The Customer is Always Right?
National Operations, Opinions 10 Comments 
blue book, cei, councils, dead horses, democratic process, farthest north council, gsusa, j-low, membership dues, national board, national council, national delegate, strongly worded letter, volunteers, vtk
This is a topic that’s been beaten to death everywhere else, but I’ve never gotten around to it here on the GSWAC (not a council) blog.* And that is the word…
Customer.
Yes, the dreaded and hated word of volunteers and GS alumnae everywhere. And as featured in the title of the ubiquitous Customer Engagement Initiative (CEI). If you aren’t sure what CEI is all about, it’s basically a web-based technology developed by GSUSA. The components we see as volunteers are the website framework, the online membership registration system known as MyGS, an Opportunity Catalog in which parents can search to see what troops are available and have openings in their area, and a troop management system called Volunteer Toolkit (as featured in many inane videos on this blog). Almost every council in the United States including Overseas is on CEI at this point with the exception of the rogue councils Farthest North and Middle Tennessee.
When GSUSA and councils began to use the word customer a few years ago, volunteers everywhere got a strange look on their face and thought, “Huh? Who are they referring to?” Later on we realized, “Wait… WE’RE the customers?”
The definition of customer is “one that purchases a commodity or service.” But it’s really not the term itself that has people upset. It’s the thinking and concept behind it. One line of thought is that in very simple terms, a small group of people in the early 2000’s came up with a vision of what they wanted Girl Scouts to become. And therefore, in order to promote this “vision,” they had to turn it into something that could be marketed – in other words, a product. I wrote about this revamp and decision making in more detail back in 2016, so I won’t rehash it here. And who will use this product? Who are the customers? Volunteers, leaders, parents, and of course, the girls.
Wait, wait, you say. What’s wrong with setting up a support system like CEI? Isn’t it a good thing to make sure volunteer and parental issues are taken care of in a timely manner?
Like I said with the word customer, it’s not the support system itself. It’s the attitude behind it. But if it’s serving a purpose, then who cares about the attitude? Here’s the thing – there’s a very dangerous by-product with taking this customer based relationship approach. It takes the power and decision making away from the volunteer and girl base and puts it solely in the hands of GSUSA. And likewise, it takes it away from the National Council Delegates and hands it over to the National Board. An example of this is what happened with membership dues. (Oh Amy… do you really have to beat this dead horse again, you ask? Yes. Yes, I do.) The National Board/GSUSA took it upon themselves to raise dues from $12 to $15 in 2012 and then again from $15 to $25 in in 2016 without bringing it to the National Council. Before that, the National Council ALWAYS set the membership dues price from the very beginning, and this authority is stated as such in the Blue Book, which is our organization’s governing document. Why did they do this? Probably because if you see yourself as the one who is creating this Girl Scout product and brand, and you’re supporting customers, then in your eyes you’re thinking, “Of course I should be the one setting the price, because I’m the one managing the product, and I know how much it costs to make.” When asked why the National Board should have the authority to set membership dues during the 2017 National Council Session, National Board member Steven Gilliland said something along the lines that the shareholders aren’t the ones who set the price of the iPhone. Well, if that doesn’t sum up what’s going on right there, then I don’t know what would.
However, this mentality doesn’t really jive with a word that’s fundamental to our organization, and that’s a Movement. Here’s the definition of Movement: “a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal.”
The word movement is found all throughout our governance documents. This is from our Constitution, which is found in the Blue Book on pg.7 under RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MOVEMENT AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS: “The ultimate responsibility for the Girl Scout Movement rests with its members. We govern by an efficient and effective democratic process that demonstrates our leadership in a fast-changing world.” Note that it says members – not customers.
Here’s a quote from J-Low about the Girl Scout Movement: “Truly, ours is a circle of friendships, united by our ideals.” I don’t think she had customer relationship management in mind when she said that.
Frankly, the use of the word customer cheapens our Movement. It simplifies our rich tradition and history of relationships into sterile transactions and help desks and data. It’s hard to promote yourself as a part of a movement when you’re making it sound like I’m buying something. I don’t go to the store and say I’m part of the Doritos movement.
Here’s another negative consequence of this language. It sets up an “us vs. them” mentality because people associate the word customer with a buyer vs. seller relationship. Back in 2016, I wrote about the chasms between GSUSA and council staff and volunteers. I also touched on it in a wrap up of 2017’s National Session. And right after the 2017 convention, I even wrote a National Board member who made the mistake of giving me her business card, and I explained why I believe there’s a huge communication gap between the many parts of our organization, and it’s not allowing us to move forward. Don’t worry, it wasn’t a strongly worded letter.**
While I don’t think it’s the only factor, I do believe using this concept of the volunteers, parents, and girls as customers is contributing to the chasms that I’ve been writing about. At the very, very least, GSUSA needs to do away with this word. I realize the customer relationship management system is unfortunately so ingrained at this point at GSUSA, but there are ways to modify it in order to get back the feeling that we’re all working together as one. I’ve seen evidence that GSUSA is starting to reach out to get more input from volunteers, but I question if they’re really doing it for the right intention. Are they doing it out of a sincere wish to create a partnership, or is it just seen as nothing more than market research? Does it matter? In my opinion, it does, because the us vs. them attitude, chasms, and hard feelings toward councils and GSUSA won’t disappear until we’re seen as more than customers. And this will keep us from reaching our potential as a MOVEMENT.
———————————-
* Actually, I did take on the customer subject at one point, but I did it in a roundabout way via this blog post.
** In case you’re wondering, the National Board member never wrote me back. 🙁
Bam!
I try to use the word Member also, for anyone in our Movement, both Staff and Volunteers. We are all Sisters in Girl Scouting. Our Council, the Girl Scouts of Kentuckiana, heard the Members and changed the word “Customer” to “Volunteer” anywhere they could.
I and many others also feel that we are NOT Customers, and Girl Scouting is unique, and has unique ideals and ways of doing things that work well.
We all need to come together to talk about these things. I think this Take Action blog and other Unofficial blogs and sites are all coming together (along with GSUSA) to talk about things like this that DO matter to everyone in Girl Scouting. These things need to be done even more now.
This is a timely and great blog posting. Market Research, ideas from other groups, and more is worth looking at. But copying OTHER groups is not always the way.
Another point – – we must include everyone in important decisions. This means both Volunteers and Staff need to work together and talk together honestly to help grow Girl Scouting. Girl Scout Think Tanks, GSUSA Committees, and more, need to reach out to ALL Members of Girl Scouting. We all want what is best for Girl Scouting moving forward.
Also, working together means we can hear all kinds of great opinions and ideas that can only help our Movement grow, and succeed.
I so agree with your point about a true Partnership between Volunteers and Staff Members. We – each of us – are all equal Members of Girl Scouting, no matter what “job” we have – – and should have an equal balance of input and the ability to help make needed change. Let’s do away with the word “Customers” any time we can, and work towards returning to our basic Democratic ideals, with needed balance and equal Sisterhood of Membership that we – – and the girls – – need.
I love this latest blog entry.
I am a member, I am a Girl Scout, I am one of many, and the reason why there even is a corporation to support the membership MOVEMENT.
What I do as an active adult member is to assist troop leaders and other adults in the Movement to partner with girls and have fun while doing this scouting game. The developing values, contribute to society, prepare for the future and develop skills stuff, essential to the game of scouting.
Otherwise we are just an overpriced child minding service that makes the minors sell branded products.
Once again, DCTA is working, we are discovering we are not alone, and we are connecting. Taking action is coming up.
Your analysis is spot on. And let’s remember that CEI is horribly expensive.
Nicely done Amy
I am not a customer, the girls are not customers – we are members and that is the crux of our ongoing problem – that our National Board and Council Boards have too many product-based executives and not enough experience with membership organizations or associations – they need to be aligning our best practices with similar type organizations.
Thanks for keeping up the information flow!
Amy, I wonder what Sylvia’s response to this would be. I hate all the corporate speak I get from GSUSA as I continue to discuss with them ongoing changes at the Birthplace and NHPC (which no longer exists). I’m a great-niece of JGL…we had the petition over a year ago about the Library.
Amen.
A couple of very minor additions… Every real business out there would kill for having their customers consider themselves members of a movement. (Interesting that Steven Gilliland would bring up the iPhone. Because Apple became the richest company in the world partly because many of their customers consider themselves part of a movement rather than mere customers.)
Yes, National has always funded their operations by selling us “stuff”. From the earliest days when girls sewed their own uniforms using licensed fabrics and the pattern that was part of the sewing badge materials, GSUSA got a cut of the fabric money and made a small profit off of the badge booklet. Yes, we all know that running operations takes money, and that money comes from us and from our fundraising. (Daisy eventually ran out of pearls to sell, after all!) But the goal and purpose of our movement is the girls, not the logistical infrastructure put in place to serve the girls.
There is another angle to this that I see as a long-time SUPM who quit over being treated like customers of Girl Scouts rather than fundraisers for Girl Scouts. When my daughter first started selling cookies 14 years ago, it was a simple system: girls took orders, recognition orders went in with the cookie orders, and except for the small amount of cookies that were from rounding up to full cases, every box of cookies that a troop took was backed by an order. And troops could also round down and pick up a few boxes from the cookie cupboard if the troop leader wasn’t comfortable with rounding up. Then the cookie cupboard was for later orders, and troops did cookie booths by consignment. But the bottom line is that troops didn’t take cookies that didn’t have orders unless it was for a booth and they brought unsold cookies back after the booth. Council owned all of the unsold cookies.
This, in business, is called “inventory risk.” (If the cookie sale were honest, we would teach girls about inventory risk in the badge work.) The basic risk about cookies without preorders is that we don’t know exactly how many boxes of cookies and which varieties of cookies need to go to any particular place to match whichever customers happen to show up. This is about statistics — over a whole council, there is a pretty stable ratio between how many thin mints you need vs trefoils/shortbreads, BUT, sell cookies long enough you will eventually have a cookie booth where you sell more trefoils than thin mints. This is how randomness works — while it averages out in the end, you get weird little runs on this or that here and there. When Council owns all of the unsold cookies, it’s about moving the cookies around so that they are where they need to be, and you have minimal leftovers at the end. With statistics, there is this rule about how random numbers work, that the deviation goes up as the square root of the size of the group. So if a council has 1600 troops, then the inventory risk council-wide is 40 times the risk of each of the single troops.
With the advent of the direct sale (which we stopped two years ago) our council tried to push all of the inventory risk down to the troops. We were expected to order cookies blindly, and accept full financial responsibility for paying for them, and we were not allowed to take any orders until cookies arrived. And my council, at least, didn’t seem to understand that when each one of the troops had full inventory risk, the total risk to the 1600 troops in the council was 40 times the total risk to the council. The council profit in the preorder world was ~$1.87/box, so in a direct sale world where the profit followed the risk, the troops would have needed to make $75/box of troop profit. On a $4 box of cookies!
The whole problem with “you can’t bring cookies back” is that we come to “who owns the unsold cookies?” (And I’ve been told that in some councils state health regulations prohibit troops from taking cookies back to councils or even from trading unsold boxes among themselves.) If troops own the cookies, and council has their money, and it is of no concern to council whether the cookies got sold to anyone other than the troops, then we have crossed a line where this is Girl Scout councils selling cookies to leaders and parents. When councils own the unsold cookies, the cookie customers are donating to the Girl Scout movement, and the girls, parents and leaders are helping councils raise money for the Girl Scout movement. But when troops own the unsold cookies, then the only fundraising is the troops’ selling to try to desperately get themselves out of this huge debt that they owe council.
At some point this crosses a line, and on the other side of the line I think that Girl Scouts isn’t a bonafide tax-exempt organization. The cookie companies and the nut companies make profits selling us cookies and nuts and the trucking companies make profits shipping the cookies and nuts to us, and the cookie and nut and trucking companies all pay taxes on those profits. Because they are businesses and Girl Scouts are their customers. If we are Girl Scouts’ customers, then Girl Scouts is a business and they should be paying taxes on their income that they earn from us.
Cathyf, I agree with your analysis. However depending on the council, troops have owned the cookies for a long time. I remember in the 90’s (when I was SUM) one of the troops accidentally order 30 cases (not 30 boxes) of strawberry cremes. The only thing that saved them was troops all over our part of the council helped them out by buying strawberry cremes if they needed them instead of ordering more from Council.
Another thing: it bothers me that they use “assets” to describe all the historic artifacts they own that were donated by many people, including my family. Resources or artifacts is fine, assets implies monetary rather than educational value. Right?
Hence the reason it is ok to sell camps if we need more money..camps are “underperforming assets” not treasures that support the mission.