Dec 2, 2013 | Change, Governance
So, the Treasurer has blocked the acquisition of Graincorp by Archer Daniels Midland. However, the acquisition of Warrnambool Cheese and Butter by Canadian group Saputo is OK.
Go figure!
These two businesses are amongst the last significant, strategically important agribusiness assets left in Australian hands, they are subject to the same rules, same laws, yet the political outcome is different.
Why?
Irrespective of your position on the rights and wrongs of these two proposed transactions the fact that there is a different outcome from the political deliberations must be of concern. I have not heard any logical arguments that lead to a conclusion that the outcomes should be different, and can only assume it comes from political expediency, hypocrisy and hubris rather than a dispassionate application of he laws meant to govern us.
The other reason I am pissed off with this decision is that I lost a $50 bet. I was certain that after the approval of the Saputo takeover of WCB in October, that the precedent provided would be sufficient for the Treasurer to ignore the silly blathering of Warren Truss, and acerbic tongue and threats of Barnaby Joyce, and be consistent.
Not so it seems.
There are reasonable, logical and economically and socially defensible arguments on both sides of the question, and inevitably not everyone would have been happy with a consistent decision, but those observing the behaviour of the government will scratching their heads at the inconsistency.
I do however look forward to the smug, self-congratulatory remarks of Mr Truss who I expect will sound like George Pell on Rohypnol, I need to lose some weight, and this may help.
Nov 25, 2013 | Communication, Marketing, Social Media
In these times of abundance of marketing “stuff”, bloggs, video content, on line advice and templates, what we are missing is a deep intellectual understanding of the marketing process.
The tools have changed, but at its core, human behavior has not. We are still motivated by the same things our parents, and their parents were motivated by, it is just that the frills are a different color, and are in different places.
The first modern advertising man was the dodgy monk who first used Guttenberg‘s new fangled printing device to print church Indulgences, effectively forgiveness for sale, around 1439, leading to Martins Luther‘s 1517 nailing of the “95 Thesis” on the local, Beta version of facebook, the church door.
400 yeas later, enterprising newssheet vendors realised that their readers were a market that sellers of a range of products were prepared to pay to reach, and modern advertising was born, and honed by the Madmen, so beautifully exemplified by Don Draper.
Now we have all this internet stuff bombarding us day and night, and we seem to have forgotten the basic rule of communication:
The receiver has to do something with the message you send before it is communication.
The tools have changed, the drivers of behavior have not.
Nov 21, 2013 | Governance, Management, Marketing, Strategy
The metaphor for business as war is widely used, and it does have considerable value when considering strategy, tactics, capability development and resource deployment.
Marketing is a base component of this mix. It requires you to see the world, product offer, through the eyes and behavior of others, your customers, and potential customers, and in so doing, observe and understand the value proposition of alternative offerings.
So, if there is a metaphor for the competitive aspects of marketing, it is act like your enemy, do to yourself what your enemy would if they had the information, resources and capabilities you have, with the intent of defeating you.
With apologies to the original, “do unto others before they do unto you.”
Nov 19, 2013 | Branding, Communication, Marketing
Advertising gets a lot of bad press, TV, radio, magazines, the backbone of advertising all last century have been supplanted by various digital platforms that accepts and places advertising, supposedly direct to a highly targeted audience, when they are looking for something.
Or do they?
Digital advertising has largely failed to live up to the hype, even while advertisers throw up to 50% of their budgets at it, and are often being at best gamed, at worst, ripped off.
Over a long period, I have found that whilst the tools of marketing have changed radically, the behaviour that drives those who use the tools, consumers, has not. This is a true now post digital, as it was when TV was the new bloke on the block.
A letter written by Bill Bernback in 1952 to the owners of Grey advertising worrying that the technicians were taking over from the “creatives” .
Great stuff.
Bill Bernbach’s contemporary David Ogilvy had a lot to say, his book “Confessions of an Advertising Man” first published in 1963 has a prominent place on my shelf. Even as the nature and mediums of advertising have changed completely, the foundations remain the same. Five of Davids “Ogilvayisms” have been put into Don Drapers mouth, and they all still hold true.
Great advertising still needs to tell a story that gets into your head somehow.
In a world bombarded by messages of all types, our visual and audio senses are grossly overworked, so how good it is on the very rare occasions when you see an ad that also engages our emotions to tell a story? This Guiness advertisement is such a piece of communication, an ad that tells a story, engages, brings a smile, and says something memorable, important about us and the brand.
As good as the Guiness ad is, I still think this Union Carbide ad for insulation is the best ad I have ever seen, and it comes from the 60’s by a company that did not survive its own stupidity.
Nov 18, 2013 | Change, Governance, Leadership, Management, Operations
Perhaps unfortunately I was on the receiving end of a rant about design thinking last week. It was a passionate, articulate, and informed rant, but a rant nevertheless.
There is no doubt in my mind that design thinking is a competitively crucial capability. In this homogeneous and connected world, recognising the value that design can deliver, that it is an integral part of not just the physical products, but of enterprise culture and processes, is essential to commercial longevity.
However, design thinking has a fundamental flaw, a flaw clearly demonstrated by the “rantor” last week. As my old Dad used to say, “Son, you get 1/10 for thinking about it, the other 9 are for doing it”
My rantor was a thinker, but do not ask him to do anything creative. It is hard, dangerous (to a career) work to be contentious, advocate stuff outside the status quo, to be the questioner who backs up the questions with action, and most shy away.
We do need more design thinking, but we also need way, way more design doing, so stop hyping, and start doing.
