Apr 15, 2024 | Governance, Leadership
We lost an intellectual giant last week, Daniel Kahneman.
Psychologist and Nobel prize winner in economics, he along with long term collaborator Amos Tversky, created what has become known as ‘Behavioural Economics’.
So what you say.
In 2010 Kahneman published research that demonstrated that income was strongly correlated with happiness at lower levels, but above a seemingly modest level (US 75K at the time) it had no effect.
In 2021, a Wharton academic Mathew Killingsworth published a paper that came to the opposite conclusion.
In order to reconcile these conflicting outcomes, Kahneman teamed up with Killingsworth and a third, neutral researcher to establish the truth.
The result was a case of diminishing returns.
It found there were substantial gains in happiness up to 200k income, but after that, diminishing returns kicked in. The ‘happiness curve’ flattens out, eventually delivering no increase in happiness with an increase in income.
This seems to make sense to me.
At a point, an increase in income does not increase happiness (I aspire to discovering that point) it just becomes a scorecard, no different from the one used on a golf course.
Given this instinctively sensible outcome, should Dr Chalmers add a level to income tax?
At a point above an income level few will ever see, impose a further meaningful tax rate on the increments?
Despite the inevitable screams, they will not miss the money, and you never know, it just might make those few happier.
Apr 8, 2024 | Change, Leadership
The only way to solve a problem, particularly a significant one is to understand the cause of the problem and eliminate that cause.
Rip the band-aid off.
Taking a short-term action to address a symptom of a problem is just kicking the can down the road. The problem will return unless the root cause is addressed.
In a previous life working in a regulated industry, I observed many problems that were never addressed. Simply, they were papered over with a short-term fix that looked good as action had been taken. However, they only served to compromise performance and leave the problem to someone else. The industry ended up with a huge pile of band-aids obscuring and complicating the identification of the root causes of the problems that continued to emerge.
Deja vu is upon us.
The current housing crisis is an outcome of decisions made progressively over the last 40 years. Some were made with the best of intentions, others for purely political reasons. However, the chickens are now crapping all over the hen house in the form of a housing crisis that will not be solved by sticking another band aid, or even a couple of boxes of them, over the symptoms of the problem.
The solution hides in addressing the cause.
Progressive governments have given investment in real estate significant tax advantages. This diverts that investment from alternative more productive uses, leaving us with the current shortage of housing, and stratospheric rents.
Ripping the band aid off now will be extremely painful for tax advantaged investors, but is essential.
There is a budget due in a few weeks, I expect more band-aids.
The current government when in opposition lost an election by proposing some sensible but relatively painless, to most, measures that started to address the root cause. The then government, now the opposition, was relentless in painting the sensible moves as robbery by the government.
It was as stupid and false as to claim that electric vehicles would kill the weekend.
Most of us would be better off with changes being made, our children and grandchildren most certainly would be.
Unfortunately, the battle for political power outweighs consideration of real debate, long term perspective, and benefit to the majority.
The longer we leave it, the greater will be the pain when the time comes that we have no option but to rip down the mountainous pile of band-aids.
Mar 21, 2024 | Collaboration, Governance, Marketing, retail, Strategy
Collaboration between competitors is illegal, but tough to prove. It is also the natural state of affairs in an oligopoly.
When a competitive market evolves over time into an oligopoly, the focus of management attention of the remaining oligopolists moves from the customer to the competitor. With the resources available to an oligopolist in any decent sized market, they will know in considerable detail the strategies, internal processes, pricing, and resource allocation choices made by their competitors almost as quickly as they happen.
Supermarket competition in Australia has evolved in this manner. It has turned from ruthless competition for customers 40 years ago, to ruthless collaboration between the two major players now.
Collaboration is illegal, and I am sure that the leaders of the two supermarket gorillas are not setting prices together, or collaborating in other ways that would be contrary to the competition laws in this country. However, given there are only two of them, and they have the resources to watch the other very carefully, there is a sort of quasi co-operation that emerges.
It is driven by the commonality of their activities: The need for shareholder returns, driven by market share acquisition costs, both fixed and variable. They work aggressively on both, and if they did not, the senior management would be fired. In addition, directors have legislated fiduciary responsibilities under the Corporations act in relation to shareholder interests and importantly, returns.
We must also remember that via our superannuation funds, we are all shareholders in Coles and Woolworths.
Once again, just like the ‘housing crisis’, we have short term populist press release driven band-aids being suggested. They are touted as the remedy for long term strategic choices made in the past that to some, have turned sour.
The time for institutional concern about the increasing power of supermarket chains was when they were assembling the scale they now have. All of the take-overs and mergers that have happened have been waved through by the ACCC. This is despite commentary at the time about the impact of the lessening of competition for the consumers dollar.
Now it is too late, other remedies must be found, which do not include a forced break-up. Apart from the immorality of retrospectively applying new rules to the conduct of business, there is no logical or practical way to break apart either of the supermarket chains.
We should stop bleating, and get on with life, while ensuring we do not make the same mistake again.
Header credit: Gapinvoid.com. The cartoon put a huge amount of meaning into a simple graphical form. Thanks Hugh!!
Mar 4, 2024 | AI, Change
Covid was a Darwinian catalyst, at least in my view.
A decade of slow change was supercharged into 6 months as businesses, institutions, and individuals, struggled with the need to change rapidly, and radically. It also unleashed an unprecedented innovation cycle in medical science that will have long term impacts on drug discovery.
In November 2022, another Darwinian catalyst struck. Open AI launched ChatGPT into the wild, setting off a chain reaction that surpassed the impact of Covid, which has since become endemic, and we have largely stopped worrying.
We have yet to understand the longer-term impacts of AI on social dislocation, personal security, and the ways in which the largess can be fairly spread across the community.
The trends in both cases were all there for those who looked closely enough with an open mind to see.
Pre-Covid it was clear that there were too many cafes, and we were generally over-shopped. Home delivery was increasing, as was remote work. The installation of ‘smart’ devices in factories and homes was normal, and product differentiation based on digital features was everywhere. Yet, it was slow going.
We had a binary mindset, the cake was a given size, and any change to the way it was sliced up meant there were winners and losers. Nobody wanted to be the latter.
Suddenly, in two whacks behind the ear, the cake has changed size and shape radically. The pre-Covid/AI status quo that included many points of friction and often unseen waste, previously sacrosanct, have been swept away.
All this costs money, so the cake has changed ingredients as well as shape and size. The suppliers of those ingredients have morphed into a few monster corporations that will continue to change the shape of our cake with little or no public oversight. Governance has become whatever it takes to make more money, as the power of regulators is substantially diminished.
This level of uncertainty has made us very jumpy, unwilling to trust, and wary of the future impact on our finances, security and familial connections. It has also made possible development of products and services inconceivable previously.
If you are a glass half full type, the opportunities are endless. If you are the other sort, find a comfortable place to hide, if there are any left.
How would Darwin see human evolution post covid & AI?
Header: Is a photo of Ghandi leading the ‘Salt march’ in 1930 which was the catalyst to the recognition that British rule over India needed to end.
Feb 29, 2024 | Change, Leadership, Marketing
If you asked a room full of marketers if marketing had changed in the last decade, you would get most of them telling you it had changed radically.
On the surface it has, the digital revolution has taken marketing by the neck and given it a great big shake.
There has been an explosion of sales, media, connection, and payment channels, customers are more wary, and do their own research before a marketer knows they are in the market. So called ‘content’ has almost infinite reach, but the frequency is rubbish, as there is so much digital noise, and so much competition for attention, that most of it is the digital equivalent of yesterday’s fish wrapper from the newspaper obituary section. The investment in marketing technology to manage all this has also exploded.
There is a welter of research and opinion that confirms the notion marketing has changed, some by very credible organisations.
I asked myself the question again, after stumbling across this report by Adobe, one of those credible organisations that supports the ‘yes’ vote, and came to a partly different conclusion.
Marketing has changed, absolutely, at the tactical level. The means by which marketers create and deliver a value proposition, then turn it into a transaction is unrecognisable from just 5 years ago. However, tactical implementation is just a small part of the pie.
Organisationally, marketing has changed a bit. Generally, it is still a function in a group of functional silos that reports to a CEO. A range of new titles have emerged, Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Engagement Officer, and so on, but that does not change the essential reporting and accountability of those in senior marketing roles. The marketing organisation in large enterprises has also siloed, now there is digital, customer service, technology, and a range of other functional roles within marketing not present 5 years ago.
Strategically, marketing has changed little if at all. The role of marketing is to tell the future and adjust the value proposition to customers ahead of the changing preferences and behaviour. That has always been the case, and remains so.
The only strategic change I can see is one of leadership.
In the past, marketing has generally been a passive corporate player, relegated to the role of managing one of the largest expenses in the P&L. Now the value of enterprises is so much more in the hands of intangibles, that marketing is increasingly demanding a seat at the big table. This requires that marketers are able to lead their peers and boss. Unless they can achieve this position of leadership, they will remain the simple gatekeepers to one line in the P&L, rather than being responsible for the future health of the enterprise.
Look at it from the top down.
Marketing has changed little strategically, but strategy is by far the most important component.
It has changed organisationally, and while it is important, in most areas, it is not a game changer.
Tactically, marketing is unrecognisable, but who really cares. Tactics are short term, able to be changed in real time as the situation evolves. Marketers need the organisational capability to be able to change in real time, but the impact of failing to do so is limited.
The marketing groups that will be successful into the future are the ones that are successful leaders of their organisation. To achieve this role of leadership, they must be able to identify the priority areas for investment and activity, as well as being able to remove the organisational constraints that operate in every enterprise, that are not directly accountable to marketing.
Well, they are not accountable until marketers are in the corner office, which should be happening more and more as they are the future tellers. Those who currently occupy that office are usually the engineers, lawyers, and accountants who are good at reading the past in the data, and hoping the future looks similar.
Who is next in your corner office?
