I'm not entirely sure what this race was called because I just referred to it as "the race down in Doswell" whenever people would ask. I find that to be much more useful than the names of races unless they have some sort of history. It's even better when the name of the race is actually where it's being held. That certainly makes things simpler. But, that's not the point.
This was my first race of the year and I'm pretty pleased with how I felt throughout. It was a 30 mile circuit race on a really technical course. They claimed to have 9 90 degree corners but I only counted 7. There were 3 big sweepers so maybe a few of those were thrown in for the 9 count. There was also a hill but it wasn't long enough or steep enough to really make a difference.
The 4s started out with something like 70 people but that was whittled down to about 25 or so by the time we were at 5 laps to go. We ended up doing 31 miles in just over 1:10, so it was fast. But I think the yo-yo through the corners probably shed more people than the hill or the actual speeds.
With 2 laps to go there was a group of 6 that were about 30 seconds or so up the road. We came through the start finish and everybody slowed so I went to try and bridge up to those guys. It seemed pretty obvious to me that everybody else left in the main field was content for sprinting for 7th and I wanted nothing to do with that. In hindsight I probably went a bit early as I attacked into the cross wind, then into the headwind after the right hander and burned a really big match creating the separation through there. I'm not sure if anybody would have tried to come with me had I waited till the tailwind, but I wasn't interested in towing guys with me to the break so I wanted to make sure I was by myself. Some guy after the race said he tried to go with me and couldn't, so that's at least encouraging.
Trying to get up to the guys I had to fight my way through a ton of lapped traffic who were kind enough to essentially take whatever line they wanted through the corners. I'm not sure why these people weren't pulled but they were still on the course chatting with each other or picking their noses.
I knew I had to make it to the break before the downhill with the headwind or I'd never catch on. I didn't make it so at the bottom of the hill I sort of sat up a bit to wait for the field. As they came by, much to my surprise, it somehow ballooned to at least double as all the lapped traffic decided it was a good idea to latch on and get a free tow. I wasn't sure who in this group was actually still on the lead lap so I forced myself in somewhere about 20 guys back. As we turned left into the headwind it became apparent which guys weren't on the lead lap as they all blew back up and I was left with at least 15 bike lengths between me and the guys in the main field. This was obviously annoying and so I yelled at quite a few of the lapped guys to get the F' off the course as I tried to close that gap down to the main field. I think we're all friends now. (I did apologize to a few of them on the cool down lap) But seriously, what makes you think that getting back onto the main field after you've been lapped is ok? They'd obviously be pissed if they were in my situation as well.
I chased as hard as I could the final lap but couldn't quite catch back on to field. I ended up being scored 19th but I have no way of knowing if that's actually accurate or not. If I hadn't tried to bridge up I'm sure I could have finished top 5 out of the main field but that's only a 7th place finish at best. Anything after that gets the same upgrade points as my 19th. I'm happy with my decision to try and bridge that gap. I'd rather risk losing in an attempt to win than sit in for a marginally better finish on paper.
And a small rant:
Once again the USAC officials enforce all the rules that don't make a difference and completely ignore the small things that can actually make a difference in a race. Why they stopped pulling lapped riders with 2 to go is beyond me. It seems like that is the time they should have been most vigilant about getting guys out of the race off the course. They are the only people at the race being paid to be there so I wish they'd do their jobs a bit better. I know in the grand scheme it's still just amateur bike racing but it's an amateur bike race that everybody there paid to race in and part of that entrance fee certainly pays their wages for the day. They need to worry less about the imaginary perfect place for a number to be pinned on and whether a rider has his/her hands on the handlebars and more about ensuring race results are actually accurate.
At the same time, if you're a 4 you've done at least 10 races and should in theory understand a bit of race etiquette. If you are out of the race, get off the course or at least get out of the way. You do not get to take the good line through a corner when the group is coming up behind you and you are about to be lapped. In fact, you may even need to pull over, slow down, and let the field pass you before you go into that corner. Also, under no circumstances should you get back into the main field that is on the lead lap when you are not. The guys that are still fighting to stay in the field shouldn't have to try and remember who is and isn't on the lead lap. It should be pretty evident by the people that are around them in the group.
I also saw an official up a rider taking a free lap due to mechanical into a breakaway instead of the main field the other day. This is completely inexcusable. Getting a free lap is nice enough. You shouldn't get free entrance into the break as a reward for your flat tire. Luckily that guy wasn't good enough to be in the break and after a few laps was shelled.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Value of Good Teammates
Johan van Summeren was able to win Paris-Roubaix yesterday because Thor Hushovd refused to work with Cancellara, forcing Cancellara to get frustrated and eventually sit up. Hushovd was 100% in the right for not pulling through since he had a teammate up the road. While it was probably annoying for Cancellara and he obviously wasn't interested in towing his competitors to the finish line, Hushovd is not obligated to work in that situation. The result, van Summeren stays away.
In my opinion Sylvain Chavanel lost Flanders because Tom Boonen attacked while he was up the road drawing Cancellara out. Once Cancellara had neautralized that move and then realized Boonen wasn't that strong he kept going and eventually bridged up to Chavanel. Maybe that would have happened later, anyway, but it certainly should not have been sparked by Boonen with Chavanel up the road.
The casual observer of bike racing might not have seen either of these scenarios play out that way. But bike racing is much more about team work and tactics than the casual fan realizes. Most big races are won and lost because a strong team played their hand perfectly. This doesn't matter if it's a one day classic or grand tour. Nobody wins a bike race that matters all by themselves. Just ask Cancellara.
In my opinion Sylvain Chavanel lost Flanders because Tom Boonen attacked while he was up the road drawing Cancellara out. Once Cancellara had neautralized that move and then realized Boonen wasn't that strong he kept going and eventually bridged up to Chavanel. Maybe that would have happened later, anyway, but it certainly should not have been sparked by Boonen with Chavanel up the road.
The casual observer of bike racing might not have seen either of these scenarios play out that way. But bike racing is much more about team work and tactics than the casual fan realizes. Most big races are won and lost because a strong team played their hand perfectly. This doesn't matter if it's a one day classic or grand tour. Nobody wins a bike race that matters all by themselves. Just ask Cancellara.
A Retraction (sort of)
With Gregory Rast's 4th place finish at Roubaix I was clearly at least a little bit wrong about Radioshack's chances. Because of that I would like to offer a mild retraction. If it weren't for the long breakaway producing the winner and a bunch of top 10 placings, which he was apart of, who knows where Rast would have finished. But, that's neither her nor there. He was in that long break. It went a LONG way and he got a 4th.
Euskatel on the other seemed to follow my exact predictions. Their best placed rider was Alan Perez Lezaun in 103rd place. How many riders finished Roubaix you may wonder? 108. Perez was the only Euskatel rider to bother to finish the race. Good show!
Euskatel on the other seemed to follow my exact predictions. Their best placed rider was Alan Perez Lezaun in 103rd place. How many riders finished Roubaix you may wonder? 108. Perez was the only Euskatel rider to bother to finish the race. Good show!
Friday, April 08, 2011
Obligated to Race
This weekend is Paris-Roubaix. If you're reading this blog, you know that already. As one would expect most of the cycling chatter this week on the interwebs is directly related to Paris-Roubaix. Pictures of Roubaixs in the past, descriptions of just how terrible the cobbles are, technical reviews of the changes being made to team bikes, and, if you're velonews, a sort of odd story that features Ben King, current US National Champion and his upcoming first attempt at Roubaix on a squad that has about no chance at winning.
In the end, what I took away from this particular story is that the current system where the UCI requires the teams with ProTour license to race all the races on the ProTour calender is clearly screwed up. To prove this point, look at the roster that Radioshack is sending to Paris-Roubaix:
Ben King
Bjorn Selander
Jesse Sergent
Fumiyuki Beppu
Robbie McEwen
Nélson Oliveira
Gregory Rast
Sebastian Rosseler
My assumption would be that these guys are working for, I have no idea, nobody in that group is even a long shot at winning this race. I'm going to actually make a point to see how many of these guys even bother finishing. Clearly Radioshack is built to win stage races. With Levi Leipheimer, Chris Horner, Andres Kloden, Janez Brajkovic and the rest of their climbing/TT focused team, they don't really give a damn about the cobbled classics. Even Rast and Rosseler are flat stage body gaurds, not classics specialists in a true sense. And that's fine, but for the sake of the race, let's stop forcing teams to participate that don't care. I'm pretty sure whatever squad Euskatel is sending this week will be heavily seen at the back of the bunch and drawing straws for who gets to abandon at the first feed zone. Whichever unlucky riders draw the long straws have to abandon at the second.
Instead of forcing teams with ProTour license to show up and abandon why not give Radioshack and company the opportunity to offer their spot up and enter more wild card Continental squads. I'd be willing to bet if you replaced Radioshack and Euskatel and a few others who don't care with two Belgium squads, you replace pack filler with recognizable jerseys with guys that show up motivated to make some sort of statement in the biggest race of their careers.
Let's face it. The chairman who approved the sponsorship of Radioshack isn't going to brag at the end of the year that their team had two riders finish Paris-Roubaix and most of the Basque fans who go crazy in the mountains during the Tour de France can't possibly have any hope for their guys come Sunday. Those teams are focused on a different kind of racing and that's a perfectly justifiable decision. But the governing bodies are doing both the race and smaller, more motivated teams a disservice by forcing participation on teams that couldn't care less. I'd rather have a race that includes five teams I'd never heard of throwing hail marys every chance they get to make the race exciting than a bunch of feed zone abandons out of obligation.
In the end, what I took away from this particular story is that the current system where the UCI requires the teams with ProTour license to race all the races on the ProTour calender is clearly screwed up. To prove this point, look at the roster that Radioshack is sending to Paris-Roubaix:
Ben King
Bjorn Selander
Jesse Sergent
Fumiyuki Beppu
Robbie McEwen
Nélson Oliveira
Gregory Rast
Sebastian Rosseler
My assumption would be that these guys are working for, I have no idea, nobody in that group is even a long shot at winning this race. I'm going to actually make a point to see how many of these guys even bother finishing. Clearly Radioshack is built to win stage races. With Levi Leipheimer, Chris Horner, Andres Kloden, Janez Brajkovic and the rest of their climbing/TT focused team, they don't really give a damn about the cobbled classics. Even Rast and Rosseler are flat stage body gaurds, not classics specialists in a true sense. And that's fine, but for the sake of the race, let's stop forcing teams to participate that don't care. I'm pretty sure whatever squad Euskatel is sending this week will be heavily seen at the back of the bunch and drawing straws for who gets to abandon at the first feed zone. Whichever unlucky riders draw the long straws have to abandon at the second.
Instead of forcing teams with ProTour license to show up and abandon why not give Radioshack and company the opportunity to offer their spot up and enter more wild card Continental squads. I'd be willing to bet if you replaced Radioshack and Euskatel and a few others who don't care with two Belgium squads, you replace pack filler with recognizable jerseys with guys that show up motivated to make some sort of statement in the biggest race of their careers.
Let's face it. The chairman who approved the sponsorship of Radioshack isn't going to brag at the end of the year that their team had two riders finish Paris-Roubaix and most of the Basque fans who go crazy in the mountains during the Tour de France can't possibly have any hope for their guys come Sunday. Those teams are focused on a different kind of racing and that's a perfectly justifiable decision. But the governing bodies are doing both the race and smaller, more motivated teams a disservice by forcing participation on teams that couldn't care less. I'd rather have a race that includes five teams I'd never heard of throwing hail marys every chance they get to make the race exciting than a bunch of feed zone abandons out of obligation.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Top 5 Cyclists
I have a paper to write which of course I'm putting off till the the last possible minute. This is unfortunate because I obviously have other stuff I need to be doing as well. What I don't need to be doing is updating this blog twice in one day, but you know how that goes. This is much more fun and interesting to write than any old paper that's going to earn me a Master's degree.
As I was procrastinating from writing said paper I found this on Rapha's Blog. They polled some of their peeps for a top 5 favorite cyclist list. It's worth a quick look and of course the comments sections are a bunch of strangers top 5 lists as well.
This made me pick up a pen and jot down my top 5 and so I decided to share them and why. I also have my top 5 least favorite cyclists as well. The thing about this list is I tried to be as honest as possible. That's why in the picture you'll see Lance Armstrong was crossed out. In the Rapha blog they mention that most people pick their top five based on how they were drawn to the sport. I'd be lying if I tried to deny the fact that when I first gained interest in professional cycling I lived for July and Lance Armstrong dominance. But, over the years, I've become much less of a Lance fan for a variety of reasons, most of which I'm sure you can guess or know if you're a TeamLandall regular reader. They also mention that you usually pick guys based on what kind of rider you see yourself as, which is also true in my list. So, anyway, here they are and a brief why.
Top 5, in no particular order:
Chris Horner
When I first started following cycling, or really, the Tour de France, there was this American guy who would always do interviews after or before each stage. His interviews always talked about team tactics and how the race unfolded. His explanations were in depth but simple enough for a new student of the sport to understand what he was saying. This guy was also a fantastic domestique for what I have always considered a 2nd tier contender. That has to take a great deal of dedication which I admired. That guy was Chris Horner. He's been my favorite cyclist ever since.
George Hincapie
I'm a bit Scottie Pippen fan and George Hincapie is basically Scottie Pippen with shaved legs and bunch of bicycles in hanging in his garage. He's the guy that every single team knows is absolutely invaluable to their success. Though, I'm not sure I've ever heard George or Scottie say that in an interview. As I became more of a fan of the classics I started to like George for an entirely different set of reasons. It's easy to cheer for the favorites in Flanders and Roubaix, but my allegiance will always be with big George.
Floyd Landis
That's right. I said it. I know he's an admitted doper. I don't care. I liked Floyd when he was on Postal because of his quirky personality. I liked him when he moved to Phonak and have argued till I was blue in the face that he was clean. Obviously I was wrong. He's a polarizing figure and people can feel however they want. I'm not sure there's much that could be revealed about this guy that would knock him off my top 5 list. Floyd was not afraid to risk losing in order to win. That's something, doped up or not, is worth taking note of.
Jens Voight
Jens Voight is on everyone's top 5 list. I like guys that try to win races with suicidal moves that go from a very, very long way out. I wish I had that kind of engine.
Thomas Voeckler
Most American cycling fans think of Thomas Voeckler as the little guy that Lance was nice enough to give the yellow jersey to so many Tours de Frances ago. Thomas Voeckler is not that guy. He is a bad ass bike racer who knows his strengths and takes advantage of race situations that play into those strengths. He's not the best climber. He's not the best sprinter. He's really good out of small groups who have been off the front for a long, long time. He's got a ton of guts and when he does win races it's generally in a dramatic fashion.
Bottom 5, in no particular order:
Heinrich Haussler
The guy just strikes me the wrong way. He wears weird Ed Hardy hats in interviews, which is a characteristic you can hold against anyone! I may be of the "what have you done for me lately?" mentality when it comes to Haussler, but he just strikes me as all hype and little pay off.
Andre Greipel
Remember last year when Greipel cried constantly about not getting to race in big races? Now he is in big races and he's still not winning big races. Blah blah blah, good luck in the Tour of Turkey. I hear you're very good there.
Alexander Vinokourov
I am aware that I picked a former doper and two attacking riders in my top 5 and put a former doping attacking rider in my least 5. That doesn't really make sense right? Yeah, I don't care. I don't like the guy. He made a jersey with his face on it. That's just ridiculous.
Carlos Sastre
I remember watching the CSC documentary Overcoming and being left with the impression that Carlos Sastre is a whinny baby. I had never paid much attention to him before seeing that film and then it was the same thing in every interview. I know he won le Tour. I know he's never been tied in to any doping controversy. I know all of these things, but still, I'm just not a fan. He seems slow to respond to attacks in the mountains and except for that one time on Alpe d'Huez, he certainly doesn't attack on his own. Maybe I should make a list of wheel following grand tour contenders as well?
Alessandro Petacchi
This one probably isn't even that fair of an assessment. I'm sure there's somebody I like less than Petacchi and I'm just not thinking of them right now. But for as many times as he's busted for some sort of over the counter banned substance, I figure he's always on some sort of juice. Not to mention the fact that he gets very whinny in the media when nobody considers him a favorite in sprints.
That's enough procrastinating. That's my top 5 and least 5 favorite pro cyclist. If you feel so inclined put yours in the comments. They can be alive, dead or me for that matter. I'm probably a good choice for your list.
As I was procrastinating from writing said paper I found this on Rapha's Blog. They polled some of their peeps for a top 5 favorite cyclist list. It's worth a quick look and of course the comments sections are a bunch of strangers top 5 lists as well.
This made me pick up a pen and jot down my top 5 and so I decided to share them and why. I also have my top 5 least favorite cyclists as well. The thing about this list is I tried to be as honest as possible. That's why in the picture you'll see Lance Armstrong was crossed out. In the Rapha blog they mention that most people pick their top five based on how they were drawn to the sport. I'd be lying if I tried to deny the fact that when I first gained interest in professional cycling I lived for July and Lance Armstrong dominance. But, over the years, I've become much less of a Lance fan for a variety of reasons, most of which I'm sure you can guess or know if you're a TeamLandall regular reader. They also mention that you usually pick guys based on what kind of rider you see yourself as, which is also true in my list. So, anyway, here they are and a brief why.
Top 5, in no particular order:
Chris Horner
When I first started following cycling, or really, the Tour de France, there was this American guy who would always do interviews after or before each stage. His interviews always talked about team tactics and how the race unfolded. His explanations were in depth but simple enough for a new student of the sport to understand what he was saying. This guy was also a fantastic domestique for what I have always considered a 2nd tier contender. That has to take a great deal of dedication which I admired. That guy was Chris Horner. He's been my favorite cyclist ever since.
George Hincapie
I'm a bit Scottie Pippen fan and George Hincapie is basically Scottie Pippen with shaved legs and bunch of bicycles in hanging in his garage. He's the guy that every single team knows is absolutely invaluable to their success. Though, I'm not sure I've ever heard George or Scottie say that in an interview. As I became more of a fan of the classics I started to like George for an entirely different set of reasons. It's easy to cheer for the favorites in Flanders and Roubaix, but my allegiance will always be with big George.
Floyd Landis
That's right. I said it. I know he's an admitted doper. I don't care. I liked Floyd when he was on Postal because of his quirky personality. I liked him when he moved to Phonak and have argued till I was blue in the face that he was clean. Obviously I was wrong. He's a polarizing figure and people can feel however they want. I'm not sure there's much that could be revealed about this guy that would knock him off my top 5 list. Floyd was not afraid to risk losing in order to win. That's something, doped up or not, is worth taking note of.
Jens Voight
Jens Voight is on everyone's top 5 list. I like guys that try to win races with suicidal moves that go from a very, very long way out. I wish I had that kind of engine.
Thomas Voeckler
Most American cycling fans think of Thomas Voeckler as the little guy that Lance was nice enough to give the yellow jersey to so many Tours de Frances ago. Thomas Voeckler is not that guy. He is a bad ass bike racer who knows his strengths and takes advantage of race situations that play into those strengths. He's not the best climber. He's not the best sprinter. He's really good out of small groups who have been off the front for a long, long time. He's got a ton of guts and when he does win races it's generally in a dramatic fashion.
Bottom 5, in no particular order:
Heinrich Haussler
The guy just strikes me the wrong way. He wears weird Ed Hardy hats in interviews, which is a characteristic you can hold against anyone! I may be of the "what have you done for me lately?" mentality when it comes to Haussler, but he just strikes me as all hype and little pay off.
Andre Greipel
Remember last year when Greipel cried constantly about not getting to race in big races? Now he is in big races and he's still not winning big races. Blah blah blah, good luck in the Tour of Turkey. I hear you're very good there.
Alexander Vinokourov
I am aware that I picked a former doper and two attacking riders in my top 5 and put a former doping attacking rider in my least 5. That doesn't really make sense right? Yeah, I don't care. I don't like the guy. He made a jersey with his face on it. That's just ridiculous.
Carlos Sastre
I remember watching the CSC documentary Overcoming and being left with the impression that Carlos Sastre is a whinny baby. I had never paid much attention to him before seeing that film and then it was the same thing in every interview. I know he won le Tour. I know he's never been tied in to any doping controversy. I know all of these things, but still, I'm just not a fan. He seems slow to respond to attacks in the mountains and except for that one time on Alpe d'Huez, he certainly doesn't attack on his own. Maybe I should make a list of wheel following grand tour contenders as well?
Alessandro Petacchi
This one probably isn't even that fair of an assessment. I'm sure there's somebody I like less than Petacchi and I'm just not thinking of them right now. But for as many times as he's busted for some sort of over the counter banned substance, I figure he's always on some sort of juice. Not to mention the fact that he gets very whinny in the media when nobody considers him a favorite in sprints.
That's enough procrastinating. That's my top 5 and least 5 favorite pro cyclist. If you feel so inclined put yours in the comments. They can be alive, dead or me for that matter. I'm probably a good choice for your list.
Successful Customer Survey Campaigns
Businesses clearly want to know what you think of their business. Take a look at just about every receipt you're given these days and there is some sort of online survey that could be filled out with some sort of incentive for doing so. I fully understand why and even believe they want real feedback. But what I don't understand is why so many of them get the incentive to the customer part of this so wrong.
From my possibly limited experience, though I'd assume I'm just about as average of a consumer as the next guy, there are basically two strategies that companies use to offer an incentive to gather feedback. The first, which seems to be the most common, is to offer a chance at some insanely large reward for filling out the survey. I was at Giant over the weekend and was informed that if I filled out the online survey I could be entered into a drawing at a chance to win free groceries for an entire year. The other day Jill and I ate at a large nationwide chain restaurant which I won't name from being slightly embarrassed that we actually went there and the bottom of their receipt included a chance to win $5,000 in a drawing if you filled out their survey. I would easily characterize both of these incentives as big, but neither made me sit down at my computer and give them any feedback.
The second, which I see a lot less, is a guaranteed discount or free product on your next purchase in exchange for information. Currently Dunkin Donuts is running one of these and if you fill out their survey you get a free donut with the purchase of a medium or larger coffee on your next visit. When I lived in Portland, the greatest fast food chain on the planet, Burgerville, offered a similar incentive where you could get a free basket upgrade (think combo) if you ordered any sandwich. You know how many of these survey's I fill/ed out? Every single one of them!
I'm sure the survey I would fill out from Giant would take the exact same amount of time as the survey from Dunkin Donuts (3 mins by the way) but I'm just not that interested in the chance at winning free groceries because to be honest, I don't really believe that the drawing ever takes place. Now, I'm sure for legal reasons that it does take place, but if you don't win you're not notified of that and so to me, it just seems like a waste of time. I understand that my and everyone else's feedback is valuable to helping you improve your business, but I like stuff I can touch, feel and walk back into the store and cash in on the exchange of information I provided you with.
The thing about the guaranteed incentive is that it doesn't even have to be big. The free donut with a medium coffee at Dunkin Donuts costs $1.75, which basically saves me a little less than $1 if I didn't have the coupon. But, I'll also admit that because I do have it in my wallet, I'm a bit more apt to go get a donut and coffee on a Friday morning than if I didn't. So while I realize it's cheaper for Giant to offer a drawing that they only give away to 1 person and not 1,000s, I might not be as likely to return and purchase additional groceries for a variety of reasons (convenience being one of them) than I would if I had some sort of small tangible incentive to do so.
Maybe I'm in the minority here and everybody else rushes home to fill out the survey on the bottom of their Giant receipt to try and get free groceries for a year. To me, it's just not worth it. I'm aware these companies aren't dumb and have a lot of smart people and consultants figuring out all of the breaking points for what incentive is just large enough to generate survey results but small enough to remain profitable. But for me, I'd rather take the time to offer feedback on a business when I'm given a guaranteed return for that information, even if it is much smaller than the chance at winning a very large prize.
From my possibly limited experience, though I'd assume I'm just about as average of a consumer as the next guy, there are basically two strategies that companies use to offer an incentive to gather feedback. The first, which seems to be the most common, is to offer a chance at some insanely large reward for filling out the survey. I was at Giant over the weekend and was informed that if I filled out the online survey I could be entered into a drawing at a chance to win free groceries for an entire year. The other day Jill and I ate at a large nationwide chain restaurant which I won't name from being slightly embarrassed that we actually went there and the bottom of their receipt included a chance to win $5,000 in a drawing if you filled out their survey. I would easily characterize both of these incentives as big, but neither made me sit down at my computer and give them any feedback.
The second, which I see a lot less, is a guaranteed discount or free product on your next purchase in exchange for information. Currently Dunkin Donuts is running one of these and if you fill out their survey you get a free donut with the purchase of a medium or larger coffee on your next visit. When I lived in Portland, the greatest fast food chain on the planet, Burgerville, offered a similar incentive where you could get a free basket upgrade (think combo) if you ordered any sandwich. You know how many of these survey's I fill/ed out? Every single one of them!
I'm sure the survey I would fill out from Giant would take the exact same amount of time as the survey from Dunkin Donuts (3 mins by the way) but I'm just not that interested in the chance at winning free groceries because to be honest, I don't really believe that the drawing ever takes place. Now, I'm sure for legal reasons that it does take place, but if you don't win you're not notified of that and so to me, it just seems like a waste of time. I understand that my and everyone else's feedback is valuable to helping you improve your business, but I like stuff I can touch, feel and walk back into the store and cash in on the exchange of information I provided you with.
The thing about the guaranteed incentive is that it doesn't even have to be big. The free donut with a medium coffee at Dunkin Donuts costs $1.75, which basically saves me a little less than $1 if I didn't have the coupon. But, I'll also admit that because I do have it in my wallet, I'm a bit more apt to go get a donut and coffee on a Friday morning than if I didn't. So while I realize it's cheaper for Giant to offer a drawing that they only give away to 1 person and not 1,000s, I might not be as likely to return and purchase additional groceries for a variety of reasons (convenience being one of them) than I would if I had some sort of small tangible incentive to do so.
Maybe I'm in the minority here and everybody else rushes home to fill out the survey on the bottom of their Giant receipt to try and get free groceries for a year. To me, it's just not worth it. I'm aware these companies aren't dumb and have a lot of smart people and consultants figuring out all of the breaking points for what incentive is just large enough to generate survey results but small enough to remain profitable. But for me, I'd rather take the time to offer feedback on a business when I'm given a guaranteed return for that information, even if it is much smaller than the chance at winning a very large prize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)