My 3-year-old PC laptop died in December. I prolonged the agony by buying a new hard drive (not cheap), but the same signs I experienced before it crashed began again. I don't know about you, but I couldn't make heads or tails out of the Microsoft "help" pages. Call me crazy, but I think help pages should help those who use them. But I digress.

After much online research and talk with owners, I decided that I might cross over to a Mac, but I'm not talking product here. This is about service. Not satisfied with just going online, I went to our mall's Mac store. The mall was empty but the Mac store? Packed to the rafters. Still, I was welcomed at the door, expressed my need, and literally within seconds, a staffer was at my elbow.

Scott assessed my needs and guided me to a machine--one I considered. I came armed with questions, including on the more expensive version, but he assured me for my needs the first was perfect. He patiently answered each of my questions in language I understood and didn't pile on the peripherals or up-sell anything I didn't need or want. Scott never rushed me but was so competent, I walked out with my shiny new Mac and skipped the PC kiosk.

Days later, I hit a glitch transferring data. I called customer service and cringed at when I got an automated menu. When I had called about my PC in the past, I was put on hold for ages and when finally connected, was transferred to different agents. One memorable agent got hostile when I didn't buy a $300 backup. Imagine my surprise when, after the second button-press, I got Philip! He helped me resolve my confusion quickly. A fluke? Different question, different day...same quick response.

Now I'm wondering why, if Apple can serve efficiently and cost-effectively (not off-shore) why can't other companies jump on the CS bandwagon? Instead of complaining about profits in a tight economy, hire locals to serve in the true sense of the word. Give only what customers need and want. That's the formula for loyalty, isn't it? And isn't it sad that good experiences are so few, they're noteworthy?

A little trip to the supermarket last Saturday resulted in a total that was an increase of 21% over my usual spending. I then filled my tank at my usual station--to the tune of $4.11 a gallon--an increase since the last tankful of $.32/gallon. The end result of these two errands? The gross national product of a small island nation.

It's true that I shop for Certified Organics, which run a little higher than the norm; but I figured the benefits outweighed the cost differential in terms of protecting the environment and my family's overall health. Still, I couldn't help feeling gouged when the checker handed me my receipt, and worse, had highlighted my "total savings" at the bottom. Was that a joke? Total savings? How could I have saved when I spent 21% more! Does that mean, had it not been for all the "specials" I bought, I might have spent 33% more?

When the Superbowl came to town a couple of years ago (bear with me--it's relevant), 3rd class motels 40 and 50 miles away misrepresented themselves to visitors as being "close to the stadium" and having "great views" (of the freeway, a fact they didn't mention), and insult to injury, demanded ridiculous rates. Those motels shot themselves in the foot--it was no way to treat a customer--think of the WOM! Capitalizing on an event is fine. Consumers understand they'll have to pay a little more--what they won't tolerate is being blatantly lied to.

So you see where I'm going with this. The gas station that charged me $4.11/gallon? It's convenient, but there's another one that's not too far, and their super unleaded is $3.93. Gas is gas. Guess who's getting my business on the next tankful? As for my supermarket chain, unless they bring the prices of organics down to a fair price, I'll buy the non-organics. Ticking off your regular customers--is it worth the short-term gain? Not in my book...

In Medieval Chinese cultures women's feet were bound as children so they would not exceed the length of three inches. Who would think of such a thing? Today's designers, that's who! The shoes women crave are just plain uncomfortable--certainly not made for walking more than a few feet.

Kelly Ripa had a spectacular pair of platform sandals on during her show last week, but confused guest host, Bryant Gumbel questioned Ripa's assertion that the 6" heels and 2" platform were comfortable. He mentioned that when his wife and he go to a neighborhood restaurant, she refuses to walk the mere six blocks it takes to get there (we know...a lot of guys can relate). Ripa countered that for her, all a pair of shoes had to do was get her from the front door to the table. For that privilege, shoes like Ripa's can start at $500 a pop. Practicality? Who cares?

I was at a wedding Saturday, and by the time the dancing started, few women were still wearing the shoes they came in. Teetering on four-inch heels? Wobbling on 2" platforms? Cinderellas in glass slippers shouldn't throw stones. It was a garden wedding in Florida, so we weren't stomping around barefoot in snow or on a dirty ballroom floor, but still...

I don't want to judge women who wear the recycled hip-hugging bell bottoms, platforms, or baby doll dresses, but as a rule of thumb, most of us who wore them decades before can't wear them now, so where are the stylish fashions for the rest of us average (ahem) mature women? Apart from longer hair and five-o'clock-shadow (if you're not George Clooney, trust me, you look dirty or menacing), men don't usually succumb to drastic fashion revivals. Why do we women get sucked in?

I'd also like to see underwire bras go the way of Victorian whalebone corsets, with their devilish hardware that pokes at tender midriffs, and pushes and prods cleavage out of the flattest fried eggs. Did I say Victorian corsets? A bustier has bones in it--it's a corset.

Recycling the worst fashions, and paying a premium for it. That's genius marketing. Are women more susceptible to this, or are men just as bad?

In Maddox Smye's Selling to Women workshops, it never fails--there's always a sales professional who will comment that his mother raised a gentleman, and "Ma'am" is how he demonstrates respect. I've heard facilitators reiterate that using "Ma'am" is tantamount to verbally taking a woman by the arm and helping her across the street, but some guys remain unconvinced. "Ma'am" underscores age. No woman wants to be thought of as old. No woman wants to be called "Ma'am."

Here's what Sharon Glassman, who writes for The Huffington Post, has to say about "Ma'am":

"...three letters and a squiggle that I loathe beyond measure. The "polite term for women" that so does not describe the spiritually youthful, if age-accomplished, Me...Am I the only XX chromosomed here who hates being Ma'am-o-grammed by cute young guys behind registers...is "Ma'am" not the antithesis of hotness? (W)hen the grandfatherly guy at PetSmart M'am-ed me last week...(h)is words felt like hell...Ma'am is a contraction of Madam, my logical mind knows. That fact could be reassuring, if I were French brothel-managing. Ma'am is a palindrome...But if someone's going to palindromitize me, I'd prefer to be addressed with the more universally-exultant, Wow."

If that doesn't register, maybe the fast food chain's commercial where the woman bristles at being called "Ma'am" and fumes through her lunch, muttering about the fact that she's become a "Ma'am" should change some minds.

It ends with someone calling her "Miss." "That's more like it," she smiles. Just another example that Ma'am should be relegated to the trash heap, and a "Miss" is as good as a smile.

I saw a report this morning on the Today Show that made me smile for so many reasons. Stay-at-home dads.

I don't like prime time dads or dads in ads. Their clever wives or precocious, preening children inevitably reveal them as inept buffoons. The dads in the Today report weren't lovable dopes and they weren't wimps. It takes strength of character and one heck of a lot of versatility and flexibility to run a home!

About 25% of wives now outearn their husbands. It's just common sense that while Dad stays at home nurturing the children, Mom takes the role of breadwinner. One father's company wisely provides leave to allow him to be with his children. Another dad said that he's paying a price in his career; yet, he feels privileged to live in a time when this is possible. He wistfully commented he would have loved to have a similar opportunity with his own dad. Girls learn self-esteem from their dads. His daughter is lucky.

I loved that these dads relished chores like taking their kids to the park. They talk football while changing diapers and keeping eagle eyes on the kids. However, I particularly loved that these dads admit experiencing the same career set-backs as stay-at-home moms.

Progress has been achingly slow in accommodating women who stay home when they re-enter the workforce. Staying at home was never sitting on the couch eating chips all day. Stay-at-homes organize, mediate, volunteer, and hone valuable management skills. Some employers, though not the majority, are starting to get this...slowly. For most, staying at home stymies career advancement. Rubbish!

So...I'm smiling because I know the tide has to turn. Women are earning more degrees than men (sorry guys: 57% of bachelor's, 59% of master's), and more education means greater earnings, paving the way for them to be the breadwinners. As they do, maybe, just maybe, what stay-at-home moms have always known will now be acknowledged: it's hard work! Then we'll see those perceptions change. Companies will accommodate caretaking of all kinds, and value employees who have made this difficult decision.

What do you think?

Ari Galper poses the intriguing question of when it's okay to lie in sales. In sales, the euphemism "technique" is sales-speak for whatever it takes to overcome resistance. Galper asserts that resistance is a client's negative reaction to techniques. Furthermore, he declares that they are unethical, untruthful, and unnecessary.

I agree. Here at Maddox Smye, the philosophy has always been that trust-based selling is the path to closing sales. I know old habits are hard to break (that's why our programs don't end with the workshop but are followed up with coaching). Here's the irony...I've seen some sales professionals begin by resisting what they hear in our workshops. They don't want to hear the truth, that they don't have to resort to pressure tactics, exaggerations, etc. The role reversal that they experience, where they're now the client, not the sales professional, is revealing. Some don't believe the truth when they hear it. They are ingrained to believe that deception is part of sales.

Truth works better than any tired technique. Truth leads to trust, and trust leads to closings.

It's a tight economy for some sales professionals. Is it okay to lie in sales? Do you find that you use (or have had a salesperson use on you) deceptive or exaggerated claims to make a sale? How did you feel? Share your story...

I read an article on wedgies, and I was halfway into it before I realized it wasn't about shoes. The same thing happened with a news report about banning thongs on beaches. "What could possibly be wrong with thongs (flip-flops) on a beach?" I wondered.

I'm reasonably well-educated (maybe that's the problem), but I feel as though I'm losing my grip on my own language--it's an isolating feeling, let me tell you. Language isn't static. It evolves through our worst speakers. I get that. Between technology and immigration, we add new vocabulary to the vernacular like we salt our popcorn--liberally. It makes our language colorful and rich...and confusing. Add to that the fact that Gen Y and the Gen-Yet-2B-Named speak their own version of English at the speed of light, and sometimes all I catch is the gist. I want to shout, "slow down!"

Believe me, I'm not advocating that we all speak in a register worthy of a British lord. I use colloquial language. My concern is communication. Woe to anyone learning English with our scads of idioms, regional dialects, and irregular constructions. Then there's text-speak, with all those acronyms...and forget relying on spell-check. Since it can't recognize homonyms, it passes errors such as, "their-they're-there."

Remember "I-before-e, except-after-c, and-when-sounded-like-a, as-in-neighbors-and-weigh"? Little rhymes taught us to deal with irregularities. But now? Irregular verbs, for example, are taking a verbal beating. I confess more than once to doing a mental double-take at, "I was drugged" to mean they were "dragged." It takes me a moment to realize they're not talking about illegal substances. It's just another example of communication being thwarted.

I know people who keep lists of errors that drive them crazy. Many confuse "have" with "of" because the way we speak makes both sound the same: "I might of lost my wallet" for "I might have lost..." Recently, instead of "accustomed," I read "I'm not accustom to my new computer yet." The "ed" sound at the end of "accustomed" ran into the "t" of "to." Communication isn't affected, though. You understand what the speaker or writer intended to say.

Still, I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that, with apologies to George Bernard Shaw, America is becoming a country separated by its language.

Your comments?