Feb 18, 2013 | Collaboration, Governance, Leadership, Personal Rant
It is wonderful to consider the impact the Prime Ministers “A Plan for Australian Jobs” announcement over the weekend has had, already, on Australian jobs.
-
- Multitudes of grateful bureaucrats have laboured mightily for months and months, crafting and re-crafting the words of the announcement to ensure it does not say anything that may attract any critical comment, and includes every existing program and hopeful announcement at least twice,
- Favoured consultants are rejoicing at the fees to date, and to come,
- Advertising and PR agencies wriggle to the bar to celebrate the coup of gaining “the account”,
- Engaged lawyers, consultants, bureaucrats, researchers, and grant trough dwellers, rejoice at the billion dollar bait now on the table.
But what about the rest of us, those who struggle to compete in the real world?
Lots of well meaning, multi-syllable words that ensure there is no accountability for anything, just continuous blather, platitudes and clichés. Oh, and the plan tells us they will spend a $billion of our money. It is after all, “our responsibility to assist in the structural adjustment process in the economy”. We, as obedient and loyal servants, should be grateful the Government has finally realised the parlous state of manufacturing in this country, and are doing something about it.
I read the plan, twice in fact because I thought I must have missed the important and insightful bit the first time through. You can save yourself a bit of time and read the summary, that is useful, but please consider the following whilst you do:
-
- Minister Combet says in his introduction that the plan is “Supporting Australian industry to increase exports and win more business abroad”. Call me pedantic, but I thought increasing exports and winning more business abroad were the same thing, and besides, what has Austrade been doing for the last 40 years?. Having run a real business on contract for a Federal department, set up with the express aim of increasing agricultural exports with a budget of 6 million over 3 years, which attracted the ire of the “You cannot subsidise exports” Nazi’s in Canberra, I can only wonder what a billion is doing for their collective blood pressure.
- There is a fair bit of verbiage about “fostering clusters” in the report. There is no doubt that clusters can become innovation hotbeds. Everyone with a pig in the race points to the tech miracle of Silicon Valley, and the medical cluster centered on Boston, amongst a few others, but forgets that they took decades to evolve, (a bit longer than the average election cycle in the first world) and the evolution of successful clusters has had nothing to do with public investment beyond the provision of high quality public infrastructure, schools, universities, transport, and power. Every investment (to my knowledge)by a Government in an overt effort to build a “cluster” around the world has failed, or is failing in the absence of a long term investment in infrastructure.
- Oh the joy of a good acronym! The plan is full of them, some new, some recycled, but the gold standard is a beauty: G.O.L.D. standing for “Growth Opportunities and Leadership Development”. Wonderful isn’t it, must have come from an orgasmic Eureka moment for someone. Clearly, I am just being petty.
- A headline objective of this plan is “Creating a stronger, fairer, and simpler tax and transfer system and reducing red tape” Great sentiment, but all through the plan is articulated the need for more legislation, regulation, and creation of various advisory and oversight bodies. When I was at school, these sorts of additions would consume added resources, add complication, and create demarcation squabbles amongst agencies. Not a lot of “simpler, fairer” in this lot that I can see.
- This is the last whinge, perhaps the best, so congratulations if you have got this far. There is a graph 5.1 on page 23 of the report that shows collaboration across a number of economies, which is presumably there to demonstrate the value of collaboration, which the government wants to (correctly in my view) foster. The figures show Australia at about 18% (of what is not really clear to me) next door to Germany, held up as a poster child of manufacturing excellence, at 19%, and China, at 19.5%. The field is lead by a Black Caviar like stretch by Britain at 69%, but the last time I looked, the British economy was a basket case. Perhaps the graph is a mistake, showing the opposite of the Governments argument, or perhaps the situation has changed because the data is so bloody old, or perhaps my simple old brain has been scrambled by the clichés and acronyms.
Australian manufacturing is in a hole, and rule 1 of my rules of holes says that “once you realise you are in a hole, stop digging”. There is little in this plan that actually throws away the shovel, it just burnishes it for more use. The real challenge is the endless duplication, commercial naivety, turf wars, lack of gumption, and the assumption that all problems can be legislated away that infests our elected bodies and their bureaucrats that is the greatest hurdle Australian manufacturing has to jump.
Header cartoon courtesy TomGauld.com
Feb 18, 2013 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Strategy
Marketers are becoming increasingly sophisticated in the ways they leverage understanding of how the brain works to build competitive advantage.
20 years ago most marketing positioning, segmentation and communication was based around demographic factors, but we have been increasingly understanding the linkages between a whole range of factors and individual behavior in a rang of circumstances as we have been able to collect and analyse data. This understanding has evolved to the point where the old fashioned demographic segmentation and positioning now looks like a Model T in the 2012 Paris motor show.
The evolving marketing skill is understanding how the brain works in order to gain commercial advantage, work that is based on academic medical research. But this research is just conforming what good marketers have known for some time, albeit intuitively. Simon Sinek’s simple “Why What How” presentation that has garnered almost 10 million YouTube views is just a marketers interpretation of Neuromarketing being applied.
Feb 16, 2013 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Small business, Social Media
I opined previously that it appeared to me that Facebook had cracked the challenge of monetising their site by applying semantic search to their billion users and their networks with the introduction of the “Graph Search” feature.
This post on the Social Media Examiner site goes into some detail about the way Graph search works, and when you think about it a bit, the value is huge to marketers, as it offers highly targeted search capabilities.
I am a tennis player, a member of a local club that has the almost unique distinctions of retaining its grass courts, being a century old, and having many truly great players as former members. Funding the maintanence of the grass is an ongoing challenge, one that threatens the future of the club as membership declines with the lessening popularity of tennis, and the changing demographics of the local area.
There are a series of semantic searches I, and my fellow club members (assuming they use facebook, which many do not), can now easily undertake. Using these connections, through the “friends” networks, we can identify potential visitors and members, and market to those “friends” networks the joy of the game on grass, (particularly on a hot day), the value of membership based on the availability of grass, the heritage of the club, and the social aspects of the great game. The searches would look something like this:
Friends: who like tennis,
who like tennis and live in the Sydney inner west,
who like playing tennis on grass,
who would like to try playing tennis on grass,
and so on.
As those searches are employed, ads by sellers of tennis equipment, marketers of sporting brands, tennis coaches, even lawn care equipment would benefit from the highly targeted, and empathetic environment.
Potentially a gold-mine for marketers, as the value of Graph search to those networked on facebook is substantial. Suddenly Facebook looks like it has the potential to pay a dividend to those donkeys who got sucked in by the IPO, and did not get out fast enough, unlike young Mr. Zuckerberg.
Feb 14, 2013 | Branding, Communication, Marketing, Social Media
20 years ago you could block book advertising across three TV channels, a few newspapers, and radio stations, and be pretty sure you would catch almost everybody.
Not now.
No matter how much you spend, you simply cannot block book all the channels that now attract our attention. The last 20 years has created communication channels inconceivable a generation ago.
Like time, attention is a non renewable resource, there is only so much of it, and unlike 20 years ago, there are almost infinite opportunities for us to spend our attention.
Marketers therefore have to reverse the order in which they approach gaining your valuable attention, as no longer can they easily access mass attention by intrruption. Now they have to earn the right to communicate, person by person, as just turning up and interrupting you will not work. Even if we happen to be there to be interrupted, we will ignore you without a very good reason to give you some of our valuable attention.
Feb 13, 2013 | Governance, Management, Operations, Small business
Ever put off a difficult decision? asked for more information that you know will not change the outcome? shuffled the responsibility elsewhere?
Most of us have, at one time or another, but we generally tell ourselves that we delayed the decision, sought a greater level of certainty, or something else when deep down we know that we have decided not to decide, or at least, used an artifice to enable us to not to act on the decision.
If all you have done is to kick the “pain-point” down the road a bit, you also generally realise that the pain when it comes will be worse for the waiting. In putting off the pain point, you have actually made a decision, one that will often come back and bite you.
I was reminded of this reality recently when the owner of a small business I work with failed to take a hard decision in relation to one of his employees. The inevitable conclusion to that employees departure was repeatedly put off because it is a small business in a regional centre, and sacking someone is hard, it becomes everyone’s business. It has become clear that the employee concerned realised the position, and rather than behave honorably, has committed the company to expenditure that is unnecessary, wasteful, and possibly terminal.
The price for deciding not to decide can be very high indeed.
