He appears to be genuinely glad to answer any and all questions the parents have, and he doesn’t make it seem as if he’s heard the same question a million times, as he probably has. Interacting with him directly is always (dare I say it?) a fun experience.
I just hate going to see him.
I won’t necessarily lay the blame squarely on his shoulders. I’m sure he does the best he can. It’s just that on certain days and at certain times, I get to see him for only 15 minutes of the 2 hours I’m there. Spending that time trying to comfort an increasingly fussy baby for twice as long as I expected to be there is nearly enough to make me want to actively seek a new doctor.
The problem is, I haven’t met a doctor yet who has so little to do that he can actually keep his appointment times consistently. At least not for the amount I’m willing to pay. Thus, in my case, changing pediatricians won’t really solve the problem. It would simply change the location that problem occurred. By changing, I would give up the certainty of having a good pediatrician for a hope that defies all reason and experience …. that is …. that the waiting time situation will change by switching doctors.
Bearing all that in mind, what can be done? It seems that any of the available choices are, in one way or another, prohibitive. One option results in a continued waste of time and discomfort, and the other introduces uncertainty in the quality of care I can expect my children to receive with no corresponding benefit to compensate for that uncertainty.
Assuming similar prices, levels of care, and “bedside manner,” a better waiting room experience might tip the scales with many patients. Improvements I’d look for could be pretty simple, but it means expanding the office’s repertoire beyond just magazines and a single TV playing a single kids’ movie over and over again.

1. Office staff should provide an explanation to the patient when once they are able to anticipate a delay over, say, fifteen minutes.

2. Make refreshments available for the wait.
3. Waive the copayment fee (whatever it is) when the wait is longer than 30 minutes.
4. Provide interesting content that may be relevant to the visit. There are only so much one can get out of reading the posters over and over again when the patient is stuck waiting for anything more than 15 minutes.

Although it seems the supply available doctors seems to barely, if at all, meet the demands of patients, the medical care industry as a whole has an incredible P.R. problem that is about to get worse due to the upcoming release of “Sicko,” a movie created by Michael Moore, who is no stranger to …. fairly or unfairly …. drumming up controversy with and animosity toward his intended targets.
If there was ever an incentive to improve their patients’ perception of their health care providers, this is it. Although probably too late to dampen the immediate impact of “Sicko,” it’s never too late to pay closer attention to the comfort and requirements of a company’s customers, regardless of the industry in question.

It’s hard to tell if such praise from his arch-enemies at Fox vindicates or repudiates Moore’s strategy of “marketing via controversy,” as described last week in this WSJ article by Merissa Marr. As Marr writes, “Picking a fight with the opposition is a key component of Mr. Moore’s typical marketing plan.” Sparks create buzz, and indeed, the film’s producer, Harvey Weinstein “acknowledges that a shrill response from the film’s targets would play right into their [his and Moore's] hands.”

Of course, Fox’s response is not that surprising given Weinstein’s own view that the movie would “appeal to both ends of the political spectrum.” What is surprising is the way that the media landscape has changed since the release of Moore’s last blockbuster, Fahrenheit 9/11, and the way that these changes may actually benefit Moore’s “targets.” It’s unclear, for example, whether the “controversy” surrounding a trip to Cuba that features in SiCKO is as much of a boon for Michael Moore as it has been for stealth presidential candidate, Fred Thompson.
As you will recall, Thompson attacked Moore for his Cuban excursion in an op-ed piece in the National Review. Moore responded with an open letter to Thompson that he posted to his own website, but which was also posted on the Drudge Report. Thompson “fired back,” as they say, with this YouTube video. (Thompson is prominently smoking a cigar since Moore criticized his recently publicized predilection for Cuban stogies).
In the wake of this video, one commentator for the National Review quotes a “web campaign professional” who calls Thompson, “The most new media savvy candidate in or out of the race for President.” And Blake Dvorak, writing on Time’s “Real Clear Politics” blog saw the video as a warning to other presidential candidates that Thompson “plays hard.”
PR professionals, marketers, and politicians alike have something to learn from all this. The small lesson would be, if your marketing involves instigating a public debate, as Moore’s often does, you should realize that your PR opportunity is also an opportunity for your opponents, or, to put it in business terms, competitors.
The big lesson is the irrelevancy of the old media. It’s fascinating that Fred Thompson moved so quickly from the “old world” of “op-eds,” (in the National Review of all places – though, to be fair, it was the “on-line” edition), to the new world of YouTube (apparently putting his spot together in less than two-hours and in one take). He even makes Moore, who responded to Thompson through a quote in the New York Daily News, look old-fashioned. Ultimately, who needs contacts at newspapers or television stations for PR when the web presents you with channels that allow you to “broadcast yourself”? If you’re Fred Thompson (or any of us, frankly), the answer is, “Not me.”