Democratising the net.

Most of us instinctively buy into the notion that the web has a “democratising” impact, it is a way for information to flow, to be disseminated, and this is absolutely true. However, what of the instinct of institutions, public and private to keep things secret? No matter how ubiquitous the web may be, it needs to be fed.

WikiLeaks is a site set up by an Aussie named Julian Assange specifically to serve as a medium for “whistleblowers” to leak sensitive documents their employers would rather  keep quiet, whilst retaining their own anonymity. The site has been the source of several of the better known leaks, including the horrific footage of US gunships in Iraq gunning down a group last year, that included several children, and two Reuters reporters, and joking   as they did it. Not a PR coup for the US effort in Iraq.

WikiLeaks has the potential to be pretty uncomfortable, imagine the internal, highly confidential documents that could lift the veil on the Gulf spill should they become public, but in the long run, the value of transparency of these documents to the community is far greater than the sectional interests that are generally served by  keeping them secret.

Go you good thing!

Apple bites it own hand.

It will be fascinating to watch how Apple, the masters of digital marketing, handle the latest hiccup with the antenna problems on the iPhone4.

 Apple has now stumbled twice in a short time, the first was the furore over the wages paid to employees at Foxconn, one of their major suppliers factories in China, leading to an unusually high suicide level, and now the dodgy antenna story, furiously being stirred by Apples grateful competitors.

The speed that such problems emerge and are all over the user communities has outstripped the response times of even the most sensitive and paranoid of businesses, and now it appears that Apple is going in to defiant mode by using Steve Jobs to front the problem and say, in effect, “all smart phones suffer from the same problem, we are no worse than the others.” 

Apple has grown in an extraordinary way for the last decade, tapping in to the mindset of the early adopters to become apostles for their brand and products, and by being consistently first out there with a product that delivers a highly differentiated proposition. The Apple brand is now a very tall poppy indeed, and attracts attention, so they had better be careful that the legions of fans who have fed the myth do not turn around and bite it, because their hero shows themselves to be fallible, and therefore not worthy of being their hero, in fact, it becomes a source of satirical comment that speeds the process of brand erosion.

Such loyalty scorned can turn nasty very quickly.

 

 

 

Paradox of choice.

So much choice in everything we do, isn’t that great?

Maybe not.

There is so much choice in most things that now we are running the risk of paralysis, procrastination, and often, we just walk away.

Barry Schwartz, a psychologist and terrific communicator puts the hypothesis that in western societies, less choice would make us happier, a view somewhat at odds with the conventional wisdom that greater choice is one of the great benefits of economic and social development.

Consider what is happening in supermarkets. Retailers are setting out to drive category growth, suppliers are fighting each other for a share of the existing, and the growth, usually by line extensions, and each wonder why all the activity leads to the same sized cake being cut up a bit differently but at great cost to all parties.

Perhaps the array of choice is causing the potential growth to turn around and walk out the door, confused and uncertain?

“Values”. What does it mean?

    “Values” is a widely misused term, one that is often a key break out subject at the annual senior management off site session, subject to sage pronouncements, then usually ignored.

    Having participated, and more recently facilitated many of these sessions over the years, I have seen a few words that emerge, and that have actually evolved to mean something to the businesses concerned once the bull session is over:

  1. Reciprocity, where each individuals takes responsibility for their performance, that of their colleagues, and the organisation as a whole. When all individuals take this step, and the structures in the organisation are aligned, a powerful mutual and widely shared obligation, reciprocity, can emerge.
  2. Teamwork, that fosters  collaboration and cross functional  value creation
  3. Achievement, where the employee is recognised and rewarded for setting and achieving ambitious goals, but where money is only a small part of the reward system
  4. Integrity, which creates barriers to the short term, and is the foundation of the other values.
  5. The words used differ from place to place, but the presence of these four in some form appears to be a basic recipe for success. 

     

Innovation in Afghanistan.

Straying from my usual “beat” I read the Rolling Stone article that caused the downfall of General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan.

It seems to me that he was fired, not because he was insubordinate, but because he failed to manage the politics surrounding the adventure in Afghanistan.

The article is a revealing, and fascinating narrative of an innovative, unconventional manager who got things done by ignoring the weight of the status quo, and its proponents. The parallels in management are everywhere, to be different, take closely considered risks, apply the unconventional, take information from the “front line” and argue with authority, all are traits necessary in a leader who is successful, and particularly successful at implementing innovative solutions to seemingly intractable problems. 

Afghanistan has been a problem for every army since Alexander that has sought to place its stamp on the place, the US is no different.  Engagement there screams for the unconventional, as the conventional has never worked, but conventional leaders cannot deliver unconventional solutions.

Many more will die, and more billions spent before the US and its “allies” including Australia wake up, but it is hard to admit you are wrong.  

 

Fact and hyperbole.

It is often pretty easy recognise marketing hyperbole when we see it, particularly in a category where we have some knowledge. However, in a category where we have no knowledge, it probably is not as easy to pick the fact from the flummery, so even some of the more extravagant claims made may get through the mental fence.

Therefore, hyperbolic claims extolling the virtues of a new small car for example,  are more likely to be rejected by the men who may engage with the ad, because they largely believe they know a bit about cars, rather than  women, who believe they know little about cars, and are therefore less able to pick the BS from the facts. 

This becomes very relevant when marketing a product to a category of consumers who know a bit about the product, and are therefore going to be more critical of the message based on what they know, or believe they know about the category, so be careful of the hyperbole, it will almost always turn off potential buyers, rarely persuade them.