The Simplest Act of Professionalism . . . Why Do So Many SMEs & Solopreneurs Dismiss It?
Jordan Kelly • 6 December 2024

Why Would Small Business Operators & Other Solopreneurs Put So Much Effort Into their Operation and Promotion . . . And Yet Overlook This Most Basic of Professionalisms?

I don't know whether this is just a 'New Zealand thing' or not. My suspicion is that, whether or not it is, it's a whole lot more prevalent here than elsewhere. Having worked in many different countries, I've always noted how casual so many operators in the small business sector here are, when it comes to basic professionalism and customer service standards.


So much so that, I'm betting, most Kiwi small business and solo operators wouldn't even see what I'm about to write about as an issue at all.


But it is. Let me demonstrate why.


I'm referring to the extraordinarily lax attitude towards (a) phone contact-ability, and (b) the process of, and impression created by (c) frontline phone manners.


I'll give you two examples from - literally - this morning, in my world.


Just one morning. Let alone every time I (regularly) experience the likes of them. (Actually, I should probably say that, as far as (c) above goes, the phone manners issue relates to ALL businesses . . . and it's often outrageously bad even in some of the largest corporates - where the manners and attitude of frontline phone-answering or call centre personnel can be a total luck-of-the-draw situation, with nil consistency at all.)


Why Invest in Professional Promotional Materials If You Don't Bother with A Phone Manner that Matches?


On with the story. This morning, I took a punt that the lawnmowing service behind the quite professional-looking flyer I found in my letterbox yesterday, might also provide rubbish removal services.


So, I called the mobile number on the flyer. It rang and rang. And rang. Finally, it gave out an OGM (Outgoing Message) to the effect that, "the mailbox you're trying to access can't be reached". However, so keen was I to get rid of these empty boxes etc cluttering up my garage from my relocation of, now, a year ago, that I figured I'd give it another whirl.


This time the phone was answered . . . by a live human. Having assumed that the phone manner of someone who had gone to the expense of printing quite a professional flyer and expended the effort of running around letterboxing it, would have a phone manner to match that commitment to building his business, I was thrown off when the answerer just uttered a personal name or some word in rapid fire.


I mumbled something about the flyer, and asked if I had the right phone number. "Yes", was the curt response. 


On the back foot (never a good or strategic place for a keen and willing new customer to be), I told the answerer that while I already had a lawnmowing guy, did they do rubbish removal (because my lawnmowing guy doesn't)?


After some deliberation at that end (during which I waited uncomfortably on my end of the call), the answer appeared to be a "yes", but they'd need to come and have a look.


Anyway, all went well from there (as long as they turn up).


However, I think I'd be reasonably correct in assuming that the readers of The Customer would hardly need me to suggest a phone-answering process and manner more befitting of any business operation . . . whether "just" a one-man-band lawnmowing guy or not. Particularly one who had just invested in flyering a neighbourhood to build his business.


How Much Confidence Would You Have in this Highly Self-Promoted, Big-Ticket 'Professional'?


Next . . . and this one is way worse, given the nature of the business.


So, being that I'm still dealing with the health fall-out of a serious environmental exposure some time ago, a practitioner in the supplementary health field referred me to (apparently) a qualified functional doctor who had experience in this specific environmentally-related health issue.


This apparently respected practitioner's website (which included the logos of many news media outlets, seeming to posit that she'd been featured on same) indicated that her practice (she referred to her "team") had only a mobile phone number.


I called said mobile phone number and got some generic, AI-generated OGM . . . which could have been for any business, in any field, anywhere.


Yet this is a practitioner who charges $450 for a 50-minute consultation. And she feels she doesn't need to even have a credible phone number or even a personalised outgoing voicemail?


Remarkable. Is that how easy it is to make that sort of money from people on a desperate hunt for quality health advice / health care?


Not Isolated Incidences, Sadly


And these are hardly isolated incidences. Again, this is just one morning in the life of your Chief Reviewer.


If they weren't such commonly disheartening experiences - shared by many of my readers, I'm sure - I wouldn't bother even making mention of them.


But they are. In fact, many of you have commented to me that - for whatever reason - your customer service experiences have deteriorated markedly since the "Covid" years.

 

I'm not only incredulous that so many small business, and solo, operators don't view such a simple act of professional courtesy as necessary, I'm often actually affronted at the contempt that I feel as a customer otherwise intending to pay good money for their services, or even, in some instances, otherwise intending to become a regular client or customer. 

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 21 April 2025
AI & Robotics Expert Provides Commentary on Skinny's New 'Brand Ambassador'
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
Err . . . No Conflict of Interest Here, At All?
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
You Know It's Bad When Even Mainstream Medical Journals Are Forced to Report On It
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
More on the BUPA international chain of houses-of-horror . . .
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I've Been Tracking Abuse-in-Aged-Care-Facilities for A While Now . . . and Something HAS to Be Done About this Almighty Horror Show
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I'm SO Glad I Manage to Survive Without A Cell Phone . . .
by Jordan Kelly 5 March 2025
Breathing in Foul-Smelling Emissions from Over the Fence? House Filling up with Toxic Fumes? Getting Your Washing Smoked Out? Here Are Your Rights.
by Jordan Kelly 26 February 2025
Americans are in love with Karoline Leavitt, the new, 27-year-old Whitehouse Press Secretary. She is eloquent, has a razor-sharp wit and a speed-of-light response formulation time, is meticulously prepared . . . and is fiercely loyal to the boss. However . . . At this morning's press briefing she showed a crack - a potential big negative -in her otherwise impeccable and impenetrable modus operandi. The layman audience didn't pick it up; the glowing compliments continued to avalanche in. But I saw a hint of the old politician and traditional press secretary sleight of hand: When a reporter asked her about the seriousness of tonight's deadline for all Federal government staff to respond to Elon Musk's / DOGE's "send us 5 things you did last week" V2 email, she pulled out the old "reframe the question and monologue it back to something positive and be emphatic to take the emphasis off your redirection" trick. (It's between 9.47 minutes and 13.54 minutes in. Particularly note the clarity and simplicity of the second reporter's key question i.e. will Federal employees be fired if they ignore Musk's email for a second time ? Watch .) There it was . . . that tired old advice STILL given out to politicians by their media training PR consultant hacks. I've commented on this previously here . And while I think it's disingenuous to do it at all, it's wholly inadvisable to do it if you're not particularly good at it. Under the headline, ' Minister of Police vs Jack Tame ', I gave an in-action example, including with the link to the interview and the timestamp at which Mitchell embarrassed himself mightily (albeit he bulldozed on, completely oblivious). While Leavitt employed the technique (which I prefer to call a "tactic") skilfully, that skill was more of a mechanical one in her case.. Whereas, when Trump uses it (which he does frequently), he's a master at it. His charismatic natural slide into an alternative impassioned point or story is so natural. So, well . . . Trump. Trump will always get away with it. It's baked into his style. But Leavitt will only get away with it for as long as the puppy love phase lasts and her halo continues to shine so brightly. At some point, if she employs it too regularly, the average citizen out there in viewer land will realise that she's not actually answering the question. I don't think she'll ever be seen as negatively as Biden's "press secretary" (if you could call her that) Karine Jean-Pierre, of course, but Leavitt's podium is at such a currently great height that she has a long way to fall if she does. Notwithstanding her exuberant youth, captivating good looks and "don't fck with me" forceful manner, there's one thing that pisses off the press and the punters alike. And that's repeatedly not giving straight answers to straight questions. So it was a disappointment to see her pull this one out the bag so early in her tenure as hallowed Whitehouse Press Secretary - since its emergence doesn't augur well going forward. I mean, just to know that she would resort to it whenever she felt it expedient. The Observational Minutiae By way of further observation, watch carefully as the second reporter comes in with a determination to get the straight answer the first one didn't succeed in getting. At this point, if you're a keen observer of human behaviour and responses, you'll notice Leavitt is slightly pushed off her confident footing. She makes two grammatical stumbles: she first said "Elon come in" instead of "Elon came in". Then she transposed two words slightly further on. When the second reporter kept pressing her, she defensively snapped, "Are my press briefings not good enough for you, Jackie?" Not good. She doesn't like being pressed so hard. She needs to get used to it, or there'll be an increasing number of moments when she comes at least slightly unstuck behind the podium. 
by Jordan Kelly 25 February 2025
JUST IN: PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE LEE OF UTAH. Calling for the United States' complete withdrawal from the UN, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act ,. The DEFUND Act "addresses grave issues of national sovereignty and fiscal accountability which have plagued US. involvement in the UN". Co-sponsored in the Senate by Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn and Rick Scott, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and Representative Chip Roy (also Republicans) the accompanying comments by Senator Lee read: "No more blank checks for the United Nations. Americans' hard-earned dollars have been funneled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values, enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry "With the DEFUND Act, we're stepping away from this debacle. If we engage with the UN in the future, it will be on our terms, with the full backing of the Senate and an iron-clad escape clause." He said the UN had betrayed U.S. trust repeatedly, and that the country should not "to be their cash cow" while the UN undermines the U.S.'s own national security and interests. Meantime, Senator Blackburn said: “ The DEFUND Act will stop all forms of U.S. financial support to the UN and hold this wayward organisation accountable for placating Hamas terrorists and the Chinese Communist Party.” Meantime, Senator Chip Roy commented: “From UNRWA actively protecting Hamas and acting against our ally Israel, and delaying condemnation of Hamas, to China being elected to the 'Human Rights Council,' to the propagation of climate hysteria, covering for China's forced abortion and sterilisation programs . . . the UN's decades-old, internal rot once again raises the questions of why the United States is even still a member or why we're wasting billions every year on it."
Show More