Rishi Rawat

If engaged users on your site had a chance to meet you in person how many would end up buying? No reason why your site can't do just as well.

See what Rishi is up to on LinkedIn

Comments 11

  1. Not a fan of your idea, Rishi. In my mind, the role of the government is to provide infrastructure, and level the playing field where necessary so that us businesses can grow. Collecting data, and selecting business for benefiting from it (best buy v staples) is already halfway down a slippery slope.
    Offering easy return service so that other companies can compete with Amazon would be reasonable or even dismantling Amazon so that other businesses can compete effectively would make sense.
    I liked the way you encapsulated the post office’s problem by pointing out they come to my house everyday to deliver spam.
    The other problem I see is even though the new post office will guarantee not to sell your data, it’s the government, they can change the laws, they can do anything in the name of National Security if they legislate lt.

    1. Post
      Author

      Hi, Mark. Appreciate your input. The post office already makes a profit on retailer deliveries (at least, they should). This idea just takes that concept further. Right now they are running huge overall losses. Those losses are footed by taxpayers.

      Mark: The other problem I see is even though the new post office will guarantee not to sell your data, it’s the government, they can change the laws, they can do anything in the name of National Security if they legislate lt.
      Rishi: True.

  2. I agree with Mark, and will go further.

    1. The post office quite literally refuses to take our scheduled pickups and forces us to take everything to the post office multiple times per week, and has done so for the past 7 plus years in spite of consistent complaints and calls to postal managers. Postal employees do not want to deliver bulky or heavy boxes and hate them and do everything to discourage picking them up and delivering them. Perhaps you’ve gotten a “delivery slip” instead of an actual delivery before, forcing you to drive in and get the package that they never even attempted to deliver in the first place, which is the same problem from the recipient’s perspective.

    2. What many people allow a private company to know about them is not the same as what they want a service related to the government to know about them.

    3. The real reason the post office is broke is because of pension obligations, and adding a new service doesn’t change this.

    I cannot describe adequately in words how much contempt I feel for the post office, having attempted for years to give them a lot of money to send my packages under 3 pounds and getting stymied at every turn.

    1. Post
      Author
  3. Just as easy to complain about long lines and grouchy people at the DMV, idiot senators & congresspersons, power-hungry policemen, and potholes in Boston. Government inefficiency and waste are an unavoidable by-product. Think it’s bad here? You should see it in other countries where you add in sanctioned corruption, overpopulation, and, in many cases, the type of bottom-of-the-barrel intelligence that takes a government job.
    But they are separate issues. Idiots at the post office are dealt with through the systems designed around that. Ineffective HR systems ultimately come down to elected officials make to feel that in order to get re-elected they need to clean things up. Failing that, the free market will compete with the government service like UPS did with the Post Office, ultimately putting it in the dire straits it’s in.

    This issue, rather, is about the optimal role of the post office. That role needs to be of value to the community — and filling your mailbox with spam is not. The postal system is like a roadway — and indeed I think our country was built on this original information highway. It should facilitate a smooth pipeline into and out of your home or office. How business uses that roadway is up to them. Whether the roadway is needed is up to us.

    1. Post
      Author

      Love reading your perspective on this, Mark.

      I don’t know what legal charter of Post Office is. But if it’s to make a profit, then, as CEO, I’d do everything in my power to out Amazon Amazon.

  4. I see it differently. It’s the same misconception that got a “businessman” elected. A business exists for the benefit of the shareholders. It’s mandate is to make money for the owners of the business… Ideally while doing something good. A government exists for the benefit of the citizens. When a government makes a profit it’s like giving yourself a transfusion with a leaky hose.

    It’s like this money that we’re all getting that “we don’t have to pay back…” OF COURSE we have to pay it back! Where do you think it comes from? Our future tax revenues — there is no place else.

    Government-as-a-business means that the government is run for the benefit of the “stakeholders,” the people who fund elections, legislators, large businesses. It runs as nicely as any other business that exploits workers for the benefit of the owners. In a balanced system, it is government’s role to keep the exploitation of workers and natural resources to a minimum and create the infrastructure for growth.

    ARRGH! You got me on my soapbox again. I have work to do. Oh wait…

    1. Post
      Author

      Mark: It’s like this money that we’re all getting that “we don’t have to pay back…” OF COURSE we have to pay it back! Where do you think it comes from? Our future tax revenues — there is no place else.
      Rishi: This is true.

      Mark: Government-as-a-business means that the government is run for the benefit of the “stakeholders,” the people who fund elections, legislators, large businesses. It runs as nicely as any other business that exploits workers for the benefit of the owners.
      Rishi: This is true, too.

      Mark: In a balanced system, it is government’s role to keep the exploitation of workers and natural resources to a minimum and create the infrastructure for growth.
      Rishi: Dammit, this is also true.

      Mark, prior to 7 am Eastern you make some really good points 🙂

    1. Post
      Author
  5. It is certainly fun to think about this stuff.

    My former company had a formal relationship with USPS. We negotiated a certain kind of test program and I got to understand better what goes on at USPS at the higher levels when someone comes in with a new idea.

    In the course of those conversations I learned that USPS tested a program like the one you are describing with some major retailers about 20 years ago. The retailers were shouldering the costs. It got done but was hard for USPS because of union rules about what letter carriers can/cannot be asked to deliver.

    The question that came to mind for me when I read your article is “Why don’t you (Rishi) do it?” USPS will partner with you if it sounds right to them. They can do the leg work and you can own the brand. Of course I realize it might be intended only as a thought exercise.

    Jerry

If the comment section remains empty I'm going to lose my job

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The maximum upload file size: 50 MB.
You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other.
Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded.