A Twist To Drive Thru Service

Where the vendors are the ones who drive their trucks up to where people are and foodies get to sample different fares, while merchants get to keep their costs low. Or at least lower.

I first came across Off The Grid on Andrew Zimmern's show Bizarre Foods. He was in San Francisco (known for its counter-culture, er, culture) and I suppose that characteristic of the city makes it an ideal place for Off The Grid to take off.

I don't see why it can't work here. We do have lots of spaces that remain underutilized, or local city governments could designate areas to be blocked off to entice local food producers and chefs to come together to showcase their produce, wares and food discoveries. (All pictures from and more information can be found at http://offthegridsf.com/)

Currently, the "markets" I see are, yes, cross cultural - I came across Persian, French, regional Filipino, Thai and Mexican cuisines all under one roof - but the prices of the foods ensured that only members of certain economic classes could partake of them. (I don't know about you, but getting a slice of Moussaka for almost 300 Philippine Pesos is not something I would say is "consumer friendly", in the context of a public market setting.)

I wonder if any of our local city governments would consider the Off The Grid model.

Kuh Ledesma: Artist...Censor?

That's the thought bubble I had hearing the latest utterance from Kuh Ledesma, one of OPM's (Original Pilipino Music) stalwarts in a recent news item.

Nationalism. The Kuh way.

(Courtesy of geotayo.com)

"Kung ako ang tatanungin, kung ako ang president, dapat limitado talaga. Kasi, nakikita ko talaga na kapag sinuportahan natin ang mga Pilipino, talagang lalawak ang bayan natin." (If I will be asked, if I was the president, it should be limited. What I see is that when we support our own, our country will really improve.)

(See more here: http://www.interaksyon.com/entertainment/kuh-ledesmas-cry-to-limit-foreign-acts-draws-mixed-reactions/  )

In case you're wondering what it is she thinks should be "limited", it is to curb the entry of foreign musical acts into the country (presumably to perform in concerts and sell their records), for the sake of, and in the service of some version of "nationalism".

The oddest thing about this situation is that I would think that an artist, of all professions, would be abhorrent and unequivocally against the idea of censorship: So the solution she proposed is to simply ban foreign acts?

Where does it end?

Should we also stop Korea-novelas - not the "best" representative of a stellar foreign example of art, but they are being devoured by local consumers as evidenced by their ubiquitousness - as well from being shown on TV, since they prevent locally produced shows - such as they are - from being more malawak? (have more reach)

Should Indian restaurants be closed down because they threaten to overshadow Filipino cuisine? (Side note: Andrew Zimmern, host of a food/travel show, thinks our cuisine is the Next Big Thing. Should America stop him from saying that, because it may impede the spread of American fast food world wide?)

Should we ban a sculpture, a painting, a piece of literature, produced elsewhere but the Philippines?

Again, where does it end? This has always been the problem of censorship. It opens the floodgates for more disturbing scenarios, than the one it purportedly wants to "save".

How would our local performers feel, if they applied to foreign productions or films, and were rebuffed not on the basis of lack of talent, but after showing so much of it, would simply be told "Sorry, we can't get someone from another country...you know, for nationalism reasons"? (In the same link to the news item, Isay Alvarez defends her stint in Miss Saigon. And in spectacularly laughable fashion.)

Should they have banned Lea as well?

(Courtesy of waukeshacivictheatre.org)

Besides, we have seen this so-called "nationalism" take place: one week in December, all residents of this country have no choice but to pay a local movie producer if they want to watch a movie in a theatre. It's called the Metro Manila Film Festival, an attempt to supposedly shore up support for the local film industry by snuffing out foreign competition.

Yes, it achieves that purpose, it really lines up the coffers of local film outfits, because people have no choice. Other than not going to a movie.

Let's make an example of last year's topgrosser: a film by present-day Senator Bong Revilla. (A senator with another job - something I will tackle in a future post.)

He acted (and I understand also produced) in a film that was fantasy-action in genre. It bragged about its "special effects" - which was roundly ridiculed in cyberspace for one stark reason: the graphics of the fantasy monsters and characters seemed to be "lifted" from a foreign film of the same genre, Clash Of The Titans.

This is our best response?

(Courtesy of pinoysuperheroesuniverse.blogspot.com)

That makes a mockery of the entire "point" of holding the festival: you are given a week to sell to people the idea that our local films can stand on their own, and the best we can do is to copy a rehashed concept from a foreign film, using the exact same character/costume/idea?

This is an increasingly smaller world because of the myriad of ways we can now connect and share information with practically everyone else on the planet. We should not fight the future, unless we are prepared to live with the consequences of obstinately clinging to misguided forms of "patriotism" that shut out ideas instead of welcoming them, instead of using them in ways that enhance our own art, food and our very lives.

In the marketplace of ideas that are free-wheeling and free-flowing, the test of an idea's appeal and longevity is whether it can stand scrutiny in the face of other competing ideas. No one wins when the solution becomes to prevent other ideas - or performances - from seeing the light of day, or showing up in our concert venues.

We're not even discussing how this proposal infringes on one's personal preferences or tastes.

I'm not prepared to have Anne Curtis on endless loop in my music player.

I See Rizal From My Bedroom Window

Why, hello there, Dr. Rizal.

(Photo courtesy of Carlos Celdran/Facebook)

If you plan to buy a condominium unit at Torre de Manila, DMCI Homes latest project, you could be saying that yourself.

You can quibble that technically, you'll only see a small portion of Rizal's back from your future property.

This sets a horrible precedent - yes, I went there and I said it out loud - if we allow every home developer, coffee chain and mega-mall to just park their butts wherever they please, who cares if the site they plan to build on is unmissable from a culturally significant one; or one that gives us our strongest ties to our past, colonial or otherwise.

I'm assuming that since DMCI Homes has a website and some "artist's rendition" mock-ups already online, the permits for this project have been approved and deemed "okay" by the city government of Manila. (See more at this address: http://www.torredemanila.com/?gclid=CMeTiMWwvrACFUNMpgodsQiVog)

If this project pushes through, all tourism pictures of Luneta Park will now be inextricably inseparable from a glossy, new condominium from one of the largest developers of the country. The builders must be patting themselves on the back for such a marvelous coup, getting free publicity by way of Rizal himself.

Just one question.

Surely, our supposed heroes and our cultural/national heritage deserve better treatment than this?

Claudine Vs. Ramon Vs. Raymart: Who Lost?

The answer is us.

(Courtesy of ofwnow.com)

And I'm referring to consumers. Whether you are an artista (actor) like Claudine Barretto or Raymart Santiago, or a newspaper columnist like Ramon Tulfo, or, more likely, a regular Joe. A regular Jose or Josefa.

(Courtesy of facebook.com)

What their "brawl", yesterday's top news, brought out is how little we matter to airline companies like Cebu Pacific, who are out to make a quick peso on our collective account, no matter the consequences.

Until someone perfects the science of teleportation, for those who need to travel fast, we will be needing the services of airline companies. And we have seen a slew of competitors in the field, all jostling and pushing to claim a share of the consumer pie, largely competing on one singular point: Price. The prices have gotten so low, recently, that there are cases where taking the flight can be the better alternative as opposed to ship or land travel, even on price points. That's how competitive it is - it's starting to encroach into other transportation modes' shares.

Of course, for those of us (yes, I'm one of them, I like a good bargain, sue me) who are quick and ready on the "click" for online airline deals, we've seen how it has grown to a peso for a flight (and with "the charges" added on, it only resulted into 2 thousand pesos for a roundtrip to an Asian country, 3 thousand tops) to really being more expensive than the usual benchmark we've had for the longest time, Philippine Airlines. PAL has been the only homegrown airline company for decades, and as a consumer, I was actually glad when Cebu Pacific arrived on the scene. It was followed by other entries, so it gave consumers a choice, whereas in my parents' time, it was PAL or bust.

Case in point: Arthur and I recently went to Cebu, and comparing the prices for PAL and Cebu Pacific (with the same conditions: lowest possible price in its class, 15 kilograms allowed baggage weight for check-in, no snacks, etc.) Cebu Pacific was actually more expensive (by about 300 hundred pesos). My advice to consumers: Check competitors first - and their pricing - before paying with your plastic. It may seem "low" at first, but that's because what they put in their headlines of GIANT SALE!!! is just the base fare: after factoring all the "hidden charges" (not advertised), you'd start wondering if budget meant something else.

I have heard of these horror stories of luggage being lost or "to follow", but yesterday's altercation revealed to us that this is actually Cebu Pacific's policy. A plane can be overbooked and incapable of carrying all the luggage (alloted at 15 kilograms per passenger), but the company still proceeds with the flight - and more importantly, taking your money. And when the passenger arrives at the destination and doesn't find his/her luggage, the explanation is that for everyone's "safety", they couldn't load the baggage together with the passenger.

One of the company's VP's said this in a statement point blank, which leads me to ask some questions:

(1) If you set a maximum of 15 kilograms for check-in luggage, why is there a danger of compromising "safety"? Wasn't this factored in when you were arranging price points for your tickets?

(2) As someone who has been riding airlines since I was 4 or 5, I know that some passengers opt to pay a premium for carrying baggage that is in excess of their "allowed" weight. Was yesterday's incident a product of allowing "more than you can chew"? Because if the plane cannot handle the weight, and you already set limits of what people can bring, the only variable factor will be those that "pay extra". Is this the case? Shouldn't your system incorporate some form of warning that you are selling close to allowable plane capacity?

(3) I understand planes carry other things aside from just luggage. Shouldn't you have factored those in as well in your declaration for how much people can bring?

(4) I do not recall ever being advised that you have the option of not bringing my luggage together with me as a passenger in one flight. When people take flights, they fully expect to leave the same way they entered it: in one piece, with 3 pieces of luggage if that's what they checked in. Is this clearly stated in your "policies"?

(5) When people book flights and you accept the money for the service, is it too much to ask for the service that you promised? Or are you going to blame "budget" customers, and say something atrocious like "eh, kasi pang budget lang presyo nyo eh"? (well, your price is only for budget)

As stated by Claudine, the root of the problem was really the fact that the luggage of their party did not arrive on the same flight they did. You don't know if there is medication there that someone has to take, or a person has to make a sales presentation the moment he lands, or there is a connecting flight to Zimbabwe from Manila that a client is late for. For those and a plethora of other reasons, you have to state CLEARLY to people that "we're looking out for your safety, so that means your luggage will arrive in more than a month's time".

Consumers have the right to know what it is you are offering as "service".

I am not taking sides as to who threw the first punch between the parties involved in the scuffle. They both should not have come into blows, and settled as amicably as possible. But Cebu Pacific cannot wash its hands off this incident: it should be held responsible for its neglect to inform passengers of their supposed "right" to not deliver the luggage on time with the same person's flight, regardless of reason.

Bugbog sarado nanaman ang mamimili. (Consumers are once again, beaten black and blue.)

(Courtesy of buzz.makoyskie.com)

Once again, consumers lose the day.

A Letter For Mr. Sy

Dear Mr. Henry Sy,

(Courtesy of forbes.com)

You don't know me, nor I you, at least not on any personal level. However, I know of you. In fact, I don't know of any Filipino who doesn't know about you in some way. Your malls have become a part of modern Filipino life, their ubiquitousness surpassed only by the eagerness by which people have been willing to throw money your way in lieu of the goods and services you provide.

For me, though, the marvel has been how you have reversed your fortune completely, upside down, from when you started as an immigrant in this country: I remember my mom telling me that she was even able to visit your very first store, a small one in an area not unlike Divisoria. Later on, as a child, My mom would take me to SM (Shoemart) in Cubao, as we lived close by, to buy school supplies, clothes and anything else needed for school.

Through the years, as your fortune and mall empire grew, the stories casting you in a negative light also grew alongside them: How you never made employees regular, in an attempt to escape the obligation of shouldering benefits mandated by law; how your rental prices have been exorbitant, with terms bordering on insufferable; how you would allow a tenant to come in, your people would supposedly study how that business ran, then you would kick that tenant out and consequently open a new store fashioned after the booted tenant.

I don't know if any of these accounts are true, as I have never worked in one of your malls as your employee nor opened a store and rented in your mall. But they are certainly persistent enough, as I hear them to this very day. And now, you are once again in the news, as word (and photos) of your empire cutting down trees in order for you to "expand" your interests in Baguio.

I did not take an interest in the working conditions that supposedly your employees suffered through, I rationalized that it was their choice, and they could find work elsewhere. But the issue of the trees being cut is something that affects not just you or your empire, but it has a direct bearing on the changing landscape - literally and figuratively - of Baguio.

The last time I was in Baguio, I noticed it shrouded in a pall of grey, a far cry from the lush green that characterized it as a summer destination as a child. It was a combination of the exhaust from so many vehicles, of the many buildings rising one on top of each other, the amount of people almost seemingly fused with the asphalt and cement they were walking on.

All of these were congregated on a single nucleus: SM Baguio. It seemed both people and cars were on their maddening way to your shrine to commerce, to part with their moolah for any number of goods or services that would grant contentment, albeit on a superficial level. The traffic surrounding the area was almost as bad as a Manila street, practically at a standstill, as cabs drop potential shoppers off, and pick up happy consumers, and trying their best to rush out to bring back more people to this center of modern Baguio life.

The first thought I had hearing about the tree cutting was "Does Henry Sy need to earn more?" Granted, our Constitution gives you the right to find happiness, and I have no doubt you find much joy in earning money. But at what cost will your happiness cost everyone else, Mr. Sy? If the stories I have heard about your business practices are true, then the tree cutting we are witnessing presently is a testament to the horror that those tales present: You are willing to step on and discard anyone - or anything - in order for you to gain wealth and maintain, and possibly improve, your standing in the Forbes list of richest men, among Filipinos, Asians, and the world's billionaires.

Friends have commented that the issue of land erosion is one area you have not considered in all this. On the other spectrum, I know friends who actually champion your actions, as it will provide jobs, strengthen the local economy, and other benefits related to a business expanding.

I am not a scientist, an economist, an environmental specialist, nor do I have a lofty title before or after my name. I am just a Filipino wondering aloud, if you need to cut down trees to add to your coffers, already in the billions, when will it ever be enough?

Are the stories of your ruthlessness in business true, Mr. Sy? I find it hard to reconcile this image with your origins, of someone who knows how hard it is to have nothing. Your background leads me think that you would have a natural empathy and affinity towards fairness, ethical behavior, working hard without taking advantage of others, champion of an even playing field.

I am still hoping that the stories about you aren't true.

A business as large as yours owes the community it operates on to practice Corporate Social Responsibility.

Where the trees are concerned - in an age where recycling paper has become almost an obligation - I hope your company makes the right decision.


The Guy With A Blog

The Real Bottom Line: Customers

Do businesses know what's important, truly important?

(Courtesy of workplacepsychology.net)

Here's a real life case of a company that will remain unnamed.

Company ZZZ (an apt description) has fielded numerous complaints over the years as to why the facilities they offer to clients have deteriorated and just seem to get worse with each passing year. The company has shown a deaf ear to these complaints, paying lip service with repairs that are called panakip butas in the vernacular (stop gap measures), not really attending to the heart of the problems and just being concerned with one of the symptoms.

The company has fended off repairs, under the response that there is no capital available for repairs. This, when the company continually charges its clients on a monthly basis (usually credit cards), whether or not clients use the facilities every day or just even once a month. And the company hosts Christmas parties on a yearly basis, and also just concluded a "summer outing" fully sponsoring its employees.

One client eventually asked "Are you sleeping on the job? How can you say you don't have money to make repairs when clients see the employees with their pictures of Christmas celebrations and beach barbecues?" (Hence, the aptness of naming this Company ZZZ.)

Having received more than my fair share of crappy customer service, I feel for these clients who have a valid right to complain. When they began paying for the company's services, everything was going well, things were functioning, personnel were attentive. And as with any establishment, problems arise as time goes on and things start to need repair from wear and tear and excess usage.

It is my contention that for companies that experience this - and all companies that have a longer life span eventually will - they can do one of two things:

(1) They can use new innovations to make the company operations run more smoothly and less prone to mistakes and repairs - e.g. automation, using digital devices and methods instead of having to file lengthy bureaucratic paperwork - and they can attend to any problems at the root or source directly head on, not just paying lip service to the standard response of "we'll see what we can do about that". They can see the repairs as a necessary operational expense that will yield loyalty in its current customers.

(2) They can ignore the "old" customers' complaints - anyway they've already "captured" that market - and concentrate on enticing new life into the client base, without fully disclosing that the current customers have been unhappy for years. These "old" clients can't leave because they've grown accustomed to the service and cannot seem to find a satisfactory replacement elsewhere, further emboldening the management of the company to be bullheaded about disregarding any complaints they may hear.

Most customers will choose (1). I don't know of anyone who would willingly choose to be ignored, especially if they pay money for an expected level of service, unless one was a masochist, I suppose.

Businesses who see their enterprise in the long term and with longevity in mind would be well advised to take route (1). Yes, there is a cost, but doing business costs, it is a matter of seeing these problems from a longevity perspective: will it help the business maintain the customers we have right now, and will the goodwill generated by satisfied customers spill over to even newer clients coming in? In today's competitive market, will an upstart that can deliver on what it says be a threat to my own profit margin?

A company I can name outright that has been accused of taking route (2) is gaming giant Zynga. You can search for links in Google of how many dissatisfied customers are leaving its roster, and what steps the company has done to infuse new blood since the "old" customers have given up.

Company ZZZ would do well to take a business lesson from the current state of Zynga.

It is downright suicide for any business to ignore their customers. And the reason for this is simple: Everyone is in business to make money, and you can't earn money if no customers walk in your door.

Customers are the ones who pay for a business to continue. For the clients who are with Company ZZZ, it is high time you realize the power you have in your hands.

One of my favorite cartoon series as a child was G.I. Joe, and every time the show ended, a character would deliver some "lesson" derived from the episode just shown and would mouth these lines:

"Now you know. And knowing is half the battle."

I would wager that doing something concrete about that knowledge is the other half of the battle.

Companies, take heed. Value your customers. They can make or break you, where it really hurts.

Your bottom line.