Aug 8, 2013 | Governance, Leadership, Marketing, Personal Rant
I have come to the conclusion that the crop of marketing and strategy development people looking after the current crop of Canberra wallies are about as useful as Harold Holts flippers.
After watching a host of political advertising last night, even on the ABC, (heaven help us, is there no refuge) I realised as well that:
- I am either a cynical old bastard, or the marketing and strategy people who “advise” our pollies think we are all truly, truly stupid enough to believe the patronising, paternalistic slogans they are delivering after the shenanigans of the last decade, and that,
- We are all so cynical, and feel so betrayed by our so called political leaders, simply because of years of shitty marketing.
Well, I am a marketing consultant, so you would expect that may influence the way I see things.
Consider what both leaders of the big parties are doing, although I do not exclude the dills from the edges who are at least as loopy.
After a decade of slight of hand, ducking responsibility, blame shifting, non-core promises, and outright bullshit, they now tell us what they are going to do, and expect us to believe it, and run to the ballot box in joy.
They tell us what they are going to do this time around, (while pouring scorn on the other lot, with access to exactly the same information), but do not tell us how they are going to do it, or why it is important.
This is a commodity sales pitch based on the political equivalent of sticker price, and we all know that commoditization and brand building, which necessarily includes trust based on behavioral standards are mutually exclusive.
Where is the value proposition?
When you think of really great marketing, it is based on explaining “Why“. The classic Apple ‘Think Different” commercial which set the tone of Apple brand building until very recently. Owning an “Apple” meant something, it conveyed a Why. It is not a computer, or an ipod, ipad, it is an “Apple”. Surely there are enough examples of great marketing around that they could have learnt something?
Is it so hard for someone to at least try to articulate the “why” they deserve our vote, the value they put on it, and how they will use it to build a better place for us, and our children?
Jul 16, 2013 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
For a long time now I have advocated the notion that to get something back, you first need to put something in. Time, effort, knowledge, care, whatever. What you put in is less important that that simple act of being generous, and contributing.
It has always seemed to work for me, although the effort to get momentum going has often led to a few moments when I wonder if there is really a return on the effort.
What I have realised is that the crucial element of success is how, and to whom you make the offer.
Assisting those who want your assistance is not as effective as offering it to those who deserve it.
Wanting has become an expectation that something will just arrive, no cost, no obligation, whereas “deserve” inherently acknowledges a moral debt, and that your generosity will at some point be repaid.
Jul 5, 2013 | Change, Leadership, Personal Rant
Very few people have heard of Douglas Engelbart, who died on July 4, but it was he that thought up much of the stuff we accept as normal, every day tools and devices.
His relative obscurity is in stark contrast to the billionaires who brought commercial success to many of his ideas, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Elllison, et al.
This presentation, now called the “mother of all presentations” given in December 1968 is almost the public unveiling of computing as we now know it.
Vale Doug, and those who like him beaver away to make all our lives better, without accumulating the celebrity and bling that seems to be expected these days with every idea that sounds good to its urger.
Jun 26, 2013 | Change, Innovation, Leadership, Marketing
Across all my activities, I hear management talking about the “next big thing”, the importance of innovation, of being different, creating new product platforms, and striving to be disruptive, but settling for a change of colour, flavour or pack size.
After a long time at this, it seems there are a small number of very consistent reasons that show up, usually in multiples.
1. Incremental is easy. It is easy to be incremental, but true innovation is really, really hard. Not only do you have to come up with the ideas, but you have to sell them internally before you get a chance to take ideas to the market. Taking yourself, and the enterprise outside its comfort zone is a major exercise in leadership, and there simply is not enough of it. On top of that, it is hard to get a budget for stuff you have little idea about, the discounted cash flow analyses, even if they are at the push of a spreadsheet button, carry way more corporate weight.
2. Human beings are risk averse. We like the stable, familiar, and predictable, and shy away risk. Daniel Kahneman co-authored a 1979 article which won him the Nobel prize, that put numbers around the notion of risk reward. When offered the choice of $1000, or a 50% chance of $2,500, a majority take the money and run.
3. It really is so easy to say No. Finding reasons not to take a punt is really easy, there are usually many on offer. By contrast, it is difficult, risky, potentially personally expensive, to say yes, and you have to keep on saying it, confirming and reconfirming the project in the face of the naysayers. Corporations of any size larger than 7 people are hierarchies, and consequences of decision making are social as well as commercial. Few people are prepared to be seen to make a mistake, and most will avoid the possibility like the plague.
Every organization needs some sort of balance, a discipline of culture that regulates the manner in which they behave. It is in the way the balance is struck, and the behavior that is favored where the innovative enterprises have the edge. Everybody has the same(or similar) access to the market for ideas, good people, technology, and all the other inputs necessary apart from the fundamentally important one that is internal, the culture of the place.
Safe nowadays is the new risky, so get off the fence!
Jun 18, 2013 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Personal Rant
As this excruciating election campaign continues, the trivial, irrelevent, personal, short term crap we have come to expect is getting laid on with a spade. Nothing substantive is being considered by the pollies, and whilst it is easy to say the media is blowing it all up, from personal experience, the Canberra “officials” who implement, are also sitting on their hands, waiting, and wondering.
If you add up the cost of our political system, and all its accoutrements, Local , state and federal, it is billions, and billions. We pay so much, 32% of GDP, surely this should qualify us to get a bit of value for our money, but we accept what is being doled out like cattle to the slaughter, with nary a whimper.
When will the real debate, on real issues, real ideas, and questions of the future of the country, and that of our children, be taken seriously?
Perhaps it is time for us to dismiss the nonsense we are being fed, and demand what we are paying for.
Lawrence Lessig’s TED presentation is one we should all a watch as the current federal parliament goes through its death throes. It should also be compolsary viewing in Canberra, all union HQ’s and offices of every walley empowered to make up regulations.
Our system worked well for many years, and is still better than alternatives, but it is grossly unsuited for continuing prosperity and social harmony the 21st century. We need to be forcing an evolution to accommodate our new circumstances, not be wedded to a model of the 19th century.
Jun 13, 2013 | Collaboration, Governance, Innovation, Leadership, Strategy
One of the most famous photos ever taken, above, is of the 29 Participants in the 1927 Solvay Physics conference. The astonishing thing is that of the 29, 17 were Nobel prize winners, lauded busy people, so how did they get them all together at the same time?
Relatively easy, as at the time the photo was taken, only 3 had already won the Nobel prize, the other 14 won in the years after the conference, so were mostly unknown outside their research domain. (One of those who had already won was Marie Curie, who is also the only person in the photo to have won the prize twice, in different disciplines)
The point is that assembling this group, the organisers were not looking backwards, they were looking forward, to those who would make, rather than had already made a huge contribution to the topic.
Next time you are considering the personnel to go onto a project team, seeking to define your role into the future, or just operating a day to day activity, exercise the same forethought, and open the opportunity for great things.
