Census night melt-down was expected

Census night melt-down was expected

Aug 11, 2016 | Governance, Leadership

Human beings are pre-disposed to trust, is it a part of our evolutionary DNA, we need each other to survive. We all know we are stronger in a group, relate to those similar to us, who share similar histories and beliefs, and who are held to us by shared relationships.

We need to feel that someone we know and trust ‘has our back’

British anthropologist Robin Dunbar proposed in the 1990’s that there was a cognitive limit to the number of relationships an individual could hold at any one time,  of 150, now known as Dunbar’s number.

However, and it is a huge ‘however’, trust has to be earned over time, it is never just given without thought and an emotional commitment. It is this emotional component of trust that leads to the  depth of emotion when we are let down by someone we trusted, because it is not just a let down, it is a betrayal.

Tuesday’s census was a debacle. It makes absolute sense (no pun intended) to collect the data electronically, unless of course the arrangements made to receive the information are inadequate. Predictably as soon as the servers crashed, the inevitability of which was widely assumed outside the cocoon of Canberra, nobody was prepared to recognise the stuff-up for what it was. The Canberra two-step blame game was in immediate view.

‘Of course it was  not a stuff up, it was the hackers’ is not a defence that allays any of the cynicism of the population, sick to death of the self serving bullshit fed to us in the expectation that we will just keep on believing.

Our so called leaders wonder aloud at the drastic decline of public trust in our institutions over the last 25 years, and I wonder why they are so publicly naive, as few of them are completely stupid.

Trust comes with consistent over-delivery on undertakings. We listen to the words, but it is the actions that really count. It is no different in small groups to the whole community, business and elsewhere, we trust those who do as they say, and say as they do.

Our political institutions in all their manifestations have consistently and significantly over-promised and under-delivered over the last 25 years, and that is the sole reason we do  not trust them, and the census night debacle has been met with a collective sigh of resignation to the inevitable.

Credit to Larry Pickering for  the header cartoon

PS. Two further thoughts that occurred during the day.

  1. How reliable will the data really be? I can hear the blathering now, assuring us that all is well, but where have we heard similar assurances before?
  2. Will those who failed to fill in the forms on Tuesday be fined, or perhaps they will the sue the Bureau of Stats for making false promises? Make false promises in advertisements and public utterings in the private sector and you have the the consumer protection grizzley’s after you.

 

 

Has Woolworths done enough?

Has Woolworths done enough?

Jul 29, 2016 | Governance, Leadership, Management

I have been around long enough to see Coles and Woolworths swap places a couple of times. It seems that just like most blood sports, there is room only for one at a time at the top. This is understandable given that between them they have 70% plus of grocery sales, depending on whose numbers you use.

While Woolworths are still on top by most measures, Coles are rising like a phoenix from the ashes, and Woolies are desperately trying to halt the slide they embarked on several years ago.

Mondays announcement of job cuts, store closures, and a $967 million write-down has been a while coming, and must be a bitter pill following on the heels of the decision to exit the Masters hardware business after  incurring significant losses.

They have been progressively winding down the Thomas Dux, business, which in my view will prove to be a short sighted decision, symptomatic of the strategic malaise that has haunted Woolies after a decade of stellar performance.

The announcement also indicated 4 of the ‘Metro’ branded stores will close, presumably because they do not deliver the required return. While those stores, like Thomas Dux, might not be performing to expectations, they should both be seen as experiments at the edge, in anticipation of the acknowledged trends slowly transforming our lifestyle. In the case of Dux, a desire by a small but growing number of consumers for the unusual, products of superior quality, with clear provenance, and for Metro, the convenience for commuters, and CBD dwellers.   The potential strategic research value of both, assuming they were well managed (which Dux was not towards the end) would be well worth the slightly less than benchmark returns, as in reality the absolute numbers would be tiny.

Nipping on everyone’s heels is Aldi, whose success over the last 15 years or so has been substantial. There are now 423 stores, and Aldi is currently opening 4 or 5 new ones a month. The Aldi business model is hard for Woolies and Coles to beat with their current set-up, so they probably should stop trying, and find another way. 1000 Aldi Sku’s vs 12-20,000 in Woolies and Coles keeps Aldi  transaction costs low, as does the uncomplicated trading terms with suppliers. In store, Aldi pay far fewer staff very well by comparison, and by observation lead and motivate them very well, benefiting from the resultant productivity. Meanwhile they generate store traffic with the low prices, and quirky weekly specials that promise to be sold out quickly, creating a sense of shopper urgency. In addition, their fixed overheads on stores would be much lower than the two gorillas due to the smaller floor space, and less expensive locations.

After all the financial engineering is done, I trust that Woolworths management and more importantly the front line staff will remember that it is the little things in the stores  that really counts to their customers as they spend their money. They could  not care less about the head office  shenanigans, they can always go down the road when they see better value for their ‘hard-earned’.

 

 

 

How desperately does politics need a strategic makeover?

How desperately does politics need a strategic makeover?

Jul 27, 2016 | Change, Leadership

The train smash that doubled as the recent Australian  federal election, and more tellingly, the ‘cluster-intercourse’ (politeness overcame me) that is the US presidential race have something in common.

They both lack any sort of the foundations for prosperity that we demand, indeed, regulate for, in our corporations.

In a corporation, when you do  not deliver the results, shareholders move their money elsewhere. Not so in Government.

In a corporation, when the leadership fails to deliver promised results they  get fired. Not so in Government, although some do carry the can for the rest, usually on a Last In First Out basis.

In a  corporation, if you tell a lie to shareholders, you can go to gaol. Not so in government.

In a corporation, when you do  not adequately articulate a realistic and achievable financial plan, bankers will not lend you money. Not so in Government.

In a corporation, when there is a noisy minority mouthing nonsense, you ignore them, or make polite fun of  them. Not so in Government, indeed, it seems that the noisy minority often successfully drives the agenda.

How have we allowed this to happen, after all it is supposed to be a democracy, although sometimes I wonder, as who in their right mind would vote for any of the above.

A year ago, the notion that an ego driven billionaire with no experience in government, little affinity to anything beyond his own interests, and little apparent relationship with the truth would be the US President was a laughable prospect. Now he is one of two in a race to the finish.

No laughing matter anymore is it?

How has this happened?

It seems to me that Trump has succeeded wildly where the Liberal party in Australia failed.

He has mastered the tools of immediacy marketing, social media platforms, particularly Twitter, and leveraged the fact that our journalistic capacity has been so  gutted, along with the attention span of the electorate, that the capacity for sensible and measured comment and debate has been removed. Have you noticed that everything anyone on the Democratic party side says gets a Trump response, often an outrageous one, on twitter within 5 minutes. The media picks it up, and in the absence of anyone on the newsrooms not playing Pokemon Go, reprints it in entirety as news. Then a few huff and puff for 24 hours and it is  forgotten or replaced by the next piece of shambolic inconsistent nonsense. By contrast, the Democrats take a day or so when they are awake to comment on the next of Mr Trumps blatherings, and are not nearly as colourful and entertaining when they do so.

And I have not even mentioned Britain’s new Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, whose mastery of the entertaining absurd rivals that of Mr Trump.

The simple fact is that you do not get headlines with measured, thoughtful analysis of the facts, together with projections that are never favourable to everyone, but you do get headlines with sensational brain-farts that disappear almost as fast as they are produced.

Headlines are now news, there seems to be no demand for substance in excess of 140 characters.

However, that current state is no excuse for not trying. Without the effort to reform from the grass roots the way we select our leaders, and demand from them some level of quality in the political and economic debate, on top of a reasonable degree of integrity and transparency, we are all in deep doo-doo, and it is getting progressively deeper the longer we allow this to keep happening.

4 questions every business owner should ask themselves. Now.

4 questions every business owner should ask themselves. Now.

Jul 25, 2016 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Strategy

In principal, business is simple, sell something for more than it costs you too produce it. After that it gets more complicated, but is always tangled up with the word “Value”

It is a word with many meanings to different people in different contexts.

How do we create value?

Value, like beauty in the eye of the beholder, is in the eye of the user. Value means different things to different people in different circumstances, and figuring out how to add value to that customer under those circumstances is the secret sauce of success. The key to value identification is always to be able to see the offer you are making through the eyes of the customer.

How do we deliver value?

‘Value’ is only valuable when it delivers a benefit. If you have the only part in town that will fix a problem, that part only has value installed, it is no good in your toolbox.

The means by which you deliver value varies, and the business models available have exploded. Supermarkets have an entirely different model to a grocery home delivery service. While the products may be the same, and from time to time the customers the same, the circumstances under which they are used will never be he same.  AirbnB would not have been possible 10 years ago, two sided markets were simply too cumbersome except in capital intensive applications like a stock exchange. Similarly, the availability of digital versions of books, along with the spoken and traditional print versions deliver the value of a book in different ways.

How do we capture value?

Business is about getting paid for  the value delivery more than it cost you to provide it. Again, digital changed the game, just ask anyone in the newspaper business. Deep consideration of the most appropriate business model is required if you are to capture all the available value, and leave your customers happy enough  to go again.

Will it be the same tomorrow?

Almost certainly not.

And the day after tomorrow, there will have been substantial change. How you react to or better, anticipate the change will be the measure of how commercially sustainable your business really is.

One more really important thing to remember.

Businesses are inanimate collections of assets and processes that can do nothing by themselves. They need people to make them work, to create the environment that accommodates the four factors above. The old cliche of people being our most important asset has never been truer than in this current environment of accelerating change.

Is technology killing advertising, and ruining our lives?

Is technology killing advertising, and ruining our lives?

Jul 20, 2016 | Governance, Leadership, Marketing

A while ago I asked the question ‘Is the net killing marketing creativity‘ and came to the conclusion that the instant gratification now apparently demanded in all phases of our lives has indeed killed creativity.

Perhaps tritely I put it down to the not so bright amongst the marketing fraternity taking the easy way out, because it was the only one they could see.

However, the question does require some greater consideration.

That technology has overtaken us is indisputable, giving us the potential for focus and reach in addition to great  performance metrics, but creativity requires more than just speed. It requires subtlety, deep understanding of those with whom you are communicating, a capacity to see yourself through the eyes of others, and a willingness to be different and take risks.

It is in these latter areas that advertising is failing, badly.

For the uninitiated, ‘Martech’ seems to have caught on as the phrase of the moment, very intelligently pushed by my colleague Scott Brinker on the Chief Martech blog.

A subset of the Martech environment is the ‘Adtech’ tools, which have automated advertising, the most obvious but far from the only manifestation of creativity. Whether it  be on line or in an analogue environment, only the means of delivery has changed, not the need to engage, entice, intrigue and advise readers.

The ad industry has certainly been damaged, although great swathes of it have just got what they deserved, being mediocre purveyors of wasted investment, and unwilling to see the writing on the wall, although it was their wall.

The technology has been abused, and consumers have turned off it all, and the evidence for  that is everywhere.

Over 400 million people, 22% of smart phone owners use ad blockers to insulate themselves from advertising, and the number is currently higher on desk-top devices.

Web advertising has evolved quickly into the digital version of the crap that fills your letterbox, direct response, discount coupons, price promos, untargeted rubbish. Where is the recognition that advertising has a higher purpose, it is an investment in the long term, things called ‘brands’.

Remember them?

And as for advertisers, they are slowly waking up to the fact that up to 40% of their ads are being seen only by robots, and last I looked they do not buy much. In addition, the media placement is now often done by so called ‘programmatic buying’ which is a way of removing the insight and intuition of people from the process, saving money and pocketing the difference. While sellers tout the value of programmatic buying, and in some circumstances it does have merit, the major benefit is their pockets, not the advertisers marketing outcomes.

More fool the marketers I guess, they are getting what they deserve.

I will show my colors here, as little investigative reporting as we have come to know it being done in the digital space. Where would Australians be without people like Kate McClymont of Sydney’s SMH who almost single handedly, and against great odds provided the impetus that led to the conviction of Eddie Obeid for fraud, and exposed the predation of members of the Catholic church clergy in Newcastle that led to the current Royal Commission. Google and Facebook have no interest in this sort of journalism, paid for by advertising, and benefiting the society we live in.

As for consumers, we have had our privacy thrown against the digital wall. My kids seem less concerned than me, but nevertheless, I am bothered by the implications, as well as those bloody ads for stuff I do not want that follow me wherever I digitally go.

And as for the digital security of us all, when hackers find 138 holes in the pentagon web sites, good luck with the security of your google account.

7 things business leaders can learn from this election campaign

7 things business leaders can learn from this election campaign

Jun 27, 2016 | Governance, Leadership, Personal Rant

Over the weekend I was talking to my 32 year old son about the coming election.

I thought I was  the quintessential cynical old buggar, while being politically engaged, but I had nothing on my formerly optimistic son.

He is not just a cynical young buggar, he is so disengaged that in the long term, it can only be bad for our economic and social life if he is any way representative of his demographic cohort, and I fear he is.

As he said ‘Problem is that the gap between what the pollies say, and what they do is so wide, they have lost any sort of credibility and moral authority’.

Sadly I agree with his analysis, but the core of the problem seems to me that they claim control over things they cannot control, while ignoring, misrepresenting or pork-barrelling the things they can.

It is the same in business.

Those that promise the world do not have any credibility at all, while those that demonstrate the performance and value of what they can control earn our loyalty and respect.

There is a lot those in businesses can control, and should strive to improve.

You can control the way you spend your time. Every job, even those on a manufacturing line has some level of flexibility in the way the time is spent. In management roles of any type, the discretion is significant. You can choose to do what may be apparently urgent, but is unimportant, or those things that may  not be urgent, but are important. It is those who elect the latter route that will prosper in the long run.

You control the way you  behave. Those who say one thing and do another, or worse, demand behaviour of others  they are unwilling to demand of themselves will be judged failed leaders.

You control your attitude. An optimistic person has an effect on those around them, infecting them with your optimism and enthusiasm

You control your leadership style. Dictatorial, aggressively demanding results without consideration of the personal toll that may take, or you can be a coach and mentor, seeking to improve the results by improving those around you.

You control the way you see opportunities. Often opportunities are in the problems being faced, but if all you see are the problems, the opportunities will pass on by.

You can choose where credit/recriminations are levelled. The best leaders I have seen have a common characteristic: they give credit to others, even when the credit is largely due to themselves, and they take absolute responsibility for the performance within their span of control, never seeking to allocate blame elsewhere.

You can choose to have a clear and unambiguous moral compass, or purpose in your life. Having a purpose, and living to that purpose is empowering for individuals and the groups they interact with. Even when others disagree with you the simple presence of a foundation of beliefs that drive your behaviour will get you considerable credit, loyalty and an ability to get things done.

When you think about it, politicians have exactly the same choices we in business have.

Perhaps it is their collective failure to adhere to the basic tenets of leadership that has us so disillusioned with them all.

I predict that come next Sunday, there will be a narrow Coalition win, but the outstanding feature will be the percentage of the first preference votes that go to other than the two major parties, particularly amongst those under 30 whose expectations have been shaped by different factors to those that shaped their parents. This group will also exercise their compulsory obligation to vote by deliberately voting informal. This will not be a ‘donkey’ vote, it will be a vote against what these youngsters see as the irrelevance, hubris and self interest of the political class. It will be fascinating to watch the spin  the major parties put on this disaffection, assuming that both, somebody does the analysis and I am right.