Saturday, 17 December 2011

Why it's ok to use the 'C' word...'Christmas' that is...



Source: http://christmasstockimages.com
Some words are so offensive we just can't bring ourselves to accept their use in common speech can we?  Yes, there are 'swear words' that we may feel are inappropriate in certain situations (although Stephen Fry's fantastic documentary series 'Planet Word' certainly made an excellent case for the function of swearing in our language), but other words are becoming taboo in some civic context particularly as they are seen to expose the organisations using them to criticism on the grounds of favouring one particular (religious) culture over another.

The specific 'C' word I'm talking about here is, of course,

'Christmas'.

Several city councils have, in recent years, changed their use of language at this time of year to studiously avoid using this particular 'C' word in order to be more 'inclusive', replacing it instead with 'Winter Festival' or similar.  As a non-religious linguaphile I find this mildly amusing.  Christmas is, of course, a word with Christian etymological roots (although scratch beneath this and you have Christ/Krishna and the Indo-European linguistic heritage of English to consider), and I appreciate the dilemma faced by councils, but really, the meaning of the word has evolved in common speech just as thousands of others have over time.  This is the great strength of the English language, its ability to adopt and adapt.

If you're a Christian you might mourn the loss of the religious connotation of the word in its use by some today; equally, if you are concerned about consumerism, you might think the word has been exploited by business. That's placing a heavy burden of political, ideological and religious thought on one little word. For me Christmas is just a word which we all understand, a signifier (as Saussure called it), which describes a cultural event that many people in the world participate in.  The meaning we each ascribe to the cultural event itself, our views on it and concerns about it, are a separate set of issues.  We need signifiers to be able to discuss the bigger issues, so let's not take them away...

With that in mind, and on a less serious note, earlier this week I made a video for my first year students with the answers to their Christmas quiz.  This little Christmas message from everyone at Swansea Business School was the by-product.  No religious connotations, just a bit of fun :)














Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 8 December 2011

The Business of Busyness

Have you noticed how busy everyone seems to be at the moment?  What an inane statement that is.  Everyone is always busy (or at least that's what they'll tell you). Well, I've been one of those people this month.  Too busy to complete anything to my usual standards (pernickity at the best of times), too busy to maintain friendships (bad friend), too busy to get a haircut (slatternly), and too busy to get the new brake discs and pads on my car the garage recommended during my MOT a few months ago (risky and stupid).  These last few months have been so physically and emotionally draining that I may have even considered postponing breathing for a while, I was so busy being busy.

So, this is my first blog post for a month, and I love blogging, so why haven't I been doing it?  Busy.  I had to dust my piano the other day - why hadn't I been playing it? Busy.  My PhD proposal is sitting there beckoning me towards it, but I can't seem to find a stretch of time long enough to do it justice.  Why?  Busy.

Sometimes we get so sucked into servicing the everyday demands placed before us, replying to emails, tweets, knocks on the office door etc., that we end up on a rollercoaster that is just going round and round the same track.  The initial adrenaline soon wears off and we just become sick and tired.  That's what has happened to me;  I've become sick (physically) and tired (emotionally), to the point where I'm desperate for a little Christmas respite.  Not just because it's a break - but more particularly because it's the only break where you know no-one else is going to be stacking up the work for your return.

This is a classic of the self-help book genre, it's a 'don't sweat the small stuff' and a '7 habits' lesson - goodness, it's a lesson the ancient philosophers could have taught us.  Yes, there is beauty in the small stuff, but if you let it prevent you from doing the big stuff, you're never going to get off that rollercoaster (the ancients are, of course, unlikely to have mentioned a rollercoaster - they were good engineers, but I don't think they'd progressed to pointless thrill-seeking at £30 a pop).

So, for two weeks this Christmas, I'm banning busy, getting off the rollercoaster, and taking a train somewhere instead.  Destination?  Who knows.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 8 November 2011

Has Tesco Resurrected the Tech Salesman?

Picture of Tesco Tech Support AdvisorImage via Wikipedia

Oh the irony...last week I blogged about the decline of the electrical goods salesperson, and this week Tesco launches its cosy 'Ask our friendly Tech Support Team about the perfect Christmas gift' ads.

So, were they listening?  Have they resurrected personal selling? What are the chances someone will be willing to sell me something this weekend if I try again?  And..have they put the staff member nursing a hangover who failed to make any money out of me last week on a course ?  (Not the guy in this picture - I'm sure he's brilliant at his job...although perhaps on closer inspection he looks a little like a robot...) 

Robot or not, I'm willing to believe, Mr Tesco.

Watch this space, I'll report back when I've checked for vital signs...
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 29 October 2011

The Death of the Electronics Salesman


Today I tried to buy an iPod.

Tried, and failed.

Why?

Pike Place Fish Co., 1978Image by Seattle Municipal Archives via FlickrBecause the sales staff in the three stores I went to just didn't want to know.   It was a somewhat surreal experience for me.  Normally I shop for electronics online, but today I wanted to buy a product and use it today.  I was a willing customer, ready to try out the products and with money to spend, in fact I could probably have been persuaded to buy a more expensive version than the one I went in for. However, I was treated with variously, disdain, disinterest, and downright disrespect.  Not only did the retailers make no effort to locate the product I wanted (which was out of stock), but they lied to me about the reasons and made no effort to sell an alternative, order one for  me etc. etc.  All the things a motivated and engaged saleperson might do.  Several of them even failed to make eye contact, and I'm pretty sure I saw one of them roll his eyes at having to break off a conversation with a colleague to serve me.  My reaction in such cases?

Walk.

Then Tweet.

Then Facebook.

Then blog.

What does this mean for the company?   Reputational damage, lost sales, wasted showrooms. Haven't electrical retailers got enough to worry about with the threats to their businesses from their online competitors, without actively discouraging sales in their stores.  Haven't they got enough PR problems without causing potential customers like myself to have a little rant about their poor service online?  It seems not.

The eerie quiet in both Currys and Comet was telling.  Not only have they lost out on price to the online stores, but it seems they've given up on service.

It makes me wonder whether the Internet is having far broader implications for business and business skills than we've even imagined.  If we lose our ability to engage as humans in a sales process, then I think we've lost something of value in our society.  Don't get me wrong, I can't stand being pestered by pushy salespeople.  Neither do I expect sycophancy and obsequiousness.  What I expect is to be treated with respect, to be able to buy the products I want with good advice, and for buying to be a pleasurable experience.  I work hard to earn my money, and every now and then I'd like to enjoy spending it.

So, what have we lost?  Well, it's not simply salesmanship that we're losing - it's a service culture, and more than that a joy in our work.  Clearly the employees in the places I visited this morning lacked any sense of responsibility, pride, and equally clearly they were not enjoying their work.  They didn't even seem to be working on any incentive system based on sales.  I am incredulous because I know it doesn't have to be that way.

Back when I was a student I worked in a soulless out of town shopping centre as a sales assistant for a major fashion retailer.  The hours were long and anti-social, the pay was rubbish, the staff facilities cramped, and taking all this into account it could have been an incredibly boring and unrewarding  job, but it wasn't.

Why not?

Culture.

Plain and simple.

The company used to train its staff using the Pike Place 'FISH' principle.  If you haven't heard of this, take a look at the video of the Pike Place Fish Stall at the Seattle Farmer's Market below.  The method is based on making work (and particularly sales work) fun, friendly and social for everyone.  The customer gets a better experience, the staff enjoy themselves and are motivated; it's a win-win.  I was not a natural at selling, but thrived in this environment where everyone had shared targets and we were incentivised as a team.

Where has this emphasis on service culture gone?  Certainly in our major retailers it seems to be lower and lower on the list of priorities.  It has driven me back to buying online in this case (I refuse to buy from a company that treats me badly), but I wonder also whether it offers an opportunity for independents.  Those who can, and want to, add value by training their staff well, providing the best customer experience and therefore helping people spend their money in the ways they want to.  I'll certainly be first in the queue...


Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 22 October 2011

In Praise of the Polymath

Image representing Wikipedia as depicted in Cr...Image via CrunchBaseWe live in a society that worships specialism.  We look to our 'experts' for advice and to share their depth of knowledge in all fields.  Yet, anyone can describe themselves as an expert, or a guru, specialist, consultant etc etc.  What does this mean?  What are the qualifications you need to become an expert in something?  How can we separate the charlatans from the real deal?  Does a white beard, spectacles and tweed make you an expert?  Does a certificate that says you have been through a factory process of learning suffice?  Do the scars of battle gained through years of bitter experience give you the credibility you need? And why do we need experts - can't we just find all the answers on Wikipedia anyway?

I'm being facetious here, of course, and I know that we are dependent on specialists to move science and technology forwards.  They are the people that have made many of the things we take for granted in our world possible. However, as much as we need specialists, we also need those who have breadth of knowledge...and in a strange way, despite the great leaps we've made in terms of enabling access to information for the masses, it's the generalist that seems to be undervalued in society.

Our education system, for example, is a funnel designed to narrow and deepen your field of knowledge as you progress.  This channels us as learners to the point where, on completion of a PhD or post-doctoral research we may be the person in the world who knows most about the secret life of cardinal beetles, the etymology of lapidary terms, or the social impact of 'The Only Way is Essex'.  Noble causes all, I'm sure, and of course we need these specialists and their work chipping away at the coalface of human understanding, but we must take care not to idolise them.

Whatever it means to be an expert we know we need them, but sometimes seem to forget that we also need generalists.  We need people who can make connections between disparate fields to create new ideas and possibilities.  An education system predicated on the need to narrow and deepen knowledge may result in a society with extremely able scientists and technologists, but breadth of knowledge is, for me, equally likely to be the source of ideas for truly disruptive innovations.  The American college system seems to do this so much better than we do.  A liberal arts degree will give a student the freedom to explore human understanding in a way that is personally relevant and yet interconnected.  Here in the UK there are similar options available, but they are not the norm, and not valued as highly by some.  We seem wary of anything that does not lead our students on a path towards specialism because of the reverence with which we view the expert.

We can't all be polymaths of course, with a great deal of knowledge in a number of fields, but in a world where the tools to gain a breadth of knowledge are freely available to the vast majority of us we should be better at encouraging a broader view of learning. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 6 October 2011

Steve Jobs - a Legacy Greater than Apple

It would be wrong to let today pass without writing something about the passing of Steve Jobs - a man who has, whether we own an Apple product or not, had a massive impact on all our lives.

Before I go on I should say that I'm not an Apple devotee - and tend to have pity on those disciples of Apple who treat the brand with such reverence that they think it can do no wrong.  I buy Apple products when I think they provide superior value, utility or delight, and buy other brands when I make a similar judgment. But, the very fact that this man created a brand that inspired such cultish and evangelical following is something that, as a marketer, I can't help but admire enormously. 

Steve Jobs has, of course, been the driving force behind the Apple brand, but the brand has a life beyond him, and that makes his work an even greater achievement.  What we see in Jobs is a man who had such drive, passion and vision that he drew people into his world; his sheer enthusiasm for his product was infectious in a way that the Apple product announcements by his successor a few days ago proved is going to be difficult to replicate.

In a bizarre coincidence I showed a video of Jobs in class yesterday, he was speaking in 1997 about what he believes marketing to be.  It's pure Jobs, stripping it all back to emotion.  'Marketing is about values' he says 'it is about passion':


I admire Steve Jobs as a marketer, a charismatic leader to the 'n'th degree, and I use the above clip in class as a discussion point, but I admire Steve Jobs more as a man who lived by his values, and to that end, the Jobs speech that inspires me most as a human being is the one below.

I believe this to be one of the best motivational speeches of all time, a must watch for all students.  Yes, Apple as a company may be a fantastic legacy for jobs, but this speech, for me, has equal (if not greater) value...


RIP Steve Jobs

Saturday, 24 September 2011

Calm seas - why listening to your people might save you from the tsunami

Photo by Ben Terrett
I've been reminded this week of how important it is to take care of the little things. The little things are the things that, if you don't keep an eye on them can become very big things. That tiny pebble thrown into the sea that becomes a tsunami - and in business these tiny pebbles are everywhere. Getting the little things right matters.

Much business education is based around planning - and the creation of business plans, marketing plans, financial plans is something that forms a core part of most business school (or management education of other kind) syllabi - but what often seems to happen is that plans are created because they are a requirement, a box to be ticked, a funding bid, an audit trail. These plans are, of course, difficult to produce. Predicting the future is hard, and although past experiences can be useful, last year is another time and tomorrow will, necessarily, be different. This often results in plans that remain vague and superficial - and in some businesses planning can end up being a process that simply plays lip service to an organisational system but bears little relation to the reality of organisational activity.

Of course there has, over the years, been much discussion of the benefits of planning amongst both practitioners, theorists and (best of all) the practitioner/theorists. The benefits of planning have been called into question by the complexity theorists and a quasi-planned approach has been suggested by those who believe strategies should emerge based on an adaptation to current conditions. I agree that there can be considerable benefits to these approaches.

However, I also believe in that, particularly at an operational level, there are many businesses who fail to plan the small things well. They forget about the tiny pebbles and look to the horizon.

BT, for example, are dealing with huge volumes of customers. This means an individual customer appears low-value to them. So, they feel happy to subcontract out their repair services and create complex, frustrating customer services processes that suit their need to 'manage the herd'. I've recently experienced BT's monopolistic attitudes and lack of customer care and was shocked that they feel able to get away with it. They appear willing to forget that each customer is a human being, and that those human beings each have an influence on their business whether large or small.  Whilst some may switch suppliers and have a very small negative effect, there are others in that large pool who may be able to have a dramatic impact on their business. BT don't know if they are upsetting a Watchdog journalist, the son/daughter of the CEO of one of their major business contracts, a tech blogger with a massive audience - all these people can create a crisis for the company if they receive poor service. But don't get me wrong, I don't think BT should treat these people any differently to any customer - rather I believe they should take into account the danger that poor customer service poses to their organisation and make sure it simply doesn't happen - for any customer.

So, how do they get it right? Involving the right people in planning is crucial when it comes to getting the detail right. Senior Managers who have worked their way up from the bottom of an organisation, or who take/make the time to get to know the challenges and successes of every job role in their organisation are clearly in a better position to make decisions. This, however, may simply not be possible in a large organisation or where senior managers are recruited from outside. This is why listening is so crucial.

If you can provide a channel through which every member of staff in your organisation can flag up potential problems or opportunities, if you give them access to strategic plans and the right and responsibility to comment on them and contribute to their development, you may find that the tiny thing you overlooked, that one missing or problematic detail in your plan, the ripple-effect of which could become a tsunami, could be prevented before you even get started.

Calm seas are so much more pleasant to sail on.

Friday, 19 August 2011

Who Says You Can't Develop Theories and Models when the 'Theory of Can't' says you can?

I've spent some time today scribbling diagrams on the backs of envelopes (no cliche - I really did use envelopes - there are no cigarette packets or beer mats at my place).  The reason?  I've been creating a model of 'can't'.

Ok, I'm going to rewind a little here (Wodehousian difficulty in starting my story at the right point).  I'm writing an editorial piece on why business theory is important, and this has led me to think about the mythology that surrounds 'theory' in general.  For many, theory is synonymous with abstraction, complexity and inaction.  It is thinking, not doing - divorced from reality - a closeted world which excludes those who don't know the lingo.

For some students theory is the stuff in books that you need to know to pass exams.  It's a matrix, a Venn diagram or a pyramid with labelled sections and a surname attached.  What a sad little paradox it is when the very things designed to simplify, explain and provide help are also the things that seem most complex, inexplicable and like a barrier to the achievement of success.

This is where I got to in my thinking for the article, before I asked myself the following question:

'Have we lost touch with theory - or does theory just have a marketing problem?'

'Maybe' (still talking to myself - not out loud, of course) 'we need to take a broader perspective on the role of theory, and particularly how we communicate it and how we teach it - who is doing this?  I'm sure there must be people out there doing this.'

Ok, now I have a little rule for myself that if I'm thinking about something I try to form an opinion or take a position before I read the opinions, arguments, statistics, research presented by others.    This, I realise, is not the way most people work - but I like to find my instinctive position, a sort of anchor point before letting the barrage of others' opinions hit me with their best shots.  In reality I often change my opinion when I learn more, but that's all part of the learning.

What I'm getting to, is that I ignored everyone else's view on this, and decided to go with my first idea.   My first idea went something like this...

'I know, I'll take a concept, generate some theory and create a model, (probably on the back of an envelope) today, for something everyday, just so I can demonstrate how easy it is.'  I create little diagrams quite often when I'm trying to work things out, but today I did it with a sort of meta-consciousness to see how I went about it and what made it work/not work.

So, I have modelled the concept 'can't'.  'Can't' is pretty simple isn't it?  If you're unable to do something, you can't do it.   Well I can confirm that 'can't' is more complex than that, but only a little, a four quadrant matrix is enough to create a pretty good model of it (if I do say so myself). So, where's the model?  Well I'm not going to show you mine...mine is mine and yours will be yours. So I'd rather you had a go for yourself.

A lot of students think they 'can't' generate a theory or a model.  This term, I'm planning to see if my first years can model 'can't' for me...because my theory of 'can't' says they can...and I'd quite like to test it...

OK, that's enough for now...I'm off to work on my theory of 'can'.  This one's gonna look like a Rubix Cube...

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

What do we need when the dust settles? Critical thinking, and above all, philosophy.

Image source: Will Lion
Why is this happening to our society?  Everyone seems to be asking that question, and many are filling in the pause after it with their own interpretative explanation.   I don't have an answer, and wouldn't presume to be able to explain it, but what I do have is a series of thoughts on what I've seen and heard (as represented by a media under question), and these thoughts have led me to question my own position on fundamental aspects of human nature and society.  Morality, ethics and the role of the government  are the things people are talking about on our streets today, and I'm glad. Glad that people are thinking, glad that they are arguing, questioning, giving their opinions.  This is what enables our society to balance itself, and it's this critical, multi-perspective thinking that I and my colleagues in higher education seek to help our students develop.  This, is philosophy, and we need it now more than ever.

Perhaps seemingly counter-intuitively, in order to illustrate the importance of breadth and depth of critical thinking,  I'm going to start with a reference to science. Events taking place in our cities have particularly reminded me of the work of Milgram, who, in the 1960s, conducted a series of experiments aimed at determining how willing individuals would be to inflict pain on others when instructed to do so by authority figures.  Very willing was the overwhelming answer, to the shock and disgust of many of those involved and the wider public when the results were published.  

Milgram's work suggests that when placed in a situation where we consider ourselves to be subordinate to a perceived authority figure, we 'switch off' our moral compass and do as we're told, no matter how unpalatable the consequences.  This, along with the Asch experiments of the 1950s on group conformity (which showed the willingness of people to consciously give an erroneous response to questions in order to conform to the responses of the wider group), seem to me to provide some superficial insight into the behaviours we have been seeing in our cities in recent days.  Are we seeing an extreme negative example of  Janis's 'Groupthink' here - where group pressures lead to questionable decision making?  Group conformity, the exploitation of this by organised criminals and gang hierarchies, and this removal of a sense of morality through the ability to rationalise the activity as a response to 'social problems' blamed on government, the police and other authority figures are, it seems to me, all in the mix here.

I could, of course, also refer to the rather obvious example of  Golding's Lord of the Flies. Like the experiments above, this was first published in that post-war period of questioning and attempts to understand the horrors of war and the senseless destruction of human life in the Holocaust, and with this in mind there are all sorts of directions in which this particular comparison could lead us...the involvement of children in these activities, the underlying influences (socio-economic, cultural, political, or individual), and in a broader sense, the question of how this reflects our own place in history (the shock of 9/11 and other terrorist acts, the tumbling dictatorships of the Middle East, the loss of confidence in our political and economic leadership, loss of faith in the media and the police) are all relevant here.

Do these events create a situation in which we are more likely to behave in destructive and negative ways?  Are we all seeking a sense of direction, order and leadership amongst the chaos?  Can chaos in fact lead to its own form of stability through self-organisation?   For example yesterday saw citizens organising themselves to clean up their neighbourhoods after the damage of the previous night.  Is this what Kant meant when he referred to self-organization?  Is this a complex, self-organising system which, in the absence of leadership and direction, is achieving a balance by itself?

Questions, questions...but who will answer them?

I could continue here ad infinitum, trying to get to grips with this myself - twisting and turning this complexity over, but this would be mere speculation, and with respect to those positivists out there, and to the empirical research to which I refer above, I'm not going to continue without evidence...

What I do believe, however, is that this highlights the importance of one thing, and it's something that's currently under threat from cuts to higher education and a lack of engagement with the topic. Right now, we need philosophy and philosophers.   What we are seeing relates to the fundamental questions philosophers have been asking for milennia, about ethics, politics and logic, and so our society needs people to read, think, reflect and debate these problems we are facing, so we can make the right decisions on how to act - and not just those from a small section of society for whom philosophy is an open book.   We need people from all backgrounds and communities to value, nurture and respect the role of philosophy in our society, and to do this we need to engage more young people with the subject and above all keep philosophy departments in Universities open.

If you are reading about these issues, watching them on the news, and discussing them, you are already engaging in philosophy as well as politics.  And just like politics, philosophy should be something for the massess not just for the elite. 

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

Birds, Bums and Betfair - why do we do it to ourselves?

Last year I blogged about Betfair's triumphant ambush marketing campaign at the Ryder Cup, where their ingenuity in employing trained birds of prey to display their messages made rival company Paddy Power's failed attempts to erect a giant 'hollywood style' sign on a neighbouring hillside look amateurish. Today, however, I am not so enamoured of the company's tactics, as I discover they have agreed a sponsorship deal with the UK women's beach volleyball team which will see QR codes printed on the backs of their bikini bottoms and punters encouraged to scan them to visit a special promotional website.
Andy Lulham from Betfair happily discusses what he considers a fantastic idea:
“There is huge interest in beach volleyball and we want to ensure that our advertising campaign is seen and remembered by as many sports-fans as possible.  As far as we’re aware this is the first time QR codes have been used in in-play sports advertising and what better way to test its effectiveness than by putting them on one of the places that is likely to get photographed the most”  (Source: Marketing Week ).

There is even the suggestion that this campaign might appear during the Olympic games (surely this would contravene the supposedly watertight sponsorship arrangements but I guess we'll have to see).

Indeed, every article I read in the media about this seems to suggest it is a fantastic idea.  Am I, therefore, the only one who thinks this is the ultimate in degradation?  Just when I thought we'd started to break down some of the attitudes that result in naturally beautiful women like Julia Roberts being airbrushed in a misleading make-up ad I find that no, nothing has changed.  And the worst of it is, these sportswomen, elite athletes dedicated to reaching the top in their chosen field (or at least their governing body), appear to be complicit in it.  Why, oh why, do we do it to ourselves?  Well, clearly there are likely to be financial pay-offs for any commercial sponsorship deal, which begs the question of whether the sport is funded well enough if players have to resort to such deals in order to make a living.

I know what you're thinking (well some of you anyway), get off your high horse, it's just a bit of fun.  Well, maybe it is, but how about sexual objectification (by both women and men)?  How about unrealistic examples of perfection? How about rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, self-harm, eating disorders?  Are they fun?  No, they're not fun, and however dramatic this sounds it's my personal belief that they're all likely to be more prevalent in a society where sexual objectification is considered acceptable by all gender groups.

I have no wish to oversimplify what is, quite clearly, a complex web of economic and social issues. But I will make it clear that I believe it's not just women being treated badly here, it's a cross-gender problem, and something we all seem quite happy to participate in in one way or another.  What a shame we can't have more self-respect, and what a shame Betfair and Beach Volleyball have had to resort to 'sex sells' to get some column inches.  Come on you creative marketers, surely you can do better than that...

Sunday, 7 August 2011

Curiosity and Schrodinger's cat...what happens to democracy when the trust is gone.

What a summer it has been so far.  I'm sure the media would have been glad to have something to write about this 'silly season', if only the story wasn't about them...

Whatever you think about the sequence of events sparked off by the revelation of phone-hacking practices at the News of the World, there has been no getting away from either the scandal itself, or the seemingly endless web of questionable behaviour surrounding it that has emerged in recent weeks.  The police service, senior business people, the media and even the government have been implicated in a sequence events that has certainly caused me to question the integrity of those at the heart of our democracy, and I wonder if it has done the same for you?

It's this integrity that we rely on as individuals to maintain the foundations of our 'civilised ' society, so what happens when we discover that those foundations are insecure, unstable and being compromised?

Well it's my view that the very cornerstone of this is trust, and when trust disappears in any relationship, whether it is personal, professional, or with those in authority the resulting initial reactions tend to manifest as a range of negative emotions and actions which may include anger, fear, violence, disappointment, despondency and self-protection.   In a society where there is a distrust of those we collectively place in positions of authority (through the electoral process) and furthermore a distrust of those appointed to positions of responsibility and trusted by our elected officials to act in the best interests of this society,  democracy itself is under threat.  This is the position we find ourselves in today.

I liken this situation to the famous (and rather cruel) experiment in quantum mechanics devised by physicist Edwin Schrodinger in the 1930s where a cat is placed in a sealed steel box and through a process related to the 50:50 likelihood of the decay of a radioactive atom over the period of 1 hour a poison may or may not be released into the box, resulting in either the death of the cat or its survival (see the video at the end of this blog for more).  Is the cat dead?  We don't know until we open the box do we?  So, is it dead or alive when it's in the box?  Is it either until we know for sure? Can we just accept that we don't know? 

Image via: XKCD
The same could be said for our individual understanding of the political, economic and justice systems within our own country.  We have been living with our own steel box, not knowing what's inside, for a long, long time.  Going about our daily business, relatively unconcerned with the possibility of what could be going on in there; happy in our belief that the democratic cat could be alive and living quite happily in its secure little home.  What the phone-hacking scandal has done is prise open the box and force us to look inside to finally discover that actually, the cat is dead.

So, what happens next?  When you find out the ugly truth you had been hiding from for so long?  When forced to, you have to deal with it, and this is what our society (on both a local and global scale) is trying to make sense of at the moment.

I believe we are starting to see the consequences of this loss of trust play out in all sorts of ways and in all sorts of places, on both a global and local scale.   For example, we have seen the financial markets once again lose confidence in recent weeks as the US dithered and bickered over its debt crisis, and the 'emerging' superpowers, quite rightly, questioned their ability to keep their house in order.  Add to this the Mediterranean meltdowns in Greece, Italy and Spain, and you've got a new depth of economic crisis which will leave no nation untouched.  The economy runs on confidence, and confidence is built on trust.  So, when trust is removed in one part of public life, it affects all elements of public life, including the economy.

Even closer to home, there have been riots in North London in protest at a police shooting of a local person, students have been taking to the streets to protest against tuition fee rises, strike action is on the increase and the government's recently re-launched 'e-petitions' facility has been unable to cope with the levels of activity.

This level of instability and lack of confidence is clearly worrying people as it shakes our social norms and beliefs to the core, and forces us to question the capability of those in whom we place our trust.  But I'd argue it is necessary; it's right that we should question those who lead, it's right that we should take an active interest in how our society is governed and run, and it's right that our voices should be heard in a democracy as these are the very principles on which our society claims to be built (although I in no way support the violent action undertaken by some protesters). But we've all grown so sluggish, apathetic and drugged up on easy credit and the comforting sugar-rush of conspicuous consumption, that we've forgotten how to take part, act, have our say.

There will, undoubtedly, be a rocky period ahead while go through our own little 'cold-turkey' process, but it can only be for the good of our democracy in the long run.   Activism and a renewed interest in politics and the role of the media, the examination of our own roles in building these towers of Babel, and a sense of responsibility for the impacts of our personal roles as actors in the economy are all possible positive consequences of this crisis.



A brief video on Schrodinger's cat experiment:

Saturday, 23 July 2011

Nature, nurture and nepotism - success isn't in your genes, it's in your mind...

Success is a funny thing isn't it? Everyone seems to want it.  I certainly do (in my own way), and perhaps you do too?

Come on, admit it, you want to be successful in life as much as anyone else does.  But what is success exactly?  My definition is likely to be very different from yours, unless we locate it in its abstract sense of the cognitive and emotional outcomes of success (things like a sense of achievement, happiness, security; Maslow territory).

However, there are certain individuals whom I'm sure many of us would agree to consider successful on the basis that they have achieved high status within a particular profession, discipline or area of activity. Political figures, artists, sportspeople, business people etc. etc.

My thinking on this was sparked by an article on the BBC website this morning which attempts to unpick and explain the  success of the Freud family following the recent death of the painter Lucian Freud.  This one family has produced a disproportionate number of individuals who have made an impact on culture and society; from Sigmund's difficult childhood emerged a thinker who gained international notoriety (with, notably, an approach that advocated the encouragement of independent thought in children), and successive generations of the Freud family have consistently achieved highly acclaimed positions in the arts and politics.  So, is this all down to 'good genes'?  Or are there other factors, such as Sigmund's nurturing of independent thought, at play?

Well, we can certainly identify many great dynasties in influential fields such as politics and the arts (the Kennedys and the  Redgraves being obvious examples) which might suggest that family has some influence, but there are, equally, many others who achieve wonderful feats without a family name.  So, does it help to have the name tag?  I can't help but think it does in one area in particular - and this may sound obvious, but it's in the achievement of fame.

There is clearly a combination of social, economic, genetic and cultural capital that the Freud family have (to continue the example), and to which others may not have access. I believe this makes them more likely to achieve celebrated positions - and I say celebrated positions advisedly, because I do not necessarily equate celebrity with success.  Having a famous ancestor or family member is, I believe, more likely to make you famous, but your own definition of success would have to be located in celebrity for this to equal the achievement of it.  Bianca Gascoigne, for example, is a young woman who has appeared on numerous reality TV shows without apparently having achieved significance in any particular field. Why?  Because the ex-footballer Paul Gascoigne is her father.  Does this make her successful?  If she defines the particular kind of celebrity status she has gained as success, then yes. For me, however, this is not success, it's just fame through nepotism.  As with most things in life, it really is all down to your personal view, and the realisation that your view is likely to be very different from the views of others.

Social capital (when you consider it in terms of the connections you have), is of course going to enable those who have it to be in the running for positions to which others may not have access, whether that's a booking for a reality TV show or an internship at an organisation in the field you want to be in (I'm deliberately not touching on acceptance into educational institutions here...).  However, there are very few people who can get away with poor performance in a field which requires skill and/or talent for too long.   Prince William was born into privilege, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let him fly a Sea King rescue helicopter unless he knew what he was doing...at least I hope not...

So, is there nepotism involved in achieving the most senior positions in our society?  Yes, probably.

Does it matter?  Well, it annoys the hell out of me when it means that talented people don't have the opportunity to make the world better.  But fame?  No thanks.  It's not compatible with my 'live light, learn lots, then pass it on' definition of success...

Saturday, 16 July 2011

Murdoch the Megalodon: The Ethics and Economics of 'Sorry'

Ad by Murdoch in The Guardian 16/07/11
I'd decided to stay away from the phone-hacking scandal here, simply because everyone else is saying so much and saying it so well that it seemed unnecessary to add to the outpouring of outrage.  However, today's  full page ads in the national press, paid for by Murdoch, and with the message 'We are sorry',  have tempted me into some comment on the whys and wherefores of this move.

I'm not so interested in the timing (the day after two of his most senior executives resigned), or the overall motivations (damage limitation), but I am interested in the choice of medium and method.  Why take out full page ads in competitor papers? Is this just a reflex action for someone in the newspaper business?  Well, clearly newspaper readers are an important target market for Murdoch, so it would make sense to reach them in this way, and by having a presence in the other papers there is at least an element of 'having his say' when all others are criticising his company.  It strikes me, however, that there is also an element here of the dinosaur, doing what it has always done and ignoring the meteoric changes to media practices and culture that have made it possible for this scandal to emerge from the murk of the newsmedia's underworld.

Yes, Nick Davies at The Guardian played an enormous role in bringing this all to light, but it was through social media, citizen journalists, and the sheer weight of public opinion - opinion that can now be expressed, published and disseminated freely and easily - that the story gained enough momentum to bring down the News of the World.  Murdoch has largely ignored this, and instead focused his efforts on the press.

The decision to buy advertising space sums up this dinosaur attitude for me.  The very idea that you can buy your way to forgiveness, that in fact you can buy anything you want, smacks of the worst kind of hubris.  In a world where so much information is freely available and shared online, this approach seems a desperate attempt to maintain control through the channels Murdoch knows.  He is, quite simply, out of touch, and is also, quite rightly, in danger of extinction. 

The other niggling question I have, however, is one for those who are generally thought to have high ethical standards. Should newspapers like The Guardian have sold him the space?  And, if so, where should the money go?  Ethics in the media is an issue for everyone, not just today's whipping boy...

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

'Life is a risky business' - finding meaning in the meaningless.

I went to the shops this morning ( I have the day off), and on my way back passed a pharmacy with a poster in the window promoting, I don't know, health insurance or something similar; it  really wasn't clear (fail #1).  Anyway, the poster artwork showed a cartoon character that looked like a cross between Sponge Bob Square Pants (21st century cultural icon that he is) and a chipstick (the 1980s oil-drenched, reconstituted crisp product) walking on a tightrope and proclaiming 'Life is a risky business!'

Clearly in terms of salience, this piece of marketing communication worked as it certainly stood out, but I started to wonder about the copy (as I do) and realised that it was utterly meaningless.  If life is a risky business, what does that make death?  The cushy, low-risk option?  I don't think so.  You're either alive or you're not.  That's all there is (you may, of course, have other beliefs which are as valid as mine, but I'm going to follow my own instinct here).  The riskiness of life is dependent on being alive as its condition.  If you die, well what's the risk there? Maybe this polarisation (or this kind of existential analysis) wasn't what the advertiser had in mind...

So, why does this stuff work on consumers?  It's a typical example of how phrases that have, in essence, no logical or reasonable sense permeate our language and take on a life of their own. They exist with a meaning beyond the logical interpretation of their words through sheer force of usage.  What a wonderful language English is.

To go back to the example in question, I've since Googled 'Life is a risky business' and there are around a quarter of a million instances. Maybe not huge in Google terms, but significant.  So maybe there is some meaning in there for some, if not all, people.

My hunch (and it is mere speculation) is that this particular phrase implicitly denies the possibility of death by presenting life as something enduringly risky.  Oh, it's a risky business to be in, this life thing, it suggests, as though it were a daily choice we make.  Do you ask yourself each morning... 'Do I stay in this life business or maybe try something else?  I wonder what that death stuff is like?'

Maybe you do...and excuse me if I get all morbid on you, but it's words like those in this ad that we love because they falsely protect us from acknowledging our mortality.  In an increasingly secular and consumer society, we look to businesses for our reassurance and comfort, and what's more comforting than a nice little protective bubble?  That's what this company is offering - protection against risk in this life, based on the assumption that you never really have to die anyway.

I'd rather take my chances...

Tuesday, 5 July 2011

Paperless Marketing - Is it time to put print behind us?

Panorama's recent investigation of the impact of direct mail and particularly what they call 'spam mail' on society, the economy and the environment, raised a hugely complex series of issues and questions for politicians, the police and servie providers - but what issues does it raise for marketers?

Clearly there are ethical questions concerning the sending of inappropriate, misleading or downright fraudulent marketing communications (and issues that aren't confined to direct mail I might add, having received a shockingly disingenuous cold call to my mobile from Carphone Warehouse yesterday).  These questions need answering, and although there are not necessarily clear boundaries for all aspects of marketing communications activity, we do at least have some legal and self-regulatory measures in place (including codes of practice such as the CAP code, and the professional codes put in place by bodies such as the IDM).  However, one area where the marketing profession does not seem to have really grasped the nettle is that of sustainable use of resources in marketing activity, and it's about time we did.

Ethical, sustainable, green, environmentally friendly are all words marketers are encouraged to consider in developing propositions for products and services, but how many of us are really engaging with the ethical questions that the practice of marketing raises?  Distracted by the glamour of technology and the buzz of social media in particular, it seems to me that many marketers are ignoring what Al Gore might call the 'Inconvenient Truth' that the marketing practices of many companies ride roughshod over the reduce, reuse, recycle mantra and have seemingly ignored some of the opportunities to rethink the way we 'do' marketing in a world with dwindling resources.

The irony is that the answer to many of our problems may be in the very technology we cleave to in order to avoid thinking about the impact of our consumptive actions, as it offers us new ways of delivering messages to existing and potential customers, new ways of engaging them and interacting with them.  So, if you're in anyway involved in marketing or producing print materials of any kind, I urge you to, at the very least, just ask yourself the question:  'Do I need to print everything?'  Will your target audience really only interact with what hits their doormat?  Or, are there other, less resource-intensive ways to get your message across?

There are, of course, many counter arguments. Is the electricity used to keep our PCs and Macs buzzing any less draining than paper use? How can marketers reconcile sustainability with their responsibility for the efficacy of their activities? As the IDM will tell you, direct mail is undoubtedly effective in the right context, but have we really tried all the other options?  The options that are multiplying rapidly online?  It takes a brave marketer to ditch what you know works and try something new, but if no-one does it, if no-one takes that risk, that leap, how will we ever know?

I have been known to say that marketing is all about trying things to see what works and what doesn't.  Marketing as science?  Well no, not exactly; I'm not a fan of the overly analytical approach either, I prefer to go with instinct (but that's another blog..).  It's about getting a balance between being agile enough to spot an opportunity and take it (through original thought and quick action), but realistic enough to not throw good money after bad. 

So, with that in mind I ask you to take a little step back and look at what you do, how you do it, and the resources you use.  Think about the savings you could make; think about the impact on the earth's resources, whatever it takes to get you thinking.  Yes, you might have a lot to lose if it all goes wrong, but at least you'll know it was for a good cause ;)

Content is Queen, style is the Duchess of Cambridge...

Yesterday it occurred to me to wonder why we use the phrase 'content is king' when we don't have a king?  Why not 'content is queen'? I pondered. The nice alliterative 'cuh' still works, and we do have a pretty robust monarch to give the phrase the emphasis intended.

Clearly there's a whole power, gender, culture question that could be pursued here...at length...with much lamentation over the feminist cause etc. but to be honest, I don't think that would get us anywhere, so I'm not going to bother.

Instead I'm going to work with 'content is queen' and, never one to miss the opportunity for a good analogy, I'm going to see where it gets us if we consider our beloved (by some) royal family as a metaphor for the creation of 'good' stuff on the web. Whatever you think about the royal family (and I have to say I'm pretty ambivalent towards them - tourism/charity/morale impact = good, heredity and entitlement = bad; i.e. it's complicated), it's clear that they're on something of a roll at the moment.  Weddings, jubilees, sporting prowess and military heroism, it's all a far cry from a decade ago when the queen declared 1992 her 'annus horribilis'.

So, I'm going to guess that you're now wondering what on earth the monarchy has to do with web content?  Well, in literal terms of course they are the subject of a great deal of online communication/publication, but they also work quite well as a metaphor for what I believe to be the cornerstones of what makes for really good stuff on the web - content and style.  So, if you're sitting comfortably, I'll explain...

Content is Queen
OK, let's start with the queen.  She is, after all, the boss of the old firm, and for me, she represents the very core of what the royal family is about and what web content should be about - quality.  Credible, single-minded and clear sighted, she's the bedrock of our monarchy, just as really good quality content is what should underpin anything that you publish via the web. Do a good job, put in the effort, be creative, be original.  However, good content isn't enough, you also need to package it and get it out there.  That's where Kate comes in...

Style is the Duchess of Cambridge
I defy you to dislike her...*
Oh, they've backed the right horse here (to speak the royal lingo, and not, of course to imply any horse-like resemblance in Kate).  Kate Middleton is the perfect new royal - beautiful, stylish, and seemingly without airs. She's a natural, and provides a much-needed counterpoint to the queen and her daughter.  Appearing on her first tour as a member of the family in Canada, she has presented herself impeccably - right down to the choice of Canada's national colours in her dress, and it's all done with subtlety and charm. Forgive me if this seems gushing, I'm normally a raging cynic, but I really can't help but like her; in fact I defy you to try.  And, like it or not, style is important on the web.  The way you package up and present your content will determine whether it gets a second glance.  Even if you have the most insightful things to say, if it doesn't look inviting no one is going to read it.  (Yes, I am aware that I may be standing in a glass house throwing stones here - forgive me.)

So there you go, the royal dream team; but I do wonder if there is something missing from the equation - a communicator.  If you create great content, and make it look fantastic, you can post it on the web, but who will see it unless you get out there and shout about it?  Success on the social web is as much dependent on the sharing and distribution of content as it is on the content itself.  Maybe the royal family don't have to work too hard on this any more.  They have a brand everyone wants to know about and the media are happy to spread the message for them; but what about you and I?  Who's going to be our royal correspondent?  Well, unless we pay an agency to do the legwork for us (at the risk of a lack of authenticity) it's up to us to do our own. So, what do you have to do?  Simple. Just connect with people, comment on their content, tweet them, write on their wall, say hello.  Just the normal stuff people in a community, we commoners, do...

So, my analogy is broken, but it was good while it lasted.  Maybe I should have stuck with the gender thing...

Oh, and thanks to @lizardjones for inspiring this with a query that got my cogs turning.

* Photo by Niquinho on Flickr under Creative Commons license

Saturday, 25 June 2011

Adventures in Transmedia - because real doesn't exist any more.

Inspired by No Mimes Media's amazing transmedia campaign for The Dark Knight...and the work of Simon Brookes at Portsmouth University on alternate reality games for education, I recently did a little micro-transmedia experiment of my own...

The whole idea of an immersive, crossmedia, semi-real experience as a way of engaging students with learning makes sense to me on so many levels. Engaging students with learning is something it can be pretty difficult to do when you're constrained by the environment in which you are scheduled to teach.  For me, that's quite often a lecture theatre which places me centre stage and students seated in tiered rows; trapped for an hour with no means of escape (poor things).  So, creating learning experiences that work in a lecture theatre and that are participative and interactive for a large group is something I spend quite a bit of time trying to achieve.

For me, transmedia has amazing potential as a 'teaching and learning strategy' (as the teacher educators would call it).  The possibility of creating a narrative that students buy into and participate in in class, and that gets them thinking about topics, solving problems, trying out approaches and gaining experience is a win - win.  In my experience, students learn best when they're absorbed in a task, and they love the sense of achievement they get from problem solving. 

So, I set about doing a test of what I'm going to call a 'micro-transmedia' experience at a recent internal conference, with an audience of students, faculty and business people, just to give it a go really.  What a brilliant experience it was.  My story unfolded over the 20 minute session, and the whole room participated in one way or another in solving the problem.  After all the preparation, it was like tapping the first piece in one of those amazing domino trails you used to see on Record Breakers (showing my age).

I used a combination of actors (recruited from my colleagues - with much arm twisting and promises of chocolate), found objects (including a borrowed iPad - which I was a little nervous about disappearing...), letters, tweets, YouTube videos and the web.  Some of the material can be seen on Twitter here: www.twitter.com/app5isalive and here:

The scenario is designed to introduce a session on IP, and so the narrative was based on an IP theft.  It worked really well, and I'm convinced that it will work even better in a 'students only' environment. However, I think these micro-versions need to be used sparingly in order to maintain interest, and indeed this game dramatised a situation for impact.  I can see huge potential for longer versions, however, that are embedded in the curriculum and assessment where a more 'realistic' experience is created.  The opportunity to provide students with practical experience while reducing risk to businesses, students and the institution is one of the key benefits I see in developing alternate reality environments.  For me, this provides the best of both worlds - the real experience of a live project, along with the ability to try, fail, test, and experiment in a safe 'sandbox' environment that you get with traditional computer-based business simulations.   

Today's students are engaged in activities that cross the boundaries between reality and fiction at all times:  Reality TV, gaming, social media, fashion, music, sports, books, films, theatre; our lives are one big mash-up of constructed semi-realities and personal perceptions of what is real and what is true.  This is how many of us live today, in a constant state of tension and negotiation of what is true for us, for others, and in the context of the messages we absorb from these media. It seems only right to engage with this in creating learning experiences that allow our students  to try, to test, and to construct their own version of reality...

More about this later, but if there are any educators or marketers out there who want to find out what I did...and what I've got planned next, tweet me @lgsmu.

Tuesday, 21 June 2011

A relationship with my supermarket? No thanks, I just want some milk.

Relationship marketing has reached something of a saturation point.  Organisations large and small have bought into the idea that they need to develop and manage customer relationships - and CRM (along with a plethora of products and services to support it) has become an integral part of the marketing activities of many companies.  I'd question, however, whether they are really building relationships? Or is this something of a misnomer...a convenient and cuddly word for the mass customisation of marketing communications?

Katy Perry - Married to the Brand.*
As a consumer, I don't want a relationship with many of the organisations I buy from.  I don't want to be part of their gang. I don't feel a personal affinity to their brand.  I just need a product or service that works, that I can afford, and that's in the right place at the right time.  I don't think I'm alone in this.

Don't get me wrong - there are brands and parts of organisations with whom I'm happy to engage on a personal level.  My favourite supermarket cashier, who always has a smile and a quirky comment about my purchases; the owner of the garage I go to who never patronises me (despite the fact that I am clearly female); the people I exchange messages with on Twitter who work for organisations I buy from.  These are human relationships, and they tend to be one-to-one.  What CRM systems attempt to deliver is the one-to-one experience, but this is delivered through a many-to-many system, and however sophisticated that system is, it is still not as real. 

So, does that mean Customer Relationship Management is not important?  No - it just means the 'relationship' part is a bit mixed up.  It's a bit of a bunny boiler of a name really...like the person who thinks they're in a relationship with you because you smiled at them once.  What we need to accept about CRM is that it is not really about building a relationship with our customers, it's about improving our communications and learning more about our customers so we can keep improving everything we do.

Purveyors of CRM 'systems' want marketers to believe they can use them to build these close 'relationships' when in fact we'd all be better off calling a spade a spade and admitting that they simply enable us to personalise marketing messages, find out more about our customers and manage our communications better.  This still has the same benefits, but I'd argue that a change in terminology is less likely to lead the marketer down a false trail in search of the holy grail of brand advocacy in the unlikeliest of places.

The fact is, customers aren't stupid.  They know when they are being sent a mass email/sms/mailing.  They don't think your large corporation has contacted them personally; they know that you've been filtering your database, and they're unlikely to be getting that warm friendly glow because you remembered their birthday.  That doesn't mean it's not worth doing - it just means you need to get it right.  You need to send your customers the information they want and need to make the decision to buy from you.

I receive about twenty emails a day from companies who want to sell me something.  They are all generated by CRM systems.  I open the ones with a subject line that interests me.  I click through to the store when the email contains a product/story/offer that interests me.  At no point do I think, ooh, I love this company.  I think - that content looks useful, interesting, fun; I'll go there.

The take home message here is, use your CM system (I'm removing the 'R') to deliver great content, and your customers will buy, and continue to buy their products and services from you.  As someone once said...content is king.

And no thank you, I still don't want a relationship with you Mr Tesco - I just want a pint of milk...


*Image www.thebestmoviereview.com under creative commons licence.

Saturday, 4 June 2011

Bailey Review: Some thoughts on our sexualised society

It was welcome news to me that the Bailey Review on the sexualisation of children is recommending tighter controls on products, services and promotions that present sexual images to children or encourage them to behave in a sexual way, but I'm not sure the measures will address the basic social problems that underlie this worrying trend.

The review proposes a 'code of conduct' for retailers, restrictions on ambient advertising (such as billboards and posters) containing sexual imagery near schools, further online restrictions, a web site where parents' concerns can be raised, and age restrictions on music videos.  All these are sensible suggestions, but for me they are still too weak in some areas.  At the crux of the issue, for me, is the overall increased sexualisation of our society, and the link this has to aspiration and celebrity.

Hugh Heffner is opening a new Playboy Club in Mayfair this evening, while selling clothing, pencil cases and duvet covers for children bearing the hallmark of his sex-made wealth.  Clearly, the porn industry is booming, and celebrity culture embraces sexiness as a means of keeping the PR machine turning.  Sex sells, as we all know; but selling sex as aspirational, as a route to success, is where I believe the real danger lies for today's children.

Clearly governments cannot afford to ignore the porn industry; it is powerful, successful, and contributes to the economy. However, porn's osmosis into mainstream culture, whilst generating further profits (and tax revenues of course), could bring with it some more alarming social consequences.

My concerns are probably too numerous for a blog post, but here are some of the key things that worry me most:

1.  Sex as a route to success
Selling children's t--shirts with the slogan 'Future Footballer's Wife' disgusts me.  Is this what we want young girls to aspire to?  Today?  Centuries of Cinderella and Jane Austen may have stacked up the stereotypes, but what parent would want this to be their child's career choice?

2. Unrealistic notions of physical perfection
The starved, siliconed, plasticated, botoxed, airbrushed, plucked, bronzed, and buffed bodies of the porn industry are constructs.  They are not real bodies.  Children, however, may not understand this.  Presenting such images as perfection and something to aspire means that 99% of people may feel they cannot achieve the standards society sets for them.  They have failed before they even get out of bed in the morning.  What a shame.

3.  Sexual expectations
The knock-on of presenting an image of perfection to aspire to is that expectations of sex and what to expect in a partner also become warped.  Expecting your partner to look and behave like a porn star or pop star (the boundaries seem to have blurred...) is a worrying trend for me, as the likelihood of a failure to match up to the fantasies presented by the media is high.  What impact will this have on relationships?

4.  Finally, and most worrying...presenting an image of sexual availability
Children who are unwittingly dressing in a sexual way, by copying their heroines...Rhianna, Cheryl Cole, Britney Spears, may be unknowingly advertising sexual availability to those predators out there who will prey on them, and may also encourage their peers to make assumptions about their sexual maturity.  A horrible thought.   

Young pop stars have such a position of power, but they don't always have the maturity to understand the impact of their actions.  Britney dressed as a schoolgirl singing a song that asked the listener to hit her was a huge success in commercial terms, but perhaps not so palatable to victims of sexual violence.

My view on the Rhianna video that caused such a stir?  Just like Madonna, Britney, Christina Aguilera etc. before her, she is being manipulated by an industry and selling what is commercial/shocking. Should she have done it?  No; particularly with her background and experiences.  Should it have been banned?  Well, I'm not a big fan of censorship, so for me the responsibility lies with the makers.  In the context of who she is, what she does, and who the audience are, Rhianna's record company should never have made that video.  Pop stars saying they enjoy being treated violently by sexual partners may sell records, but if it contributes to a generation growing up thinking that that is what everyone wants from a sexual relationship, our society will not be a pretty place in ten or twenty years time...

The bottom line? Porn has its place in our world, but for me that will never be on Saturday night entertainment shows, in derogatory music videos or in children's clothing ranges.

Call me a prude, I don't care.

Thursday, 2 June 2011

The Evil Office: Mission, Motivation and the Moral Imperative

Say it quickly and you might mix it up with something more presidential...but the evil office is something we've been pondering in our own little office on the fourth floor since last Friday. 

Following a meandering discussion and brainstorm of the possible re-uses of spent Bic pens (placemats, insect hotels etc. - please add any further suggestions in the comments box below), Friday afternoon in the LG/SO office ended with a discussion on the nature of Evil (with a capital 'E').  This was prompted by some wild speculation on my behalf on the motives of people in the public eye for their actions and from the suggestion that adopting Google's famously simple (and possibly ironic, although that's another discussion) 'Don't be Evil' mission was something that I believe could have a profound effect on people.

Within a few minutes we had knocked up and hung our own 'Don't be Evil' poster on the office wall, with a view to running a pseudo experiment to gauge the reactions of those who encounter it in our office.  The first person to walk into the office noticed it straight away and commented on it.  I can confirm that they were in no way evil whilst in the office (so far so good).

Measuring evil is, however, quite a difficult thing to do.  First you have to define it.  This is not easy.  What's morally wrong to me may seem perfectly acceptable behaviour to you (e.g. entering box junctions when your exit is not clear).  Evil is subjective, but there are probably a few basic tenets on which we could agree: evil as malicious behaviour, with the intention of wrongdoing or harm.  So, let's take that as our basic definition for now.

Measuring this is the next step - and seemingly even more difficult.  We tried Googling it (!), and came up with several highly amusing 'How evil are you?' style quizzes, which seemed to involve lots of questions about saving cats from burning buildings and stealing from your grandmother.  Clearly, these are not questions we can ask everyone who steps into the office, so we're going for a combination of  more subjective techniques (personal views on the general evilness of behaviour in our office) and a 'saliency' measure (i.e. do people notice the poster? do they comment on it?  or do they just glance at it shiftily while they speak...yes we've had that already).

Obviously this experiment will not stand up to academic scrutiny, but it's fun to see the reactions.  One interesting aspect of the phrase 'Don't Be Evil' is the negative imperative it uses.  My old boss used to tell a story about the power of negative language; I don't know if it's true or modern myth, but apparently just before Chris Waddle took his penalty at the 1990 World Cup, England manager Bobby Robson said to him 'don't miss!'.  Waddle promptly sent the ball into row Z and England's world cup hopes were history.  My ex-boss believed that negatives in language are sometimes filtered out by our brains, and that we hear, and do, the opposite when told not to do something.  With this theory in mind, we would perhaps expect to see an increase in evil behaviour in our office, and the logical next step might be to suggest that Google's mission may actually be encouraging its employees to 'Be Evil'.

Ok, enough of the conspiracy theories - I'm not totally convinced by this argument, but I have an open mind and will keep you posted on the results of our little experiment (if I've not gone over to the dark side of course). 

Oh, and Google - how about positively re-framing your mission statement?

Be good?

The next office experiment beckons...

Saturday, 28 May 2011

It's a Mixed Up, Mashed Up World. Lady Gaga, Marketing Genius

Lady Gaga is a music-industry phenomenon.  Her rise from backroom songwriter to global superstar has been both swift and dramatic and she is now one of the most-wanted acts in the world. So how did she do it, and why do people go gaga over Gaga?

It's a personal view, but I believe Lady Gaga could be one of the greatest marketing projects of the 21st century.  Why?  Well let's take a look at the component parts of the Gaga brand:

1.  The Music.  
This is what it's all about, right? The music has to be good?  Well, Lady Gaga's music is unlikely to win a Mercury Prize, but it's popular, it's poppy, and most of all it's familiar.  The similarities between her songs and those of some of the most popular artists of the last few decades have been commented on at length.  Consumers liked that stuff before - so they're likely to like it again.  Gaga has created a sound that is inclusive and accessible; this maximises her market.

2. The Look.
Source: Domain Barnyard*
The music industry is obsessed with image, and so is Gaga.  Not conventionally beautiful (by the exacting standards the industry normally applies to its young female stars), Gaga had to create something that would  differentiate her from the crowd of skinny blond ballad belters.  So, she has whipped up a dramatic persona, constructed from a composite of her influencers (Bowie, Madonna, Mercury etc.) that is designed to both shock and intrigue.  Her face is disguised by heavy make-up, headpieces and dramatic hairstyles, and her clothing has become an art project for designers and artists from around the world (the dress made of raw meat, anyone?).  She is a walking, talking, writhing, art gallery and advertising billboard.


3.  The Performance.
The elaborate stage sets and dramatic performances Gaga creates on stage are carefully constructed to shock and create a spectacle.  In fact 'spectacle' is at the heart of what she does.  Creating a hyper-real performance that is so bad it's good is a hugely successful tactic, because we are always wondering what will happen next.  Gaga has tapped into the fact that the music industry is no longer just a music industry; it's a fully integrated 'entertainment' industry and the balance between the music and the performance as the 'product' has shifted.  The music is less important to the pop audience than it was.  The whole package of music, image, and most importantly the performance (and the experience that goes with it) are where consumers perceive the value.

4.  The Attitude.
By cultivating an aura of detachment or otherness, and being rude or diva-ish to interviewers she is perceived as mysterious and temperamental 'artiste'.  Whether this is true or not, it is the result of carefully choreographed and constructed PR onslaught that has the press continually wanting more.  Gaga is able to command media coverage because she knows what the press want, and what they will write about.

So, there you have it, the Gaga 'product' de-constructed.   Gaga has captured the Zeitgeist - the insatiable appetite for sensation, and is providing it in spades.  Brand Gaga is giving consumers exactly what they want from their superstars, and making a fortune in the process.  That's what I call good marketing.

Lady Gaga, I take my (not particularly elaborate) hat off to you.  You are a marketing genius.

*Under Creative Commons licence

Sunday, 8 May 2011

CAP Code - to doff or not to doff, that is the question

I've just been working on my latest column for the South Wales Evening Post, and as part of my research have done a quick straw poll of some of the small and micro-businesses I work with to find out how much they know about the CAP code.

Not a lot is the short (and somewhat worrying) answer.

So if you think the CAP code is some form of head-wear etiquette you may need to read this...

Earlier this year the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the self regulating body of the UK's advertising industry, gained new powers as part of its online remit.  Not only does its Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP - yes, this is where the cap comes into it) code apply to online and offline advertising, but it also applies to the marketing communications messages you publish on your company web site and on any non-paid online media such as social networking sites (like Twitter and Facebook) over which you have control.

This has huge implications for businesses as it means your web site and social media communications need to adhere to the same strict standards in terms of claims made about product benefits, environmental performance etc as all mainstream advertising.

The code applies to any communications that are directly related to the promotion of goods and services for sale, so it does not apply to things like press releases, but it does apply to the general information about your products and services on your web pages.  There are detailed sections within the code on key areas such as claims about health and beauty benefits and advertising aimed at the young and vulnerable, but the key principles are that advertisers need to make sure they are not making statements that could be considered misleading or making claims not backed up by suitable evidence.

This lack of awareness about the changes is particularly likely to affect small businesses who may not be working with agencies who would be aware of the new rules.  So, if you are a UK business owner and you have a web site and/or use other forms of online media to promote your goods and services I'd recommend a web site and communications review to ensure you are compliant with the code, as any complaints made against you could, if upheld, result in one or more of a range of sanctions from the ASA.

You can find out more about the CAP code here.

Wednesday, 20 April 2011

The Peregrine and the Pigeon: The paradox of control (and our attempts to achieve it)

Peregrine falcons are stunning creatures - the fastest birds in the sky, and consummate hunters.  They are, however, very rare (the RSPB estimates just 1042 breeding pairs in the UK, mostly in the north and west of the country, including my home patch - Pembrokeshire).

Knowing where Peregrines nest is a privilege and an honour with a high level of responsibility attached.  Why?  Because Peregrines are rare, precious and under threat from humans who will stop at nothing to kill them (despite the fact that the birds are afforded the highest level of legal protection possible through Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)). Why would humans want to kill these wonderful animals?  Well, amongst other reasons, it's because Peregrines kill pigeons.  Now I know what you're thinking, pigeons are extremely common (and thought of by many as vermin), why would that be a problem? Well to you and I it might not, but to the pigeon fancier, the Peregrine is the ultimate airborne threat to their valuable birds.

So how can just a few thousand falcons across the whole of the UK really present a threat to racing pigeons?  And why would pigeon fanciers go to such lengths to kill them?  The reasons are social and economic.  Racing pigeons can be extremely valuable because they can make their owners lots of money - and because value is placed upon them by the people involved in the sport.  Just as top flight football players are valued, bought and sold on the basis of their performance, so are pigeons. Now I'm sure that the vast majority of pigeon racers would never consider taking such action, but unfortunately there are a small minority who actively seek out and try to kill Peregrines or prevent them from breeding by destroying their eggs.*

What does this have to do with business?  Well, I see these attempts to control a small and widely dispersed population as futile attempts to gain control over something which is uncontrollable and at the mercy of chance.  Putting so much effort into something for which you cannot guarantee a result or reward is something that managers who are intent on maintaining control above all else often seem bent on doing.  They attempt to micro-manage or waste effort planning for events which are so unlikely they may never happen.

Forward planning can be very useful, and trying to maintain control by sticking to the plan may make you feel better, but times change and a single chance happening (an accident on the M1, or a freak weather event for example) could change everything for your business.  You can't control the weather or your competitors' actions any more than you can control whether your pigeon happens to be in the same airspace as a hungry Peregrine. Herein lies the paradox of control; we want it, but the more things we try to control the further we get from being 'present' in our business, and able to react to opportunities and threats as they arise.

So, no matter what your pigeons, possessions, or plans are worth, consider this: sometimes it's better to be aware of the possibilities and how you might react to them, but to accept that you cannot control everything, and just get on with doing the best job you can.

Oh, and don't kill Peregrines (ever).


Sources:
*Data on Peregrines and the threats to them is from the RSPB: http://www.rspb.org.uk

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

Why the Happiness Project makes me sad...

Today's news is full of the admirable endeavours of a group who promote an approach to becoming happier that they believe will dramatically improve our sense of well-being.  Of course we all want to be happy, but is spending time trying to be happy by following a prescribed regime of random acts of kindness and meditation really going to get you there?

For me this seems an obvious reaction to a secular, or more specifically a post-religious society.  Those who cannot rationalise traditional religious beliefs still seek meaning in their lives and in doing so are drawn to alternatives that promise the same comfort. Even the methods (service to others, contemplation) are consistent with the approaches and teachings of many of the major religions.

What I find sad is that the volume of attention and interest this project is gaining suggests that we are all unhappy. Is this the case?  Or could it be that we don't recognise happiness when we are living it because we're too busy being happy to think about it?  It bothers me that happiness is seen as a goal not an experience; always in the future.  If you have to think about happiness as something you move towards, how can you experience it in the here and now?

For me, one of the the key factors that affects our perceptions of our own happiness is comparison with others.  Our society is now such that we have a view (even if just through the media) of how the other half live.  We are encouraged to 'aspire' to be more successful, beautiful or rich.  If there's always someone in your sights who has more of these things than you, and you are told often enough that the things they have will make you happy, it would be unsurprising if you became conditioned to believe it.

Don't get me wrong, I commend the happiness project for its rejection of materialism, but I'm not sure it's going to solve the problem of self consciousness.  In my view we need to forget about trying to be happy and get on with it.   Neither existential guilt nor an accumulation of wealth and status will make you happy.  Forgetting what everyone else is doing and being present in every moment of your life just might.

For all my preaching I also have to admit my hypocrisy. In reality, it's something I am very bad at.  So, to snap me out of my ennui I keep a small clipping from a magazine on my noticeboard that reminds me when I need to wake up and live my life.  It's a sublime quotation from The Nice and the Good by Iris Murdoch, and I can't say it any better, so I'll let Iris have the last word:

'Happiness is a matter of one's most ordinary everyday mode of consciousness being busy and lively and unconcerned with self.  To be damned is for one's everyday mode of consciousness to be unremitting agonising preoccupation with self'