Mar 11, 2014 | Change, Governance, Innovation, Personal Rant
Comment on possible changes to the cross media ownership laws is emerging, again. Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull reopened the conversation in an interview with Sky, reflecting that the media landscape had changed dramatically, so it makes sense to change the rules that govern the ownership that were set up before the changes occurred. It seems pretty sensible to me.
However, here is the paradox.
The traditional media is commercially stuffed, as the advertising has been drained away by the “new media” of the internet, but never have they been so powerful. Just look at the role the Murdoch press, and the so called “news” programs on commercial TV at prime time in the evening, played in the recent federal election.
“New media” outlets are popping up all over the place, previously unpublishable individuals (like yours truly) can have their say, amongst comment and analysis by serious groups like the Guardian , and new collaborations like that represented by the Conversation . However, the agenda is still being shaped by the newspapers and evening TV “news” programs.
Occupying a core place in the system is the ABC, seemingly reviled by both political persuasions when in Government, so they must be doing something right. However, the future of the ABC is consistently under question, and the economic argument is a solid one. The demographics of the ABC are heavily skewed towards the top half of the population, 70% of the population never engage with the ABC over the course of a year, and yet we all pay equally, effectively a regressive tax. As the argument goes, those who want the ABC can generally afford to pay for it, or have their viewing/listening interrupted by ads which pay for it, and those who do not ever listen/view it should not be expected to pay.
The media landscape has changed beyond recognition in the last decade, and the rules that govern that landscape should evolve as well to better ensure a competitively and commercially healthy system, as we are all best served by diversity, competition and innovation. Just what that evolved regulatory framework means is under debate, and some pretty smart people are putting their views, amongst them Marc Andreesen, an investor who gets it right more often than he gets it wrong, with this terrific post on the future of news.
Any change will impact all of us. How we obtain information, analysis, and opinion, wrapped up as “news” in my humble view, is crucial to the way we interact with the world, and we should all be engaged in the debate about the changes.
Mar 7, 2014 | Governance, Leadership
Everyone knows the optimist sees the glass half full, and the pessimist sees it as half empty, but few see the other options.
The technologist sees the shape as sub-optimal
The engineer sees the variation of material in the glass as an affront to his efficiency
The designer sees the glass as twice the size it needs to be
The production manager wants more glasses
The marketer thinks the glass just needs to be bigger, with a better name
The innovator is keen to find another way to introduce liquid into the glass
The accountant just bitches about the costs.
The entrepreneur sees a great opportunity in glasses
The salesman points out that people buy less glasses when it rains, which is why his sales are down
Leaders find ways to bridge the gaps between these perspectives, and have everyone working to a common goal.
Feb 24, 2014 | Branding, Governance, Marketing, Strategy
There is a lot to learn from the SPC imbroglio, the feds must be delighted to have got away with their IR/”no more handouts” agenda intact as the Victorian government bailed out not only SPC, but their federal colleagues, albeit not a good look for the state version and federal version of the same party to take a different position on a matter that both are saying is fundamental to their philosophy.
But what can we marketers take away?
- Every conversation has many sides. Jan Carlzons great “Moments of Truth” idea from the 80’s hold true in the C21, but the moments have been multiplied by the proliferation of connected devices. Not only do we need to have to have those we used to call “front line” troops on the hymn-sheet, but we have to have everyone on the sheet, as the conversation is now much wider, and almost totally uncontrollable, unlike the past. Best you can do now is have a credible seat at the table. I wonder would Sharman Stone have had the same impact 25 years ago as she has had over the last few weeks? I suspect not. Her message would have been the same, but her ability to access consumers, interest and advocate groups, and the public would not. She may have got a sound bite on the evening news, perhaps a radio interview, and the local paper would have run it indefinitely, but would the rest of us have been aware of the Gaffs the PM made about the workers entitlement, the connections made with the car industry, the Cadburys decision and Tassal decisions? No.
- We do care about local industry. SPC sales soared after the publicity, Australians do care that local industry is being decimated, but not enough to buy more cars. Is the cause of agriculture is closer to our national psyche than cars? Perhaps the cost of a car Vs the cost of a can of peaches had something to do with it. It will be interesting to observe how a renowned marketer like Coke extends the effect. I doubt they will be able to, as they will just revert to the tried and true, the plan, and what has gone before, when the context has changed completely. Having the cultural agility to completely change the message is usually beyond hierarchical organisations. I would radically alter and expand SPC consumer communications to keep the mood alive, and the retailers on side.
- Marketing needs to be agile, and connected. Following the above point, the production of annual marketing plans that feed into strategic plans, with budgets, accountabilities, media plans, and all the rest remains a vital task, with the huge caveat that things move so fast these days, that marketers need to be prepared to respond instantly to stuff that emerges. That single twitter post highlighting a product failure cannot be left alone, you may choose to do nothing, but ignoring it is not an option, you risk the classic “United breaks guitars” response.
- Marketing is the driver of everything. Marketing used to be just another functional responsibility, usually seen as a poor cousin to operations and finance. No more. Those enterprises that continue to see Marketing as the producer of the ads and promotional material, diviner of new products, and artistes of the long lunch rather than an idea that is the responsibility of everyone to be a part of, the driver of perceptions, and the voice of the market inside the enterprise will not be long in the business.
How does your place rate?
Feb 20, 2014 | Governance, Leadership, Management
“If this was your money, would you invest it this way”.
This question worked well for many years as a corporate executive, asking the question of those who reported to me about the projects for which they were seeking support.
Usually, indeed, almost always, the answer was “Yes”. Clearly my last question had been accommodated before they got to the point of asking, and they knew it was coming, so made sure they could answer Yes before asking.
The added effect of this question was to ensure that there was a personal commitment from the managers involved, they had to look me in the eye and convince me that they had invested their credibility in the project.
This did not guarantee the proposal worked, that was not the deal, just that it was worth doing, and if it went pear shaped, there was accountability, and the opportunity to learn from the miscalculations would not be lost.
As a consultant for 20 years, I still ask myself the same question when recommending actions to my clients, “would I spend my money on this”
It still works.
Feb 4, 2014 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Marketing, Operations
Charman Stone Member for Murray
The decision by the federal Government not to support SPC last week has opened a can of worms. This time, the worms have some grunt, as the head worm, Charman Stone has shone a light into the corners of the decision, and in the process, dumped on her party.
Thank heavens!!.
For the first time as another important business in the Australian food processing industry seemingly disappears, there is some debate about the facts, and analysis of the implications, rather than just having emotion and ideology spewed at us. Anything other than facts, and dispassionate analysis based on those facts, is meaningless if we are to come to grips with the real commercial issues, rather than those of political self preservation.
All this has been sparked by Stones vigorous defense of SPC in her electorate, culminating this morning in an interview in which she as much as called the PM a liar.
Pretty strong, even from one noted to be a bit outspoken
Over a long period, the Australian food processing industry has been gutted by a range of factors, from the globalisation of supply chains, the power of the retail duopoly, years of drought (drought is really the new normal) short sighted, risk averse, and spineless management, union intractability, subsidies of various sorts recieved by international competitors, and the high $A. Some we can address, some we can’t, but allocating blame is not a helpful strategy.
Hopefully, some further intelligent debate will evolve, but the inconsistencies in policy, highlighted by the Cadbury decision before the election, and announcement today of support for Huon Aquaculture will do nothing for the confidence of investors.
Charman Stone is aggressively putting her case, lets see some other pollies grow some backbone.
Jan 31, 2014 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Once the dust has settled, political mud-slinging completed, recriminations done, and blame been allocated over yesterdays decision by the Government not to support SPC Ardmona to the tune of $25 million, which would have triggered another $25 mill from the Victorian government, perhaps we can learn something.
Little of this will be of much value to those workers who will have their lives badly disrupted, but the rest of us had better learn, or it will just be repeated, again and again. SPC has little to do with car making, oil refining, mineral or wool processing, but the seeds of destruction of all these industries stem from similar beginnings.
That seed is the productivity of the capital employed in these activities. Australia over a long period has ensured that returns on capital employed in manufacturing in this country are insufficient to be competitive with alternative locations for that investment. This has been starkly highlighted over the last 20 years as supply chains for just about everything have globalised, and investment in everything except mining where we had (note the past tense) genuine competitive advantages has dried up.
It is not the level of wages, power of unions, concentration of retail, high $A, or any other of the myriad of contributing factors on their own. It is the combination of all these factors over the long haul, and our collective failure to see the long term writing on the wall, and respond to it sensibly, in a measured manner that survives political and economic cycles that is to blame.
Were I given that mystical magic wand, able to shape things to come, unfortunately unable to change the past, here is the list I would have, in no particular order:
- Remove the duplication, ambiguity, and situational insensitivity from our public decision making processes. Big ask here, as it involves substantial reform to our the three levels of government, and all their supplicants and rent seekers.
- Inculcate in both management and managed in the private sector a recognition that the short term lasts, well, only a short time, but poor decisions taken to ease the short term discomfort factor will haunt you for the long term. The longer poor, short term accommodations exist, the harder and more painful they are to unwind, as eventually they will need to be. Lets all grow some backbone!
- Have our political leaders recognise that despite many differences in detail, in the end, we are all in the same boat, and we sink or swim together. It seems that the job of oppositions is to oppose, as articulated by the current PM when opposition leader, and to hell with recognising that not all the best ideas come from your own side of the house. By contrast to the opposition, it seems the job of government is to stay in government, by any means, for its own sake, not for what can be achieved for all of us.
- Add some intellectual depth to the public debate. Currently economic and political debate in this country is conducted on the basis of 2 minute, scripted sound bites, superficial and confected “interviews” that skirt difficult questions, which are in any event, unanswered should the interviewer stray, and with a focus on trivial and emotional, albeit attention grabbing events.
- Develop a sense of what the country stands for, just what that means in terms of the allocation of available resources, and how success is measured. If Australia was a company, it just may resemble a strategic plan supported by the programs, priorities, performance measurement and learning feedback loops that manage the implementation.
A short list with some pretty big “asks” but I remain an optimist, although resigned to being both poor, and a voice in the wilderness.
PS. This article by Robert Gottliebsen subsequent to this post is a very worthwhile addition. If SPC can be saved, and it should be by means other than subsidising the continuance of bad practices if possible, then this is a very useful roadmap and precedent for the necessary changes.
