May 30, 2025 | AI, Marketing
The market research industry turns over big dollars by providing reassurance to marketers that when they are wrong, they have an acceptable excuse.
The recent election campaign and associated polls demonstrate comprehensively how broken market research can be. It should have been simple. Is Labor going to win, will the conservatives take the lollies, or will it be a split result? It was almost a binary choice, but no poll I saw was even close.
Given that failure, how in heaven’s name can we reasonably expect such a broken system to deliver reliable answers to challenging questions about the future behaviour of customers and potential customers in a competitive and volatile environment? Add into the mix the inability of most marketers to understand the competing forces in their market sufficiently well to ask good questions and therefore write quality research briefs. That delivers a perfect recipe for pissing money against the wall in pursuit of reassurance.
Over the years as a much younger marketer, I spent a lot of money on market research. It took a while, but I did come to realise the data was only a tiny proportion of the game. The real challenge was building the wisdom, insight, and market gutfeel to be able to ask those really good questions. Then, when a surprising response emerged, have the curiosity to further interrogate it from a positive and genuinely inquisitive perspective to get an answer to the eternal question: Why is it so?
In the last year or so, and accelerating at an astonishing rate, is the ability delivered by AI to gather and process market and behavioural information that can be used to ask those challenging; why is it so’ questions.
The process of market research has been totally up-ended. No longer do you need to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars over months to get shallow and often dated results. Now you can replicate the task quickly and cheaply with superior results using AI, and what is emerging as ‘synthetic research’.
Traditional research is good at telling you what has happened. It is good at counting. However, if you need to know what will happen in the future, and you use yesterdays tools, good luck!
May 26, 2025 | AI, Governance, Strategy
Innovation using physics is forging ahead at an accelerating rate.
Remember the speed at which a covid vaccine was brought to the market after the first identification of the virus. Instead of the usual 10 to 15 years we suddenly had that process compressed into 18 months.
And yet there remained those who refused to accept the vaccination for a range of personal and behavioural reasons which many would say are irrational.
Somewhere the line between the technical innovation involved in the hyper-rapid final stage development of the vaccine and the humanities driving behaviour crashed into each other.
As the rate of technical innovation across every domain accelerates it is likely we will continue to stumble across this barrier to adoption, and a fragmentation of adoption across a range of behavioural parameters.
Simply another social tension driven by the speed at which the modern world is evolving. It is way beyond the speed at which our DNA allows behaviour and attitudes to evolve.
The situation in front of us right now is the degree and manner in which AI is accepted and adopted by organisations and by individuals.
We managed this dilemma in the motor industry as it became obvious that it was profoundly important to incorporate safety into the vehicles as a means to save lives. As a result, it became mandatory to design crumple zones into cars, and install seat belts. Regulatory intervention and oversight 60 years after it became obvious that a car could kill its occupants.
Where will the equivalent crumple zone emerge in the arena of AI, and will it be in time?
May 20, 2025 | Uncategorized
Remember when Lotus 123 arrived?
Most don’t, but I do.
Suddenly, my ‘To Do’ list had babies.
Lotus delivered the opportunity to answer questions that previously had required hours, days and even weeks of work to calculate by hand. That opportunity meant that every man and his dog were asking more questions, and expecting an answer yesterday.
The pattern repeated when Excel blew Lotus out of the water, and it continues as Excel continues to add functionality unimagined a few years ago.
Then, along comes AI, and again repeats the pattern, except, the pattern has been given a huge dose of steroids.
Not only do we and those to whom we report expect those answers immediately, we now also expect that the machine will also ask the questions, and offer alternatives.
Years ago, I learnt the hard way that the lists of jobs to be done my wife put on the fridge for my immediate attention was a trap.
Every time I managed to rub one off, several more appeared at the bottom of the list. Quickly the list became an unmanageable source of conflict, as expectations were so totally different, resources required rarely available, and priorities were both moveable, totally unclear, and seemingly never mutual.
So it has been with digital automation tools from Lotus to AI.
Failure to agree priorities, ensure adequate and appropriate resource availability, and focus aggressively on the agreed priority inevitably leads to conflict, confusion, and sub-optimal performance.
The follow up problem to the explosive growth of AI is that we have surrendered to the ‘instant gratification’ world of Tik Tok.
We want an answer, and we want it now!
This demand for immediacy combined with the massive capability of AI to deliver output unimaginable before Chat hit the headlines is eroding our need, and indeed ability, to think. Superficially, we no longer need to consider the ‘first principles’ aspects of challenges and opportunities that confront us: AI does it for us.
‘Thinking slow’ is not only unfashionable, but seemingly unnecessary.
However, it is my view that those who can ‘think slow’ in the face of the demand for immediacy will win in the end.
Thinking fast and slow in blogs used
Failure to agree priorities, ensure adequate and appropriate resource availability, and focus aggressively on the agreed priority inevitably leads to conflict, confusion, and sub-optimal performance.
You do not have to be using AI tools to know the timeless truth of that statement.
However, it is my view that those who can ‘think slow’ in the face of the demand for immediacy will win in the end.
May 1, 2025 | Governance, Leadership
By Sunday morning we will know the outcome of this visionless, spineless, idea and leadership-free zone that has passed for an election campaign.
Whatever the outcome, we can look forward to more of the same. Sadly.
It is unreasonable to compare the governance of a country to that of a major corporation, they are apples and pears. The objectives are so substantially different it’s absurd to pretend they’re the same.
However, at a macro level, there are striking similarities in the systems, structures and disciplines that should underpin both. Many of the principles that drive successful corporate governance are desperately needed in government.
Long-term financial sustainability
Corporations must generate enough cash flow to sustain their operations. Shareholders, lenders, and customers all have options: they can walk if they don’t see value. That pressure forces financial discipline.
Governments by contrast levy taxes to raise their revenue without the taxed having choice. In addition, they can ‘create’ money by borrowing from the central bank via the issuing of government backed bonds. Short term this acts as a cushion for cycles in the economy, but long term, just like a corporation, there must be an ability to both pay the interest and on maturity, retire some of the debt. Failure to do so will result in economic erosion and eventual ‘banana republic’ status.
The long term rules of ‘financial gravity’ apply equally to corporations and governments.
Development and deployment of human and physical assets
Corporations invest in leadership and capability because returns depend on it. Governments have a deeper responsibility. Their role is to shape the society’s capacity to think, build, and adapt. Education is the backbone of economic and social growth. It is more than teaching the necessary practical skills needed by the economy, it is also the intellectual and emotional development of the country. We chase the sugar hit and skip the slow burn by treating education as a cost centre, rather than an investment with a long term payoff in wider ways than just financial. The price of misunderstanding the role of education is paid in wasted potential and stalled progress.
Building strategic moats
Warren Buffett nailed it: build moats or die trying. Moats defend your competitive edge.
In national terms, it’s about sovereign capability. Countries that do not invest in strategic domains: energy, food, defence, Intellectual Capital, lose control of their future. Sovereign capability is leverage, and without it, we drift.
Compounding and patience
Einstein called compounding the most powerful force in the universe. Most companies struggle with it. Governments are even worse.
The three-year electoral cycle kills patience. Most policies are Band-Aids with media-friendly headlines. Real compounding needs time and resolve, both of which require leadership.
A handful of exceptions stand out in our history: floating the dollar, Medicare, GST reform. Rare moments of a recognition that the long-term always arrives, sometimes all of a sudden.
Seeing the trends and riding them
Both corporations and governments need to play the trend game. Spot it, bet on it, build around it.
But here’s the catch: governments should do what companies cannot. They must back the long-term, risky bets that create public good. They must build the infrastructure: physical, intellectual, scientific, and social that will serve future generations. This requires an agile mind that can take in new information, process it and arrive at a different point, then execute a long term pivot. This governance characteristic is totally absent from our politics, where the focus is on predicting and planning an answer to the ‘gotcha’ question at the next press conference.
Transparency and trust
Trust is oxygen. Lose it and nothing else matters. Great organisations know this. They operate with clarity, keep promises, and hold people accountable.
Governments? Far too often, the reverse. Opaque processes, spin over substance, accountability dodged. When transparency dies, trust doesn’t just die with it—it rots.
Has anyone seen a trace of any of these six characteristics in this election campaign?
Anyone?
