How do you measure culture?

How do you measure culture?

May 14, 2018 | Change, Governance, Management

With an increasing regularity, ‘Culture’ emerges as an item to be ‘managed’. I fully expect it to be front and centre before the end of the current Royal Commission into the financial sector, as most of the poor practises we have seen , immoral, unethical, and some down-right illegal, stem from a poor culture, lack of leadership in the true sense of the word, and a failure of governance.

Culture pervades every organisation of more than  1 person. It is how we interact, behave, collaborate, and deal with other people in the pursuit of whatever objectives, personal, and commercial that are front of mind, but mostly is just about how the job gets done.

Mundane as that is, culture is the determining factor.

It truly bothers me that an outcome of the Royal Commission may be that a legislated  regime be put into place to regulate culture.  The boffins in Canberra have no idea what it is, and how to define it, but that may  not stop them regulating for it.

It is also a fact that ‘culture’ is an outcome, like a brand, of a host of small  behaviours, interactions, and processes over time that added together deliver an outcome we call ‘culture’. It is not an item to be managed as you would an expense item  in the P&L.

To my mind, culture is grown from the inside, but it responds to the outside environment. Growing a culture is not dissimilar to the Japanese art of ‘Bonsai’, the cultivation of dwarf plants, grown into all sorts of intricate shapes.

The bonsai gardener starts with the raw material of the plant, and the environment in which it will be growing, then over time, it encourages the characteristics they want, and cuts off those that do not want before they can take shape and become an integral part of the plants physiology, disfiguring the outcome. A leader who acts as a bonsai gardener for the growing evolving culture, will fertilise the behaviours that add to the development of the envisaged end result, while nipping in the bud those that do not add to the end result, all the time training others in the art of bonsai.

 

Making a commitment to the cultural style that suits the strategic and competitive choices being made is a first step.

What culture do you want? It seems to me that the starting point should be envisioning where you want to end up. No different from setting any other objective, as it provides a consistent framework for making those difficult trade-offs and compromises that become necessary. Therefore decide what sort of culture you want, one obsessed with customer service, innovation, operational productivity, attention to detail, whatever it may be, and behave accordingly. All will have elements of each of the others in them, but there should be an overriding objective.

Are you committed for the long term? Culture is not something you erect in a financial year, it is an incremental process, built over time and very dependent on the CEO. It is the boss who makes the running with the culture that prevails, and the boss must simply walk the talk, every single day, in every way. This can be painful, and the board of a business that has the wrong boss needs to make a choice about the culture it wants and recruit accordingly.

What measurement tools do you want to use? There are a lot of choices out there, a simple google search may lead you to the conclusion that this is a task that can be outsourced to a fancy consulting firm with pretty measurement tools. Those that in my experience try and either ignore or outsource ‘culture,’ end up with at best a neutral result, and usually a poor one. Most of the tools used are pretty simple when pared back to their essential elements.

However, the common element is that they are subjective, and only really relevant as a measure of change over time. Treating a measurement of ‘culture’ as an objective measure of performance at a point in time as you would with a P&L to measure profitability will be misleading. It is the trends that really count, not the quantum of any measurement you might take.

Measuring ‘Culture’ like most things can be, and should be, made as simple as possible. This is itself is a challenging notion. Much easier to have a series of complicated dashboards that measure all sorts of things, but are really there just to make those in authority feel better.

Employee referrals and sales leads.  An employee is hardly likely to refer their own networks to the business if they are unhappy.

Customer complaint responses. Timeliness and follow through are always good indications of a customer facing culture. Every business needs customers, and dealing with problems that arise should be a first order task.

Employee turnover, and rehires. A turnover of people is natural, and I would regard as healthy. The tipping point is around the point where they are leaving because they are tired, bored and not learning anything, and where they have acquired new skills and are keen to test them in new challenges. Similarly, capable people who wish to return is a good indicator. Large businesses can also track the internal movement of employees across functions and geographies for the same reasons.

Employee exit surveys. Understanding why employees leave can be a vital piece of information about the culture, and existing management. At exit, employees are often more likely to ‘tell all’ than under other circumstances. Such an interview should be routine, friendly and constructive, and not conducted by the exiting employees line manager, and certainly not  by the HR intern, but by someone of stature in the business.

Employee Survey.  Regular employee surveys  can deliver quantitative data across a range of cultural variables that makes measurement of changes over time possible. It is always better that they are anonymous and done by a third party.  It is usually the truth that you get when you engage with the operating level employees, those on the production line, the truckies, warehouse hands, they see and suffer from the impacts of poor practises every day.

Customer survey, as above.

Supplier survey, as above, and even more important that they be done by an external party, and certainly not by the sales force, or including only those recommended for interview by the sales force. Suppliers are often in a position to give great insights into cultural drivers.

Employee Net promoter Score. NPS is now an established measure amongst customers, there is  no reason  I can see  not to use it amongst employees. It is a more complicated version of employee surveys.

The ‘carpark’ test. If it is a race to get out at 5.00, it is a sign of employee disengagement, a poor cultural outcome, and easily assessed rather than measured simply by being there and watching.  The behaviour being exhibited by operational staff is the ultimate test of ‘culture’, and you can and should observe that in many ways.  How many smiles and greetings does the ‘Boss’ get during a factory walk-through, how happy are staff to interact with senior staff on matters trivial as well as important, how well do senior staff listen to and provide feedback to operational staff, and so on. While I call it the carpark test, it is really just being respectful  of others, building their their sense of personal value, irrespective of their role.

 

As a final point, we all talk about culture as if it was a ‘thing’. It is not, it is as noted, the gradual, incremental outcome of thousands of individual interactions. You can dictate culture all you like, but it will have no effect. It is only when you change the individual interactions, one by one, that the evolved culture will slowly emerge.

Photo credit: Dave Gammon via Flikr

8 ingredients for  an idea stew

8 ingredients for  an idea stew

May 2, 2018 | Change, Innovation, Strategy

Ideas do not emerge from nothing, despite the hype, they do not just appear in the shower. They are always a product of a process, conscious or unconscious that connects and curates thoughts, knowledge, ideas from other domains, that can be used in a different way, connected where there was not pre-existing connection, and that have a hook of some sort that does something new. As J.M. Keynes observed:  ‘The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones’

Ideas evolve and like any evolution require a set of conditions that encourages individual survival, evolution over time, and eventually success for a very few.

There are 8 ingredients to an idea stew.

Allow Prep time.

Every stew has a base, a foundation upon which the variations can be built. While the base is often obscured, it is nevertheless critical. Taking your time to determine just what you have available for  the stew, that will meet the objective, and then organizing the ingredients in the right amounts to be added in a sensible order with any necessary ‘sub-assembly’ being done will improve the outcome. Your idea stew is built in the same way, on a solid  foundation with research, and the results of previous trial and error to hand. The more work you put into the prep, the better the outcome usually is.

Have a pot.

To create a stew, you need something in which to hold the ingredients as they cook, each ingredient influencing the others, and the outcome. Making a great stew without the resources necessary, the time, access to ingredients, the right implements,  and obviously a kitchen, is pretty challenging, next to impossible. While you do not necessarily need the top of the range, you do need enough to manage the process with some degree of control and efficiency.

Have a deadline.

Usually when preparing a stew, it is for something specific. Dinner tomorrow night, for the weekend when the neighbors come over, or standby for the freezer.  Creating an idea stew is no different. The presence of a deadline, perhaps counter-intuitively, creates tension, pressure to get things done, and it focusses attention on the details so things do not get left undone.

Have a picture of the outcome.

The stew you are cooking has to serve a purpose, it has an audience, and the audience shapes the stew. Just as you would not put a pile of chili in a stew your young kids will be eating, you need to ensure that the ingredient in your ideas stew are consistent with the sort of outcome you are seeking.

Be prepared for diversity.

Sometimes, someone who may be a great pastry cook, but knows little about stews can bring across something from his discipline that adds something very different to the stew.  While this diversity in the ‘cooks’ often draws comment, the last thing you want if you are looking for a different stew, is to have only those who are used to the current recipe involved in thinking about the options that may be there.

Have a process plan.

Every stew is made in some sort of sequence, separate steps taken in some order, with interdependencies amongst the ingredients. While each step is not necessarily fixed, there are some things that must come before others can be properly done, to get the best outcome. A stew also takes time for the flavor to develop, for the little touches to be added that make all the difference, a pinch of this, a dash of that, all in the context of the plan, to avoid mucking up the result with that little last minute addition.

Creativity: The vital ingredient.

Perhaps a better word is ‘catalyst’ in a commercial context, as there are elements of creativity in all of us. However, for many it has been beaten out by the education we have, the institutions we work for, and at a more base psychological level, some of us are simply not risk-takers, not outside the box thinkers, so are of limited value for creative input. It is in effect the difference between a very good cook, and a chef. Give a great cook a complicated recipe and they will execute it by following both the recipe and the methodology, but give them a limited pantry and no recipe, and many will struggle. By contrast, the chef gets bored with the recipe, and  prefers to experiment. The outcomes are varied, most will be disasters, bit a few will be spectacular successes. Businesses succeed by doing the same things over and over, getting  better at it all  the time. A necessary ingredient of this mix is to get rid of those who cannot follow the process. However, for a business to renew itself, to cook an entirely new stew, it requires those who do not go by the rules, who think outside the box, sometimes outside the postcode. You also need to keep diligent records so that the unexpected great outcome can be reproduced, often a challenge for the creative ones who get bored with the recording when they can be doing. Pity you got rid of them all because they are a pain in the arse to manage!

Ask a friendly customer.

Asking someone you hope might put their hand into their pocket and give you their heard-earned in return for a taste of your stew seems to be a good idea at some point before you commit to the expensive launch. Generally, the earlier the better, and the more informed and critical their opinion of your evolving stew, the better.

A marketers explanation of the difference between an ‘Intangible Asset’ and ‘Goodwill’

A marketers explanation of the difference between an ‘Intangible Asset’ and ‘Goodwill’

Apr 30, 2018 | Change, Governance, Strategy

When you look at a balance sheet, the intangible elements of it are either the outcome of ‘boilerplate’ accounting standards that bear little resemblance to reality, or are the function of a management narrative. Neither is of much use, and both can be destructive.

For example: under the accounting standards, intangible assets are listed on a company’s balance sheet only if they are acquired, and therefore have an identifiable cost, and usually lifespan that can be amortised. Assets developed internally have no place on a balance sheet.

Of course, neither goodwill or intangible assets as recorded have little ’cause and effect’ connection with the share market valuation, which is all about future cash flows.

The Coca Cola logo is generally ‘valued’ in the billions, but does not appear in the balance sheet because it was built internally, rather than acquired. Were a company to acquire Coca Cola, there would then be a value that could be pinned to the logo, which would then appear on their balance sheet. The caveat is that there are mechanisms to place a value on an intangible asset that can be recorded, usually involving independent valuations, but these valuations come with a grain of salt.

A further example. When developing a new product, the outcomes of that effort may be seen as an intangible asset, but it appears nowhere except the P&L, as development expenses. Assume the product is a pharmaceutical product, years in the development, and very expensive, this is a drain on cash flow in the hope that there will be a pay-off. Prior to commercial launch, it has been patented, the efficacy proven, then the patent becomes a tangible asset, as a dollar value can be attached, and the patent is tradeable. The brand name of the new product will become a new intangible asset, not reflected anywhere beyond an implied connection to the value of the patent. Over time if the product is a market success, the value of the patent will increase to reflect the future cash flows that will result from ownership, to a peak, after which the cash flows will be subjected to competition from generic products that will become available as the patent period runs out, so the value is reduced. The brand name has no value in the books, until it is sold, perhaps along with the patent,

The key distinction between goodwill and intangible assets is that the goodwill has been purchased, so has a market defined value. Google paid $12.5 Billion in 2011 for Motorola Mobility, entirely  for the patent library they owned. At the time, Motorola was close to broke, their products which had led the mobile phone market had suddenly become irrelevant when they missed the smart phone revolution. The patents were transferred to Google, who then sold the remaining  hardware business to Lenovo for $3 billion, without the key software patents. On paper, Google took a $8.5 billion loss, but retained the patent library and intellectual capital associated with the Motorola development labs. This gave them greater leverage with the users of Android mobile software, predominantly Samsung, and protection against the relentless patent wars with Apple. A great deal.

Lenovo would have an item on their balance sheet that values their purchases from Google, but there is nothing on Googles balance sheet beyond the  ‘loss’ they incurred in the transaction, which fails to reflect the future value they will derive from the ownership of the patent library.

However, there is a sea change going on. According to research company Ocean Tomo, the proportion of US Fortune 500 companies stock market valuations represented by intangible assets has gone from 17% in 1975 to 87% in 2015.

The lesson here is that the world has changed, so called ‘soft’ assets are now more valuable than the physical assets that accounting systems were designed to track.  Focussing effort on building those soft assets will pay long term dividends, which cannot be readily accounted for in the monthly financial reports.

For most of my client base, the notion of intangible assets is far-fetched, until they come to valuing their business, when a primary asset becomes the relationship they have with their major customers, and how ‘sticky’ they might be seen post a sales transaction. It is this ‘stickiness’ that is a primary driver for the acquiring company to keep the key personnel employed on a pay-out contract based on a period of time and key KPI’s, to better manage the smooth transfer of the relationships.

Header from http://www.oceantomo.com/2015/03/04/2015-intangible-asset-market-value-study/

Is marketing’s greatest failure in the boardroom?

Is marketing’s greatest failure in the boardroom?

Apr 23, 2018 | Change, Governance, Leadership

There have been libraries written about strategy, and particularly marketing strategy. There are now multitudes of tools and templates available to develop and implement, but the gap between the development and successful implementation of marketing strategy is huge, and hard to navigate.

Marketing is a functional silo on an organisation chart, as is Sales, Operations, Finance, HR, but unlike the others, marketing deals with unknowns, the future, whereas all the other functions deal with the past, or what is immediately in front of them.

Marketing is about the future, long term commercial sustainability, and its effectiveness is really hard to measure, other than in hindsight. There are lots of measures for things that have happened, which are the result of often many combinations of actions taken some time ago, so the measures are unable to change anything, just give insights to what worked and what did not.

As the senior marketing person in a very large business 30 years ago, I found myself often talking about advertising, segmentation, positioning, graphic design, and all the rest, around the board table, which either put others to sleep, or elicited opinions, usually uninformed, about the detail. However, when I talked revenue I had their attention.

Marketing is all about revenue, particularly future revenue. The other stuff is the paddling under the surface that enables the generation of the revenue, but the real measure of marketing effectiveness is revenue and margins over time.

In every business I have ever had anything to do with, marketing expenditure is treated as an item in the P&L. By definition, items in the P&L are expenses or past sales revenue. This is inconsistent with the notion of marketing being about building the foundations of future revenue.

The closest analogy is a piece of capital equipment, they are always purchased to fill one of two roles, sometimes both:

  • Increase the volumes available too be sold,
  • Increase the productivity of the processes.

Those purchases are recorded in the journals, posted to the appropriate ledger account and reported in the cash flow statements, and the balance sheet, not the P&L. The greater irony is that capital items are depreciating assets, whereas marketing  investments, when done well are appreciating assets, unrecorded anywhere except the P&L as an expense until the business is sold, when the accountants start talking about ‘Goodwill’ being the difference between the realisable value of the physical assets, and the liabilities on the books.

There is a structural paradox here. We treat a potentially appreciating asset differently to one that can only depreciate, just because it is hard to measure.

This challenge of measurement is the biggest one marketing people have to hurdle. The turnover of marketers in senior roles is the fastest amongst the functional heads in large corporations because we generally do not recognise the essential long term business building nature of marketing investments. We treat it as an expense to be cut at the slightest cloud on the profitability horizon, and the marketing people with it.

One of the challenges here is that to achieve these long term outcomes, marketing requires the co-operation and  collaboration of all the other functions, without the organisational authority to direct. The CMO has to be a leader across functions. He/she has to build the respect and co-operation of other functional leaders, often at odds with their short term function specific performance measures.

25 years ago, I and my marketing team, failed to convince the board of the then Dairy Farmers Co-Operative to invest the required capital in new equipment to launch a new brand of flavoured milk. It was to be packaged in plastic bottles, with a screw cap, to be sold at a very considerable premium to the products then only available in the gable top cartons, and we proposed to sell it to different consumers. Nobody had done this before, we were banking on tapping into a market completely under-serviced by existing packaging and branding. The Operations Manager at the time believed in the project, and put his neck on the line by committing  his R&M budget to refurbish some older gear in the absence of capital approval, and I ‘stole’ the required advertising funds from another brand.  We launched Dare Flavoured milk, and it delivered the fastest return on investment I have ever seen, and 25 years later, it is still going strong, delivering revenue and margins to the now overseas owners of the business.

If marketers started talking about revenue generation, rather than the more common ‘marketing-speak’ like positioning, segmentation, and all the insider jargon generated by digital, they will be taken much more seriously around the board table. Building support amongst other functions to acknowledge the long term impacts of intelligent marketing, is necessary for long term prosperity, and the only real measure of marketing effectiveness.

The management task is all about getting the most out of the assets and capabilities of your business, and it is marketing management that carries the usually unarticulated responsibility to drive the collaboration necessary to achieve the best outcomes.

This task has four dimensions:

Operational management, strategic management, Financial management, and performance ,management.

Strategic management is all about the manner in which you address your market opportunities and challenges, and has a long term focus on commercial sustainability.

Operational management is the manner in which you deploy and utilise the assets of the business on a day to day basis to add value that customers are prepared to pay for.

The financial management of a business provides the basis for the assessment of success, or failure. It is a scorecard that is capable of comparison, across activities, business functions and timeframes.

Lack of a good financial management framework is a bit like walking blindfolded into a minefield, you might be lucky for a while, but eventually you get blown up.

Financial management is far more than just running the numbers, and ensuring compliance with the tax and corporate rules, it is about being in a position to make the choices that need to be made across the business every day, that shape not just today, but build the resilience necessary for commercial longevity. Understanding the numbers is a core part of every management job, not just of the financial people.

Performance management. Performance management is all about getting the most out of the assets and capabilities your business has, and can purchase in, maximising the productivity of the assets of all types you have deployed.

Manufacturing is the backbone of the economy, and is not taken sufficiently seriously by current national leadership. While we migrate to an economy whose GDP is less dependent on ‘hard’ assets, to one that emphasises ‘services’ we fail to adequately factor in the foundations that manufacturing delivers. In our age of ‘digitisation’ the value coming from increasing productivity is ill defined by the measures employed in the past. We need a new suite of measures, based on the old, but adapted to reflect the reality of a changed world. This is particularly as it is now an international race, without the protection of geography, and less of the artificial protection of regulation, despite the regular hiccups that result from populist politics, and just keeping up requires a substantial effort and investment.

 

 

 

Is Facebooks ‘moat’ the best ever built?

Is Facebooks ‘moat’ the best ever built?

Apr 16, 2018 | Change, Marketing, Strategy

 

Building a moat seems an odd metaphor in a strategy and marketing post. Some explanation of moats may help.

My personal definition of marketing has been ‘The identification, development, protection and leveraging of competitive advantage’. Not a textbook definition, but one that has worked for me. In other words, build a ‘moat’ as a foundation block of your strategy.

Warren Buffet, who deserves to be listened to any time he chooses to speak, coined the term ‘economic moat‘ to describe his investment philosophy. Find an asset that has a ‘wide moat’, the wider the better, but is undervalued, and get  inside where the power of the moat can be employed to extract what economists call ‘economic rent’ or to us simple people, returns better than the average return on capital in that  industry.

Theory is that when such a valuable asset is identified, competitors will come in, and by the nature of competition  bring the return on capital back to the average. The game therefore is to be in front of the pack.

Moats are built in many ways. They can be wider, deeper, more turbulent, on the other side of a desert, be inside a ring of outer-moats, and so on. Point is, when there is gold in the castle, the barbarians will try and find a way to bridge the moat, and be prepared to spend proportionally to the size of the pile of gold in the castle.

Once you have a great moat built, which takes time, effort, and a lot of resources, defence becomes easier. However, defence is also static, the initiative is ceded to the opposition, so a wise moat owner busily uses some of the gold to build another moat somewhere out of the eye line of the barbarians. Unfortunately, most moat owners are so focused on the defence of  their current pot of gold that they hoard it, instead of leveraging it out of sight.

Kodak had a moat, a great one, deep, wide, incredibly well defended, but they left the side door to  their lab open so that the barbarians knocked off their own weapon, the digital camera, and used it against them. Better for Kodak to have taken the digital camera they developed down the road a bit and built another castle with a moat.

Same with Blockbuster. They even had the opportunity to buy Netflix, for what amounted to pocket money, but declined. Their moat got drained, and the barbarians came in the front gate.

All the noise around Facebook over the last month since the Cambridge Analytica fiasco surfaced was focussed last week on the sight of Mark Zuckerberg in the early stages of moat defence. Facebooks moat is perhaps  the best thought out, strongest, and best defended moat ever built. Not only are  the defences of Facebook itself daunting, but the pot of gold has been used to build a series of moats around Facebooks castle that are themselves defended with a series of interlocking moats.  66 of them since 2005, when Facebook itself was a start-up. Many we have never heard of, but all added to the Facebook moat system in some strategic way. A few however, have huge  moats themselves, still being built, and offering interlocking fields of defensive fire to the kings castle.  Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus, were large acquisitions, on top of the impressive list of offensive and defensive tools developed in the Facebook labs and deployed strategically.

The US senate has been questioning Zuckerberg for a couple of days, and with some exceptions, making turkeys of themselves.  Senator Hatch has been a prime turkey, demonstrating breathtaking ignorance by asking how the business model worked,(1.30 into the video) and being unaware of the presence of ads as the revenue generator. The comparison between the questioners and Zuckerberg was so great the share price of Facebook went back up, delivering Zuckerberg a cool $3 billion for a few hours ‘work’

While you can build a deeper moat with that sort of loot, the real point is that the barbarians will now keep on attacking, using the regulators as their weapons of choice, and I suspect in time, as Zuckerberg himself acknowledged, they will be successful in getting a few across the moat. I suspect the barbarian scouts will look at the rules coming into force in the EU in May, the ‘General Data Protection Regulation’ (GDPR) which will mandate the manner in which consumer data is managed. It requires that consumer consent to the collection of data be explicit, that they have the right to be ‘forgotten’ and have the right to manage their own data portability.

Money and history is on the side of the  Zuck, he does not seem likely to make the mistakes Blockbuster and Kodak amongst many, made, despite the barbarians finding some potentially potent weapons. I cannot help but wonder if the turkeys are up to standard for the game that will be played.

 

Photo credit: Malcolm Gardner via flikr. Bodium Castle Cornwall

 

What have Facebook and Marjory Stoneman Douglas got in common?

What have Facebook and Marjory Stoneman Douglas got in common?

Apr 12, 2018 | Change, rant

Beyond the usual menu of war and pestilence in the Middle East, and which celebrity is bonking which, that usually dominate the headlines, two very significant items have emerged over the last short period.

  • The reaction of students at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida after the shooting on February 14 that killed 17 students, and wounded 17 more.
  • Facebooks relationship with the truth and your personal data.

Both have the potential to be tipping points, but the question is can they really generate sufficient traction to  result in lasting change.

The students at the MSD High school seem too have generated a response not seen before. The ‘March for our lives‘ rallies across the US, end even here in Australia are mobilising sentiment against the idiots who claim their unfettered right to own guns is inalienable, as never before. This shooting, terrible as it was, is just one of a very long line of mass shootings in the US, each met with political weasel words and sorrow for the victims, but nothing more.

But something has changed. Somehow.

Enough people seem to be prepared to say ‘enough‘ that some sensible changes may happen that will save a few lives.

Facebook has had its bum spanked by the only people who really count, those cloistered manipulators hiding in Wall Street, and a few high profile advertisers. The current congressional hearings may make for dramatic headlines, but unless regulation with teeth emerges, they will be just window dressing and a forum for congress members to get their names in the media.

The Facebook IPO in  May 2012 was at the time one of the biggest ever, valuing the company at 104 billion, $38 a share, to the surprise of many pundits, myself included. Since the IPO, immediately after which the $38 a share seemed very generous, Facebook has cracked the advertising monetisation code  and the share price was $185 as Cambridge Analytica emerged last week, then dropped like a stone to $162 before recovering a bit, wiping billions off the market value, and prompting Mark Zuckerberg to apologise in what seemed to be a pretty genuine manner.

The question is, will either be sufficiently sustainable to  generate change?

I think ‘Maybe’ on both counts.

US Attorney General Sessions has proposed a formal ban on ‘Bump Stocks’ the device that turns a normal semi-automatic weapon to become a machine gun, used with such effect in the Las Vegas shooting last year. A small but sensible step in the right direction, but perhaps more tellingly, businesses, large and small, are now publicly shunning the NRA, and adding their voice to the calls for change.

Momentum is building.

Facebook, as well as all other platforms for digital advertising,  has been under increasing pressure for some time, so much so that Zuckerberg released his new years resolution to ‘Clean up Facebook‘ on January 5. Early in 2017 P&G CMO Mark Pritchard took a huge swipe at the digital advertising industry in his address to the IAB, and there has been some changes emerging as a result, driven by other big advertisers taking Pritchards advice on board.

My view.

The ball is rolling on both counts, and momentum is building. Change will come slowly, and for some painfully, but common sense and decency will win in the end.