Resolutions and Predictions.

After the resolutions, another couple of kilos, no more salt, call Mum more often, be kind to small children, come the predictions, what we want to see, what we don't want to see and maybe a few things that will disappear in 2013. I don't think we have the capacity to slow down now that we have turned the web tap on full bore, with all the pundits and boffins pointing out technology will rule the rest of our lives. I thought it already did, still it's predicted the cloud, broadband, in-line shopping, big data, everywhere commerce, data leakage, tablet market share increase, boundary and privacy elimination, along with gesture control will help leap us into Star Trek territory and beyond. I thought we had already passed James T Kirk in so many departments that only the second coming of Spock would surprise us now?

We'll continue to be inundated by vast amounts of information, especially from the world of entertainment, where we'll see Meryl Streep win another Oscar, regardless of whether she is in a movie, where chefs will continue to touch food too much while participating in innocuous TV cook offs, Mark Zuckerberg will fake his own death to increase the number of "likes" on Facebook and Apple will become the villain in the next Bond movie. Sports will continue to be the only reality show not conquered by the Kardashians, although Kim has indicated the "Lingerie Football League" has shown interest in her talent for avoiding contact and getting to the end zone unscathed.

2013 will be a year of no boundaries, with imagination and any and all ideas having suitors who will look to make our lives easier, more convenient, while building their personal brand for personal wealth. The possibilities at this time of year seem exaggerated, and it's as good a time as any to try and reinvent ourselves but the danger in following the trends and predictions leaves us open to the same pitfalls encountered by the obsolete, keeping up is hard, staying ahead is harder and keeping true to yourself is hardest.

After all, if we look back a few years, the obviously antiquated, the abandoned, the forgotten and the bygone could fill up warehouses filled with obsolescence. Whatever happened to palm pilots, video arcades, Kodak film, email you paid for, Blockbuster, paper maps, land lines, fax machines, running out of hard drive, book stores, losing touch, privacy, wires, blind dates and believing what you see on film?

So for 2013 to be your year, for 2013 to become a watershed year, for the resolutions to turn from predictions to absolute certainty, without concern for keeping to the trend cycle, you will be all about authenticity, trustworthiness, credibility and unimpeachable guarantee.

These are the only things that will separate you from the masses and give you a chance to show your point of difference, share your insights, make a difference and give back. Granted you'll need to embrace the new technologies and that will make for an exciting 2013.

Happy New Year.

22/12/12

Okay, I've emptied the bath, thrown out the half eaten tins of beans and spam and eventually I'll take the mattress money back to the bank. Seems I've survived another apocalypse, although there is something about a cliff coming up that could derail my good fortune. For those of us who hung off buying the Christmas presents, it's crunch time to hit the mall and fight the crowds, serves us right. All is right with the world and its time to count our blessings and look to the future, a future filled with more online retail, social becoming business as usual, big clouds of information and a second chance to make a difference. With the future in mind, I looked for a couple of personal favourite, post apocalyptic reasons to rejoice in 2013.

My first rejoice comes from the arena that has captivated everyone from eight to eighty, I'm talking about the food fascination era brought on by the celebrity and master chef phenomenon. With that in mind I give you Pizza Hut, who have decided to celebrate the future, by breaking through the final pizza barrier not believed possible by lovers of the thin crust sandwich, first encountered in the Italian town of Gaeta in 997 AD. For those of us enamoured with this dish of infinite toppings, Pizza Hut has taken the greatest minds in the culinary world, stuffed them into a cramped kitchen and come up with the "Pizza within a Pizza". For so long just a theory, a hypothetical, existing in the minds of starving University students, this break through has seen the long unanswered question of what's my favourite pizza topping? Of course my favourite pizza topping is another pizza, so easy and yet so genius. With pizza one of the four main food groups required for a balanced diet, I see a resurgence in the once flagging empire of "The Hut".

The second reason we should rejoice is reality will finally take a back seat to fiction. We will no longer see the disengaged, the loud and obnoxious, the over bearing, the egotistical and the just plain abominably abhorrent take up space on TV and the net. We will be rid of the stupidity of the lowest common denominator becoming the bench mark for behaviour, for shopping trends and attention. The Kardashians, along with the housewives of all the cities we never visit, people from the Jersey Shore and anyone who has survived on an island by eating grubs will finally be vanquished to the outer limits of reception on web channels for the criminally insane.

So I say, what's not to rejoice post apocalypse? After all, if we believe all the hype, we were nearly destroyed, nearly erased from the planet and yet here we are ready to finish the Christmas shopping, wondering if Aunt Maude will finally shave off her moustache for your New Year's kiss and generally oblivious to what might have been. Lighten up I say, we were nearly destroyed, how bad can it be? Seems the only blight on the future is the resigning of the 75th season of the Kardashians.

Seems we can't have it all but second chances should be fun, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.

21/12/12

I'm not even sure John Cusack (2012 Columbia Pictures) could help me. It's a couple of days till the end of the world and I'm not ready, I'm not organised nor do I have my legacy in place. The Mayan calendar has predicted the end before but Friday seems a pretty definite date to many who have organised bucket lists, bought all the baked beans at the supermarket and are filling the bath with water. I know it has to be true because tour companies have organised groups to Mexico, visiting Mayan temples in the hope of getting one more payday. Just in case Friday is the last day, it behoves all of us to take a breath and think about what we might leave behind. Surely someone, maybe John Cusack, will make it through and he'll have the responsibility to read all about us and the legacies left behind.

Howard Stevenson, a noted professor at Harvard, is the subject of a book called "Howard's Gift", uncommon wisdom to inspire a life's work, dealing with the end of life to affirm a life well lived. Stevenson is all about the end and thinking about what you want on your tombstone, what you want people to say at your funeral and how you want to be remembered. From this view point, Stevenson wants people to think further ahead than the next iPhone release, think deep about how they want their life summarised and then make decisions that will make that happen.

Stevenson wants people to "consider how you’d want those you care about to describe you, on the most personal levels, separate from the structures and roles that define you to the rest of the world. Envision what you’d want your children to say when they describe you to their children. Or think about it this way: if a camera could take a “legacy” snapshot of you in the moment before you departed the earth, what do you want that picture to show? Starting at the end’ means investing time up front to develop an aspirational picture of your future as a guide for the decisions you make throughout your career and your life,”

According to Stevenson, defining that legacy and having a belief in yourself to achieve the end result will have strong influences on life and career decisions. Bringing all of life's possible endings together helps that decision making process become focused, giving you a clearer picture on why you should decide on a particular fork in the road. If you can't decide on your direction then maybe, Stevenson suggests, you haven't had a good look at the end. The book's author, Eric Sinoway construed that "identifying your legacy is the essential precursor to creating the road map of how you want to live your life and is the foundation for the decisions you make in your career". He suggests even the little day to day decisions are easier if you have your road and final destination mapped out.

In the book corporations are used as analogies for life, where the most successful have a definite end game in mind and do everything along the way to achieve that goal. That corporate strategy can be used for individual life choices, or as Stevenson describes it "business planning for your life's work". Developing an image of where you want to end up gives you the ability to make decisions based on a long term strategy, effective for the most successful companies.

Realising you have a choice to decide your end, is the start point for what Stevenson calls "defining your legacy" and the most successful people use this thinking as a tool to guide the major choices they make in their careers and their lives. If that is the case, I have a few hours left to polish up my end game but remember, “Everything will be okay in the end, if it is not okay, it is not the end.”—author unknown.

KISS.

"Keep it simple stupid", has long been a catch phrase among business leaders and corporate presenters wanting to show it's easier for people to understand the message you are trying to convey with immediacy and imperativeness. With a world getting more complicated by the byte, with more messages being transmitted via more channels, with more interference and distractions everyday, we instinctively look for simple alternatives and clarity of message. That clarity of message is important for brands and products as we sift through a mountain of product detritus, trying to choose our next purchase or service.

The difficulty encountered in creating awareness and profile, trying to stand out from the crowd and surviving the fickleness of the buying public is dependent on conveying your message as simply as possible. Keeping it simple translates to understanding and that can translate to the bottom line. Siegel+Gale conducted a global brand survey trying to define simplicity by polling more than 6,000 consumers, asking them about clarity of promotions, messages, simplicity of experience online and offline. They were looking for brands that resonate with people's need to declutter their thinking and decision making process, thus providing an obvious line of decision.

What the simplest brands index pointed out, was if they concentrated on what they do best without muddying the decision process of why you have walked or clicked onto their premises, they become successful and are are able to charge a premium for the obviousness of your decision. This rational has seen Subway, Google, Amazon, Apple, McDonalds, Starbucks and Zappos lead the way for consumers who have grasped the messages of that simplicity, a single search bar on Google, unrivalled customer service on Zappos, the $5 footlong at Subways and the appropriateness of cleans lines at Apple. All of these messages are patently clear, making it easy for consumers to decide from a raft of competitors, whose messages are clouded by not being able to articulate their true worth or willing to test their resolve and move away from the pricing death spiral.

Consumer sectors that suffer from over complication and confusion from the public, are insurance, banking and financial, where they become mired in multiple messages around price, service, relevancy, credibility, integrity and usability. Simpler products and experiences are the panacea for this sector but no one jumps out as a leader. This complexity of thinking, leading to confusion was also indicative of brands expected to be higher up the index. Twitter at 93 and Facebook at 125 are instantly recognisable brands on the index that have slipped as they become more intricate and complex in their workings. The bewildering privacy policies, interface changes and constant tinkering on Facebook have frustrated users to where numbers leaving are now significant enough to be of concern.

Simplicity of design and message are not the only things to make great brands successful but the ones that have distilled their essence to communicate and resonate with consumers will always have a blue water advantage.

Christmas conscience.

Two weeks before Christmas and many people are feeling the anxiety building up, building up because they haven't bought that perfect gift. What is the craze this year, Apple continues its trend of being the digital du jour, book readers are always in, cheap flights to everywhere except where you want to go are available and a variety of toys that will barely outlast their batteries continue the sell cycle. At Christmas the sell cycle is on steroids and everywhere you look you are accosted by the next poster entreating to buy before it's too late or before stocks run out. For many this is an unconscionable approach to a season of cheer and good tidings.

So imagine my surprise to see the folks at Patagonia continuing their 2011 campaign, when they implored me not to buy their jacket, to this year asking me to buy less. What would David Jones think, how could Apple continue and what would Nike do if they couldn't make the shoes you bought yesterday, obsolete today? Consumerism today is about replacing, not the old and worn out with the new but replacing yesterday with today as quickly as possible, before the midday rush. Aside from my Mother it is difficult to find anyone who has held onto anything longer than necessary, meaning until the next new range or new model is released.

Patagonia have worked hard at their passion for making the best outdoor gear in the world and making it last for more than one sale cycle. Everything they make is built to last and they have a full appreciation of what it takes to make their garments and outdoor equipment and who they are selling to. They were forthcoming in telling consumers how much last year's jacket cost the environment when they released their sales campaign information, “to make it required 135 litres of water, enough to meet the daily needs (three glasses a day) of 45 people. Its journey from its origin as 60% recycled polyester to our Reno warehouse generated nearly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, 24 times the weight of the finished product. This jacket left behind, on its way to Reno, two-thirds its weight in waste.” Think twice before you buy it and if you do, use it for a very long time.

To stay true to their mission, “build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis", Patagonia have embarked on a brand campaign to build more than loyalty and social awareness. They are creating brand evangelists whose values align with the company's and who become their greatest sales team, albeit one with a conscience. The power of information and the limited amount of money for the Christmas budget sees people looking to buy from companies with values aligned to their own and values they are happy to pass onto their children. Marrying the environmentally responsible with great products gives Patagonia the chance to connect with these consumers, work at the premium end of the market, sustain profits and continue to save the planet.

So when looking for that next great Christmas present, consider the socially and environmentally conscious companies who want to give you more than just a great product, they want to save the planet for more Christmas' to come. Now you know why I haven't bought you that new jacket, I'm just saving the planet.

Things change, adapt.

How will your business look in 2013? What did it look like in 2005 and have you adapted to the changing world? In my youth, "coffee thanks", used to get you just that, a coffee. The best seller wall at the bookshop would get you just that, a best seller and the shoe shop sold one thing, shoes. Times change and a coffee is no longer a coffee, especially at Starbucks where a super venti frappa mocha chai with sprinkles no longer resembles the cuppa of my youth. Books disappeared at the book seller and went online via Amazon to be followed by shoes from Zappos and we all merrily bought from the new order who became experts selling one item. Times change and Starbucks no longer just sells coffee, in fact it has dropped coffee from its logo, Amazon no longer just sells books and Zappos no longer just sells shoes. Adaptability has become the catch phrase for business as new ideas and swimming in blue ocean will only give you so much time ahead of the pack.

Seems the production and mass efficiencies gained by global domination has allowed many of the larger players to look outside their field of expertise and expand into areas usually associated with supermarkets, malls and every bake house and delicatessen in your neighbourhood. Starbucks recently acquired juice companies, bakeries, tea retailers and is trying to stay ahead of consumer trends with technology initiatives started years ago with their in store CD sales. Amazon have become the world's largest online retailer, turning into a Walmart on steroids, selling everything imaginable while Zappos added clothing and accessories to their unlimited line of shoes.

The trend to diversify is not new and every global brand has tried it at one time or another. Success varies and there enough instances of companies going back to core product to marvel at how well companies like Starbucks and Amazon have been at creating new revenue streams while sticking to their original plan of world domination for one product or service, for as long as they did. Still it is the measure of truly successful companies who can adapt to change as well as Amazon and Starbucks. .

At one time Starbucks was a poster child of growth finding 55 countries desperate for a gallon of coffee for $5, in fact one satirical US newspaper joked in a headline "new Starbucks opens in restroom of existing Starbucks". When the tough years of 2008 and 2009 hit, they had to consider there was more than one offering needed to re-energise the brand, hence their foray into the world of tea, juice and the domain of the bakers to widen their approach to the consumer. With this approach they have seen a new clientele enter the "third place", the "third place" after home and work as Howard Schultz refers to Starbucks. This strategy has seen Starbucks increase their branding and awareness and increase their earnings to the highest levels in their history, serving 60 million customers every week.

Once Amazon figured out how to deliver a book to anywhere in the world, the jump to being able to deliver anything else was not a big one and the company morphed into the largest mall in the universe. Acquiring Zappos added to their domination and once this was assured, Amazon worked on aspects of their business that some thought unnecessary with such a large market share, great customer service. Adaptability is more than branching out into other products, it's about a holistic view of your offering and more often than not, it requires the human touch. It can work for all of us, after all we have adapted somewhat from the guys finger painting antelope on walls, all those years ago. Go adapt and succeed.

Ho Ho Ho.

It's time for the annual month of merriment, where excess is agreed upon early and anything goes at the office Christmas party. Alcohol and attitude mixed with pent up emotions finally have a release valve in the gathering of colleagues at the annual Christmas event that will leave carnage for some and a sigh of relief for others. Countless experts will provide tips to survive this annual pilgrimage to loosening the tie and bringing forth that inappropriate garment, shimmering so brightly in the back of the cupboard. Yet even with all of this advice, the Christmas faux pas will live on in 2012 because many people see it as a golden opportunity to show off their less than funky dance moves, show off their fashion sense and of course show off parts of their anatomy hidden throughout the year by common sense.

Common sense is often the true loser at the Christmas function, months in the planning by the social committee or the marketing department, where the venue and the event seldom match up to expectations, causing people to take responsibility to liven up the night and bring forth their inner Robbie Williams. Flailing arms and legs, rotating pelvi and the obligatory John Travolta impersonations provide hours of fun and entertainment for the onlookers but often end up as career hiccups. It never ceases to amaze how many people volunteer for the guest magician having left their favourite underwear at home. The end of night sight, carrying stripper heels, antlers askance or tie used as a head band and last seen heading for the kebab van is not the objective the company had in mind when planning the party.

Dinner table discussions at the Christmas party should include how to get home safely, congratulations on jobs well done, how to spend the annual bonus and milestones everyone can celebrate. Not wearing antlers and asking if anyone needs a ride home, not asking the receptionist if she wants to retire to the cloakroom for the annual performance review and certainly not providing a running Twitter commentary on Marg from book keeping having trouble escaping the evil advances of Wayne from sales. With so many potholes to avoid, any wonder people become confused about expectations and apprehensive about wardrobe, dance moves and talking to the boss with a skinful.

The other side of the coin sees this event as an opportunity to get to the right people you may not have had the fortuity to meet or talk with, including the boss who is usually in a good mood and senior management who finally have to come out of their offices. You can hurdle the HR gate keepers and focus your discussions on the people who need to hear it, on subjects that need to be heard, all the while staying in the comfort zone of discussions over a friendly drink. It behoves the boss to be nice to you, even if its only at the Christmas party, so seize the champagne and seize the moment. Merry Christmas.

Stop and start right now.

There are the invincible years zero to thirty, you bungy jump, you drink copious amounts, you party and decisions are controlled by southern parts of the anatomy. There are, the I need that second house and the BMW years thirty to fifty, where the focus changes and decisions are about surviving the crush and everyday distractions. Then there are years of reflection, retracing, consolidation, affirmation and figuring out you are wiser than you ever thought you would be as a pimply fifteen year old. I mention the above as an intro to tonight's graduating class of T.I.M.E., the travel industry mentoring program aiming to bring out the best in the future leaders in tourism. The people who signed up to the program are wise beyond their years, they have figured out my peers and I have something to offer as mentors in knowledge and skills that will aid and abet their careers. They have decided, they are adamant and they are uncompromising in knowing they need to start right now for a head start, for a head start that will see their colleagues wonder at their progress and success, for their future will be bright.

It's that knowing when to start, knowing its time to change and knowing you shouldn't wait another minute to become better, to start your evolution and transform tomorrow, that is the hard part. The hard part because there are always hurdles, always other distractions and consequences if decisions don't turn out the way you thought. Consequently the great majority take up space, fill up the trains and clock on at work, without ever making a difference. Reasons to change needn't be seismic, they can be the simplest admission change is required, for a better day at work, a better relationship with your clients or just to give yourself a chance to succeed. Nonetheless the hurdles, no matter how low, stop most and in the process they become public transport fodder.

A colleague, Terry Hawkins, doing well on the talk show circuit in the US, sums it up best when she says there are "two times in life, now and too late". So is today the day to stop waiting; until you finish school, until you lose five kilos, until you get a break, until you go back to school, until you leave your job, until you have kids, until your kids leave the house, until you retire, until the footy season is over, until you get married, until you get divorced, until Friday night, until Sunday morning, until you get a new car, until you get a new home, until you pay off the mortgage, until you've done the laundry, until you've cleaned the garage, until you find your soul mate, until spring, until summer, until your mother in-law likes you, until autumn, until winter, until you have a million dollars in the bank, until the first of the month, until the thirtieth of the month, until your favourite song comes on the radio, until the sun comes up, until you've had a drink, until you've sobered up, until you die, until you are reincarnated?

The T.I.M.E. graduating class have already figured out the above and they've started. What time is it?

You're a good man Charlie Brown.

The email storm that is my work and private inboxes is littered with the philosophical diatribe of chain letters, updated fables, cats doing unspeakable things and happy Monday slogans, entreating me to pass on oft overused quotations to bring me luck. On rare occasions a message will strike a chord and get me thinking on a personal and business context about the content and its worth. One such philosophical enlightenment came my way via the pen of noted cartoon colossus Charles Schultz, enquiring about my memory of high achievers in sport, entertainment, business and other endeavours and why I don't remember them.

He posed questions along the lines of "can you name five recent Oscar winners", as well as 5 Nobel or Pulitzer Prize winners, the 5 wealthiest people on the planet along with a raft of similar high achievers in fields that keep us interested in the front pages while keeping the Twitter universe entranced. I of course couldn't answer the questions, Meryl Streep kept leaping to mind and distracting my train of thought, surely she has won every Oscar. I did get closer with the wealthy people, Warren Buffett is never out of the news, dredging up fears I'm turning into a capitalistic plutocrat, intent on lining my own pockets. That feeling passed quickly with Mr Schultz' follow on questions which became the hook of his philosophical contemplation and gave me pause to deliberate, agree with his view and disperse any fears of becoming Daddy Warbucks.

His second series of questions, like "can you name some teachers who were important to your development", hinged on my memory of people who helped with knowledge, support, mentoring, business acumen, a foot up the ladder and who became my advocates. I of course could remember everyone who made such a difference, who helped in times of trouble and who worked in alignment with my own thinking. His second series of questions, pointed out how quickly the headliners disappear from our memories, for they have no more impact than yesterday's newspaper, no more impact than last year's election winners and no more impact than the acclaimed sports stars soon to fade from memory.

Schultz' philosophical view was all about focusing your attention on who is really important in life. Which isn't the high achievers in entertainment or sport, it isn't who did what the most or even who collected the most treasure. People who make the most difference in your life are not the most credentialed, not the ones with the highest profiles, not the ones with the most money and certainly not the ones with the most awards. As the cartoon philosopher was proud to point out, the lesson learnt is even the best in their fields find the applause dies, the awards tarnish and the accomplishments are forgotten, eventually to be buried with their owners.

The people who make the most difference in your life are the ones that care. You're a good man Charles Schultz.

Trust in technology.

How can you trust someone you have never met? Today that question is more important than ever before with relationships built over the net on social and business channels becoming the norm. In the Stone Age, BF before Facebook and BL before LinkedIn, the onus was on individuals to actually meet face to face, check each other out via conversation, friends, colleagues and the occasional police check. If you want to short cut that process today, there are no shortage of ways to find information on people and what they are involved in along with getting a felling of trust and realism.

So does the net make it easier to trust and what is it worth to have the right profile online for business and social standing? Social economists tell us the economy doesn't run on money, it runs on trust and where that used to take time to develop, it seems the next generation doesn't want to wait that long. So will the net become the new arbiter of trust for a new business landscape and will sites built on credibility become the haven for business deals to be done? These sites will need to create a climate of unreserved trust, for without it people are not motivated or willing to share or open up to relationships which will form the new economic models of the future.

Stefan Molyneux the host of Freedomain Radio produces philosophy podcasts with 4 million net views per year, he charges nothing and makes money. He makes money from the honour system, asking listeners to donate what they think the podcast is worth and has so far kept up the delicate balance of sustaining a high level of quality engendering trust in his listeners to come back every week. He proves where there is trust money will follow, “If I didn’t have trust there would be no downloads, no show, and no business". Molyneux has faith in his model based on trust both ways and it has kept everyone absorbed in his philosophical approach.

Japan, South Korea and the US were involved in a research study on supplier relationships and built empirical evidence of the economic value of trust when they found that transaction costs were five times higher for the least trusted suppliers versus the most trusted suppliers. Low trust resulted in the need to spend more time and resources on communication, procurement compliance and negotiation, while also shortening contract periods. High trust was all about sharing, sacrifice and working in alignment with partners. Trust in those relationships was equivalent to money earned and money saved.

The trend to do business and live on the net comes with caveats around acceptance, authenticity, doing the right thing, principled work ethics, all wrapped up in one word. Trust based businesses increase accountability and security, making processes and procedures easier to implement and manage. Technological innovation applied to Stone Age successful practices opens up a world of opportunity for business but you still need to prove yourself, otherwise I won't trust you.

Thumbs Up.

Everyone likes to be liked and everyone tries hard to be liked, but do you really need to like everyone you meet? It takes a while to like people, after you get to know them, share some common interests, catch up over a pizza and maybe exchange a Birthday card or two. Today it's all about liking everyone all the time, albeit at a distance with your trusty thumbs up icon, dishing out likes at every opportunity. Facebook has a lot to answer for when they instigated the ubiquitous thumbs up icon as a way to "give positive feedback and connect with things people care about", be they status updates, comments, photos, links posted by friends, along with advertising. By clicking the "Like" button at the bottom of content, 1 billion people have the opportunity to opt out of a conversations, connect invisibly and as far as businesses go, try and collect customers.

Nowadays everyone is looking to be liked without putting any more effort into the relationship than opening a Facebook page or a twitter account. My greengrocer, my butcher, the fish monger and even the dry cleaner guy wants me to like him. They beseech me to like them every time I drop off a shirt or buy a zucchini, they clamour for my thumbs up after buying a steak and they crave for recognition online regardless of the purchase amount. I get the strategy, I get the the enthusiasm for the online market place but regardless of how many times my dry cleaner is liked on Facebook or tweeted about, no one is travelling an extra 10 kilometres to drop off their suit and no amounts of likes will put him on my Christmas card list.

The best way for local retailers to work on future customers is to create conversations around their products, strike up a relationship with their customers and build up recognition, so every time you walk into their store, you feel like you are meeting a friend. Is it to the stage where organisations, companies and the corner store resort to stalking to be successful? The same way parents eventually disregard the tug at the hem for attention, people will disregard the incessant plea for likes and recognition. That desperate cry for recognition by a child is not a good look for businesses to emulate by asking for attention at every opportunity, regardless

Today, old fashion face to face business relationships built on credibility and doing what you say you will do, along with recognition built on excellent service seem anachronistic compared to the wall of social technology so many think are a replacement for the above. Many wonder what the world was like before the net, how businesses and their clients connected and stayed connected? Well the "butcher, the baker and the candle stick maker" all recognised their customers because they served them every day, had conversations every day and their customers liked that a lot, and when they gave a thumbs up, they meant it.

Story Teller.

The return on investment of a good story surrounding brand, product and services, is hard to define and apportion a monetary value. Companies all agree, capturing the consumer's heart can lead to a lifetime of loyalty for their product but they are resistant to the persuasive power of a compelling story because its hard to evaluate the numbers, the dollars and the ROI of the time it takes to craft such a story . How do you show the value of a good brand story, a good experience story, CEOs agree image and brand have a clear business advantage but what do they show the board in return for putting the story teller front and centre? Putting a value on a beautiful sunrise is often quoted as being easier than getting companies to agree on the ROI of a good story.

The website significantobjects.com, put together a compelling case for the value of stories when they decided to evaluate the worth, bottom line, that can be directly attributed to a powerful story. An accumulation of items bought at thrift shops, garage sales and flea markets for no more than a few dollars each, was listed on eBay for significantly more than their original price. A hundred items listed and sold on eBay made an average increase in price of 2,700%, from a medium purchase price of $1.29 to a resale average price of $36.12. This was accomplished by surrounding the various pieces listed, with stories bathing the objects in history and heritage as only a good fictional writer could do. It was a micro example of objectifying the value of a good story with a measurable bottom line increase.

Direct Marketing News forecast 2012 to be the year of the story, while Fast Company, The New York York Times and global 500 companies have all given credence to the power of story tellers. Story telling as communication, has given companies, especially online giants Google and Amazon, a breadth of character not usually associated with bits and bytes, whereas companies like Nike and Apple have used stories for leadership and loyalty, leading to dominant market connections with their customers.

It's no longer a one way dialogue as customers engage with the stories, remember the stories, re tell the stories and most likely make a movie and put it on YouTube. Have a look at "the Lego Story" on YouTube, celebrating 80 years of innovation, family history, quality of design and you'll see the power of story telling giving the next generation of children a start on their own stories. From YouTube to Pinterest, through to Tumblr "Storyboards" and on to Canon's Imagin8ion using Ron Howard as a catalyst to tell stories through pictures, companies are seeing the worth of the story teller.

Yet with all the new technology available to story tellers, the verbal story, the narrative given by a charismatic leader remains one of the most powerful tools and companies recognise the influence and inspiration to be gained. The rarity of such leaders has led many a company to search outside their core competency to look for the more engaging, the more beguiling of individuals who are then brought up to speed on the company product. Where product and service can be taught, telling the story has become an art, hopefully not lost on the world of business.

From little things ...

Big things grow according to Paul Kelly, and in the world of business that has never been more important when talking about big companies blamed for the evils of the world. Is every big company aberrant? Is every big company looking to take over the world? Is every big company to blame for the economy, the lack of good television and the Australian Rugby Union team? Seems today it's difficult to pick up a newspaper, read a blog or listen to economic pundits and not feel big business is to blame for everything wrong in society today. From banks making too much money, to mining companies turning the outback into a scene from Mad Max, it's hard to see past the facade, past the share price and notice every business, no matter how big is only made up of people.

Every company from Apple to Walmart started out as a small company. Every CEO from Steve Jobs to The Walton family started out with just a few trusted friends. Apple as the most valuable company in the world, along with Walmart, the world's biggest private employer and the world's largest retailer didn't just just appear over night. They started small, they started as an idea, they started not knowing if they were going to accomplish what they set out to do or even survive the first year. They all began looking to improve on something, they all started out thinking they had the better widget, the better service, that would put them on a path to success. Big steel, big oil, big retail and big technology didn't start out that way, they started small, with people who's motivational genes were ratcheted to the upper limits and who often started out in a garage or as the mail boy with bigger dreams than anyone around them.

No one, Rupert Murdoch excepted, started out with thoughts of world domination, instead they were all about making a difference via a product, service and their employees. They accomplished this with the help of people they trusted, people they hired and people who made a difference within the corporations. The media view that large corporations are giant entities with insatiable appetites for profit negates the power of the individuals that join the dots between the CEO and the consumer. Large companies are built on the extraordinary ability of people to manage their way through daily complexities, be amazing, go home, have dinner, go to sleep and do it all over again the next day.

It's often said to be more difficult to make a difference in a big company but if you can make a difference one person at a time, before you know it, culture, processes, business acumen and bottom line improvements are taken care of. It's easy to make a dollar, it's a lot harder to make a difference, has been the mantra for many of today's leaders looking to change, to disrupt and to innovate. If the people part is done well, some companies grow, to local, regional and global entities on the backs and shoulders of the most important part of any business.

Next time you rage against the machine, against the company, consider who is standing on the other side of the door. Could be someone you know.

Having a go.

I'm sitting on the sidelines waiting to play our next game of basketball at the Pan Pacific Games, watching a couple of teams go through their paces when I notice a debate occurring on the losing side's bench. Seems not everyone is happy with the outcome that's about to happen, i.e. a loss, and it's vexing some on the team, while others agree with the coach who is satisfied everyone is "having a go". The great Aussie idiom of doing one's best under trying circumstances, aspiring while looking failure in the eyes, a determined effort to be proud of, so others admire your conviction and courage. This has been the backbone of a nation for so long that many have forgotten, forgotten about, have a crack, have a shot, have a stab, speculate, strive and challenge for the golden ring.

Forgotten not just on the sporting field but also in business, where admiration for effort has been lost, replaced by a win at all costs atmosphere creating a fear of failure mentality that stifles innovation, creativity and "having a go". For many in business, to fail is to be inadequate and deficient. For many in business failure is not an option, curtailing their ability to learn anything new for they are likely too cautious to ever achieve even the smallest of accomplishments. No matter how impossible it might be to go through life without failure, many businesses still subscribe to the don't fail or else mantra, giving their employees no wiggle room to be successful and to drive the company forward.

The list of corporate failures, Steve Jobs fired from Apple, Richard Branson, high school drop out, along with sporting failures, Michael Jordan cut from his high school basketball team, are at the top of a long list of people not giving up, "having a go" and eventually succeeding. Failure to the successful is just a matter of perspective, a matter of experience from which to learn, they succeed by a different mantra of fail fast and fail often. The admiration and appreciation for the effort and commitment in business today, is too often waylaid by an emphasis on bottom line productivity, revoking any atmosphere developed around authenticity and innovation. It's the reason that legacy companies are challenged by the fecundity of online innovation, born of serial failure and eventual success.

No matter how many points that team eventually lost by, their CEO, the coach had the right idea, fostering an undertone of accomplishment and eventual success to come from the hard lessons of defeat. Lessons learnt "by having a go", not backing down and trusting in your team mates to back you up. It's the team companies that are the bench marks of success today, from Zappos, 37 signals, Pinterest to Fast Company, who have leaders pushing their staff beyond just everyday work, beyond just 9 to 5, into areas where failure is an option embraced for its a ability to teach.

The real test is the learn, are you willing to learn by failing, is your company willing to fail and learn from that failure? Is your company creating the right atmosphere of safety, allowing failure to be part of a winning culture? If not, then consider joining the above basketball team for their eventual win will be the sweetest thing.

21 hours.

Researchers indicate the total hours worked for the average employee in developed countries, is around 2,000 hours per year, once you take away bits like lunch, holidays and mental health days. For many, that figure sounds conservative and a lot of time away from home and family. Companies looking to keep employees with reduced hours while looking for the ability to increase productivity, are wrestling with ways to appease their workers and stay profitable. Technology long alluded to be the saviour of time allocated to needless tasks, has in fact contributed to even more time spent connected to work, giving companies pause to think where else can they cut hours effectively.

One item on the time reduction agenda for many companies are meetings and the ancillary effects that come out those meetings. If meetings can be countered and their time sucking influence addressed, then Henry Ford as a proponent of shorter working hours can rest easier in his grave. Ford was the first of the production line magnates to figure out his workers were the biggest consumers of his product and if he didn't give them adequate leisure time there was no reason for the next model T to roll off the line.

In a year, it is not uncommon for meetings to take up to 10% of the yearly allocation of hours, think a two hour weekly meeting and a couple of random hourly meetings per week and you have 200 hours of coffee and stale pastries. Most companies agree meetings get in the way but struggle getting out of the routine. A better managed agenda and agreeing on outcomes, be that decisions, status reports, communicating or generating ideas, can cut meetings by 50% giving a company back 100 hours. Those 100 hours have not been allocated for any particular work, in fact they have been lost forever in the wilderness that is meeting overload, so why not consider giving that time back to employees?

This minor concession goes a long way to backing up studies supporting a four day work week to increase consumption, invigorate the economy, increase levels of employee health and education while aiding in the reduction of transport costs and the contributory effects on the environment. Concessions such as these has seen average worker hours decreasing in many developed countries with the Netherlands leading, working an average 27 hours per week. This strategy could see the Netherlands become the first country to reach an average work week of under 21 hours. This particular number is interesting and has been pushed by the New Economics Foundation citing 21 hours as the panacea for unemployment, pollution emissions, increased health benefits, reunification of the family unit and the general lack of leisure time disappearing with the aid of technology.

For many, 21 hours per week, equals a 50% cut in work time and would not see work production to any level of satisfaction for the company or the employee. Adding stress trying to achieve that number would also see many into an early grave. Having said that, other bench marks do exist, as long as we are willing to compromise the brick veneer triple front great Australian dream. With little care in the world, the Kapauku people of PNG think it bad luck to work two consecutive days while the Kung Bushmen have a two and half day work week organised, showing not everyone needs to attend a meeting.

Love your work?

Do you love your work? How do you know you love your work? Do you say it enough times and eventually believe it? People tell you, you have the best job, so you must love it. Do you love the people you work with or the money that comes with the job. If you don't love all of your job, do you love 40% of it? The questions about loving your job are often not asked and seldom answered with people not wanting to admit, should they be attempting something else more aligned with their passions in life? The obvious retort is work is work and most passions, I want to be a rock star dude, don't pay the mortgage so get off the couch, grow some, go to work and stop whining.

Throw out those compromises and think about reasons people love a job, jump out of bed every morning with anticipation and make a difference. If you are lucky enough to work from home and your work is your lifestyle, then it likely won't feel like work at all. No amount of sitting around in your pyjamas doing creative things ever feels like work. The lines will blur between what you do for a living and living, aligning your work passions to the enthusiasm you have for life. Everything you do becomes an extension of your life and you question whether you are really working when it doesn't feel like work? The ideal workplace should feel like home and it's the reason so many companies are providing office fit outs without the ubiquitous pods and including open spaces, more natural light, daily distractions and building a culture around family.

The corporate mantra of excessive hours and always on game leaves little room to love your job if you can't see over the pod walls but if work gives you the opportunity to make room for the rest of your life, you have a reason to love it as a provider, a means to an end. Work can give you the resources to be complete, to engage, to enjoy and to become immersed in life outside the confines of public transport and office buildings. The winners in this case, are companies encouraging sensible work hours mixed with recreation and social interaction who then end up in the higher productivity surveys.

It's rare to not have something dear to your heart at work and if that ends up being the 40% you love, then it requires your ultimate conviction. No one ever got sacked for doing a great job on passionate projects, bringing in new ideas, developing initiatives and being a lynchpin. You need to find the corners you are comfortable in, where the work brings out your best, where you can develop a passion that spreads.

It's never about the money as countless research has indicated, it's always the softer things that people love about their work, the people, the culture, the family. These are the staple items of happiness for most of us, helping work blur the lines between the front door and the office elevator. Studies by luminaries such as the National Academy of Sciences have found people who reported being happiest, had a 35% reduced risk of dying and isn't that what employers want, staff for life?

Freaks and Geeks.

In 1962 the Beatles broke into the Top 40 and they were hailed as freakish overnight sensations. No one outside of Liverpool knew who they were, no one knew if they could sustain the quality of music they showed up with and no one knew the influence they would have over music the next 50 years. The IPO for Microsoft in 1986 saw a few billionaires like Bill Gates and Paul Allen created, along with the establishment of 12,000 millionaires. They were seemingly created overnight with the Microsoft Windows operating system, which was to become the standard platform for the world's computers for decades to come. Surprisingly neither the freakish musical geniuses or the newest geeks, were overnight successes.

Before that first venture into the Top 40, the Beatles spent years on the club circuit honing their skills, sometimes playing the Hamburg clubs for months on end, in 8 gruelling sets a day. By the time they hit the studio for "Love me do", they had amassed over 10,000 performances, something artists of today would struggle with, even with the required amount of drugs. Bill Gates spent most of his formative youth sneaking into computer labs testing his MS Dos language and continued to amplify his skills, eventually founding Microsoft with Paul Allen in 1975. From 1975 to 1986 they worked at refining their systems, testing their platform to eventually to end up at the successful IPO.

Malcolm Gladwell in his seminal 2008 tome, "Outliers", looked at many examples of so called overnight successes and came up with his own version of success attributable to a a long period of activity within a speciality craved by those individuals and groups alike. Gladwell theorised it took a minimum of 10,000 hours of practice to get to the highest level of proficiency, regardless of industry or sector, be it business, music or sport. The Beatles with their 10,000 gigs before hitting it big and Bill Gates spending 10 years before becoming the world's favourite geek are examples that resonate with Gladwell.

Many today argue that time has become compressed via the net and the myriad of social sites, allowing instant global recognition and giving people the opportunity to become overnight successes without the need for those 10,000 hours of practice. If that were the case, why do so many disappear just as quickly as they arrived? The need to become proficient has never been more important and I'm not sure the shortcuts people see on the net and the social landscape will hold up if they don't have the background they say they have.

Over night success today, is often about brief recognition or notoriety given by the new media avenues and brings with it a feeling that short cuts are accepted. A YouTube video downloaded by a few million people doesn't translate into longevity and does not replace the knowledge and skills required to sustain longevity when it comes to success, especially within the business world. Business today is still about long term relationships, a base of knowledge that is acknowledged by your partners and if you have been diligent, 10,000 hours of practice in your chosen field.

If you are looking to work with professionals, don't look for quick imitations of the real deal, look for the practiced, the authentic and if you want people to seek you out, think how many of those 10,000 hours you have completed? From the freakishly talented to the geekishly innovative there are no shortcuts to success.

Pegs and holes.

Square pegs, round holes, round pegs, square holes, universal analogies for not fitting in, individualism, mentioned frequently in business in good and bad situations. Depending on the requirements of a job, the above analogy can provide a world of opportunities or a world of pain, for the employee and the employer. The square peg has always been the idiomatic expression of individuality and in the past, companies have always needed to carefully assess consequences, culturally and economic when hiring such individuals, especially in top management roles.

Companies often looked externally for CEOs with a proven track record of success and achievement but this did not always translate, especially if the ingrained culture of a company was detrimentally affected by the new arrival. Past examples abound, of CEOs coming into companies and trying to change things but finding, in the end, that culture trumps strategy every time. Robert Nardelli was a GE genius when he arrived at Home Depot in 2000, using his past experience and the Six Sigma management strategy, he replaced the entrepreneurial culture of the company and turned off the public which eventually saw him sacked in 2007, when he went on to lead Chrysler with similar bad experiences to be again ousted in 2009. Ten years ago, Booz Allen Hamilton studies found nearly 50% of CEOs hired from external companies failed, while 75% promoted from within succeeded. Like all business situations, there are always two sides and it behoves the company and the individual to consider ramifications of their actions in cases like the above.

Today there is a trend towards individualistic entrepreneurism that companies are looking to embrace and CEO or floor worker, it's likely everyone has felt like a square peg at one time or a other. Not fitting in, brings with it a raft of emotions and decisions to be made, decisions to change dramatically or even just a little to fit in or continue to search for a better fit elsewhere. A favourite square peg example comes from a common business phrase, "thinking outside the box" and the implications of those pegs shackled by legacy thinking. Xerox in 1970 invested research into the "Alto", the first personal computer with a full suite of icons, pages and a mouse all used via a graphical interface. They were years ahead of the competition but Xerox had issues with their square peg computer guys because the company made copiers, great copiers, fantastic copiers, in fact the world's best copiers so Xerox had difficulties seeing the future beyond the reems of paper stacked against the copy machines. The "Box" guys as they were known, could think outside of it but the rest of the company couldn't "think outside the box" and eventually saw their square pegs disperse to HP, Apple and Microsoft success, leaving Xerox to rue their lost opportunity.

If companies have the capacity to allow individuals to do what they are good at, while still being able to fit culturally, the strengths gained from this process will almost guarantee success. Allowing for this individuality requires forward thinking management, willing to accept business unusual versus the way things have always been done. The world's leading companies today see the advantage of the square peg and embrace the individual, providing them with comfortable and safe environments from which to flourish and succeed. You need look no further than the burgeoning IT sector, where outcasts and displaced specialists are courted for their individual flair, their unique insights and their esoteric thinking.

The success of companies from Apple, through Google, to Amazon and Zappos are directly attributable to the individuals who lead them and the individuals they hire. They understand a factory mindset will produce a widget but catching lightning in a bottle to produce the iPod, the Kindle and Google Maps requires differentiation, non conformity and and uniqueness that only a square peg can provide. Here's to the square pegs of the world, thank you for being different.

Dumb and dumber.

Time is the only hindrance, time is holding me back, time is the only curtailment in my quest for knowledge. If I could spend the rest of my life on Google, would I become the smartest person on the planet, the most up to date individual in the world or would I still meet someone at lunch who knows more about the finer intricacies of Chinese fiscal policies? I'm not talking about total omniscience, actually knowing everything that can be known but inherent omniscience, the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known. Seth Godin recently wrote about knowledge becoming ubiquitous and that no excuse could be given for not knowing something, which still amazes me when I meet people who are clueless on all levels about the people and industries they work in.

With the web available on every device known to man, available 24/365 and constantly being updated, the excuse for not knowing something is astonishing on the surface and almost criminal on every other level. The ability to look someone up, look at their industry and even their company, minutes before you talk with them has become so easy that excuses can no longer be tolerated in the business world. Business ignorance today, can only mean severe isolation from technology or choosing to live on a desert island.

It's no longer okay to not know something for any extended length of time, it's no longer okay to not know what people do for a job and ignorance is no longer bliss, it's ignorance.
Every effort is being made, to make the world's information available to every level of society, Google, Bing, Yahoo et al are taking it upon themselves in a race to compile and collate everything of value to everyone and some things of no value to anyone. The accomplishment for individuals is all about a continued search for knowledge and the ease with which that can be attained.

The days of acceptance are over, no matter if you are talking to a doctor, a lawyer or your family know it all. Having the recourse of instant information at your finger tips, behoves you to at least make the effort and once having made the effort, to then digest the information for your own good. Don't be the last one to know, nothing takes longer than a few minutes with the investigative power of the meta search engines. The ubiquity of "just Google it" gives everyone the chance to stay ahead by drilling straight to the core of any information needed.

This ability to find everything out about everything, doesn't negate the need for the education process, it just gives people dexterity to refine the broader education base and bring forth matter expertise when required. You no longer have to find that mountain top and gaze at your navel for extended periods of time, to figure out what it all means, it's all there, right in front of you on Google.

One person with passion is better than forty people merely interested.

The above quote is from English novelist E. M. Forster and I mention it today as I find myself short of ideas, passion and stories to write about. I ask myself who cares, I quickly come back with my answer, I care and this gets me thinking about what creates and drives passion in people? Whatever you are passionate about and lucky enough to do for a living or even a hobby, has limits and sometimes you run out of steam and just can't seem to find that zeal, to get out of bed, go to work, go for a workout or call your best friend. So how do you rekindle that passion, and I'm not talking romantic moonlit dinner, but about refocusing your desire to accomplish, be authentic, regain purpose and re-like what you like?

The surfeit of psychiatrists, social psychologists and self help gurus who comment on our lives, have libraries dedicated to ways we can zero in on our passionate core and many offer up opinions but we are more attuned to listening to admired leaders or people close to us. People like Richard Branson never miss an opportunity to opine on passion and his work history gives credence to someone who found his essence and indulged all the way to success. From Richard through to Obama, there is no shortage of achieving archetypes to chose from and it is good they are willing to open up and expose their feelings for others to learn from.

From aspirational lists, through jobs with purpose and the way of Buddha, people are constantly looking for ways to find that spark to accelerate them to the next level, the next best thing and bring an accord of achievement. For me it's less about the leaders and more about my peers who spur me on by way of their own determination, commitment and stories. People leading extraordinary lives based on their passion for work, for helping others, learning, educating and being a pillar to their tribe of family and friends. Yet sometimes it's just up to me and then I need to find ways of obtaining that spark again.

As morbid as it sounds, envisaging your own funeral brings with it an appropriateness and exactitude for honesty hearing your eulogy wrapping up your life's accomplishments, finding out where you made a difference, brought smiles to people, generally succeeded and elucidating your search for the missing passion. The clarity of death brings with it a focus not evident in day to day activities but don't dwell on the dark side. I also think about what I could be teaching people and this again brings back focus to my commitments. Daydreaming about what I wanted to be when I grow up or what I want to do next year can also articulate and scrutinise my thinking to refocus that inner amplitude of passion. Self analysis of this kind, brings out the best in you, if you bench mark yourself against relevant and passionate high achievers.

The more conversations I have with myself, the more I fixate appropriately on the challenge at hand, getting my arse into gear and doing what I enjoy most with the passion it deserves. I'm back.

I know, you didn't think I was gone.

Please turn off.

"Any mobile devices, as they may interfere with the aircraft's navigational system."

Alec Baldwin was tossed from a plane ( not literally ) last year for refusing to stop playing a game on his phone during take off and it caused an incident because he was defying airline safety rules. We've all been there, with one more text needing to be sent before the plane takes off, one more goodbye to say before the plane door shuts and an urgent call that can't wait for the tyres to hit the airport runway on landing. So do we really have cause for concern, our technology will bring down aircraft or is everyone too scared to push that envelope with a 50 kilogram gate keeper handing out coffee and tea?

The airline restrictions on the use of technology date back to the early 90s, when mobile phones weighed more than a brick, all computers were beige and apple was still a fruit. To err on the side of caution, airlines used anecdotal evidence from pilots and flight crew, who surmised navigational glitches that had occurred were likely caused by the new gizmos people were wanting to carry on board aircraft. For years, aircraft manufacturers like Boeing tried to replicate the scenarios to empirically define answers to the anxiety brought forth by technology wielding passengers who were less than diligent in traveling to airline accord. Without any replaceable and authenticated evidence, airlines decided to agree on the possibility that technology may interfere with aircraft equipment but no one could say for sure.

Who hasn't forgotten to turn off their phone, their tablet or PC? I know I stopped worrying after the first few times forgetting to turn of my devices, thinking my errant attitude could cause a malfunction that would bring me to earth with a crash. Surveys and research done with hundreds of flyers in the US, over the last year, showed over 40% never bothered to turn off their phones during take off and landings, with a Bolshie 2% doing an Alec Baldwin and using their devices whenever they liked.

So why haven't aircraft dropped out of the skies? Aircraft are designed with fail safe systems that flying through a hurricane may cause bumps, yet turning on a phone with the runway in sight is considered more dangerous. Has logic left us, the numbers from the surveys and likely your own experiences show decisions made over two decades ago don't have much bearing on today. The chances that every device on every aircraft, flying right now, being turned off is imponderable and yet the fear remains.

The cause and effect of something going wrong and something else happening at the same time, like a navigational glitch while some piece of technology is turned on is a great story and anecdotally believable, giving the airlines plausible deniability and playing on our fear of the unknown. Airlines are all working on retaining and acquiring as many passengers as possible, so why isn't one of them doing a full scientific study of technology and its affect on aircraft navigational equipment. You have to believe, the first airline that has a flight attendant announcing all and any technology devices can be left on and operated throughout the flight time, take off and landing included, will garner praise along with increased passenger uptake.

The fact no aircraft fall out of the sky because flight attendants are diligent in their duty to make sure no one is seen to be using their technology, affirms the belief in the status quo and links our fear to uncorroborated evidence from decades past. Too many plane crash movies will keep that phone in our pockets but it may not be turned off.

Please Release Me.

In the inimitable words of Englebert Humperdinck, "let me go". How much did I love those emails when they first arrived, the emails about the latest and greatest of everything I was interested in last year. With the world on offer I took up all the offers, why not, when space is not a premium. Why not tick the box that will fill my inbox with offers, recipes, news, music, art and all manner of interests to engage me, edify me and make me interesting to talk to at the next gathering. You know the ending, so many emails I don't have enough hours in the day to even open up the interesting ones.

So a concerted effort this long weekend to rid myself of emails that no longer piquéd my interest, to clear my inbox and unclutter my mind, was supposed to take no longer than a coffee break. The first thing to surprise me was how many irrelevant emails I now get from subscriptions I thought would be of benefit, to my work regime, to my own education or just absorbing to read. From recipe catalogues, through sport reports to technology and entertainment, I find my inbox overwhelmed with correspondence that in the old days I would have taken from my letter box and used to light the BBQ. Nowadays that process is only a click away and my inbox will once again be mine, or so I thought.

Technology can lull you into a false sense of security with its speed, its attention to detail and its ability to cut corners to get you where you want to be right now. It is never as easy as they say it is and I found this out pouring my third cup of coffee and having hardly scratched the surface of my tidy up. I should have guessed by the fourth unsubscribe that caffeine was going to be my friend this morning.

The first email asked me to hit the unsubscribe button, which then led me to a website where I needed to re-enter my email address and re-hit unsubscribe, which then sent an email back to my inbox with a link for me to unsubscribe, which redirected me back to the website saying they were sorry to see me go and if I maybe, someday, somehow I wanted to receive emails again, I should just hit a designated button. I needed lots of coffee after the first go around. Today you cannot send commercial emails without the obligatory unsubscribe button but there is nothing to say they should make it easy to leave once they have you on their list, even if there are laws governing the use of such emails.

The CAN-SPAM law ( Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act of 2003 ) enacted by George Bush was an example of governments trying to cope with the tirades of unhappy voters who's inbox had become a battleground for pornography and commercial marketers that had maybe forgotten, to put that little unsubscribe button at the bottom of their most important messages. Yet they never thought the activity could be so onerous and some time lines last up to ten days before you can get off the lists. Meaning many never bother and the inboxes continue to fill.

My morning was baffled by the myriad of processes and amazement at the lengths many companies employed to keep me informed. I gave up eventually, because my time is precious but I did finish with a plethora of subscription emails ending up in my spam filter to be cleared at the end of the month with a flourish of the delete button. In the end I retained my right to not be abused for hitting that subscribe button and regaining some control over my inbox, with the help of Mr Nespresso, who I still subscribe to.

Weekends.

According to research, 30% of people claim they are different people on the weekends. Begs the question, who are they during the week and how come the other 70% don't change? What is it about a weekend that has the ability to transform us? What is it about a weekend that promises so much but often becomes the swamp of good ideas, sunk as we wallow in the mire of discontent where two days is never enough? We often talk about the pressures involved in the so called normal working environment where 24/365 contact-ability, no off switch, no finish line or even lunches as we knew them has many primed for a melt down. Mondays to Fridays, are days filled to the brim where we have compromised away the little free time left, into a concentrated block of time that has more affiliations with the industrial revolution than the technology revolution supposed to free us of all the mundane tasks.

So the pressure on the weekend to outperform the other five days, often finds us looking to fit in extra hours that aren't there, running ourselves ragged doing chores that have backed up and generally dreading Sunday night as we get ready for Monday morning. That seems to be the way of the 70% that don't change but what about the mad 30% who claim they are more spontaneous, impulsive, imaginative, creative and agreeable? Have they discovered something special that makes them more fun to be around, have they worked out stress levels on weekends are four times less than the morbid Monday blues? They even seem to know they are more productive than during the week and somewhere in there, they are 55% more likely to travel on a weekend than the rest of the population.

Conforming to the researchers, the earmark of the 30% of people not being themselves, is about being less organised, less neurotic and less competitive than during the work week. To such an extent that some respondents claim avoiding a shower all weekend, avoiding people all weekend and not getting out of their pyjamas all weekend, helps them to regain their sanity compass. Along with all the things we did everyday, in younger days, like staying out late, watching too much TV, eating whatever we want, eating out every meal or not doing anything at all, are at the heartland of the wild and crazy 30%.

Too often, research shows our inability to turn off our work day cycle, rewards us with weekends as blurred segues between Friday and Monday. The work ethic applied to being breadwinners from Monday to Friday is sometimes parked at the local on our way home Friday evenings. The skill set used for promotion, success and accomplishments is diluted by the end of the week and it seems 70% of people have nothing left for themselves by the time Saturday morning comes around.

Seems the enthusiastically deranged 30% don't stop working, even on a weekend. They are just working on themselves or whoever else they want to be.

Friends.

Who didn't love the six twenty somethings, inhabiting their small New York apartments, navigating life's mysteries, finding the best coffee houses and trying to maximise time outside of work. Willing to sacrifice all for each other, they were the "best" of friends, regardless of family and work challenges thrown at them, over a decade of television laughter. The circle was so tight it was difficult for anyone to be admitted, especially from the disparate work situations they found themselves in and the feeling was, work, family and other friends were discordant from each other. Each space was sequestered and dealt with humourously but no one from outside the circle was ever allowed to break the chain of six.

If the program was still being produced today, work relationships would have a more compelling story arc as the friends find they spend so much time at work, their success would depend on having "best" friends to get them through the day. As loose as "best" can be defined, friends at work is seen by researchers globally as an indicator of accomplishment and endeavour, not achievable singularly. A Gallup study of five million workers over 35, found workers with a "best" friend are seven times more engaged, productive and successful than those going it alone.

The survey goes on to indicate "best" friends can become buffers between management which doesn't dole out enough thank you's, encouragement, recognition or make staff feel their contribution is worthwhile. Friends at work have the capacity and capability to provide all of the above within a small circle of relevance that keep many people at jobs longer than management knows. Work "besties" are an unfailingly predictable cure for the malaise of work ailments brought on by expectations of longer hours, 24/7 contact-ability and under resourced departments.

Work friends may not be for life, may not be family and may not show up at your wedding but the above choice is becoming blurred as the time spent at work triples and doubles the time you spend with anyone else, including partners and parents. For many lucky enough to work in smaller organisations, work can have a familial feel but for the rest of us it's about finding like minded souls within your work space and making sure the reciprocity of giving back becomes the norm. The jokes about work husbands and wives has long hidden the deep friendships that can be made at work as you accomplish and become successful as a duo or a team in ways you could never have achieved individually.

Howard Schultz of Starbucks was successful in creating the "third" place, after home and work, a place for people to gather and socialise. The "best" friend at work has become something akin to Schultz' thinking, where family and friends outside of work don't understand the machinations of the work day landscape but your "bestie" does and this "third" friend becomes invaluable to you. What has become obvious to the researchers, is the way you treat your friends outside of work, forging life long relationships is encroaching on the work place and creating the incubator for connections that outlast your CV.

In the end friends are friends, no matter where you meet them.

Loyalty.

For a quick definition I go to the new global encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, where people seem to agree on many things and they say, "loyalty is faithfulness or a devotion to a person, country, group, or cause. Philosophers disagree as to what things one can be loyal to, many argue it is only possible for loyalty to be to another person and that it is strictly interpersonal".

The thinking about loyalty came about because A good friend of mine left his airline role yesterday. He was in a senior position at Virgin and worked hard at turning around perception, processes, procedures and engagement with the flying public and the airline will miss his input and insights. I mention this in passing because I always felt a peculiar sense of loyalty when flying "his" airline, something that has now dissipated with his leaving. The airline, like most things in travel has become totally commoditised and no matter the number of frequent flyer points I accumulate the loyalty to that product, has suffered with his departure.

If I analyse that thinking it occurs to me the loyalty associated with the airline is personality related not product related. Without that personal connection, it shows a fickleness and a shallow engagement on my behalf, with a product that works perfectly fine, does the job, meets and doesn't exceed my expectations and delivers on the promise of getting me from A to B. You'll notice no great plaudits for anything out of the ordinary and that is the point as far as I am concerned, for without that personal anchor to a product it's hard for me to have any feelings of loyalty. After all I can't engage with every flight crew, joking I'm taking the flight to keep them in a job and get back a humorous reply recognising the part I play in the cycle.

It's that recognition, no matter how small or unperceived by others, that drives the loyalty gene and re-engages me with the product. This personal aspect of product alignment with real people works best when associated with larger purchase items where the variety of choice is governed by dollars but chosen because you know someone well, who is associated with that product. If my friend were to join another airline, I would of course change my allegiance as it is of more importance for me to have the human connection than than the product features.

I thought about the many products I use daily, chosen with great care but not necessarily with anyone in mind other than myself and realise not many have the "amigo" gene attached. Not many give me reason to have a conversation about my experience and receive personal acknowledgement driving my loyalty even higher. The convenient fact I know a lot of people at the "other" airline gives me hope, my flying experience will continue to matter from a loyalty view and that conversations outside of the product will enable me to pass on my allegiance to those involved. They say frequent flyer points can make you price blind, I say personal loyalty disregards price but not many products involved in the aviation landscape have worked that out.

The Three Rs.

Reading, writing, 'rithmatic were the pillars of the education system for a century before technology decided to throw it a curve ball and everything about the three Rs changed forever. Sure we had calculators decades before tablets but did we have Wolfram Alpha or Solver to ask the really difficult maths questions? Where the humble calculator replaced the slide rule, algorithms made them all obsolete, to the extent no one is afraid of mathematics anymore. The times table has long since died, along with trigonometry to be replaced by APPs that calculate every computation known to man. Maths was easy to disrupt with technology because it was the backbone already, reading and writing was another matter.

In its short 17 year lifespan, Amazon, has totally disrupted how we read, what we read, where we read and why we read. It has revitalised books, reformatted books and analysed books, while infuriating the publishing world, kept up innovation with the likes of Apple and never wavered from it's mission to become the World's Bookstore. Amazon has opened up a library so big and so vast, there will always be something for someone to read and now they want to make it easier for those that write.

They are playing around with analytics where books are serialised, so the author can interact with his reading audience throughout the story. The way "The Bold and The Beautiful" look at ratings depending on which characters are introduced and then write scripts accordingly, Amazon wants to do the same for writers. Reader interaction will be measured along plot lines, characters and cause the story line to meander and pander to the audience's taste.

Serial writers of past, like Charles Dickens and even Stephen King, published weekly instalments of their novels but they never had the advantage of gauging the audience embracement of plot and character to then take advantage of likes and dislikes to complete their novel to total audience gratification. Amazon is not alone when it comes to writing analysis, companies like Hiptype indicate where readers lose interest in a character or story and also where they are most captivated, enabling writers and publishers to give people exactly what they want to read. None of this is possible without digital readers like the Kindle and the Kobo, constantly gathering information on how, what, and where we read.

So for those of us that write, we now have other considerations to take into account, other than writing because we like the experience. Considerations along the lines of what we start to write may not be what we end up writing, if we want to totally satisfy our readers. Consider the social network and ask for ideas to include in writing, consider the time taken to write a book that is serialised and have the ability to keep up with societal changes and most of all consider loyal readers who now have the ability to be engaged on a very intimate level with the writing.

More than the occasional comment made in a review, analysis has the ability to tailor reading tastes individually and why wouldn't you want to read your favourite author, writing on your favourite character with your input. Okay, I'm waiting for input.

Alas, poor Yorick!

I've always been a fan of the "obits" and I have a few favourite places to read them. One being the New York Times which prides itself on journalistic excellence in all facets of the newspaper, from copy writing ads, through breaking world news to the obituary column. This is not a morbid fascination, as nobody I know, least of all myself is ever likely to find themselves in the hallowed halls of the NYT obits section. What I am fascinated by, are the legacies left behind, sometimes ground breaking, sometimes inspiring, sometimes so trite as to be hilarious in context, showing some people use lives on things insignificant to 99% of the population but important enough for them to carry on, hoping to make them famous or celebrated within their own circle.

Sometimes people get to write their own obituary and the single person prose lends acuteness not gained by third person journalistic intervention. Sometimes, as is the case for very famous people, common practice for news organisations is to write the obit way before they kick the proverbial. Sometimes an obit does not do justice to the life lived.

I mention the above because in a small way, maybe in a big way, everyone is getting a chance at their own version of the NYT obit. In the past, a funeral was a place of discovery, as family and friends celebrated achievements, successes and little known insights of the person heading south that members of the audience would discuss later over a whiskey, noting their surprise that so and so had done such and such.

The legacies I find so absorbing in the NYT are today multiplied by the millions, for the millions, who will use the vast amount of personal knowledge we have of each other to hopefully flesh out lives well lived. For today everyone has the chance to be heard, to be seen, to be appreciated, sometimes celebrated by their corner of the world long before, as Shakespeare so eloquently put it, they shuffle off this mortal coil.

Maybe it's an old fashioned view that the last words said about you, show meaning, show you in the way you would have chosen yourself and show you have contributed and made a difference. Maybe the next generations won't even have funerals and instead have online gatherings, chats, forums as they discuss a life lived openly on the net. Becoming acquainted with unknown facts, uncovering truths and encountering an appreciation of people's lives is today no longer the realm of the final say, be it obits or the knees up celebratory wake.

Today the self aggrandisement common on many social platforms leaves little discovery for a later summation of life but maybe it's better we have the chance to recognise and appreciate now, rather than later, when it's too late to say something worthwhile. So every photo, every comment, every like and every posting made online becomes part of your legacy, your NYT obit and isn't it time to consider the future because your past is written everywhere. Does your online life do you justice?

Hipsters.

Not long ago people dressed up to go out, they dressed up for Sunday and they dressed up to go on holidays. They didn't dress up to travel on the bus but with the commoditisation of air travel, along with the drop in airfares, jumping on a plane has become an everyday occurrence, like jumping on the bus to go to the shops. If you read the latest determinations handed out by some airlines it seems the dress sense of ordinary people was left behind at the customs counter.

Here we have become used to the long accepted singlet and thongs brigade heading to Bali, the end of year footy flannel fiascos and the ubiquitous "tracky dacks", as inroads into the fashion sense completely abrogate the allure of travel from the romantic age of suits and dresses. For the airlines, this has become a minefield as passengers push the boundaries of good taste, good taste decided by Captains and flight attendants.

Being denied boarding on a Southwest aircraft recently, a woman named Avital posed for pictures at Las Vegas airport in a T shirt showing too much cleavage for the airline to allow boarding. Vegas and cleavage go together well and posing at the airport says enough to consider that Southwest may have been within their rights on this occasion. It's a fine line, what constitutes good taste in a confined space, especially when there are limited places to cast your gaze if you have seen all the movies.

T shirts with inappropriate language or slogans, swim wear and no shoes have all been targets in recent years as airline passengers have been denied boarding. Airlines will tell you they don't enforce dress codes and they certainly don't document dress codes and unless there are safety issues involved, ie no shoes, they take a pretty lenient view of their passenger's couture. They also need to consider the laws and mores of society that make it okay to walk the streets in all manner of dress. After all who knew we wanted to wear our jeans so low to help advertise Calvin Klein and Dolce and Gabbana underwear, Marky Mark has a lot to answer for. So much so, that a passenger pulled from a US Airlines plane last year was arrested for not pulling up the said jeans and covering the said underwear, yet the prosecutor declined to file said charges saying, “They can’t arrest him for what someone perceives to be inappropriate attire.”

So there are lines and then there are lines. The freedom of speech act, oft quoted in the US, pertains to the government but does allow private companies to bar someone coming into their restaurant or boarding their aircraft if they think language or slogans on T shirts are inappropriate or their dress sense will cause disruption within that space. For the airlines it ends up being, not a dress code issue but a disruption issue and in the small confines of an aluminium canister hurtling through the sky at 900 kilometres, any disruption should be avoided.

The airlines will continue to work in the grey when it comes to decisions made by chic fashionistas determined to stand out. Our only hope is fashion icons like Lady Gaga remain reasonably chaste in their choice of garments or you could be sitting next to someone so distracting you won't notice the safety presentation. Come to think of it, a little distraction might be just what we need.

Neuroscience.

In the good old days of James Bond, neuroscience was called mind control. It customarily involved someone captured by the bad guys, usually Russians, brainwashed by some machine or lots of torture, who then went out and tried to kill the Queen or Prime Minister, before James was able to tackle them in the nick of time. Today that brainwashing takes the shape of neuro-scientific research done by boffins in white coats who love nothing better than attaching electrodes to our brains. Marketing companies and brand agencies are then looking to this inquisition to find out what makes us tick and pick, one product over another. The holy grail of consumer choice has long been the jurisdiction of the marketing department as they throw one campaign after another, at a public looking to make educated choices.

Neuroscience studies the psychology of choice via areas of the prefrontal cortex and other bits of the brain too difficult to spell. It frequently finds that a particular part of the brain affected by marketing is directly attached to a point in the hip pocket, or more direct at a credit card burning hot in our wallets. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one type of brain measure used to test what we buy, when we choose and how we come to decisions. If marketers can affect the right parts of the brain, dealing with decisions and accord, they have a chance of differentiating their product or brand from the mire of determination required to get that loaf of bread off the shelf. If James had an MRI machine handy he would have worked out the killer's motive early in the movie giving him more time for martinis and bond girls.

Predicting out comes has become a science and marketing firms are jumping on the neuroscience band wagon to give their clients irrefutable evidence that the tag line, the colour or even the scent of their particular product is important for the brain to be influenced enough to chose brand A over brand B. That need for prediction led to neuro-marketing, coined by Ale Smidts in 2002 and now commonly used as global brands look to affect neural activity associated with prognosis based on expected rewards to lock consumers into loyalty. Studies have found particular brands can engender reward feelings in loyal customers whose brain activity is triggered by emotion and memory retrieval leading to repeat purchasing. The brain remembers positive and negative outcomes from previous choices to make predictions of reward and this is the area the marketing department is now playing in.

Brand loyalty and product choices are now the realms of scientists using MRIs and theoretical learning algorithms, who then on sell their findings to marketers to ensure the desired outcome for products that you and I thought we chose ourselves. Harnessing neuroscience gives marketing experts the ability to cache lasting and affirmative impressions on the consumer. Seems you and I have no more control than the abject prisoner of the Russians when it comes to making choices about tomato sauce or breakfast cereals.

Infobesity.

Alvin Toffler popularised this term way back in his 1970 best seller, Future Shock. It referred to difficulties in making decisions with too much data to process, information overload. It is a subject I have opined on in the past and analysis paralysis, complication of data multiplication and decision indigestion brought on by saturation of data has increased to the extent, we don't decide on anything without checking all the known facts in the Universe before attempting an answer. We have all subscribed to the alerts, tweets, forums and professional amphitheatres of knowledge, hoping they will give us peace of mind in the decision making process. More information equals smarter decisions, is the catch cry of online inhabitants shackled to search algorithms.

Recent studies have brought forward other complications when trying to find answers with data missing and how that affects our decision making process. Princeton and Stanford have raised the question whether our appetite for knowledge reduces the validity of our decisions. The "pursuit and misuse of useless information" study, had the Universities test participants with a scenario linking the seduction of data to decisions made.

Two groups were given the same scenario referring to a mortgage applicant with a well paying job. After some credit checking one group was told the applicant had been tardy in paying a credit card debt of $5000, while the other group was given conflicting information that implied it could be $5000 or $25000. The second group were given the choice of waiting on updates regarding the contrary information until the issue was cleared up, not surprising they chose to wait.

The results of decisions made, became interesting when the second group were told it was $5000 the client had defaulted on, just as in the first group. Interest amongst the researchers piqued, when 71% of the first group rejected the applicants claim while only 21% of the second group rejected the claim. As humans we hate uncertainly and when we find information gaps our radar points to it being important because we were adapted to a time when that radar was all about survival.

The problem today, we overestimate the value of data and think if we are spend extra time finding out, it must be essential. The second group's attention was on whether the debt was $5000 or $25000 and they missed the big picture of a history of default. The minor detail of the small debt seduced them into thinking it was better than they had anticipated and as such gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and gave him the loan. They had been seduced by thinking the data they were waiting on was more important than the overall picture they were given at the beginning.

The addiction to data that drives most companies, sees decisions made and not made as one more analysis is called for before committing. We know more now than we ever did, we have access to more now than we ever did but the thousands of years prior to the last decade of technology, saw us make decisions with the information at hand and we made some pretty good decisions. So next time you need to make a decision, consider the information you already know and deliberate accordingly. You might be surprised how often you get it right, without expending extra resources on useless information.

Movin' On.

I was 13, I was tall for my age, I could cook a mean lasagne to feed myself, I knew my way around a tough neighbourhood and I was ready to leave home. Okay I only had a few dollars of pocket money saved that wouldn't get me far but the thought of leaving home was instilled at a young age. It didn't go away through the high school and university days that saw me lie about my age and pack shelves at Woolies when I was 14, until I finally left home to never return. It was all about moving out and growing up but I wish I had been born a little later because I'd much prefer today's trend of staying home and never growing up.

Things are different today as 30 has become the new 18 and the question popping up about why kids are not leaving home has caused many a Dad more grey hairs than they care to admit. The failure to launch, the boomerang kids, the lack of seasoning and the fear of the outside world has seen either an elongated departure period or a mass migration back to Mum and Dad that sees kids not growing up till their third decade or not at all. Where we might have had issues bringing work home while Mum made the bed and ironed the shirts, today the luxury lifestyle of having old servants looks after you is becoming de rigueur.

The Boomers may have joked that growing old was mandatory but growing up was optional, while they started work early to amass the world's fortune to now find they are reinvesting that cash into their adult children at home. No one is sure what impact this will have on the kids staying or the parents doling out the funds but the trend is affecting what was thought to be the traditional cycle as young people avoid commitment, compete with siblings for the upper bunk at age 30 and avert any beginning of adult life.

A recent New York Times article pointed out the five traditional tenants of adulthood, completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying, and having kids have been pushed back by the Millenials who are happy to continue to share the remote control with Dad. The average of seven jobs in their 20s, huge student loans and not having disposable income if they actually moved out, has opened the eyes of the squatters in the next room. So why not stay home and party, go to school forever, have your mates over for dinner, get your Mum to drive you to the pub and do your laundry, what is the worst that can happen?

I'm packing my bags, I'm going home, I'm sure Mum will be happy to see me drive up and she'll have the kettle on in no time. Then it's off to work in crisp shirts, a cut lunch, pocket money for a quick pint after work and maybe Dad will have the footy on when I get home. Sounds good to me, why go anywhere else?