how much the online world has penetrated even those far removed from most types of technology.

If you don't want the government mandating true high speed broadband internet access then I'll assume you're totally cool with paying $55 or more per month for your internet access. Think about the places you could spend even $25 of that expense is costs were to decline. What about reliability? I am unfortunate enough to have Mediacom for my internet access at home and suffered for over 3 weeks with painfully slow access. I didn't even bother wasting my breath calling the mouth-breathers they have employed as customer service representatives and instead, via my painfully slow internet, culled various forums until, after three hours, I found a potential solution. Luckily it worked and my overly spendy internet access is back to its normal speed but what other utility provider would get away with such ineptitude?

Would the local electric company get away with sending you just enough electricity to power your lights at brownout levels? But far too often that's what internet providers get away with. They provide sub-par service because nobody's watching and the competition isn't any better or cheaper. So consumers lose. It took government intervention to provide electrical service to many rural areas so why should we be afraid of the same when it comes to internet access? Either adapt to the change or be happy being left behind.

I think I'll go for anything that provides more reliable, more affordable, faster internet access. It can only help most everything I do including the world's most stunning all-Minnesota photo blog, MinnPics!

The myth of low grocery prices

Every big metro area has that one local grocery store chain that claims to be the low price leader. Their weekly newspaper inserts are loaded with coupons which price conscious shoppers feverishly clip out because a coupon is always a good price. Around the Twin Cities our "low price" grocery chain is Cub Foods. They've been around for about 40 years and from what I can tell began as a warehouse-type store where boxes of products were displayed with one side cut off for access when placed on store shelves. It's a logical way to keep prices low.

However, they aren't the low price leader any more. Sure, their image - using the American Typewriter font - would seem to instantly convey low prices but they just aren't consistently cheap any more. Their ads are still littered with coupons but their new low price model seems to be that of raising the regular price and then marking it down for the sale. The buy one, get one free coupon this week for a 20 oz. package of Gold 'n' Plump boneless, skinless chicken breasts comes to mind. They claim savings of a whopping $6.99! That not only seems artificially inflated but downright insanely high for 1.25 lbs. of chicken. I am fairly confident that, if it weren't for that BOGO special, I could pick up two packages for at least a dollar each less at the local Super Target store.

The puzzling fact is that people still shop at the area Cub Foods store in hordes. They did so after a very nice Rainbow Foods Fresh Store opened across the street. Rainbow's prices were equal to or lower than on most products than at the neighboring Cub Foods store. That just goes to show that either Cub Foods has totally nailed their marketing and branding image or that Minnesotans are very loyal to certain brands.

But how, in the face of decades of successful branding and imaging, does a competitor succeed in winning over new customers? Rainbow Foods is really the only legitimate grocery-only competitor to Cub Foods in the Twin Cities. The services they offer are comparable and so are the prices but Rainbow Foods has fallen flat on their face countless times since entering the market. Their image has been all over the map and they have failed to gain footing on a community organization level (Boy Scouts, youth hockey, etc.) like Cub Foods has done so well. Rainbow has bombed, I think, because their radio ads are flat out pointless and needlessly gimmicky. The Cub radio ads feature real people and mention the specials of the week. This is one case where Rainbow would be better for imitating rather than trying to be original and unique. Grocery customers do not give a damn about unique, they want low prices and Cub Foods mentions their seemingly low prices and those numbers, voiced by a female "interviewing" Cub customers, stick with people far more than a male doing the same because women buy the bulk of a family's groceries.

But you don't have to look cheap to grab customers. Target has a simple, even classy image. They are so successful that years ago Dayton changed the corporate name to Target Corp. Which one of those two names is still around? Target has succeeded by offering not only low prices but a customer experience. The prices are comparable to competitors, the brands are recognizable but they stick out because of their customer service and image. They are the classy discount department store and, I'm guessing, are more successful in the grocery field in the Twin Cities than Rainbow Foods is or ever will be. Still, it pays to shop around so do it and find out for yourself which store gets you the best deal and listen to those radio ads - which ones grab your attention?

If you want something more entertaining, may I suggest the photos of Minnesota at MinnPics. Something fresh and engaging to look at every day.

How not to treat customers

I've wondered somedays as I drive down 169 through Shakopee just how that city can support a whole host of rather large furniture stores (Ashley, Furniture Outlets USA and now Slumberland) essentially across the street from each other. The reason I ponder this is that the city consisting on big-box retailers and townhomes just became home to a Slumberland Furniture store. I have to assume that the quality of the furniture has to be better than that of the now-defunct Wickes Furniture where we bought the bulk of our furniture almost five years ago. Most of that furniture would be better suited for a dumpster but that is another story for another day.

I've scoped out other furniture retailers, hoping to find a better level of quality and customer service for that next big furniture purchase. After reading this recap of a customer service nightmare at the new Shakopee Slumberland I can definitely say that Slumberland is off my list of possibilities. The only dealings I had with them were many years ago in purchasing a coffee table/end table set that thankfully didn't have to be delivered and is holding up wonderfully (unlike that crap from Wickes).

I wish the best for the poor guy who's being taken for a ride through hell by Slumberland but it reminded me with my hellish experience with Home Depot a couple years back. Is it a thing of the past that the customer is always right?