The good news and the bad news

The good news is that at least part of the nasty, smelly, political wind coming our way in 2013 will be avoided by the Prime Ministers announcement yesterday of the September election date. The context of the statement, that she wanted to remove the uncertainty that accompanies an election date announcement, and allow people to plan for the year is nonsense. The only people whose lives are run by election cycles are the pollies and the befuddled bureaucrats supposed to do their bidding. The truth is that the loss of political initiative and flexibility afforded by being able to call the election at short notice, is outweighed by the costs of continual leadership speculation, the ugly spectre of by-elections labor would certainly lose, and the value of being seen as trying to be positive about the long term, and sensible policy development.
The bad news. This current shambles of a government will probably be replaced by the largely invisible, talentless, non entities of preening self indulgence that currently inhabits the opposition benches. The only one of them who appears to be able to make an intelligent argument, supported by facts, logic, and wit is Malcolm Turnbull, who it seems will struggle to keep his vitriol in check in the face of the rampant “ordinaryness” of his party and coalition colleagues.
Where are the John Buttons, Fred Dalys, Peter Walshs, Paul Keatings, Tim Fischers, Lindsay Tanners, and Jim Killens of past Parliaments when you need them. (most of these examples from my memory seem to be Labor???) Like them or not, agree with them or not, at least you knew they stood for something, what it was, and they were prepared to openly debate the merits with facts, listen to divergent views, and set out to turn them around through adult conversation and debate, albeit laced with humor, sarcasm and irony.
It is going to be a very long year!

An obvious outcome from the ACCC.

I wonder how anybody could be in the slightest bit surprised that Coles and Woollies are raking in the profits from petrol retailing, as has been reported recently.
We have allowed a virtual duopoly to emerge and duopolies behave in pretty predictable ways, for the benefit of shareholders, that is the way the system works. Oh, you will not be able to nail collusion, or any of the other nasty anti competitive behaviours on them, probability is they will not be happening, as they are not necessary with a duopoly, simple self interest will drive profitable behaviour. The opportunities to cross merchandise, cross promote, and leverage operational logistics costs that exist just enhance the attraction of it all.
The scale of the major enterprises makes competition from local businesses a huge challenge. Pundits like me can wax on about the opportunities the small agile enterprises have, how the net has given them the flexibility and transparency to take on the big guys, but when it truly is David Vs Goliath in a local market, the little guy will rarely win. He will be swamped by the “man” who can simply ignore as a short term irritation the slower traffic, lower basket value, squeezed margins, and any resident reaction that occurs, that would mean death to the smaller operation.
I feel for the small guys who have made a huge effort to compete, but being in a commodity market means that scale counts, and in the petrol market, Coles and Woolies now own it, as they do groceries and hardware, with office supplies evolving down the same path. I bet they cannot wait to get their hands on the still regulated pharmacies and newsagents, where the regulation has enabled a cosy club for small businesses to exist.

Social density

social density

Groups, networks, friends, and even loose 2nd and 3rd party connections via social media all have similar characteristics when viewed from a distance. Groups of people interconnected in some way.

However, the real value of a group is its density, how close they are, and how mutual are all the links, how much they share, and of crucial importance, how much they contribute rather than just being conduits.

A small group is able to self regulate easily, there is little tolerance of free-riders, there is a high degree of “density” among the members. However, a large group is poor at identifying and excluding free-riders. The number and strength of connections between individuals in the larger group are much less, and weaker, there are those in the group who have no connection with each other beyond membership of the group: the density of the group is much lower.

A high density enables stuff to get done, the group can co-ordinate the actions of its members. But there is a paradox here, a large group can also co-ordinate, and in a short time, but only in the negative, it can be somewhere to stop something, to protest, a very simple, single purpose, but it cannot map a course of action and follow it. A dense group can map a course, follow it, and if dense enough, accommodate changes in direction.
Consider how easy it is for a group of three friends to agree to go to the pictures next week.

They agree a time and film to see that suits them all.

Now consider the added complications of adding an extra three friends to the party, all that extra schedule matching, as well as the varying tastes in film. How much more difficult this would all be if the added three are just acquaintances of one of the original three, unknown to the others.

Density, not numbers is the key to social success, in media, as well as in life.

Where to now my friends? Australia day 2013.

Today is Australia Day, January 26, 2013.
As I watch what is going on around me, I see a lot of frenetic stuff, the hype at the cricket, crowds of people carrying “Australia” bags, hats and eskies, Pollies offering platitudes for a sound-bite, and many group BBQ’s at the local park.
All good stuff, but should there be more?
The Australia now is a vastly changed place to just a generation ago, and my grandfather, a digger who spent a vacation in France in 1917 simply would not recognise it, although he bled for it. We are a polyglot nation, remarkably able to absorb and celebrate difference, now removed from our European roots and finding a way in Asia, wealthy in many ways, but twitchy and suspicious of those we do not know, and authority, and nervous about the future.
We are like a kid who realises he is now alone in the world, and has to stand up for himself, but is not too sure how to do it.
So what will we look like in another generation, by 2050?
I suspect the things that seem to occupy our minds now will mostly be seen as trivial excursions by then, and we will be paying a high price for ignoring the things that are important but not urgent, at least in the minds of those supposed to think about these things for longer than an election cycle. The education of our kids, and their kids, real education, to think, question, and be prepared to defend a conclusion, our research capability, both public and private, and the capacity to commercialise that knowledge, the selling off of our national estate, and the determination to dig up everything, flog it at commodity prices, and import the manufactured product as our own manufacturing capability withers on the vine.
As Australian day 2013 closes with another display of fireworks and platitudes, we Austalians should stop and think, project ourselves forward 50 years, and ask, “what do we want the place to look like?’. Then, for a change, lets demand that those visions become part of the public debate, not sidelined by today’s celebrity nonsense.

Managements favorite metaphor, trashed.

If I hear the sporting team metaphor once more this week, I think I will spew, although I have often used it myself over the years.
I’ve been contributing to a sales conference this week, listening to some intelligent, well thought out stuff from some surprising corners of the business, some crap from a few who should know better, and endless sporting analogies.
Lets examine the sport team metaphor realistically, looking for the shortcomings that are rarely mentioned:
• Sporting teams have a set number of players, and your ability to maintain a “bench” is limited. In contact sports, there is usually a few all-rounders who can be used as substitutes, but in most, what you start with is all you have. What would happen in a business if you could not adjust capabilities and numbers on the fly to respond to unforeseen circumstances?
• Sporting teams conduct the contest within a well known and understood set of rules by which each side complies. Try telling your competition to play be a set of rules agreed beforehand.
• A sporting contest takes place at a set time, in a set place, and has a set duration, and if you do not turn up, you lose. Fundamental to the commercial contest is the “faking” of the opposition to get them to expend resources doing something that can deliver them no benefit, and if you can do that and not even have to turn up, so much the better.
• Sporting teams know who their opponent will be next week, and the week after, have a pretty good idea of their capabilities, so therefore can train specifically to address the challenges as they arise in a predictable manner. Not so in commercial life, and just because you beat a competitor last week, does not mean they will not come back at you in an unexpected way tomorrow, not even waiting for Saturday! Sneaks.
The list goes on, but the point is that metaphors are great, they illustrate a point, but they do not provide a template, just a lesson.