You must kill the ‘customer is always right’ myth.

You must kill the ‘customer is always right’ myth.

The customer is not always right, but the customer should always be heard by you.

The trick now available is to be able to listen in on every interaction in a marketplace with your product, and judge what the response should be.

You learn a lot from customers, in particular the ones who leave, or are dissatisfied and complain.

Sometimes those complaints have nothing to do with your product, but everything to do with the complainer wanting an audience. Even then you must respond, as there will be a lesson in better understanding the customer context.

Not responding is in fact a response, and the response is “I do not care about you”. This is rarely a smart way to deal with even an annoyed customer about to bolt.

As a marketer I have always advocated the notion that the good stuff happens on the fringes. As the saying goes, ‘every good idea starts as a heresy’. Therefore, hearing the heresy is a core part of being able to respond to new stuff.

There are now a multitude of tools the hear what is being said by those who engage in any way, no matter how far out on the fringe they may be. Tools that track every interaction with your brands irrespective of the medium. Every one of those interactions should be responded to, in some way. The obvious caveat is that the interaction to which you are responding should be associated in some way with your brand, and sometimes one interaction is enough when the catalyst is negative.

The ‘PS’ to the headline is that the right customer is always right.

When a customer fits the ideal customer avatar like a glove, they will always be right. The challenge in these days of hyper-personalisation is to adequately define the ideal customer in such a way that you are confident about who they are, and what you want them to do next.

20 considerations that will shape your pricing strategy

20 considerations that will shape your pricing strategy

 

 

As noted recently, price is much, much more than a number on a sticker.

Following are 20 headline items to consider, which may help to clarify your pricing choices.

Context.

Purchase decisions are always made in a context that has a profound influence on the choice. In a supermarket, choices are often automatic, amongst a pool of acceptable options. Making a choice that turns out to be a mistake has limited repercussions, price variations are relatively small in the scheme of things, and most people are busy, just wanting to stick the needed items on the trolly and get out.

It is very different if you are the purchasing manager in a large corporation that is seeking a new computer system or piece of expensive machinery. Not only are there consequences of making a poor choice, but there are also others who will have a say, pushing their own agendas, driven by need, their KPI’s, necessity, and many other factors.

Range of price options.

In almost every situation, there will be alternatives. These may range from very ‘cheap’ to extremely expensive. The price communicates a product value proposition and positioning to the buyer, it sets a range of expectations.  It tells them what sort of seller they might face, whether they should lean forward, lean back, or run for the hills.

The price impacts heavily on the subsequent behaviour of both buyer and seller.

Is the price ‘right’?

Price must feel right before it can be justified. A buyer rarely starts with a spreadsheet.

They start with a feeling. “That feels expensive, cheap, or about right.”

Only after that first reaction do they look for reasons to compare and rationalise. They ask for detail, invite competitive quotes. They ask their spouse, their finance manager, their builder, their procurement team, or the bloke at the barbecue who once renovated a bathroom and now claims expertise in all construction trades.

This matters because many pricing failures do not come from the price itself. They come from the story around the price.

A price can sit in the right range and still fail because the buyer does not understand the value, cannot compare it sensibly, does not trust the seller, or fears regret more than they want the promised benefit.

Comparison happens.

Every price is compared with something, no price sits alone in a buyers mind. To the seller, these comparisons are often obscured, seemingly irrational.

Every buyer brings a reference point, and the better you understand the behaviour of your ideal customer group, the better you will understand these comparisons, and be able to deal with them.

Buyers compare your price with the last price they paid, to a competitor, a cheaper less featured alternative, or to a number they made up in their head while watching television and having a beer.

That reference price matters more than many sellers want to admit.

A $20,000 Gucci handbag and a $200 imitation may carry similar functional utility. Both hold keys, lipstick, and a phone. While physically these bags may appear the same, the difference lies in perception, identity, scarcity, confidence, and social signalling communicated by that distinctive brand.

A premium installer, consultant, architect, lawyer, software provider, or specialist manufacturer plays a different game. Their higher price does not only say “exclusive” it must say “lower risk.”

A relatively cheap imitation handbag might signal clever buying, but a cheap structural engineer signals future litigation.

Is the price fair?

Price carries an automatic fairness test. Customers do not only ask, “Can I afford this?” They also ask themselves, “Does this feel fair?”

That fairness judgement can make or break the transaction.

Raise prices because demand has spiked, and the economist may nod, but the customer is likely to call it gouging. Add mandatory extras late in the buying process, and the margin may look better for a week, but trust account takes a hit that will not show up clearly in the monthly P&L.

This is why drip pricing, surprise fees, fake scarcity, and post-quote changes can do so much damage.

People will tolerate high prices when they understand the reason, trust the seller, and see the value. They punish prices that feel sneaky.

That punishment may not look dramatic, they simply stop responding.

The loss/gain ratio.

Losses hurt us more than an equivalent gain pleases us. We have evolved to be strongly loss averse as a safety mechanism.

Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated in a series of experiments, repeated by every psychology undergraduate, that people do not treat gains and losses symmetrically.

For most people, the pain of potentially losing what we already have far outweighs the possible joy of winning.

That matters in pricing because the buyer does not simply ask what they gain, they consider what they might lose.

What happens if this fails, if I overpay, or my boss disapproves of the choice?

What if I approve this and my boss asks why we did not choose the cheaper supplier?

What if the installation goes wrong, or the cheaper one would have done the job?

Will this choice make me look foolish?

A seller who ignores loss aversion usually reaches for a discount, which often fixes the wrong problem.

The better move is to reduce perceived risk.

Proof and guarantees reduce risk, as does transparency, testimonials from credible people, and demonstrated technical competence. Articulating the trade-offs demonstrates you understand and have accounted for the differing value of alternatives, which reduces the risk a buyer will perceive.

In many markets, you do not win by lowering the price, you win by lowering the buyer’s fear.

Paying hurts.

Paying for something does hurt, this is simply loss aversion at work.

That pain changes behaviour depending on a wide range of factors. Timing, framing, payment method, bundling, deposits, progress payments, subscriptions, finance, brand equity, and is the payment an avoidable expense or an investment.

This is where ‘packaging of price’ plays a huge role. A single large number can shock a buyer into delay, so stage it somehow so the same total price feel manageable. Bundle it with added features or benefits to reduce line-item shock, while possibly inflating the price of the individual items being bundled. If you have ever sat through a webinar that seeks to sell you some sort of course at the end, this bundling of inflated prices that are then discounted is standard practice. This is a combination of behavioural drivers that can be very potent.

A transparent breakdown can increase confidence when the buyer needs justification.

None of this changes the economics by magic. It changes the experience of the economics, as buyers often decide emotionally and post-justify rationally.

When cheap can be expensive.

Many businesses assume lower price always reduces the reluctance to buy. This is not always the case. In some categories, a low price will increase anxiety.

A cheap bottle of water at a service station feels welcome when you are thirsty, a cheap neurosurgeon does not. A bargain accountant may feel efficient, but may lack the credibility and resources to keep the tax office at bay.

Price is an anchor that shapes expectations.

Premium pricing can work in complex, risky, or expert categories, because the buyer uses price as a shortcut for confidence.

Anchoring works because the first serious number changes the mental landscape.

Put a $2,500 bottle of Grange at the top of the wine list, and the $70 bottle starts to look reasonable. Put the same Grange at the bottom, and you have probably found a good cook with a poor grasp of behavioural pricing.

Rolls-Royce understands anchoring beautifully. A million-dollar car looks absurd beside a $25,000 runabout at a carshow. At an airshow, surrounded by aircraft costing tens or hundreds of millions, it starts to look like an accessory.

The difference is the anchor that changes expectations and perceptions of price.

That does not make anchoring a trick, it makes it a powerful negotiating and selling technique.

Show the buyer the right comparison, and value becomes easier to see.

Show the wrong comparison, and even a fair price looks ridiculous.

Scarcity works, unless it looks manufactured

Scarcity increases perceived value.

Limited numbers, production capacity, time, specialist availability, rare materials, or genuine exclusivity can all sharpen demand.

The downside is that fake scarcity smells very bad indeed, and is rightly consigned to the ‘snake-oil’ bin. An ad on TV that declares “only three left” is treated with deserved scepticism by consumers who can smell bullshit at 100 meters.

Real scarcity requires clear explanation, and only then can it be seen as genuine.

Effort increases perceived value

People value visible effort.

Open kitchens work because diners see skill, heat, movement, discipline, and the craft of the chefs becomes part of the value.

The same principle applies in services, manufacturing, construction, software, consulting, and any expert work where the buyer cannot easily judge quality before purchase.

Showing the work, thinking, standards, and process builds credibility.

This is not to confront or bore the buyer with operational detail, but to give them evidence that the price rests on competence rather than hope.

Three choices is optimal.

Choice gives the buyer agency, which they value, while too much choice hands the buyer choice complexity that consumes cognitive capacity for little benefit.

Three is a number our brains easily accommodate. It offers comparison without complexity and is why every SAAS price list you have ever seen has three options. The middle option often becomes the safe choice because it lets the buyer avoid looking cheap while also avoiding  feeling reckless.

Three gives enough contrast for a decision without forcing the buyer into a situation where cognitive overload works against making any choice. Two choices feels too binary, four or five builds towards indecision. In a commercial environment, too much choice invites waiting for more information as a justification, or for no choice at all.

The Decoy Effect.

A decoy option can make the preferred option look better.

Software companies use this constantly, as do publishers, streaming services, gyms, consultants, and anyone else who has discovered that humans compare options more readily than they calculate absolute value.

The decoy is designed to make the sellers preferred option look like great value when compared to the other options offered.

Precision pricing.

A precise price can signal calculation. It also relies on our brains seeing the first number in a sequence. $9.99 appears significantly cheaper than $10.00 even though there is only one cent difference. It is the first ‘9′ that makes the difference.

A building quote for $18,742 can feel as though someone measured, costed, and thought carefully. A round $20,000 can feel like a guess.

However, in some circumstances, precision works against you.

Premium categories often benefit from clean, rounded numbers, offering simplicity to buyers to whom a few dollars is neither here nor there. A $20,000 price on that luxury branded handbag is more likely to sell than if the tag was $19,997.

Use precision when it builds confidence, round numbers to signal authority, simplicity, or premium positioning.

B2B pricing must survive functional demands.

In B2B, the person who likes your product may not hold the power to sign the purchase order.

They may need approval from finance, IT, legal, procurement, operations, the CEO, or a buying committee. All must say ‘Yes’ to get approval, any one of them can kill it off with a single ‘No’.

As a result, the pricing and supporting information must help the internal champion defend the decision, by enabling them to dismiss the naysayers with the arguments that address the specific functional and personal concerns that play a role. The accountants will look at the budget allocation, the engineers at the operational performance, and the marketing people at the delivery of future value to the buyer, and so on.

The presentation of the costs and benefits of the purchase needs to reflect these specific functional biases, and knowing where the veto power lies is crucial to getting a ‘Yes’.

Discounts usually hurt you more than sway a buyer.

Discounting to a close feels efficient and is the first stop of most salespeople whose performance is judged by volume.

The twin downsides are that discounting leaks margin at a compounding rate, and builds doubt in the mind of the buyer.

Once you discount, the buyer asks a reasonable question: “What else could I have got if I had pushed harder?”

You may think you showed flexibility, while they wonder how much more they could have screwed you down. Once you start discounting, the perception of the ‘real’ price is pushed down. Consider your last visit to the supermarket. There are very few brands left that maintain some level of price power, as the retailers have persuaded suppliers to divert brand building investment into discounting.

That does not mean discounting should never exist. Sometimes stock, timing, capacity, or strategic reasons justify it, but discounting should never substitute for poor qualification, weak value communication, bad targeting, lazy follow-up, or fear of silence in the sales conversation.

If you need to adjust, add value before you move with price.

Add something the buyer values highly and you can supply at modest cost.

You bank $ margin, not sales volume.

Cost does not set value

Customers do not care what something costs you to make, deliver, or your profitability.

They care what your product does for them.

You must understand your costs in detail to run your business. Costs shape capacity decisions, product mix, operational priorities, investment choices, and the minimum price below which you slowly commit commercial self-harm. However, your direct costs will never create customer value.

Price on the value delivered to the customer, not on the cost you incur in doing so. Never confuse cost allocation with pricing strategy.

Price is a signal to customers

Price does not only capture value, but it also attracts and repels customers.

Set the price too low and you may attract bargain hunters, anxious buyers, high-maintenance customers, low-margin work, and people who treat your team like a vending machine with shoes.

Set the price too high without proof and you create disbelief.

Set the price properly, and explain it properly, and you attract customers who value what you actually do well.

This is why pricing strategy is a key component of overall strategy, and should never be left to the end, the last number considered before approaching a customer. Your price, and the way it is packaged and presented will attract some, hopefully the result you want, and save you time and selling resources by quickly filtering out those who are not in your ideal target group.

The most powerful word in a sales conversation is often ‘No’. Apart from the financial benefits of focussing resources where they will generate the best return, people always want what they cannot have.

Trust Sits Under Everything

Trust does not make every sale possible, but it forms the foundation of those that do occur.

A vegan will not buy a steak because a butcher seems honest, but they will buy their lentils from someone who clearly understands the quality and provenance they are seeking.

However, when all other things are equal, price becomes the discriminator. Therefore, it is the task of every marketer to ensure that everything else is never equal, and nurturing trust is an essential component of that task.

Warnings!

There are two warnings that need to be considered as part of your pricing strategy.

  1. Understanding the nuances of behavioural pricing can easily slide into or be seen as manipulation. Anchors, decoys, scarcity, bundled pricing, delayed reveals, and urgency can all work. That does not mean you should use them to manipulate. The aim is not to trick people into buying something they should avoid, it is to remove unnecessary friction from buying something that genuinely adds value to the buyer in some way.

Customers will not thank you if they see a pricing strategy as manipulative. Just look at the reaction of the recent federal Court judgement against Coles if you doubt that conclusion.

  1. Testing pricing options that delivers optimum value to both parties to a transaction makes great sense. However, testing price options amongst those to whom your offer is targeted is too often a step missed. Usually this is because it is too hard, is left to a junior in the organisation, is left to the sales force that is usually focused on volume and perceives price as a barrier or relies on some senior persons opinion.

Test behaviour, as customers often cannot explain why a price feels wrong, and they usually will not speak up when they see it as a bargain.

So, test price framing, bundles, tier names, quote layouts, guarantees, payment timing and terms, value-adds, and everything else that might matter.

The real job of price is to make visible the invisible bundle of value represented by the product. Customers do not buy the number, they buy what it represents. Optimising your price strategy optimises both your financial returns and the value received by the buyer.

Price is the visible number attached to an invisible bundle.

 

 

 

 

How do you avoid becoming an AI passenger?

How do you avoid becoming an AI passenger?

 

 

Most recognise the danger of AI. It delivers a slick, formatted persuasive response to a prompt. It has become way too easy to just accept the veracity of the response and move from the drivers seat to the back seat. This removes yourself from the sweat of doing the work, and the responsibility for the outcomes.

We see it all the time, often in spots where we accept that there has been a level of scrutiny that should deliver reliable outcomes. For example, the crapola pie Deloitte delivered to the government in June 2025, which then published the deeply flawed AI generated report without any review.

The answer is in the transparency of the process of assembling, analysing, and preparing the output. What is included, what has been ‘AI imagined’ to fill the gaps in the prompting and resulting workflow, and easiest to miss, what has been left out.

The challenge is rapidly compounding as we move into the ‘AI Agent’ world, where we expect a whole multi-step process to be executed on our behalf by a machine.

Following a few sensible steps can dramatically improve the quality of the output.

Set hard boundaries.

  • Define in explicit terms what the process will and will not do. Is the workflow restricted to your own files, or can it go outside?
  • If it is instructed to use outside sources, what are the boundaries?
  • Explicitly instruct that there be no generation of conclusions before a human review of the sources and for/against arguments.
  • Insert a series of ‘stop’ points beyond which the tool will not proceed until instructed to do so. Instruct the tool to act as a devil’s advocate at each stop/go point.

Transparent provenance.

AI tools extract information from the sources it finds or are directed to. Those sources define the potential of the output to deliver useful value of some sort to the user. Curating the sources the tool examines is therefore a fundamental step in the generation of that value.

Remain curious.

Just because a tool can repeat a workflow accurately every time does not mean that the workflow is perfect. It takes human curiosity and experimentation to test and retest a process that is designed to deliver an optimised outcome. The AI cannot do that optimising; it requires a curious human to be in the drivers seat asking that key ‘what if’ question. So, turn off the process from time to time, and go back to the old way, manual execution.

An exercise I did many times pre-AI to improve a record-keeping process was to imagine myself as a paperclip, attached to relevant documentation. I would follow the document through the process, documenting every point at which the document was delayed, added to, moved, and authorised, and the time lapse of each of those points. Map it out, and inevitably you will see improvement opportunities. AI cannot see those opportunities.

These steps will stop the tool trying to please you by being agreeable and synthesising conclusions.

 

 

 

 

The ‘rules of thumb’ that run your business.

The ‘rules of thumb’ that run your business.

 

 

A ‘heuristic’ is a ‘rule of thumb’ that takes the place of conscious calculation in the interests of speed and reduction of cognitive load in our brain. Cognitive overload creates the ‘friction’ in our brains resulting in indecision and anxiety. Heuristics, or ‘mental models’ bring the cognitive load down to a level we can deal with efficiently.

It is a function of evolutionary psychology.

To survive, you had to make a choice quickly about that rustle in the grass. Ignore it too often and you could end up as tiger shit.

Remember, we are all survivors of those who ran in order to not take the chance with the rustle being a tiger.

We all use these mental models daily, usually unconsciously.

In 2009 Chesley ‘Sully’ Sullenberger ‘landed’ the Airbus A320 he was piloting in the Hudson River after a flock of birds shut down both his engines on take-off from La Guardia airport.

He ‘knew’ without doing the calculations that he would not make it back to La Guardia, or the alternative airport of Teterboro in New Jersey.

His only option was the river, or a crash landing in populated areas of New York, and he had seconds to make the choice.

Subsequent investigations eventually confirmed his choice.

Sully applied unconsciously, a heuristic, a framework that was a result of his extensive flying experience, and knowledge of the gliding performance of the Airbus A320.

No data, no standard operating procedure that was useable, he acted and saved the life of every person on the plane as a result.

We all have a set of heuristics in our heads. The cumulative result of our experiences with life, and the context in which we have lived. We can either understand and leverage them to the advantage of ourselves and those around us, or we can fail to recognise their presence and power.

In your business, you are applying heuristics every day.

Choices that seem automatic: which customer to serve, who to hire, sales conversion, leadership choices, all are made with the assistance of heuristics. They are an essential and integral part of our management, but are only valuable when they are built from valid experience and regular testing and review.

You need to update your heuristics with regular feedback in the manner of an ‘after action review’ type analysis. What worked and what did not, where to lay the chips next time around, where to double down, and where to run.

When left untended, heuristics can evolve in suboptimal ways. Don’t leave yours untended, they may save you.

 

 

A sceptical ‘macro-look’ at the budget by a cynic.

A sceptical ‘macro-look’ at the budget by a cynic.

 

 

Economist Joseph Schumpeter observed in 1942, “economic progress, in a capitalist society, means turmoil.” That observation shows he had a good handle on the future as it is currently panning out. Chaos seems to be the order of the day, globally, as well as in this country.

The federal budget presented on May 12 was based on the principle of generational equity. Clearly, the tax pendulum has swung too far against Australians under 45 or so, in favour of their parents, and requires adjustment.

The incentivising of investment in real estate was enacted in the changes to the tax treatment of Capital gains in the 1999/2000 budget. Mixed with negative gearing which had been a feature of the tax system since 1936, it created a tax driven distortion in the allocation of capital, resulting in a shelter for investment in real estate.

Taxing capital gains has a potted history.

Prior to 1985 capital gains were untaxed, while wages and salaries were taxed at a 60% top marginal rate. Why should capital profits go untaxed while wages were fully taxed? This inequity created distortions in the deployment of capital. The Hawke government introduced a capital gains tax that matched the top marginal rate, excluding primary domestic residences in 1985, and reduced the top marginal tax rate to under 50%. The taxing of capital gains  brought a fierce backlash. In 1987 there was a discount system put in place that recognised the impact of inflation on prices and removed the inflationary impact from any sale price for tax purposes. The changes in 1999 were aimed at simplifying the calculations to arrive at a taxable income that included capital gains, by  introducing a flat 50% discount.

The backlash is evident again, as interest groups very effectively use the tools of AI combined with social platforms to rail against the proposed changes. While there are some areas where the detail in the budget was absent, and there are reasonable arguments against the blunt instrument approach in the budget, the principle was clear. Make the difficult changes now. Accept the impact on political capital for the benefit of the economy in the long term.

The pendulum swings again!

There was a lot of other stuff in the budget, but mostly it was business as usual and window dressing. This was not good enough in my view, when there are significant pressures coming from the changing environmental and geopolitical context that need attention.

A few of those are noted in the following sceptical notes.

      • Climate change and the industrial challenges created in manufacturing largely generated by the pivot to electricity sourced from renewables rather than from fossil fuels and the accompanying/enabling technology is a huge change. We need to invest heavily in the technology and infrastructure of global electrification to catch the wave, or be left behind. We must ignore the anti-scientific and financial nonsense coming from some parts of the political spectrum demanding we remain wedded to fossil fuel. Kicking that can down the road, again, is just plain stupid.
      • Digital has morphed into AI, and the hounds are, rightly, concerned about job losses, as the shape of organisations and daily work pivots to ‘done for you’ by a machine. The disruption will be substantial, and upon us very quickly, so we need to be prepared. We are not even doing the basic things that will prepare for the changes, such as thinking creatively about how to educate our kids for a world very different to the one we grew up in.
      • The steady reversal of the economy from one relying on physical assets to services has made the measurement of just about everything that we see as the foundation of economic modelling redundant. Modelling the outcomes of policy and economic activity is now about as certain as the mumbling from the coloured tent in the corner of the fairground. We desperately need an agreed methodology to realistically measure progress on those parameters. GDP as a realistic measure of activity in the economy is nonsense when it cannot capture most of the activity in services.  The cliché ‘if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it’ is as true in the case of an economy as it is in the management of an SME.
      • Geopolitics is in turmoil. This is not just from the depredations of the current idiot in the White House, who has turbocharged it, and the grab by Russia to rebuild the USSR, but from the rise of China. 30 years ago China was an agricultural economy. Now it is the worlds manufacturing and industrial technology powerhouse. While domestic growth has slackened off, it has not stopped, but the rest of the world now relies on China for critical inputs to their supply chains for everything from advanced technology to manufacturing simple appliances, and Christmas ‘stocking-stuffers’. Where to next for China? I think it will attack the sclerotic economies of the west by buying in and disrupting the comfortable order that prevails. For example, European and US car manufacturing is being killed by Chinese imports of EV’s. So, they respond with various barriers that protect their own industries. The natural response from China will be to buy into the market either by start-ups or buying established brands, and building manufacturing capability behind any barriers. Chinese firms already own Volvo, MG and Lotus. Who is next? Volkswagen? The Chinese strategy is clear, and driven by long term thinking, not the next election cycle.
      • Australia is not immune. International investment in Australia is essential for our economy. To date it has largely been US and European investors, we have a somewhat xenophobic attitude to Chinese investment, noting we cannot easily invest in China, and if we do, the conditions are onerous. However, we need them more than they need us, so the outcome is obvious. Australia and the western world generally has prospered under the umbrella of international trade fostered by the US since the Marshall Plan set about rebuilding Europe and Japan after the war. Now that plan is in tatters, torn up by its parent. We however, remain wedded to it as the US is so deeply integrated into our economy, while no longer being our biggest trading partner. That guernsey goes to China, the recipient of the openness of world trade, and now in a position to shape it through its domination of the key commodities and technologies of the early 21st century. That reality is yet to work its way into the Australian narrative in any way beyond observations of the importance of China as the major buyer of coal and iron ore. We were taught a painful lesson about the power of China to dictate terms under the previous government. The position we hold as a critical supplier of commodities will diminish over the next 25 years as Chinese integration into mineral wealthy Africa comes of age. What will we do then? Nothing in the budget even gives a hint of preparation, indeed, we continue to spend heavily on straw men like AUKUS.
      • Australian R&D, both public and private is low by standards seen in competitive economies. It is also fragmented by our governance system that feeds turf wars at every level of activity. If we set about designing a governance system with a clean sheet of paper, there is no way we would end up with what we currently face.  Therefore, it should be a priority of the government, every government, to remove the duplication, waste and opportunity cost such a system encourages. The budget did allocate a small increase in funding for CSIRO, but also directed that the current headcount reduction continue. Other changes to the R&D tax incentive and allocations to specific projects were also announced, but none to address the central challenge of doing the science, then turning it into a commercial outcome.
      • The US S&P is driven by tech companies. Of the top 10 in market value, only Berkshire Hathaway is what might be termed ‘Old industry.’ In Australia it is the exact reverse. Of the top 10 only CSL could be termed ‘new industry’. Notably, several unicorns born in Australia have migrated, Atlassian and Canva being the poster children of this migration, but by far, not the only ones. We must find ways to create and nurture innovation. Progressively taking the axe to public expenditure on science, as noted above, is not a good start.
      • November 2022 saw the public release of ChatGPT, which kicked off the AI ball. Subsequently, AI-related stocks have registered 76% of the S&P 500’s return, 87% of earnings growth, and 90% of Capex growth.  The returns in the US, upon which much of our super returns rely is reliant on the ‘magnificent 7’, and most specifically Nvidia, continuing their growth driven by AI. Shakey ground indeed for the future prospect of returns when we are increasingly reliant on a superannuation system heavily invested in the S&P to fund retirement.
      • We have an ossified political system. It is however, starting to break down, exemplified  by the capturing of seats by ‘Teal’ candidates who removed the heart of the Liberal party over the last 2 elections, and the rise of the policy free bluster-ball that is One Nation. We need imagination and vision in the national parliament, and the courage to follow through. The outdated structures need to be at least renovated if not removed. We should start by limiting or even removing corporate donations to political parties. The alternative is a publicly funded system, open to citizens, and capable of receiving donations from citizens with a limit. The limit is to prevent rich individuals and businesses donating more than a concerned citizen on a median wage can afford. That might begin to earn the title of ‘Democracy’, and put a brake on the ability to influence policy choices by vested interests.

This is not a complete list, but it touches most of what concerns me about the direction we are taking.

Header: My thanks to Hugh McLeod for once again, capturing a complex idea in a simple graphic.