I have a library at home, okay it's a large wall crammed with fiction, non fiction, coffee table and business books, CDs, DVDs, along with magazines I can't seem to throw out. I'm proud to have a library because it makes me look intelligent and when people come over, we occasionally discuss titles and I recommend and lend them books. I still buy books but nowhere near as many as I used to and that seems a shame to me, when I consider myself a reader. I used to think you needed to show the spoils of being a reader, a wall crammed with books, but today that wall has been replaced by infinite shelf space in the cloud and in cheap external hard drives available to all.
So now, if I tell you I'm a reader and say my books are in the cloud and you have to believe me as the library no longer becomes the evidence. You can't see the books, you can't touch the books but the lending part is certainly a lot easier. I am a reader but everything has changed in regards to my reading patterns as I rarely carry a single book to read cover to cover. I now have several open at the same time in my Kindle or iBook collection and I never lose my place but I certainly lose my train of thought regarding the linearity of reading front to back, one at a time.
My reading has become attuned to the technology available, that is, everything at once without a break. So I attack that challenge by using meta search engines such as Zite, Flipboard or Pulse, giving me sound bites of information covering everything without a break. I'm afraid my reading habits have changed, away from the library, changed to suit the large amount of information required on a daily basis when more than a single screen executive summary starts to become tedious, unless written in the most erudite style. Like Google search, I'm surprised if I scroll to the second page and if I think about that too much, it makes me sad because reading a single book at a time is not enough anymore. Certainly not, when you throw in the time constraints of today's business world and how much is expected when it comes to keeping up.
I walked past the state library recently and was dismayed to see the majority of people inside, not reading books but utilising the free WiFi. Maybe they were reading books online, but if they don't see the books inside will the libraries become a relic to the past, will they be designated buildings to house books showing how intelligent and forward thinking we used to be or is there hope print will survive. I now lament my Kris Kringle present of an iTunes card to be used for online books. Will my library end up in the cloud, no doubt but as a wise friend pointed out, does it matter as long as you keep reading?
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Sunday, December 8, 2013
The Great American Dream.
Recently, New York City issued extra taxi licences to alleviate the lack of yellow cabs, for it seemed waiting more than 30 seconds for a taxi, was starting to irritate many New Yorkers. So for the first time in 5 years, the city decided to give the best entry level job available, help by offering to increase the number of cabbies allowed on the streets. A New York cab was always seen as the "great American dream", where opportunities blossomed on the streets of Broadway and Madison Avenue via the people transported, the conversations had, the connections made and the eventual outcome of self employment and future fame. From Larry David, David Mamet, Danny Glover, Jimmy Smits and Paul Stanley from KISS, who drove cabs for a living, the yellow beasts have always been the entry level for immigrants and lower socio economic groups, hell bent on making it, because if they can make it here, they can make it anywhere.
The entrepreneurial spirit burns bright in the "Big Apple", as long as opportunities like driving a cab stay accessible. So it came as a surprise to many when the 200 licences were auctioned off for over $200,000,000, making them totally unattainable, for all but a few wealthy business people. For many social commentators and economic pundits, this heralded the end of the "great American dream", a dream based on the ability to start at the very bottom, with nothing, and rise to the top. For the cab drivers that meant, eventually owning the licence and becoming their own boss. Today it's about an exclusive club at the top and no ability to advance from the bottom.
Ten years ago, licences attracted all comers at $300,000, whereas this year some licences went for over $2,000,000 and the pool of investors did not include anyone invited to the United States as an immigrant, refugee or even locals pooling their dollars and looking to make something of themselves. So is this the end, is this where opportunities go to die, with greed preventing the entry level labour market from getting a foot in the door? Has big business finally won, have they crushed the desire to achieve, have they battered into submission the spirit of can do by eliminating another job for the common man?
Not if you ask the "man on the street" in any city in the US, the answer is most often No, with an exclamation mark. For if there is anything indomitable in the spirit of the citizens of the United States, it's the belief that no matter where you start from, no matter where you come from and no matter what obstacles lie in your way, the belief that anyone can rise to the top remains a core fundamental of their psyche.
We may dismiss the jingoistic patriotism and dogged enthusiasm living in the "lucky country" but as a general observation we haven't had the same desire to reach the top no matter what, for a long time. No wonder, with Credit Suisse reporting Australia as the second richest nation per capita wealth, our unemployment close to zero ( remembering 5% as zero according to economic theory), the dollar still in good shape, twenty two years of consecutive economic growth, miners now in production mode, meaning they'll get paid, the long weekend and "sickies" remaining as expectations and all accountability for any mishaps the responsibility of the government or someone other than ourselves. The above is a "Boomer" legacy and the following generations, especially "Ys" will encounter greater challenges so maybe the spirit of the great explorers, the man on the land getting by with bailing wire and know how, along with punching above our weight in bringing great innovation to the world will come to the fore again. I read with interest that taxi licenses in Victoria may soon cost as little as $35,000, now that's entry level for anyone wanting to make something of themselves.
The entrepreneurial spirit burns bright in the "Big Apple", as long as opportunities like driving a cab stay accessible. So it came as a surprise to many when the 200 licences were auctioned off for over $200,000,000, making them totally unattainable, for all but a few wealthy business people. For many social commentators and economic pundits, this heralded the end of the "great American dream", a dream based on the ability to start at the very bottom, with nothing, and rise to the top. For the cab drivers that meant, eventually owning the licence and becoming their own boss. Today it's about an exclusive club at the top and no ability to advance from the bottom.
Ten years ago, licences attracted all comers at $300,000, whereas this year some licences went for over $2,000,000 and the pool of investors did not include anyone invited to the United States as an immigrant, refugee or even locals pooling their dollars and looking to make something of themselves. So is this the end, is this where opportunities go to die, with greed preventing the entry level labour market from getting a foot in the door? Has big business finally won, have they crushed the desire to achieve, have they battered into submission the spirit of can do by eliminating another job for the common man?
Not if you ask the "man on the street" in any city in the US, the answer is most often No, with an exclamation mark. For if there is anything indomitable in the spirit of the citizens of the United States, it's the belief that no matter where you start from, no matter where you come from and no matter what obstacles lie in your way, the belief that anyone can rise to the top remains a core fundamental of their psyche.
We may dismiss the jingoistic patriotism and dogged enthusiasm living in the "lucky country" but as a general observation we haven't had the same desire to reach the top no matter what, for a long time. No wonder, with Credit Suisse reporting Australia as the second richest nation per capita wealth, our unemployment close to zero ( remembering 5% as zero according to economic theory), the dollar still in good shape, twenty two years of consecutive economic growth, miners now in production mode, meaning they'll get paid, the long weekend and "sickies" remaining as expectations and all accountability for any mishaps the responsibility of the government or someone other than ourselves. The above is a "Boomer" legacy and the following generations, especially "Ys" will encounter greater challenges so maybe the spirit of the great explorers, the man on the land getting by with bailing wire and know how, along with punching above our weight in bringing great innovation to the world will come to the fore again. I read with interest that taxi licenses in Victoria may soon cost as little as $35,000, now that's entry level for anyone wanting to make something of themselves.
Monday, October 14, 2013
It's mathematics.
Credibility is fragile, it takes a long time to achieve and it can vanish quickly if passed on to someone who doesn't abide by the trustworthiness and expertise associated with the originator. How often have you seen people put forward for positions and introductions made, where they don't appreciate the credibility associated with the person introducing them and in turn scrape off a layer of credentials the person doing the introductions, has worked so long to accomplish. So what is the relationship of the introduction and who should you trust with your credibility?
As our friends at Wikipedia are quick to point out, "credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message."
So you need to make a pitch, convey an idea, get a job, build a network or find the right information but you need to get to the right people to fulfil this objective, how do you do it by yourself? Certainly Google comes into the equation for the next generations as online plays such a large part of their ecosystem, but nothing surpasses the credibility attached to someone introducing you in their behalf, with all the extras that entails. To be introduced by someone of standing, who has a history of plausibility and believability based on their experiences and how they have conducted themselves in business and in life goes a long way to establishing you as someone with similar affinities.
In the maths world this is called transitive property and can be explained via Xs and Ys but simply put, A has credibility with B and B has credibility with C then A has credibility with C, showing the power an introduction by B has on the future relationship. The stronger the credibility between A and B, and the stronger the credibility between B and C, the stronger the credibility between A and C. The closer the relationship you have with the person providing the introduction, the closer the relationship you have with the person you are being introduced to. Many sociologists call this "borrowed credibility" and as the word borrowed would suggest, you should consider the ramifications of this gift is not being revered and finding ways to reciprocate, for you have only appropriated trustworthiness for a short time. So the dilemma is constant, your acknowledgement, your character and your reputation brittle in the hands of others.
The dichotomy in all of this, are the people who never ever concern themselves with the prospect of having their credibility at risk, who are always at the ready to give of their veracity and who make time for others to help build relationships that count. If you are lucky enough to know someone like this, then you have the world at your feet, you have a resource that can't be bought and you have boundless opportunities to find the best possible people for your future, but you already knew that.
As our friends at Wikipedia are quick to point out, "credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message."
So you need to make a pitch, convey an idea, get a job, build a network or find the right information but you need to get to the right people to fulfil this objective, how do you do it by yourself? Certainly Google comes into the equation for the next generations as online plays such a large part of their ecosystem, but nothing surpasses the credibility attached to someone introducing you in their behalf, with all the extras that entails. To be introduced by someone of standing, who has a history of plausibility and believability based on their experiences and how they have conducted themselves in business and in life goes a long way to establishing you as someone with similar affinities.
In the maths world this is called transitive property and can be explained via Xs and Ys but simply put, A has credibility with B and B has credibility with C then A has credibility with C, showing the power an introduction by B has on the future relationship. The stronger the credibility between A and B, and the stronger the credibility between B and C, the stronger the credibility between A and C. The closer the relationship you have with the person providing the introduction, the closer the relationship you have with the person you are being introduced to. Many sociologists call this "borrowed credibility" and as the word borrowed would suggest, you should consider the ramifications of this gift is not being revered and finding ways to reciprocate, for you have only appropriated trustworthiness for a short time. So the dilemma is constant, your acknowledgement, your character and your reputation brittle in the hands of others.
The dichotomy in all of this, are the people who never ever concern themselves with the prospect of having their credibility at risk, who are always at the ready to give of their veracity and who make time for others to help build relationships that count. If you are lucky enough to know someone like this, then you have the world at your feet, you have a resource that can't be bought and you have boundless opportunities to find the best possible people for your future, but you already knew that.
Monday, October 7, 2013
The Actors Studio.
Watching James Lipton discuss in depth, the best interviews of the past 250 episodes of the "Actors Studio", got me thinking about the acting and special effects that go on in the business world. Lipton talked about the best episodes being where actors showed their real selves, took off their day job masks and revealed who they really were and what they stood for. They were episodes where true emotion got the better of the actors and people were able to see their authentic inner persona. Our expectation is for actors, to wear a mask, stay in character, be a personality, not show their inner self, work with the facades put up by the special effects people and be someone selling a product based on make believe, for them it's a job.
In the business world it should be the opposite, people should show their true personality at every opportunity, never wear a mask, never hide behind the facade of a product and be authentic in their relationships. I don't have to think too hard, to come up with many examples where this is not the case and business is done from behind masks and using special effects, so as not to show the truth behind the curtain.
The digital business world is often closer to Hollywood than it is to the corporate work life, giving people the ability to be actors in their own movie, selling and hawking their wares behind facades created to influence decisions, decisions not based on reality.
It's rare to see behind the curtain in the digital world and rarer still to find the person behind the website, the forum or the blog. The anonymity provided by the web, gives people the ability to play many characters, most of them make believe and this has contributed to the search for truth and integrity online. Something that's missing if you've ever been scammed, hoodwinked or defrauded in any way.
The corporate boardroom is no different and sees Shakespeare acted out each day as kings and CEOs are tumbled, company cultures become the stuff of theatre and egos grow to engulf the unwary player. How often have you heard the term "player" referring to those aspiring and climbing the corporate ladder, how often have you seen the real face of people once they have accomplished their deeds and how often have you felt yourself caught up in a Greek tragedy at work. From the costumes worn, Hugo Boss or Armani, to the cars driven, Porshe or BMW, the watches worn, Breitling or TAG, and the many accoutrements required to play the role effectively, today's business is often seen hiding behind the stuff of theatre.
When you find business people who have divested themselves of the greasepaint and costumes, you are often surprised by the honesty of products and services that previously you doubted and had reservations about. Like the slow food revolution, realism in business is becoming a force and people are searching out the "real" in people so they don't have to read the end credits to find out who they were dealing with. Maybe the analogy is to stay in documentary mode when doing business, at least that way no one is in Oscar mode hiding behind a script.
In the business world it should be the opposite, people should show their true personality at every opportunity, never wear a mask, never hide behind the facade of a product and be authentic in their relationships. I don't have to think too hard, to come up with many examples where this is not the case and business is done from behind masks and using special effects, so as not to show the truth behind the curtain.
The digital business world is often closer to Hollywood than it is to the corporate work life, giving people the ability to be actors in their own movie, selling and hawking their wares behind facades created to influence decisions, decisions not based on reality.
It's rare to see behind the curtain in the digital world and rarer still to find the person behind the website, the forum or the blog. The anonymity provided by the web, gives people the ability to play many characters, most of them make believe and this has contributed to the search for truth and integrity online. Something that's missing if you've ever been scammed, hoodwinked or defrauded in any way.
The corporate boardroom is no different and sees Shakespeare acted out each day as kings and CEOs are tumbled, company cultures become the stuff of theatre and egos grow to engulf the unwary player. How often have you heard the term "player" referring to those aspiring and climbing the corporate ladder, how often have you seen the real face of people once they have accomplished their deeds and how often have you felt yourself caught up in a Greek tragedy at work. From the costumes worn, Hugo Boss or Armani, to the cars driven, Porshe or BMW, the watches worn, Breitling or TAG, and the many accoutrements required to play the role effectively, today's business is often seen hiding behind the stuff of theatre.
When you find business people who have divested themselves of the greasepaint and costumes, you are often surprised by the honesty of products and services that previously you doubted and had reservations about. Like the slow food revolution, realism in business is becoming a force and people are searching out the "real" in people so they don't have to read the end credits to find out who they were dealing with. Maybe the analogy is to stay in documentary mode when doing business, at least that way no one is in Oscar mode hiding behind a script.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Blink.
In a nod to Malcolm Gladwell's seminal tome of 2005, the art of thin slicing, "our ability to gauge what is really important from a very narrow period of experience", has seen me recently gauge and react accordingly to people I have not met before or known for a very short period of time. Gladwell indicates that often we have too much information and decision paralysis along with prejudices, likes and stereotypes can get in the way of a spontaneous decision. Often the further collection of information just goes to validating our original thinking or belief and that micro seconds are all that is needed when summing up people from the expressions on their faces.
In a meeting last week, I met a young man who was in charge of a very large and powerful innovation fund. He had come to a meet us and learn more about the business and the team behind the strategy. Half my age and twice as wise and unusual in a good way, is how I described him later, when my wife asked how the meeting went. For the longest time he said nothing, listened intently, had a totally open mind and was completely non judgemental. I gathered that from his body language and facial expressions and as the studies of Paul Ekman, who came up with the Facial Action Coding System, indicate, the face is a rich source of what is going on inside our minds and that micro-expressions give note to emotions and thoughts picked up if studied closely. The meeting went on to last for 6 hours, so was my initial thinking, my initial "thin slicing" correct? It was validated over and over again as the young man brought forth salient points of interest to the business, asked the most probing questions, couched in language that made the room comfortable and showed he knew it was all about us and not about him.
The so called 7 seconds, you have to make an impression, the power of body language and the ability to sum yourself up in less than 30 seconds in an "elevator speech", have long been the arena of sales folklore and many make their living touting the value of that first meeting and what can be accomplished long term, if all the right signals are sent. Seth Godin often quotes "if you can't state your position in eight words, you don't have a position", giving further rise to the power of decisions made on a big picture rather than gathering mountains of information.
Many push back and address the conundrum with a wait and see attitude, gathering data, facts and information to be analysed, appraised and evaluated. For many this analysis becomes a wall too high to scale and all the advantages gained by intuition, "gut feelings", insight and instinct fall by the wayside and they stay closed to the surprise of meeting someone for the first time and knowing they'll be a great friend or colleague, just by the smile on their face.
When asked I often tell people my philosophy is based around the thinking, the next person I meet, could be my best friend for the rest of my life, so why wouldn't I smile and extend my hand. You never know who you might meet if you are open to the moment.
In a meeting last week, I met a young man who was in charge of a very large and powerful innovation fund. He had come to a meet us and learn more about the business and the team behind the strategy. Half my age and twice as wise and unusual in a good way, is how I described him later, when my wife asked how the meeting went. For the longest time he said nothing, listened intently, had a totally open mind and was completely non judgemental. I gathered that from his body language and facial expressions and as the studies of Paul Ekman, who came up with the Facial Action Coding System, indicate, the face is a rich source of what is going on inside our minds and that micro-expressions give note to emotions and thoughts picked up if studied closely. The meeting went on to last for 6 hours, so was my initial thinking, my initial "thin slicing" correct? It was validated over and over again as the young man brought forth salient points of interest to the business, asked the most probing questions, couched in language that made the room comfortable and showed he knew it was all about us and not about him.
The so called 7 seconds, you have to make an impression, the power of body language and the ability to sum yourself up in less than 30 seconds in an "elevator speech", have long been the arena of sales folklore and many make their living touting the value of that first meeting and what can be accomplished long term, if all the right signals are sent. Seth Godin often quotes "if you can't state your position in eight words, you don't have a position", giving further rise to the power of decisions made on a big picture rather than gathering mountains of information.
Many push back and address the conundrum with a wait and see attitude, gathering data, facts and information to be analysed, appraised and evaluated. For many this analysis becomes a wall too high to scale and all the advantages gained by intuition, "gut feelings", insight and instinct fall by the wayside and they stay closed to the surprise of meeting someone for the first time and knowing they'll be a great friend or colleague, just by the smile on their face.
When asked I often tell people my philosophy is based around the thinking, the next person I meet, could be my best friend for the rest of my life, so why wouldn't I smile and extend my hand. You never know who you might meet if you are open to the moment.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
If I didn't have a dime ....
And I didn't take the time to play the jukebox, Gene Pitney's lament to love discovered on a Saturday night, has interesting overtones and analogies to business today and making sure you are prepared and in the right place to take advantage of opportunities that may come your way. Being in the right place and being prepared are the hallmarks of good business acumen but how do you go about being prepared and knowing where the right places are?
Is an MBA a guarantee of knowledge, of knowing, of being prepared? Not by itself of course but as part of a package you sure cant go wrong if you have the maximum amount of learning at your disposal. Having said that, learning is not about higher tertiary qualifications, learning is about your capacity for openness and acceptance of ideas that may not "float your boat" or "rock your world". Being prepared is about building on your skill set, having the motivation to dig deeper than your competitors and realising there is no end to the preparation. For many, the mistake is thinking graduation, course completion and the end of projects is all you need, for others there is no finish line and everything they do is in preparation for opportunities. The question you continually need to ask, is which are you?
So you set your course, you learn continuously, you stay open to new ideas but how do you put yourself in a position to be in the right place at the right time for the opportunities you have prepared for? Like learning and new ideas finding the right people that can help you, mentor you and guide you means getting out of your comfort zone. It means opening yourself up to others, other than your small circle of influence and safety. It means going out of your way to meet people in circles you may think have nothing to do with your end game. You can't prepare and ready yourself for the next level on the business ladder by working in a silo environment. Leave your ego at the front door and find the people more intelligent and capable than yourself and you have a good recipe for your mix of preparation and being in the right spot. Your supporters, mentors, colleagues, will find the right spot and when get there, you'll have the "dime" to play the "jukebox". You just need to put the coin in the slot.
Okay so the decision analogy maybe a bit thin but the final scenario in all of this effort is about your mental state and self worth that has hopefully been built from your learnings, your openness and preparation and the support and guidance of people around you. The idea isn't to build and prepare yourself for monumental decisions way in the future but to have the ability on a daily basis to play the jukebox with a pocket full of dimes, always ready to embrace the opportunity. Gene Pitney, wherever you are, I hope you're okay with this?
Is an MBA a guarantee of knowledge, of knowing, of being prepared? Not by itself of course but as part of a package you sure cant go wrong if you have the maximum amount of learning at your disposal. Having said that, learning is not about higher tertiary qualifications, learning is about your capacity for openness and acceptance of ideas that may not "float your boat" or "rock your world". Being prepared is about building on your skill set, having the motivation to dig deeper than your competitors and realising there is no end to the preparation. For many, the mistake is thinking graduation, course completion and the end of projects is all you need, for others there is no finish line and everything they do is in preparation for opportunities. The question you continually need to ask, is which are you?
So you set your course, you learn continuously, you stay open to new ideas but how do you put yourself in a position to be in the right place at the right time for the opportunities you have prepared for? Like learning and new ideas finding the right people that can help you, mentor you and guide you means getting out of your comfort zone. It means opening yourself up to others, other than your small circle of influence and safety. It means going out of your way to meet people in circles you may think have nothing to do with your end game. You can't prepare and ready yourself for the next level on the business ladder by working in a silo environment. Leave your ego at the front door and find the people more intelligent and capable than yourself and you have a good recipe for your mix of preparation and being in the right spot. Your supporters, mentors, colleagues, will find the right spot and when get there, you'll have the "dime" to play the "jukebox". You just need to put the coin in the slot.
Okay so the decision analogy maybe a bit thin but the final scenario in all of this effort is about your mental state and self worth that has hopefully been built from your learnings, your openness and preparation and the support and guidance of people around you. The idea isn't to build and prepare yourself for monumental decisions way in the future but to have the ability on a daily basis to play the jukebox with a pocket full of dimes, always ready to embrace the opportunity. Gene Pitney, wherever you are, I hope you're okay with this?
Sunday, September 8, 2013
New phone.
The release of the new iPhone this week will see a global media frenzy targeting the Apple zealots lining up to be first, the Apple disbelievers who will pull apart the phone to show there is no magic inside and business analysts citing the aberration between Apple's low 13% marketshare and high 60% profit of the entire smart phone sector. There will be debates over usability, the latest operating system and how well the phone fits into a handbag. For me the most interesting numbers centre on the small marketshare of the iPhone and the large influence it has globally. Most companies that have such a small marketshare in their sector are generally relegated to third or fourth place in the pecking order, with no voice and certainly no influence, especially when it comes to innovation and design.
So why will every media channel carry the launch? Why will every analyst and pundit put forward their opinions? Why will your neighbour want to beat you to the post, showing off his latest acquisition, the iPhone 6? Some tribes become powerful because there a lot of them, some because they are the smartest and some because they are led by the smartest and most powerful. Such is the Apple tribe and they don't care what anyone says about them, they don't care the majority of the world carries Samsung, they don't care there could be alternatives that match or better their product, for they are safe within their tribal zones with a chief constantly validating their choice of technology.
The closed ecosystem that Apple has created is the most powerful of business relationships because everyone believes and works towards the same determination within a support system geared towards the end user. Apple worked out early, if they made it about you, there was less opportunity to point the finger back upstairs amid accusations of profiteering and mismanagement. Apple worked out early that brand allegiance was the most powerful mindset for profit and longevity, allowing the company flexibility to innovate and fail, innovate and fail, innovate and launch, products designed purely for the Apple tribe user and not to pander to marketplace trends.
With over 5 billion mobile phones on the planet, over 1 billion being smart phones, Apple figured out early, mass domination was a futile pursuit, think Nokia, Blackberry and Motorola. What they concentrated on doing well, was designing a phone that appealed to a small but influential tribe, happy to pay a premium for a product that exceeded their expectations, gave them a sense of exclusivity via a small tribe and gave them something to look forward to every time there was a launch of a new iPhone.
From a personal and business viewpoint, the Apple model works if you know it's about them and not about you, know it's about delivering on what you say you are going to do, know it's about having the authenticity to be able to fail and still hold true to your beliefs. Go on, start your tribe.
So why will every media channel carry the launch? Why will every analyst and pundit put forward their opinions? Why will your neighbour want to beat you to the post, showing off his latest acquisition, the iPhone 6? Some tribes become powerful because there a lot of them, some because they are the smartest and some because they are led by the smartest and most powerful. Such is the Apple tribe and they don't care what anyone says about them, they don't care the majority of the world carries Samsung, they don't care there could be alternatives that match or better their product, for they are safe within their tribal zones with a chief constantly validating their choice of technology.
The closed ecosystem that Apple has created is the most powerful of business relationships because everyone believes and works towards the same determination within a support system geared towards the end user. Apple worked out early, if they made it about you, there was less opportunity to point the finger back upstairs amid accusations of profiteering and mismanagement. Apple worked out early that brand allegiance was the most powerful mindset for profit and longevity, allowing the company flexibility to innovate and fail, innovate and fail, innovate and launch, products designed purely for the Apple tribe user and not to pander to marketplace trends.
With over 5 billion mobile phones on the planet, over 1 billion being smart phones, Apple figured out early, mass domination was a futile pursuit, think Nokia, Blackberry and Motorola. What they concentrated on doing well, was designing a phone that appealed to a small but influential tribe, happy to pay a premium for a product that exceeded their expectations, gave them a sense of exclusivity via a small tribe and gave them something to look forward to every time there was a launch of a new iPhone.
From a personal and business viewpoint, the Apple model works if you know it's about them and not about you, know it's about delivering on what you say you are going to do, know it's about having the authenticity to be able to fail and still hold true to your beliefs. Go on, start your tribe.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Social proof.
I used to walk past empty restaurants. Why not, surely without patrons, the assumption of bad service, bad food and bad experience was a given. That was until I opened my own establishment back in the late 90s, catering for what I thought might be a new wave of foodies interested in the flavours of southern USA and Mexico. Attendance at the Santa Fe cooking school and introducing new flavours and ideas was all I needed for my start up. That was until people walked by and went to the local greasy spoon, not because the food or service were any better, far from it, but because it was filled with patrons. I could never understand the reasoning behind the herd mentality or as Cialdini calls it, pluralistic ignorance. Why didn't people experiment, leave their comfort zone or want to be early adopters was a mystery to me.
This mentality of group behaviour has a name, social proof, and Wikipedia describes it as “a psychological phenomenon where people assume the actions of others, reflect the correct behaviour for a given situation, driven by the assumption the surrounding people possess more information about the situation.” So it wasn't my cooking after all, just a mistrust of individual decision making. The restaurant survived and eventually gained crowds via social proof from locals looking for something new, people hearing about a new cuisine and word of mouth generated by individuals of influence. It's these individuals willing to be first, willing to lead a tribe and willing to be scrutinised I thank the most for the success of the restaurant and I was determined from then on, to not be part of the herd mentality, for there was so much more to discover if you were brave.
The famous murder case in 1964, where Catherine Genovese was stabbed to death over a period of 35 minutes with over 30 witnesses in surrounding apartments, gave new highs to pluralistic ignorance as everyone assumed everyone else would report the murder and no one did. It was social proofing to the maximum where everyone assumed and no one acted. Social proofing is not a new phenomenon but one taken to great lengths today by the social media giants or anyone wanting validation of their skill and expertise online. How often have you seen bloggers, tweeters, celebrities and anyone selling a product, brandishing the number of followers, after all a 10 million people can't be wrong and we're wired to learn from others, so let's follow this site. You can go back as far as 1955 for examples of social proofing, when Ray Kroc of McDonald's fame put up the conspicuously aggrandising sign "over one million served", leading people line up for hamburgers for the first time in history.
The trick to not becoming a part of the herd is having a mind of your own, trusting your judgement and not being concerned what people think, if you have your own thoughts and ideas. Seems simple enough, but all the indications point to global herds led by a few and validated by many. Everyone has the opportunity to stand out and make a difference, but it takes unflinching individualism. How brave are you?
This mentality of group behaviour has a name, social proof, and Wikipedia describes it as “a psychological phenomenon where people assume the actions of others, reflect the correct behaviour for a given situation, driven by the assumption the surrounding people possess more information about the situation.” So it wasn't my cooking after all, just a mistrust of individual decision making. The restaurant survived and eventually gained crowds via social proof from locals looking for something new, people hearing about a new cuisine and word of mouth generated by individuals of influence. It's these individuals willing to be first, willing to lead a tribe and willing to be scrutinised I thank the most for the success of the restaurant and I was determined from then on, to not be part of the herd mentality, for there was so much more to discover if you were brave.
The famous murder case in 1964, where Catherine Genovese was stabbed to death over a period of 35 minutes with over 30 witnesses in surrounding apartments, gave new highs to pluralistic ignorance as everyone assumed everyone else would report the murder and no one did. It was social proofing to the maximum where everyone assumed and no one acted. Social proofing is not a new phenomenon but one taken to great lengths today by the social media giants or anyone wanting validation of their skill and expertise online. How often have you seen bloggers, tweeters, celebrities and anyone selling a product, brandishing the number of followers, after all a 10 million people can't be wrong and we're wired to learn from others, so let's follow this site. You can go back as far as 1955 for examples of social proofing, when Ray Kroc of McDonald's fame put up the conspicuously aggrandising sign "over one million served", leading people line up for hamburgers for the first time in history.
The trick to not becoming a part of the herd is having a mind of your own, trusting your judgement and not being concerned what people think, if you have your own thoughts and ideas. Seems simple enough, but all the indications point to global herds led by a few and validated by many. Everyone has the opportunity to stand out and make a difference, but it takes unflinching individualism. How brave are you?
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Waste of time.
The meeting went long. The trains were late. The download took forever. The traffic was stalled. The upload took forever. The project went over time. The developers hit a snag. It seems everything takes longer than you think and I have no idea at all, how long anything takes anymore. My expectations have been raised to unattainable heights, thanks to technology but anytime there is a hitch, a snag, a delay or even a hesitation, the timeframe for finishing anything on time, goes out the window. I have succumbed to the best case scenario argument and with that comes disappointment when tasks are not completed on time. I only have myself to blame for being sucked into the technology vortex built around speed of information, speed of communication and speed of expectations.
I am wistful for bygone days when projects would take forever because we didn't have the equipment or resources and expectations were low and if by chance there was an early completion, we celebrated. Today, completion expectations run high for anything from simple developments tasks to getting to work on time but calamity awaits us at every turn. There is a reason for all this disappointment and it was cognitive scientist, Douglas Hofstadter, who came up with a law in 1979, that stated any task you were planning to complete will always take longer than expected. Doh! He surmised we habitually underestimate the time it takes to do things, citing projects such as the Sydney Opera House, completed 10 years past the original end date. Yet even when we take Hofstadter's law into account, we still don't finish on time as unforeseen delays, being unforeseen, are not accounted for.
So the consequences of being late, running overtime in a meeting, encountering a technical hitch or getting caught in a train strike are far more extreme than the positive side of everything working out for you. Nassim Taleb in Antifragile, uses air travel as an example, for when things go right and you arrive 30 minutes early, you have some time up your sleeve for a coffee but arriving 30 minutes late is compounded by missed meetings, missed flights, cancelled agendas and generally a more extreme aftermath to those expectations you had when getting out of bed that morning.
The technology culture has compressed time for all of us and along with the aspiration of that culture, comes a faint mist of discontent as time betrays us by never being in accord with our planning. So I struggle along, hearing the words of my Mother, "if you're not 10 minutes early, you're late" ringing in my ears and I struggle with the comprehension that no matter how well I plan, my plan is likely to be disrupted by unforeseen circumstances. For it seems no matter how much in control I think I am, I can't see around corners and the vague notion of control is just a trick of the mind to keep me motivated and galvanised in my actions.
The only saving grace in all of this, is we are all in the same boat. So next time it doesn't work out as planned, someone arrives late for a meeting and that document just won't download, remember, you are not alone.
I am wistful for bygone days when projects would take forever because we didn't have the equipment or resources and expectations were low and if by chance there was an early completion, we celebrated. Today, completion expectations run high for anything from simple developments tasks to getting to work on time but calamity awaits us at every turn. There is a reason for all this disappointment and it was cognitive scientist, Douglas Hofstadter, who came up with a law in 1979, that stated any task you were planning to complete will always take longer than expected. Doh! He surmised we habitually underestimate the time it takes to do things, citing projects such as the Sydney Opera House, completed 10 years past the original end date. Yet even when we take Hofstadter's law into account, we still don't finish on time as unforeseen delays, being unforeseen, are not accounted for.
So the consequences of being late, running overtime in a meeting, encountering a technical hitch or getting caught in a train strike are far more extreme than the positive side of everything working out for you. Nassim Taleb in Antifragile, uses air travel as an example, for when things go right and you arrive 30 minutes early, you have some time up your sleeve for a coffee but arriving 30 minutes late is compounded by missed meetings, missed flights, cancelled agendas and generally a more extreme aftermath to those expectations you had when getting out of bed that morning.
The technology culture has compressed time for all of us and along with the aspiration of that culture, comes a faint mist of discontent as time betrays us by never being in accord with our planning. So I struggle along, hearing the words of my Mother, "if you're not 10 minutes early, you're late" ringing in my ears and I struggle with the comprehension that no matter how well I plan, my plan is likely to be disrupted by unforeseen circumstances. For it seems no matter how much in control I think I am, I can't see around corners and the vague notion of control is just a trick of the mind to keep me motivated and galvanised in my actions.
The only saving grace in all of this, is we are all in the same boat. So next time it doesn't work out as planned, someone arrives late for a meeting and that document just won't download, remember, you are not alone.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Father & Son.
I was born within sight of the Hamburg docks and then moved half way round the world to the heart of a steel city. So it was inevitable to end up left of left whenever discussions arose about politics, the state of the roads and wages. The attitudes developed at a young age mirrored those of the people around you, especially Fathers and the likelihood of change was a distant future you couldn't see. For in those days there was no middle ground and no one had ever met anyone from the right, so the chance for political or any other kind of change was slim. You did what your Father did and you said what your Father said, it was a black and white argument because people read, watched and listened to only those who were around them. The global opportunities were decades away and attitudes ingrained were attitudes difficult to change.
"It's not time to make a change, just relax, take it easy, you're still young, that's your fault, there's so much you have to know". The first lines of the Cat Stevens song encapsulate the thinking of my Father at the time, personifying the attitudes of all those around him. Congenital thinking, dyed in the wool attitudes and strong beliefs with no other sides to the argument, left little to negotiate.
I mention the above as a segue to today, as the political parties ramp up their mud slinging, their denouncements of each others policies and their general bad behaviour towards each other and their voters. Left and right have long since raced to the middle because polarising attitudes leave nothing to negotiate and today, everything is up for negotiation. Political intrigue is no longer the domain of shady back rooms but is played out in the glare of media not in control of the politicians but in control of the masses.
This change in control has finally given people power to speak out and not just follow in the footsteps of the Father. It has given people the amplitude and capacity to envisage change via their own voice, via media not anticipated by their Fathers, to affect change for personal and widespread equivocation.
So I watch and read in anticipation for rallying cries and rumblings from below, challenging the parties to confront the issues of the day. Certainly there are pockets and the QI brigade are keeping politicians accountable for their actions but the broader society can't see beyond the past and the past belongs to their Fathers. The ability and capability for change is finally in the hands of the people, you need only to look at the global landscape of change brought about by media avenues such as Twitter, Facebook and all the online forums, allowing opinions and attitudes to be challenged and changed.
With an election only weeks away, it behoves all within earshot of technology to stand up for their beliefs and give the politicians something to think about, other than slanging off at each other. The power and authority for change is not just about the vote, it's about attitudinal change bought about by knowledge wider than your Father ever thought about. Knowledge you don't have to ask your Father about.
"It's not time to make a change, just relax, take it easy, you're still young, that's your fault, there's so much you have to know". The first lines of the Cat Stevens song encapsulate the thinking of my Father at the time, personifying the attitudes of all those around him. Congenital thinking, dyed in the wool attitudes and strong beliefs with no other sides to the argument, left little to negotiate.
I mention the above as a segue to today, as the political parties ramp up their mud slinging, their denouncements of each others policies and their general bad behaviour towards each other and their voters. Left and right have long since raced to the middle because polarising attitudes leave nothing to negotiate and today, everything is up for negotiation. Political intrigue is no longer the domain of shady back rooms but is played out in the glare of media not in control of the politicians but in control of the masses.
This change in control has finally given people power to speak out and not just follow in the footsteps of the Father. It has given people the amplitude and capacity to envisage change via their own voice, via media not anticipated by their Fathers, to affect change for personal and widespread equivocation.
So I watch and read in anticipation for rallying cries and rumblings from below, challenging the parties to confront the issues of the day. Certainly there are pockets and the QI brigade are keeping politicians accountable for their actions but the broader society can't see beyond the past and the past belongs to their Fathers. The ability and capability for change is finally in the hands of the people, you need only to look at the global landscape of change brought about by media avenues such as Twitter, Facebook and all the online forums, allowing opinions and attitudes to be challenged and changed.
With an election only weeks away, it behoves all within earshot of technology to stand up for their beliefs and give the politicians something to think about, other than slanging off at each other. The power and authority for change is not just about the vote, it's about attitudinal change bought about by knowledge wider than your Father ever thought about. Knowledge you don't have to ask your Father about.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Competition.
I haven't changed my landing page in years, Yahoo is so last century, I haven't deviated from my news searches or thought of changing my book supplier, why is that? Most of my friends have not changed their favourite shopping sites in ages and wont look at others until they are of comparative size and breadth to the ones they are used to using, if that is even possible. Competition for your attention, your time and your money depends on many variables, the main one being, having an alternative choice that brings with it, extra value, a good price point, convenience, knowledge and the capacity to be 100 times better than what you are using now. Not an easy accomplishment, so will the likes of Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, eBay, Amazon, YouTube et al, ever face strong opposition again? Even a giant like Microsoft can't gain ground with their search engine Bing. Will there ever be competitors that do what they do better? Why aren't people looking for alternatives?
The answer to a lot of those questions lies in human behaviour that abhors change once a plateau of satisfaction has been reached and no amount of cajoling or attention grabbing behaviour from competitors will entice them from that plateau. The net is Darwinian in its make up, ceding the high ground to those that have become the top of the food chain. I am still fascinated by the disappearance in the 70s of the orbital engine, designed by Ralph Sarich for greater efficiency, it would have revolutionised the car industry but quickly disappeared under a mountain of money, when Detroit came calling to take care of the competition. Times haven't changed much when we look at the web, with larger fish eating their way through the schools of competition. Whenever we hear of an innovative APP, a new way of navigation or a creative aggregator, a bank roll of cash from the big fish, isn't far behind.
From billion dollar investments like Instagram for Facebook, to eBay's purchase of Skype through to Google buying ITA, there are more smaller companies that no longer exist because the big 10 have more money than the rest of the world combined. There is no shortage of new and ascendant companies with evolving ideas to prick our imagination but the lifespan of most will depend on their relevancy to the dominate sites. If the big sites see you as competition or worse a synergy to their business plan, your days are numbered, The dominant sites are all looking to build closed eco systems, to control your attention, your buying behaviour and your capacity to change. Where else can you search for Facebook information, other than Facebook?
The Times recently released a list of the most interesting new sites on the web, from newsworthy like Quartz and Narratively, to audio and video sites such as SoundCloud and 5-Second Films, through to social sites RebelMouse and NextDoor, not forgetting shopping via Outgrow.me and Outgoing. It's not an exhaustive list but it does cover everything we like to do on the web but as you read this, think small fish surrounded by big fish and know the list is decreasing. I was going to look at some of the new entries but I couldn't find them on Google.
The answer to a lot of those questions lies in human behaviour that abhors change once a plateau of satisfaction has been reached and no amount of cajoling or attention grabbing behaviour from competitors will entice them from that plateau. The net is Darwinian in its make up, ceding the high ground to those that have become the top of the food chain. I am still fascinated by the disappearance in the 70s of the orbital engine, designed by Ralph Sarich for greater efficiency, it would have revolutionised the car industry but quickly disappeared under a mountain of money, when Detroit came calling to take care of the competition. Times haven't changed much when we look at the web, with larger fish eating their way through the schools of competition. Whenever we hear of an innovative APP, a new way of navigation or a creative aggregator, a bank roll of cash from the big fish, isn't far behind.
From billion dollar investments like Instagram for Facebook, to eBay's purchase of Skype through to Google buying ITA, there are more smaller companies that no longer exist because the big 10 have more money than the rest of the world combined. There is no shortage of new and ascendant companies with evolving ideas to prick our imagination but the lifespan of most will depend on their relevancy to the dominate sites. If the big sites see you as competition or worse a synergy to their business plan, your days are numbered, The dominant sites are all looking to build closed eco systems, to control your attention, your buying behaviour and your capacity to change. Where else can you search for Facebook information, other than Facebook?
The Times recently released a list of the most interesting new sites on the web, from newsworthy like Quartz and Narratively, to audio and video sites such as SoundCloud and 5-Second Films, through to social sites RebelMouse and NextDoor, not forgetting shopping via Outgrow.me and Outgoing. It's not an exhaustive list but it does cover everything we like to do on the web but as you read this, think small fish surrounded by big fish and know the list is decreasing. I was going to look at some of the new entries but I couldn't find them on Google.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Forks.
My Mother often sites her decision to emigrate as the reason for any success I may have achieved, believing that success, would not have been duplicated in the country she left. I cannot conclusively argue the point because that decision had been made for me as child and all I could do was manage my way to the future without reference to what might have been. Decisions and life directions are often made for you, caused by external circumstances, accidental occurrences and people deciding for you. Without a chance to influence those directions and standing at those forks in the road, you have to become more adept in your ability to manage change and have the capacity to see the opportunities, regardless of whether they were your decision.
Decisions are often seen as the accumulation of our intentions but nothing could be further from the truth when your life, your work or your family is affected by external happenstance. When a fork is presented, your choices are limited to taking the new road or not seeing it and finding out later, there was a better way. So where, as Seth Godin, describes the difficulty in the fork in the road being, seeing it and taking it, the greater difficulty for most is the management of change that comes along with the new direction they are travelling.
Stories abound of successful people raising themselves from poverty and adversity, achieving against the grain of a life chosen for them. Malcolm Gladwell, in his seminal book on success, Outliers, sites the month you were born as a precursor of success for many professional athletes, the cultures and times that influence what you become when he described the top lawyers in New York but countered those arguments with his thinking on the 10,000 hours of work, sweat, determination and not giving up, that can counter everything else and bring success.
My favourite examples sites the Beatles, hailed as overnight successes in 1962, when their records hit the airwaves. Not achieving any success outside of their local cavern and only offered some gigs in the bars of Hamburg, the mop tops took it upon themselves to hone their skills to unimaginable heights via 10,000 plus performances before they put the grooves on their first record, to become overnight successes. Hard to imagine an act nowadays even performing that many gigs let alone doing it before their first success.
If a government changes, if you are made redundant, if relationships breakdown, if your Mother takes you to another country, standing at those forks in the road and all you can see is desolation, take an extra moment to look down the other path, for opportunity is not always about a path chosen for you but how you walk the one you take. So where a fork in the road is presented to you, there is still a decision to be made and success to be had but where as you thought it had nothing to do with you, it has everything to do with you.
Decisions are often seen as the accumulation of our intentions but nothing could be further from the truth when your life, your work or your family is affected by external happenstance. When a fork is presented, your choices are limited to taking the new road or not seeing it and finding out later, there was a better way. So where, as Seth Godin, describes the difficulty in the fork in the road being, seeing it and taking it, the greater difficulty for most is the management of change that comes along with the new direction they are travelling.
Stories abound of successful people raising themselves from poverty and adversity, achieving against the grain of a life chosen for them. Malcolm Gladwell, in his seminal book on success, Outliers, sites the month you were born as a precursor of success for many professional athletes, the cultures and times that influence what you become when he described the top lawyers in New York but countered those arguments with his thinking on the 10,000 hours of work, sweat, determination and not giving up, that can counter everything else and bring success.
My favourite examples sites the Beatles, hailed as overnight successes in 1962, when their records hit the airwaves. Not achieving any success outside of their local cavern and only offered some gigs in the bars of Hamburg, the mop tops took it upon themselves to hone their skills to unimaginable heights via 10,000 plus performances before they put the grooves on their first record, to become overnight successes. Hard to imagine an act nowadays even performing that many gigs let alone doing it before their first success.
If a government changes, if you are made redundant, if relationships breakdown, if your Mother takes you to another country, standing at those forks in the road and all you can see is desolation, take an extra moment to look down the other path, for opportunity is not always about a path chosen for you but how you walk the one you take. So where a fork in the road is presented to you, there is still a decision to be made and success to be had but where as you thought it had nothing to do with you, it has everything to do with you.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Goodness gracious.
Attending a recent awards night, I was struck by the MC reminding winners to thank the appropriate people, colleagues, friends, partners, along with husbands and wives, who contributed to their success. Some were gracious and sincere in their thanks, some made comedic remarks about lack of partners and some were cursory in their thanks to others, while some forgot the instructions completely. None of the above made it an unusual night in regards to graciousness. The winners were there for a reason, to pick up a trophy, after all it was all about them. Yet the question should be asked, was it only about them?
Grace is not about you, grace is about others, the others who help you everyday, the others who make your life better for knowing them and the others who give without wanting anything back and knowing how to show that appreciation. It's a mistake to point at manners, thank you's, opening doors, giving your seat to someone older and equating that with graciousness. Grace is what emanates from everything you have learnt, everything you have achieved with the help of others and what you give back.
Professor Adam Grant of the Wharton school opines on great leaders and how their grace, generosity and altruistic attitudes provide as much, if not more success than the individualistic, self aggrandising leader. For the last decade he has researched characteristics that make up the high achievers of the business world and society. Motivation, ability and opportunity were the common threads linking success but he was able to include a fourth when he studied interaction in the workplace. The choice we make when we interact with someone saw him ask the questions, how much value do we claim from that person or how much value do we give without concern for reciprocity. This led him to categorise people into takers, matchers and givers and ask which of these led to the most success.
The general answer for many was takers, those who achieve because of their high level of self interest, while givers were seen to continue to give with no reward, especially in business. Grant himself noticed the amount of paranoia in the business world, where people saw the need to be takers or be seen as exploited and taken advantage of. He subsequently found a dearth of givers and the landscape nothing but competition for the top. A famous example given, was Jonas Salk, who never acknowledged his partners, claiming the cure of polio for himself. A taker, he never won a Nobel Prize, was snubbed by his peers and was never accepted into the scientific societies he so wanted to become part of.
Yet interesting data from Grant's research, showed people who rate the concern of others above their own self interest ended up the biggest winners in business and society. Not taking away success from any of the three categories, Grant put forward the thinking that society is better off with the givers as leaders because the cascade effect makes everyone a winner, not just the head of the company or the leader of the society. He saw the grace of a giving attitude separating the great leaders from the great managers and research showed people who freely gave their time and knowledge to colleagues, employees and people in general, become the most admired and appreciated within their circles. Givers always see the best in people, givers build trust and givers elevate others to achieve. This can become contagious, for people see themselves in leaders who inspire and bring out the best in others and this duplication can only be good for all.
Not even the individual athlete, accepting an Olympic gold medal did it by themselves. Is it time to be gracious and thank the people who got you to where you are today?
Grace is not about you, grace is about others, the others who help you everyday, the others who make your life better for knowing them and the others who give without wanting anything back and knowing how to show that appreciation. It's a mistake to point at manners, thank you's, opening doors, giving your seat to someone older and equating that with graciousness. Grace is what emanates from everything you have learnt, everything you have achieved with the help of others and what you give back.
Professor Adam Grant of the Wharton school opines on great leaders and how their grace, generosity and altruistic attitudes provide as much, if not more success than the individualistic, self aggrandising leader. For the last decade he has researched characteristics that make up the high achievers of the business world and society. Motivation, ability and opportunity were the common threads linking success but he was able to include a fourth when he studied interaction in the workplace. The choice we make when we interact with someone saw him ask the questions, how much value do we claim from that person or how much value do we give without concern for reciprocity. This led him to categorise people into takers, matchers and givers and ask which of these led to the most success.
The general answer for many was takers, those who achieve because of their high level of self interest, while givers were seen to continue to give with no reward, especially in business. Grant himself noticed the amount of paranoia in the business world, where people saw the need to be takers or be seen as exploited and taken advantage of. He subsequently found a dearth of givers and the landscape nothing but competition for the top. A famous example given, was Jonas Salk, who never acknowledged his partners, claiming the cure of polio for himself. A taker, he never won a Nobel Prize, was snubbed by his peers and was never accepted into the scientific societies he so wanted to become part of.
Yet interesting data from Grant's research, showed people who rate the concern of others above their own self interest ended up the biggest winners in business and society. Not taking away success from any of the three categories, Grant put forward the thinking that society is better off with the givers as leaders because the cascade effect makes everyone a winner, not just the head of the company or the leader of the society. He saw the grace of a giving attitude separating the great leaders from the great managers and research showed people who freely gave their time and knowledge to colleagues, employees and people in general, become the most admired and appreciated within their circles. Givers always see the best in people, givers build trust and givers elevate others to achieve. This can become contagious, for people see themselves in leaders who inspire and bring out the best in others and this duplication can only be good for all.
Not even the individual athlete, accepting an Olympic gold medal did it by themselves. Is it time to be gracious and thank the people who got you to where you are today?
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Kaffeeklatsch.
As a small child I spent many a Saturday afternoon listening to my Mother and her friends exchanging ideas, discussing the economics of the block we lived in, strategising how their husbands could get to the next level and sharing the odd piece of gossip. This was all done over a coffee in a social network that knew how to pass information quickly, when it was needed and how to use information effectively to gain advantage in the game of life. Kaffeeklatsch or coffee gossip as most translations construe, was the social networking group of any coffee drinkers in lounge rooms and cafes across Germany. For many others, especially anyone engaged in business, this scene, this networking over a coffee was considered unproductive and not necessary.
Not much difference today and history tells us, not much difference to the late 1600s when England first discovered coffee houses, considered by the establishment as places where production went to die. "The Grand Concern of England,” a pamphlet published in 1673, goes onto say that coffee houses and the tempting elixir were responsible for “the ruin of many serious and hopeful young gentlemen and tradesmen,” providing further apprehension that coffee and the social aspect of sharing the drink, would be the downfall of productivity.
Yet nothing could be further from the truth, when the first coffee house opened in Oxford, it gave rise to a place where innovation, ideas, politics, science and literature were discussed openly and candidly. As coffee houses spread, some even became popular for specialised subjects on science or shipping and as customers moved from cafe to cafe, information was passed, assessed for its usefulness, refined via discussion and passed on to become productive information. The coffee houses were the egalitarian equivalent of the today's social networking sites, where everyone could offer an opinion without backlash but never without a coffee. With an entry fee of one penny, the cost of a cup of coffee, some coffee houses went onto be called "penny universities" because so many of England's Royal Society spent hours debating the scientific topics of the day.
So it's with interest I read dire warnings from industry experts, who point at today's social networking, online and offline, as areas of unproductive time wasting, time wasting usually spent in a cafe. I'm not ashamed to say I do my best work over a coffee and it's often in the social confines of a cafe, because not much has changed from the coffee houses of Oxford or even the Kaffeeklatsch of my Mother. Ideas are exchanged, relationships built, the odd piece of gossip conveyed and all articulated in an open and honest environment built around the aroma of coffee beans. IbisWorld research, tells us there are 6,500 plus cafes in Australia, growing year on year, indicating the social affinity of the cafe as "the third place" of relevance after home and work is not diminishing but increasing.
Increasing because coffee, cafes and social networks, are not the great impediment of productivity as many see it, but more the gateway to social advancement via an espresso skillfully produced. I'm up for a coffee, who's with me?
Not much difference today and history tells us, not much difference to the late 1600s when England first discovered coffee houses, considered by the establishment as places where production went to die. "The Grand Concern of England,” a pamphlet published in 1673, goes onto say that coffee houses and the tempting elixir were responsible for “the ruin of many serious and hopeful young gentlemen and tradesmen,” providing further apprehension that coffee and the social aspect of sharing the drink, would be the downfall of productivity.
Yet nothing could be further from the truth, when the first coffee house opened in Oxford, it gave rise to a place where innovation, ideas, politics, science and literature were discussed openly and candidly. As coffee houses spread, some even became popular for specialised subjects on science or shipping and as customers moved from cafe to cafe, information was passed, assessed for its usefulness, refined via discussion and passed on to become productive information. The coffee houses were the egalitarian equivalent of the today's social networking sites, where everyone could offer an opinion without backlash but never without a coffee. With an entry fee of one penny, the cost of a cup of coffee, some coffee houses went onto be called "penny universities" because so many of England's Royal Society spent hours debating the scientific topics of the day.
So it's with interest I read dire warnings from industry experts, who point at today's social networking, online and offline, as areas of unproductive time wasting, time wasting usually spent in a cafe. I'm not ashamed to say I do my best work over a coffee and it's often in the social confines of a cafe, because not much has changed from the coffee houses of Oxford or even the Kaffeeklatsch of my Mother. Ideas are exchanged, relationships built, the odd piece of gossip conveyed and all articulated in an open and honest environment built around the aroma of coffee beans. IbisWorld research, tells us there are 6,500 plus cafes in Australia, growing year on year, indicating the social affinity of the cafe as "the third place" of relevance after home and work is not diminishing but increasing.
Increasing because coffee, cafes and social networks, are not the great impediment of productivity as many see it, but more the gateway to social advancement via an espresso skillfully produced. I'm up for a coffee, who's with me?
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
The people you meet.
It's sometimes easy to overlook what people are trying to achieve on a daily basis, especially when you meet them for the first time, but once you've connected with anyone extraordinary it's easy to share their vision. I'm not talking about global icons, news makers or those striving for celebrity in their field. I'm talking about real people making a difference, with limited resources and unlimited imagination and passion. It's always a privilege to meet such people because they bring a reality to a world occupied by acquisitional behavior, social preening and the "it's all about me" generations being courted by reality TV and online media.
I met a man today, who came back from his first vacation in over decade. A decade in which he rebuilt a zoo because his passion for conservation and his commitment to look after a thousand animals did not waver regardless of the challenges thrown at him. John Radnidge of Symbio Wildlife Park at Helensburgh, decided on a career change from the world of corporate finance to the world of saving animals he saw at risk of extinction, like the Sumatra tiger, estimated to be extinct sometime in the next decade. It took John 5 years of rebuilding before he wasn't embarrassed with a park he saw as essential for todays visitor and generations to come and the good life of weekly wages, company bonuses and public holidays have given way to 364 days with no weekends off, just a Christmas Day with the family, who still have to feed the animals.
The dedication of John, his family and the team of animal keepers cannot be questioned, especially when you consider their lack of remuneration in comparison with even the lowest paid retail shop assistant. The park is at a stage of expansion where John's resources are trying to keep up with his vision of new exhibitions, new enclosures, all to teach the next generation it's important to conserve and to preserve all we have been given when it comes to the animal world.
After talking with John for the shortest time, I felt like throwing in my job and shoveling tiger poo if it would help him out in the slightest. Yet people like John, aren't looking for charity or pity help, people like John need recognition for their sacrifices, people like John need support via attendance and people like John need to know their work matters. The passionate among us always stand out, even for the smallest cause because there are no agendas attached, just the good of all.
The next time you come across a John Radnidge, give him more than just the courtesy of your time, make sure you learn from his humility, make sure you pass on the message and if you are lucky enough to be able to make a difference, then you'll be the one that people will want to meet. John I'm ready to shovel that poo, whenever you need me.
I met a man today, who came back from his first vacation in over decade. A decade in which he rebuilt a zoo because his passion for conservation and his commitment to look after a thousand animals did not waver regardless of the challenges thrown at him. John Radnidge of Symbio Wildlife Park at Helensburgh, decided on a career change from the world of corporate finance to the world of saving animals he saw at risk of extinction, like the Sumatra tiger, estimated to be extinct sometime in the next decade. It took John 5 years of rebuilding before he wasn't embarrassed with a park he saw as essential for todays visitor and generations to come and the good life of weekly wages, company bonuses and public holidays have given way to 364 days with no weekends off, just a Christmas Day with the family, who still have to feed the animals.
The dedication of John, his family and the team of animal keepers cannot be questioned, especially when you consider their lack of remuneration in comparison with even the lowest paid retail shop assistant. The park is at a stage of expansion where John's resources are trying to keep up with his vision of new exhibitions, new enclosures, all to teach the next generation it's important to conserve and to preserve all we have been given when it comes to the animal world.
After talking with John for the shortest time, I felt like throwing in my job and shoveling tiger poo if it would help him out in the slightest. Yet people like John, aren't looking for charity or pity help, people like John need recognition for their sacrifices, people like John need support via attendance and people like John need to know their work matters. The passionate among us always stand out, even for the smallest cause because there are no agendas attached, just the good of all.
The next time you come across a John Radnidge, give him more than just the courtesy of your time, make sure you learn from his humility, make sure you pass on the message and if you are lucky enough to be able to make a difference, then you'll be the one that people will want to meet. John I'm ready to shovel that poo, whenever you need me.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
All nighters.
Not enough hours in the day. Need less sleep and more hours. Are 60 hour weeks the norm? Are all nighters de rigueur? The eight hour day, so long a mainstay of the business world has long disappeared, courtesy of the Internet and technology that follows and interrupts us at every opportunity. Yet we believe if we had even more hours, we'd be even more productive. The correlation of more hours equals more work is as plain as the report you finished last night at 2am, with all the corrections you've had to make prior to presenting it a the next meeting. Seems more hours make you less productive and research in Europe and the US seems to agree.
The ILO (International Labour Organisation) and the EFILWC (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions), after extensive research, agree longer hours don't make you more productive and along with HBS (Harvard Business School) data, agree the 50+ hours you work should be more like 30 indicating you would still be productive. Taking a break, not just a Kitkat or a quick trip to the toilet but real breaks to relax and recharge, is their antidote to staying productive. A study in the journal of Cognition makes the parallel between frequent breaks and downtime to heightened productivity and worker focus. Seems the Europeans are working on flexible hours and less hours being the way for more productivity and happiness. The research indicates 30 hours is the bench mark for getting the most out of your people, while still giving them a high quality of life outside work.
No wonder Europe is in the state it's in, how do they get anything done? We didn't get to be the "lucky country" without putting in the hours and the more the better as far as business is concerned. How can you pull that million dollar bonus if you aren't working 80 hours a week, not seeing you kids, onto your third wife of husband, 20 kilos over weight, have no friends and are not acquainted with the words holiday and sunshine? That's real work, like our forefathers in the mines, like the pioneering spirit that built this country with no weekends, just a Sunday roast and then back to work. And all that discourse about being happy is just radical hippy talk designed to bring down the establishment.
Seems we have a way to go before the business establishment comes to its senses and acknowledges the correlation between hours and productivity and happiness is askew and better ways can be found for both to live under the same roof. Some are working towards that horizon with a good example, the current list of best places to work in Australia, showing successful companies that are fun places work at. After extensive research it comes as no surprise that 5 out of the top 10 companies are IT related, giving credence to evidence, technology can be used to enhance both productivity and happiness. After all, happiness is an up to date iPad, making everyone productive, without the 60 hour week. 30 hour weeks may not be on the agenda but there are no reasons we can't get better at what we do, without pulling those all nighters.
The ILO (International Labour Organisation) and the EFILWC (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions), after extensive research, agree longer hours don't make you more productive and along with HBS (Harvard Business School) data, agree the 50+ hours you work should be more like 30 indicating you would still be productive. Taking a break, not just a Kitkat or a quick trip to the toilet but real breaks to relax and recharge, is their antidote to staying productive. A study in the journal of Cognition makes the parallel between frequent breaks and downtime to heightened productivity and worker focus. Seems the Europeans are working on flexible hours and less hours being the way for more productivity and happiness. The research indicates 30 hours is the bench mark for getting the most out of your people, while still giving them a high quality of life outside work.
No wonder Europe is in the state it's in, how do they get anything done? We didn't get to be the "lucky country" without putting in the hours and the more the better as far as business is concerned. How can you pull that million dollar bonus if you aren't working 80 hours a week, not seeing you kids, onto your third wife of husband, 20 kilos over weight, have no friends and are not acquainted with the words holiday and sunshine? That's real work, like our forefathers in the mines, like the pioneering spirit that built this country with no weekends, just a Sunday roast and then back to work. And all that discourse about being happy is just radical hippy talk designed to bring down the establishment.
Seems we have a way to go before the business establishment comes to its senses and acknowledges the correlation between hours and productivity and happiness is askew and better ways can be found for both to live under the same roof. Some are working towards that horizon with a good example, the current list of best places to work in Australia, showing successful companies that are fun places work at. After extensive research it comes as no surprise that 5 out of the top 10 companies are IT related, giving credence to evidence, technology can be used to enhance both productivity and happiness. After all, happiness is an up to date iPad, making everyone productive, without the 60 hour week. 30 hour weeks may not be on the agenda but there are no reasons we can't get better at what we do, without pulling those all nighters.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Innovate or die part 2.
Innovation, the application of new solutions meeting new requirements for new and existing market needs, accomplished through products, processes, services, technologies, and ideas readily available to markets, governments and society. All very well, as long as you are creative, courageous, bright, forward thinking, audacious, perceptive and have an innovative culture within your company. Not easy but achievable amongst the continuous need for change and improvement that has seen the above catch cry become voluminous, as companies rush to embrace anything new, no matter its effectiveness. Are all companies innovating or are some dying slowly or just ambling along, not accomplishing anything? The redundancy factor, not bringing out something new every quarter, has seen the competitive pressure rise to an unsustainable level where most companies are challenged by their knowledge or staff to keep up.
Today innovation is focussed on the technology we use and the value of that focus, can be observed in the dollars traded in companies such as Apple or Google. Today innovation is focused on inventions that make our communications easier, come up with ways to entertain us on the move and interrupt us at every opportunity to sell us something new. It feels like this wave of innovation is being ridden by a few select individuals with almost supernatural powers of invention like Jonathan Ive of Apple, Diane Green of VMware, Caleb Chung of Pleo, Dan Olschwang of Jump Tap and Martin Eberhard of Tesla Motors.
Yet innovation isn't all about the end product and accumulating accolades and shares to make you wealthy, it's about having the belief and confidence in yourself to bring about change. It's about being able to observe change and adapt solutions that make your life easier. It can be a process to make your mail room more efficient because everyone in the office spends too much time organising their own. It can be using better technology so your meetings and the subsequent action items are collated quicker, providing shorter and more effective meetings. It can be a raft of things that speed up, make things more convenient, help others to do their job better and generally make the world a better place.
Innovation is about eyes wide open and having the courage to speak up and use what you have to improve. If someone had pointed out the folly of Blockbuster, so focused on market share, growing to 5000 stores at their peak, that a simple idea of sending DVDs by mail would totally disrupt their model, that person would be hailed as an innovator. Instead it was Reed Hastings of Netflix who seized the moment and it was Reed Hastings who nearly suffered the same fate when streaming started to gain momentum. Luckily Netflix have reinvented themselves as a viable cable and streaming competition to companies such as HBO, by embracing an innovative culture based on employees not afraid to speak out.
So while companies may cry the catch phrase loud and try to keep up with the competition, there is much you can do individually to be seen as innovative and creative within your own sphere of influence. Be aware of the inefficiencies in your work life, be open eyed and perceptive to changes, have the courage to speak up and not be daunted by failure and finally, be willing to take the accolades as an innovator.
Today innovation is focussed on the technology we use and the value of that focus, can be observed in the dollars traded in companies such as Apple or Google. Today innovation is focused on inventions that make our communications easier, come up with ways to entertain us on the move and interrupt us at every opportunity to sell us something new. It feels like this wave of innovation is being ridden by a few select individuals with almost supernatural powers of invention like Jonathan Ive of Apple, Diane Green of VMware, Caleb Chung of Pleo, Dan Olschwang of Jump Tap and Martin Eberhard of Tesla Motors.
Yet innovation isn't all about the end product and accumulating accolades and shares to make you wealthy, it's about having the belief and confidence in yourself to bring about change. It's about being able to observe change and adapt solutions that make your life easier. It can be a process to make your mail room more efficient because everyone in the office spends too much time organising their own. It can be using better technology so your meetings and the subsequent action items are collated quicker, providing shorter and more effective meetings. It can be a raft of things that speed up, make things more convenient, help others to do their job better and generally make the world a better place.
Innovation is about eyes wide open and having the courage to speak up and use what you have to improve. If someone had pointed out the folly of Blockbuster, so focused on market share, growing to 5000 stores at their peak, that a simple idea of sending DVDs by mail would totally disrupt their model, that person would be hailed as an innovator. Instead it was Reed Hastings of Netflix who seized the moment and it was Reed Hastings who nearly suffered the same fate when streaming started to gain momentum. Luckily Netflix have reinvented themselves as a viable cable and streaming competition to companies such as HBO, by embracing an innovative culture based on employees not afraid to speak out.
So while companies may cry the catch phrase loud and try to keep up with the competition, there is much you can do individually to be seen as innovative and creative within your own sphere of influence. Be aware of the inefficiencies in your work life, be open eyed and perceptive to changes, have the courage to speak up and not be daunted by failure and finally, be willing to take the accolades as an innovator.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Eddie would go.
Eddie Aikau was the first lifeguard at Waimea Bay, he was a big wave surfer, a winner of the Duke Kahanamoku Surfing Championship and an all round waterman who saved countless lives. Eddie Aikau died in 1978. On a 4000 kilometre voyage, tracing the ancient Polynesian migration between Hawaii and the Tahitian Islands, the double hulled ocean going canoe, with Eddie on board, developed a leak after capsizing. Eddie volunteered to paddle the 20 kilometres to the nearest island for help, as the crew clung to the upturned craft. Eddie was never seen again, even after the largest air and sea search in Hawaiian history. He is remembered via the Eddie Aikau Classic, held each year, as long as the waves are large enough to hold a 10 to 12 metre face. It has only been held eight times since its inception in 1984.
How often have you heard the sporting analogy used in the corporate world, from playing hard, good team work, through to go hard or go home and how often have you winced as the boss strode out of the boardroom expecting the staff to win the game of business. The analogies have been around a long time and are slowly being replaced by corporate buzz speak, put together by marketing and media people who have never kicked a footy, run around the paddock or tackled anyone. Yet some analogies hang around long enough to find their true synergy in business and there is a certain type of business person who engenders all that Eddie and his attitude stood for, the entrepreneur.
The last decade has seen the emergence of a new kind of entrepreneur, one who isn't afraid of putting it all on the line, one who is more courages in making decisions and one who is prepared to have a go for all the right reasons. People who have the ultimate self belief, who don't want to die wondering and who's audaciousness and tenacious faith in their decision making process is infallible, as far as they are concerned. Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerburg, Brin, Page, Hsieh, Gates, and a long list of others have redefined the notion of corporate courage by laying everything they have, including their most precious assets, reputation and credibility, on the line, because they believe in their products and their decisions. Decisions made without a lot of knowledge gained from past experience, no bench marks because there were none, there was only the future and somebody had to invent it, make the decision and take off first and risk it all.
Gut instinct, sixth sense, conviction, intuition, adventurous, self belief, bold, enterprising, resolute, the thesaurus keeps on with descriptions of people who have that something extra we all look to for guidance, safety, the hard decisions and leadership. At the inaugural Eddie Aikau classic, the waves were enormous and the top wave riders in the world, stood on the sand waiting for a lull that didn't seem to be coming, when Mark Foo uttered the words they all knew were true, "Eddie would go". The contest had begun.
Think about your work, your life, are there moments when you should just take off on that 10 metre wave? Have the courage to make those decisions, Eddie would.
How often have you heard the sporting analogy used in the corporate world, from playing hard, good team work, through to go hard or go home and how often have you winced as the boss strode out of the boardroom expecting the staff to win the game of business. The analogies have been around a long time and are slowly being replaced by corporate buzz speak, put together by marketing and media people who have never kicked a footy, run around the paddock or tackled anyone. Yet some analogies hang around long enough to find their true synergy in business and there is a certain type of business person who engenders all that Eddie and his attitude stood for, the entrepreneur.
The last decade has seen the emergence of a new kind of entrepreneur, one who isn't afraid of putting it all on the line, one who is more courages in making decisions and one who is prepared to have a go for all the right reasons. People who have the ultimate self belief, who don't want to die wondering and who's audaciousness and tenacious faith in their decision making process is infallible, as far as they are concerned. Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerburg, Brin, Page, Hsieh, Gates, and a long list of others have redefined the notion of corporate courage by laying everything they have, including their most precious assets, reputation and credibility, on the line, because they believe in their products and their decisions. Decisions made without a lot of knowledge gained from past experience, no bench marks because there were none, there was only the future and somebody had to invent it, make the decision and take off first and risk it all.
Gut instinct, sixth sense, conviction, intuition, adventurous, self belief, bold, enterprising, resolute, the thesaurus keeps on with descriptions of people who have that something extra we all look to for guidance, safety, the hard decisions and leadership. At the inaugural Eddie Aikau classic, the waves were enormous and the top wave riders in the world, stood on the sand waiting for a lull that didn't seem to be coming, when Mark Foo uttered the words they all knew were true, "Eddie would go". The contest had begun.
Think about your work, your life, are there moments when you should just take off on that 10 metre wave? Have the courage to make those decisions, Eddie would.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Motivation.
What gets you out of bed in the morning? Why do you keep going to work? Where do you get the energy to run around the block every day? How come you're always on time? Why do you never wait for others to clear the dishwasher? Is it fear of losing your job, not wanting to get fat, your Mother told you never to be late, or are you just motivated? It's a question asked everyday in interviews, on the sporting fields, in the kitchen and talked about in thousands of self help books. Why do we do the things we do? Where do we get the motivation?
Motivation is what sparks you to action, it's a purpose to achieve, a behaviour to optimise and a psychological bent to act in a certain manner to fulfil wishes and desires. Yet if you asked people why they did things they would likely answer in two ways, because they want to do it or someone else wants them to do it. Does my wife want me to unload the dishwasher or am I motivated by it being the right thing to do? Do I run around the block because I know it's good for my health or because the trainer is shouting "move your arse slow poke" at boot camp? The challenge is untangling where your motivation comes from, because over time they merge and what started out as a motivated day at work slides into time you want to spend somewhere else, maybe making more of a difference. Sure you may enjoy your work but would you do it for free? Too often motivation is left up to others and you relapse into a state of limbo where your decisions are not your own.
Some say motivation is intrinsically built in, like the motivation to survive in a flight situation or the need to eat, others point to learned lessons from parents and family. Today an awful lot is left to others as trainers, counsellors, motivators, coaches, teachers, bosses, managers, reality stars and self help gurus are looked to for answers on laziness, goal setting, mile-stoning, saving, fitness, career advancement, social mobility and life directions. Along with all of those helpers is a library of inspirational and motivational sayings to get you out of bed and propel you to your next achievement, for if you don't run your own life, someone else will.
If you really look around, you'll find the really motivated people, those willing to do for others without agenda, those achieving in fields other than just going to work and the footy on weekends, those with knowledgeable opinions, those willing to put themselves up for criticism in their field of expertise and those open enough to accept change and also to affect change are few and far between. So the field is open for you to be someone different, be someone to look up to, someone who can change things and someone whose self motivation affects others around them. The decisions and direction in your life, should not be left up to the Richard Simmons and the Anthony Robbins of this world, so what are you waiting for, motivation?
As the great Zig Ziglar once said, "You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great".
Motivation is what sparks you to action, it's a purpose to achieve, a behaviour to optimise and a psychological bent to act in a certain manner to fulfil wishes and desires. Yet if you asked people why they did things they would likely answer in two ways, because they want to do it or someone else wants them to do it. Does my wife want me to unload the dishwasher or am I motivated by it being the right thing to do? Do I run around the block because I know it's good for my health or because the trainer is shouting "move your arse slow poke" at boot camp? The challenge is untangling where your motivation comes from, because over time they merge and what started out as a motivated day at work slides into time you want to spend somewhere else, maybe making more of a difference. Sure you may enjoy your work but would you do it for free? Too often motivation is left up to others and you relapse into a state of limbo where your decisions are not your own.
Some say motivation is intrinsically built in, like the motivation to survive in a flight situation or the need to eat, others point to learned lessons from parents and family. Today an awful lot is left to others as trainers, counsellors, motivators, coaches, teachers, bosses, managers, reality stars and self help gurus are looked to for answers on laziness, goal setting, mile-stoning, saving, fitness, career advancement, social mobility and life directions. Along with all of those helpers is a library of inspirational and motivational sayings to get you out of bed and propel you to your next achievement, for if you don't run your own life, someone else will.
If you really look around, you'll find the really motivated people, those willing to do for others without agenda, those achieving in fields other than just going to work and the footy on weekends, those with knowledgeable opinions, those willing to put themselves up for criticism in their field of expertise and those open enough to accept change and also to affect change are few and far between. So the field is open for you to be someone different, be someone to look up to, someone who can change things and someone whose self motivation affects others around them. The decisions and direction in your life, should not be left up to the Richard Simmons and the Anthony Robbins of this world, so what are you waiting for, motivation?
As the great Zig Ziglar once said, "You don't have to be great to start, but you have to start to be great".
Friday, May 31, 2013
Last will.
So the house goes to, the jewellery goes to, the superannuation fund goes to, your favourite tie goes to, all decisions made by people organising a will. Treasured goods going to people you know will appreciate them, goods the kids have had their eyes on for a while and goods hidden in the sock draw so the taxman can't get to them. This can be an exhausting list to manage and emotionally challenging, around who gets what and who misses out, and in the end, you still don't want to tick off cousin Louey. That exhausting list and that labyrinth of decisions is about to get more complex as a generational change in attitude to possessions and where they are kept brings about a shift in who gets what and how.
The photo albums, record collections, libraries, documentation, home movies, and all the memorabilia of the past is no longer in danger of being lost in a house fire, flood or mouldy cupboards but rather through negligence regarding updates, passwords and the death of the owner. Virtual goods and all the above are now included, are housed on PCs, tablets, phones, online and in the cloud, along with castles won in battle, land bought with online currency, credits held for the next "Texas hold’em tournament” and all manner of sundry booty claimed in online skirmishes. They are all assets of value and sentiment that need to be considered in digital estate planning. Your last login, needn't be the last time your family and friends have access to your treasure trove of online possessions.
The world's curators of all things online, Google, Facebook, Etsy, Twitter, YouTube have started program's aimed at making sure what you collect online, be it valuable, be it trash, it stays with the people you want it to stay with. Many online sites have cropped up with the intent to service this niche, from digitalestateplanning.net, no doubt looking for work,
"through some estimates, nearly a fifty percent of individuals with Facebook accounts died last year, leaving friends and family to navigate how to proceed with those webpages".
Google was one of the first to program for the inevitable with their "Inactive Account Manager", aimed at the ones left behind looking for that last email or YouTube clip. Not wanting to be insensitive the Googlers wait till no pulse has been felt via emails, chats, web history and then notify the people you have chosen to look after your online estate so they can download the appropriate information, photos and music they want as keepsakes. Along with online safes, finding trustees like Google will become part of the next generation's legal liabilities.
The only flaw is making sure your beneficiaries are tech savvy. No need to give this information to a generation back, ie your Mother, for the skills required to carry on the last game, where you mastered the top level in Castles and Dragons, will only reinforce her thinking this online stuff is just silly. And no matter how much financial data you may have locked in encryption, make sure you leave the key to the appropriate person.
Something to think about. I bequeath my blog to.......,n
The photo albums, record collections, libraries, documentation, home movies, and all the memorabilia of the past is no longer in danger of being lost in a house fire, flood or mouldy cupboards but rather through negligence regarding updates, passwords and the death of the owner. Virtual goods and all the above are now included, are housed on PCs, tablets, phones, online and in the cloud, along with castles won in battle, land bought with online currency, credits held for the next "Texas hold’em tournament” and all manner of sundry booty claimed in online skirmishes. They are all assets of value and sentiment that need to be considered in digital estate planning. Your last login, needn't be the last time your family and friends have access to your treasure trove of online possessions.
The world's curators of all things online, Google, Facebook, Etsy, Twitter, YouTube have started program's aimed at making sure what you collect online, be it valuable, be it trash, it stays with the people you want it to stay with. Many online sites have cropped up with the intent to service this niche, from digitalestateplanning.net, no doubt looking for work,
"through some estimates, nearly a fifty percent of individuals with Facebook accounts died last year, leaving friends and family to navigate how to proceed with those webpages".
Google was one of the first to program for the inevitable with their "Inactive Account Manager", aimed at the ones left behind looking for that last email or YouTube clip. Not wanting to be insensitive the Googlers wait till no pulse has been felt via emails, chats, web history and then notify the people you have chosen to look after your online estate so they can download the appropriate information, photos and music they want as keepsakes. Along with online safes, finding trustees like Google will become part of the next generation's legal liabilities.
The only flaw is making sure your beneficiaries are tech savvy. No need to give this information to a generation back, ie your Mother, for the skills required to carry on the last game, where you mastered the top level in Castles and Dragons, will only reinforce her thinking this online stuff is just silly. And no matter how much financial data you may have locked in encryption, make sure you leave the key to the appropriate person.
Something to think about. I bequeath my blog to.......,n
Friday, May 24, 2013
Bad language.
Time was, a bar of soap and a potty mouth were a match made in heaven. Profanity was not tolerated in any form and children snickered if Dad let loose an occasional rant after a night at the pub. Changes in attitude to a Victorian predilection for non descriptive language and pay TV, made sure four letter words became the norm and schoolyards changed forever. What was once considered bad language from the likes of Lenny Bruce became part of the lexicon, today being replaced by what many consider bad language changed via technology, changed by structure for a need to say something in limited space and changed by a verbosity never seen before in the annuals of literature.
With so much choice for language to be displayed via the access granted by the Internet, it's understandable the rush to say something can sometimes over power the need to say it properly or correctly, according to your old English teacher. To that end we are seeing polar opposite views, around the structure and future of our language as influenced by the Internet.
Prescriptives are heralding the demise of language, agonising over the negative influence of electronic communication and the dumbing down of Shakespeare and literary traditions. Abbreviations, acronyms, net slang, flaming and assorted ambiguity found in the writings of bloggers, the smart phone children and anyone in a rush, cause consternation equivalent to the breaking up of the Beatles. War and Peace and its ilk, tend to be the benchmark, with anything under a hundred thousand words too short, with not enough content or the capacity to articulate the message and meaning.
Descriptivists counter the above argument alleging the Internet gives scope to a wider expression of language, constantly changing linguistic convention and finally reading the way we talk. They talk about Internet slang and its ability to join cultures, to globalise language and make it accessible to all. They talk about no language being bad, that it should never be shackled by the past and that online language will have greater influence offline than anything Shakespeare wrote.
The etiquette guides and linguistic appropriateness of the past is being shattered by time restrictions, why write a manifesto if I can relay the message via a Tweet, by smart phones, who really wants to long hand anything nowadays on a minute keyboard and finally subculture, where language is being redefined by a new generation. The same reason we don't talk like Shakespeare anymore is the same reason we don't talk like we did before all this technology came along. Adaptability of language shows the flexibility in intelligence and the capacity to change with the change.
So the next time your nephew sends you a 140 character greeting card via his smart phone or the next time you learn a new word made up of numbers and letters, don't get caught up in the punctuation but rather the thought behind the message. For the long hand and the short of it, finds enough room for all. The Internet will never run out of space for those wanting to say a lot in their own sweet time, in their own sweet language and it will provide the forums and platforms for those in a hurry to say it now with a mangled mash up that would have Shakespeare rolling in his grave.
With so much choice for language to be displayed via the access granted by the Internet, it's understandable the rush to say something can sometimes over power the need to say it properly or correctly, according to your old English teacher. To that end we are seeing polar opposite views, around the structure and future of our language as influenced by the Internet.
Prescriptives are heralding the demise of language, agonising over the negative influence of electronic communication and the dumbing down of Shakespeare and literary traditions. Abbreviations, acronyms, net slang, flaming and assorted ambiguity found in the writings of bloggers, the smart phone children and anyone in a rush, cause consternation equivalent to the breaking up of the Beatles. War and Peace and its ilk, tend to be the benchmark, with anything under a hundred thousand words too short, with not enough content or the capacity to articulate the message and meaning.
Descriptivists counter the above argument alleging the Internet gives scope to a wider expression of language, constantly changing linguistic convention and finally reading the way we talk. They talk about Internet slang and its ability to join cultures, to globalise language and make it accessible to all. They talk about no language being bad, that it should never be shackled by the past and that online language will have greater influence offline than anything Shakespeare wrote.
The etiquette guides and linguistic appropriateness of the past is being shattered by time restrictions, why write a manifesto if I can relay the message via a Tweet, by smart phones, who really wants to long hand anything nowadays on a minute keyboard and finally subculture, where language is being redefined by a new generation. The same reason we don't talk like Shakespeare anymore is the same reason we don't talk like we did before all this technology came along. Adaptability of language shows the flexibility in intelligence and the capacity to change with the change.
So the next time your nephew sends you a 140 character greeting card via his smart phone or the next time you learn a new word made up of numbers and letters, don't get caught up in the punctuation but rather the thought behind the message. For the long hand and the short of it, finds enough room for all. The Internet will never run out of space for those wanting to say a lot in their own sweet time, in their own sweet language and it will provide the forums and platforms for those in a hurry to say it now with a mangled mash up that would have Shakespeare rolling in his grave.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Instructions included.
Fasten seat belts, only unleaded petrol to be used, move away from the vehicle, don't stand too close to the edge, this knife may have sharp edges, do not spray in eyes, remove wrapper before eating. Our lives are filled with instructions that often offend our common sense but depending on who or where the instructions come from, we remain entranced and believe every word. Many are outmoded and out dated but the reliance on those instructions are ingrained and unquestioned by many. Experts tell us all the time, how to increase our wealth, how to buy the best shares, where to find happiness and what to do when the batteries run out. Isn't it time we took back what was ours, the decision making process based on common sense and relevant information.
I'll admit common sense has not had the marketing campaign allocated to the latest smart phone and the avalanche of instructions encountered daily provides an overtone we are using less of our brains than intentioned. Working with that thought line, gives way to many of the corporate excuses, like, "we've always done it that way", "let's not fight the tide" and "the boss is always right". Instructions all, to those with no intention of ever standing out, never changing the landscape and not wanting transformation of any kind.
If the experts where really the fountain of all knowledge then my $500.00 invested ten years ago, in the shares espoused by the market share experts in the weekly tabloids would see me with net worth if $3.6 billion today. Instead that $500.00 has long gone the way of many things hinging on the advise of experts. If the experts really were the experts, why aren't they all driving round the latest Aston Martin and living in mansions? Yet we still cling to their every word and follow instructions as if we had no choice.
Today the options for knowledge and information, the ability to change direction and to disrupt and agitate the landscape around you, are endless. We are no longer dependent upon instructions to make good decisions because information was lacking or be adherent to the whims of industry, just because someone says so. If there is one thing to learn from the latest generation, soon to take over the corporate sphere, it's to ask the question Y? Y do it this way? Y not fight the tide? Y is the boss always right?
If technology today is anything to go by, think Apple intelligence and intuitiveness guiding you through a process that used to require manuals, then instructions are no longer required for anything other than operating heavy machinery, how to avoid the tax man and what to do if the batteries really do run out. The rules made by previous generations do not apply if you have access, if you question and if you have courage to change what was. Following instructions is nothing like following your heart and today that is more conceivable than at any time in our history. What are you waiting for, throw those instructions out and try it your way.
P.S. This does not apply to men taking instruction on driving directions from their partners. That remains an immutable law of the universe and should not be tampered with.
I'll admit common sense has not had the marketing campaign allocated to the latest smart phone and the avalanche of instructions encountered daily provides an overtone we are using less of our brains than intentioned. Working with that thought line, gives way to many of the corporate excuses, like, "we've always done it that way", "let's not fight the tide" and "the boss is always right". Instructions all, to those with no intention of ever standing out, never changing the landscape and not wanting transformation of any kind.
If the experts where really the fountain of all knowledge then my $500.00 invested ten years ago, in the shares espoused by the market share experts in the weekly tabloids would see me with net worth if $3.6 billion today. Instead that $500.00 has long gone the way of many things hinging on the advise of experts. If the experts really were the experts, why aren't they all driving round the latest Aston Martin and living in mansions? Yet we still cling to their every word and follow instructions as if we had no choice.
Today the options for knowledge and information, the ability to change direction and to disrupt and agitate the landscape around you, are endless. We are no longer dependent upon instructions to make good decisions because information was lacking or be adherent to the whims of industry, just because someone says so. If there is one thing to learn from the latest generation, soon to take over the corporate sphere, it's to ask the question Y? Y do it this way? Y not fight the tide? Y is the boss always right?
If technology today is anything to go by, think Apple intelligence and intuitiveness guiding you through a process that used to require manuals, then instructions are no longer required for anything other than operating heavy machinery, how to avoid the tax man and what to do if the batteries really do run out. The rules made by previous generations do not apply if you have access, if you question and if you have courage to change what was. Following instructions is nothing like following your heart and today that is more conceivable than at any time in our history. What are you waiting for, throw those instructions out and try it your way.
P.S. This does not apply to men taking instruction on driving directions from their partners. That remains an immutable law of the universe and should not be tampered with.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Duopoly.
The headline read, "Joyce takes aim at copycat Virgin" and now that the ACCC has given Virgin the green light to bring Tiger Air and Skywest into the family, Australia once again sees a duopoly of kind, harking back to the Ansett, TAA days of the two airline policy ruling the skies. Competing head to head was never seen as a reality as Virgin was always considered the low cost cousin and Qantas had the market share to back up its claims as the leader, especially in corporate travel.
The mirror image Virgin is building, now includes all things never envisioned when Richard Branson launched the airline from the aviation disaster that was 911 and the ashes of the Ansett collapse. Lounges, frequent flyer membership, target marketing to corporate Australia, "Virgin has copied everything Qantas has done over the last 10 years, the only thing they haven’t added is a kangaroo to their aircraft tail" added Joyce in a recent talk to travel executives.
So now comes the real test of how much the old guard is prepared to hold onto its lead and how much the new guard is prepared to engage in a new landscape to prove itself a worthy alternative for the corporate dollar. Price sensitivity will continue and the Friday bargains and the spot specials will prolong the retail market that is Mum, Dad and the kids to the Gold Coast. Where the real hostilities will occur is the corporate field of play as both sides vie for the attention of road warriors and procurement managers alike.
Admittedly the bottom line will absorb the attention of the finance department constantly looking for a better deal from the airlines and the travel management companies but more and more should now be aimed squarely at customer service as a differentiator. If all things are equal and the price spiral brings both airlines head to head why choose one over the other? That question leaves both marketing departments in a quandary if they can't articulate the individuality of their airline.
The one area the old two airline policy highlighted was the need to treat the customer so well that thoughts of leaving and flying with the other guy were unheard of. Flyers became advocates for one aviation partner and the airlines worked tirelessly to service their flyers by way of recognition, not just a Woolies frequent flyer card, by way of guaranteeing service delivery on the ground and in the air, not by buying allegiance through pricing tactics and building a culture of affinity and family.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the airlines will bring to the table, how they they will engineer shifts in service because the price argument will eventually commoditise their product to such an extent that the opportunity will arise for a third competitor to shake up the market place, Compass Mark 111 anyone? For the travellers and the corporate travel management companies, I look forward to the first airline contract with service level agreements around on time departures and arrivals, in cabin service superiority, fabulous food, greater seat pitch, peerless ground handling and a return to when the only thing that separated competitors was premium service. It's now up to the airlines to see who has the biggest engines to make such decisions.
The mirror image Virgin is building, now includes all things never envisioned when Richard Branson launched the airline from the aviation disaster that was 911 and the ashes of the Ansett collapse. Lounges, frequent flyer membership, target marketing to corporate Australia, "Virgin has copied everything Qantas has done over the last 10 years, the only thing they haven’t added is a kangaroo to their aircraft tail" added Joyce in a recent talk to travel executives.
So now comes the real test of how much the old guard is prepared to hold onto its lead and how much the new guard is prepared to engage in a new landscape to prove itself a worthy alternative for the corporate dollar. Price sensitivity will continue and the Friday bargains and the spot specials will prolong the retail market that is Mum, Dad and the kids to the Gold Coast. Where the real hostilities will occur is the corporate field of play as both sides vie for the attention of road warriors and procurement managers alike.
Admittedly the bottom line will absorb the attention of the finance department constantly looking for a better deal from the airlines and the travel management companies but more and more should now be aimed squarely at customer service as a differentiator. If all things are equal and the price spiral brings both airlines head to head why choose one over the other? That question leaves both marketing departments in a quandary if they can't articulate the individuality of their airline.
The one area the old two airline policy highlighted was the need to treat the customer so well that thoughts of leaving and flying with the other guy were unheard of. Flyers became advocates for one aviation partner and the airlines worked tirelessly to service their flyers by way of recognition, not just a Woolies frequent flyer card, by way of guaranteeing service delivery on the ground and in the air, not by buying allegiance through pricing tactics and building a culture of affinity and family.
I'm looking forward to seeing what the airlines will bring to the table, how they they will engineer shifts in service because the price argument will eventually commoditise their product to such an extent that the opportunity will arise for a third competitor to shake up the market place, Compass Mark 111 anyone? For the travellers and the corporate travel management companies, I look forward to the first airline contract with service level agreements around on time departures and arrivals, in cabin service superiority, fabulous food, greater seat pitch, peerless ground handling and a return to when the only thing that separated competitors was premium service. It's now up to the airlines to see who has the biggest engines to make such decisions.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Stayin Alive.
In 1979 the Bee Gees album Saturday Night Fever, captured every available global music award, was the highest selling album in the history of the world and made falsetto butch. One in three people in Australia owned the album and the other two professed a desire to buy it with their next pay cheque. Their sound was all encompassing, they were so successful, that something had to give. That something was a fall from grace as Punk Rock and Big Haired Rock pushed the Bee Gees aside. They were burdened with a backlash to the popularity of their music but no one could deny their talent or genius and although they took years to reemerge, their capacity for brilliance was never doubted.
Like the Bee Gees in the disco era, for the last decade, a certain company has changed the landscape of music, telecommunications and mobile computing with such unequivocal innovation and creativity, it made them the most popular brand on the planet. An unstoppable trendsetter, an arbiter of originality, a money making machine with so much cash it could buy whole countries and small island nations. A company whose products could all fit on a small coffee table that went onto become the most valuable company in history. A company that now finds itself out of favour with the market and curators of current trends.
Critics and Shakespeare warn us that "too much of a good thing" will ultimately spoil our taste for more. Too much chocolate at one sitting, too much Saturday Night Fever, too much Apple in our lives. These shifts in sentiments are usually advocated by external influencers, editorialists, critics, analysts, stock markets and social commentators who are looking for the next best thing to come along. This critical predilection wants to negate the popular view and in the instance of chocolate is way off the mark, just as it was with the Bee Gees and just as it will be with Apple.
The Bee Gees ended up selling over 220 million copies of their recordings, had over 2,500 artists record their music, with their most popular composition "How deep is your love", in airplay by 400 artists alone. Regardless of the peaks and troughs of the music business, the talent that lay within the group could not be denied and their standing and stature is unimpeachable today. As with individuals, this allegory applies to the world of business. As of December 2012, Apple had sold over 350 million iPods, over 320 iPhones and over 120 million iPads to go along with over 10 billion songs sold on iTunes and over 15 billion apps downloaded from the Apps Store. Like music, peaks and troughs in the business world abound with only the most assured and tenacious companies surviving and Apple certainly has a catalogue of hits to reach the top of the charts again.
The question of whether "too much of a good thing" is bad for you remains unanswered for many accessories, accoutrements, appliances and chocolate but one fact remains undeniable, talent, creativity, innovation, genius and artistry will endure in the long run. As Apple navigates it's way through a period of uncertainty caused by market fickleness, they need only look at the talented, brilliant and determined who have trod the path previously to know the future is up to them and history will record their success.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, Stayin Alive, Stayin Alive.
Like the Bee Gees in the disco era, for the last decade, a certain company has changed the landscape of music, telecommunications and mobile computing with such unequivocal innovation and creativity, it made them the most popular brand on the planet. An unstoppable trendsetter, an arbiter of originality, a money making machine with so much cash it could buy whole countries and small island nations. A company whose products could all fit on a small coffee table that went onto become the most valuable company in history. A company that now finds itself out of favour with the market and curators of current trends.
Critics and Shakespeare warn us that "too much of a good thing" will ultimately spoil our taste for more. Too much chocolate at one sitting, too much Saturday Night Fever, too much Apple in our lives. These shifts in sentiments are usually advocated by external influencers, editorialists, critics, analysts, stock markets and social commentators who are looking for the next best thing to come along. This critical predilection wants to negate the popular view and in the instance of chocolate is way off the mark, just as it was with the Bee Gees and just as it will be with Apple.
The Bee Gees ended up selling over 220 million copies of their recordings, had over 2,500 artists record their music, with their most popular composition "How deep is your love", in airplay by 400 artists alone. Regardless of the peaks and troughs of the music business, the talent that lay within the group could not be denied and their standing and stature is unimpeachable today. As with individuals, this allegory applies to the world of business. As of December 2012, Apple had sold over 350 million iPods, over 320 iPhones and over 120 million iPads to go along with over 10 billion songs sold on iTunes and over 15 billion apps downloaded from the Apps Store. Like music, peaks and troughs in the business world abound with only the most assured and tenacious companies surviving and Apple certainly has a catalogue of hits to reach the top of the charts again.
The question of whether "too much of a good thing" is bad for you remains unanswered for many accessories, accoutrements, appliances and chocolate but one fact remains undeniable, talent, creativity, innovation, genius and artistry will endure in the long run. As Apple navigates it's way through a period of uncertainty caused by market fickleness, they need only look at the talented, brilliant and determined who have trod the path previously to know the future is up to them and history will record their success.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, Stayin Alive, Stayin Alive.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Women in uniform.
In 1978, Shirley Strahan and Skyhooks sang about them in the title song, "Flying to my hometown on a 747 / Stewardess made me feel like I'm in heaven". This was a view of flight attendants, propagated many times in songs and verse, cliched in comedy scripts and whenever talk about air crew occurred over a beer. Times change and the attitude towards flight crew involved in mid air emergencies and heroic landings tells a different story. Times change and it's no longer about the exotic destinations, coffee, tea, chicken or beef but rather about how customer service is delivered in a difficult environment, along with the look and feel of that customer service to deliver on a brand message. The substantial outlay Qantas is making on the new uniform range, released this week, goes a long way to show how important that look and feel can be for an airline.
From the first United Airlines uniforms that had more in common with nurses and comfortable shoes to today's fashion montage of veils, pill box hats and designer apparel, airline uniforms have become more than appropriate clobber to mess about in the galley at 30,000 feet. They have become symbols of brand and nationalistic identity, while showing the strength of an airline. Qantas understands the power of the uniform, the power of the visual as captain and crew walk through the airport, the demonstration of credibility and integrity implied by the sharp lines and the corporate colours.
The uniform will be distributed throughout the Qantas workforce but for the ones wearing it on board, the image and message needs to be the strongest and most obvious. Reasoning why, you'll never see Miranda Kerr modelling a baggage handler uniform. The Qantas on board uniform is a strategic decision built around a strong brand, built around a corporate identity and creating a comfort for passengers around capabilities in emergencies, a comfort of familiarity and customer service. There is nothing casual about the uniform, it's not meant to be, it's about a message Qantas staff are trained and ready to be of service in all situations, while maintaining the highest levels of deportment and style.
In the business world, uniforms are universally accepted but the delineation between someone in a 7 eleven polo and a corporate aviation outfit are chasms apart in identity, capability and skill, something Qantas wants to make pointedly clear. While airlines and the uniform wearing entities of military, health and police et al convey very obvious messages, your daily business and casual attire have the same ability, to your advantage or disadvantage.
From the obvious brand advertising of designer gear, telling people you have money to spare or fashion sense, to the chic and sharp world of big business, there is still an argument around, "you are what you wear". With this in mind and the psychological view of 7 seconds to make an impression, what you wear and how you wear it becomes important on many levels if you want to achieve in certain areas. Is it time to send some of your wardrobe to St Vinnies?
From the first United Airlines uniforms that had more in common with nurses and comfortable shoes to today's fashion montage of veils, pill box hats and designer apparel, airline uniforms have become more than appropriate clobber to mess about in the galley at 30,000 feet. They have become symbols of brand and nationalistic identity, while showing the strength of an airline. Qantas understands the power of the uniform, the power of the visual as captain and crew walk through the airport, the demonstration of credibility and integrity implied by the sharp lines and the corporate colours.
The uniform will be distributed throughout the Qantas workforce but for the ones wearing it on board, the image and message needs to be the strongest and most obvious. Reasoning why, you'll never see Miranda Kerr modelling a baggage handler uniform. The Qantas on board uniform is a strategic decision built around a strong brand, built around a corporate identity and creating a comfort for passengers around capabilities in emergencies, a comfort of familiarity and customer service. There is nothing casual about the uniform, it's not meant to be, it's about a message Qantas staff are trained and ready to be of service in all situations, while maintaining the highest levels of deportment and style.
In the business world, uniforms are universally accepted but the delineation between someone in a 7 eleven polo and a corporate aviation outfit are chasms apart in identity, capability and skill, something Qantas wants to make pointedly clear. While airlines and the uniform wearing entities of military, health and police et al convey very obvious messages, your daily business and casual attire have the same ability, to your advantage or disadvantage.
From the obvious brand advertising of designer gear, telling people you have money to spare or fashion sense, to the chic and sharp world of big business, there is still an argument around, "you are what you wear". With this in mind and the psychological view of 7 seconds to make an impression, what you wear and how you wear it becomes important on many levels if you want to achieve in certain areas. Is it time to send some of your wardrobe to St Vinnies?
Friday, April 12, 2013
20 cents is not a lot.
I recently spent time browsing in one of the many outdoor emporiums that have sprung up around the affectation for the great outdoors. Churches to all things khaki and camouflage, filled with everything needed to survive the back yard tent and beyond and the first place I'm heading when the "big one" hits, although I'm less clear nowadays what the "big one" really is. The survival ingenuity contained in this one store is enough to keep mankind safe for the next millennial. To survive forever takes a lot of money and price tags indicating only the truly committed need apply bring new meaning to retail euphoria and the customer experience required to throw your plastic on the counter. As I passed the register I noticed a young girl had just bought a $3000.00 backpack and was asked if she wanted to pay 20 cents for a bag to carry it home in? Okay I jest about the $3000.00 price tag but you know it wasn't cheap and here she is being accosted by the checkout clerk for a trifling. The incredulous look on her face said everything about the excellent customer experience she had just enjoyed, sunk into a mire of mediocrity.
She had not walked off the street on impulse to spend hundreds of dollars, she had researched her requirements, she had checked online, she had spent time in-store trying on assorted backpacks and was obviously enjoying the experience, until now. Tantamount to running the greatest hundred metre final in Olympic history and falling down one metre from the finish line or hearing the funniest story ever and then leaving out the punch line, total customer service is not 99% or close enough. Especially when a penny pinching initiative like paying 20 cents for a bag is the last thing you remember leaving the store.
This store obviously prides itself on the layout, the merchandise and the training it has afforded the staff, yet to have all that outlay compromised by a decision likely made by someone in finance, long removed from the shop floor impacts their brand integrity.
The store mission statement "keep people safe, comfortable and confident to travel and explore what the word has to offer to them. With a Core Purpose to inspire and enable people to live their dreams of travel and adventure" sounds hollow when the bottom line seems more important, even at 20 cent increments.
There is so much wrapped up in customer service, that lives as long as the product is viable, the ring or beep of the cash register is one of the least important events to occur in the timeline of a customer. Backpack girl could become a zealot for the merchandise and the seller, she could be a poster child for happy trails to her circle and bring business to the hiking haven, yet what is the last thing she remembers? 20 cents isn't much but it's enough to make a significant purchase lose its shine, lose it's excitement and make someone think twice about repeat business. Are your customers worth more than 20 cents?
She had not walked off the street on impulse to spend hundreds of dollars, she had researched her requirements, she had checked online, she had spent time in-store trying on assorted backpacks and was obviously enjoying the experience, until now. Tantamount to running the greatest hundred metre final in Olympic history and falling down one metre from the finish line or hearing the funniest story ever and then leaving out the punch line, total customer service is not 99% or close enough. Especially when a penny pinching initiative like paying 20 cents for a bag is the last thing you remember leaving the store.
This store obviously prides itself on the layout, the merchandise and the training it has afforded the staff, yet to have all that outlay compromised by a decision likely made by someone in finance, long removed from the shop floor impacts their brand integrity.
The store mission statement "keep people safe, comfortable and confident to travel and explore what the word has to offer to them. With a Core Purpose to inspire and enable people to live their dreams of travel and adventure" sounds hollow when the bottom line seems more important, even at 20 cent increments.
There is so much wrapped up in customer service, that lives as long as the product is viable, the ring or beep of the cash register is one of the least important events to occur in the timeline of a customer. Backpack girl could become a zealot for the merchandise and the seller, she could be a poster child for happy trails to her circle and bring business to the hiking haven, yet what is the last thing she remembers? 20 cents isn't much but it's enough to make a significant purchase lose its shine, lose it's excitement and make someone think twice about repeat business. Are your customers worth more than 20 cents?
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Super Connectors.
We all know them, they are followed by thousands on sites such as LinkedIn, CNN Money, YouTube and Facebook. They tweet and we listen, they post and we read, they ask and we answer, they pin and we get out the photo album. They aren't your colleagues at work, nor one of the boys at the local, they are the super connectors, people with such a wide range of relationships, they are able to link disparate social, economic and corporate platforms, giving them scope to change people's lives. They unlock doors, bring the right people together and hopefully do it all for the right reasons, for the super connectors without agenda are the gems in a mountain of coal, the needle in a hay stack and someone you should know.
The now famous Nebraska experiment by Dr. Stanley Milgram in 1967, proved the world is small and easy to connect, even without the use of the net. He created the "six degrees of separation" notion that is now likely closer to three degrees of separation. Milgram sent a letter to a few hundred random people in Nebraska with instructions the letter be forwarded to an anonymous stock broker in Boston, whom they did not know. Each person sent the letter onto someone they knew, who they thought was more likely to know the stock broker. One third of the letters reached their destination after an average of six mailings but what was most surprising was the majority of letters passed through the hands of the same three Nebraskans. Three Nebraskans who even then, without the use of today's technology could be counted as super connectors.
From conferences to seminars through meetings and forums we hear about the people who network the best, who have that ability and confidence to mingle and not mangle in social and corporate circles. They don't have to be close friends, in fact they are likely to be on the fringes of your circles as theorised by Malcolm Gladwell when he discussed the 1974 study by sociologist Mark Granovetter assessing a group of men in Newton, Massachusetts and how they found their jobs. Granovetter found 56 percent of those surveyed found their current job through personal relationships, with only 19 percent using traditional job-searching routes, newspapers and executive recruiters and 10 percent applying directly to an employer. What was also surprising is, of those in the study, only 17 percent saw their personal contact often, like good friends, 55 percent saw their contact only occasionally and 28 percent barely met with their contact at all. Considered a seminal work, Granovetter's findings have been confirmed again and again via continuous research and today are more relevant than ever because that super connector you seek isn't likely part of your family circle or one of your work colleagues. It's because your close relationships exist in your world and know the things you know and do the things you do, that the importance of knowing someone from outside the circle, with more connections and accessing different information becomes paramount.
The value of these super connectors lies in the way they do business, helping others achieve because the noise around networking has always been about individualism and what's in it for me. Being that guy at the party is something a lot of us want but sometimes it's just easier knowing who he is. With more than a billion people, one in seven on the planet, connected via the plethora of networks, the importance of knowing a super connector, or even someone who knows someone who is a super connector has become important if you have aspirations, ambition or just want to change the world. Let me know if you know someone like that, I'd like to change the world too.
The now famous Nebraska experiment by Dr. Stanley Milgram in 1967, proved the world is small and easy to connect, even without the use of the net. He created the "six degrees of separation" notion that is now likely closer to three degrees of separation. Milgram sent a letter to a few hundred random people in Nebraska with instructions the letter be forwarded to an anonymous stock broker in Boston, whom they did not know. Each person sent the letter onto someone they knew, who they thought was more likely to know the stock broker. One third of the letters reached their destination after an average of six mailings but what was most surprising was the majority of letters passed through the hands of the same three Nebraskans. Three Nebraskans who even then, without the use of today's technology could be counted as super connectors.
From conferences to seminars through meetings and forums we hear about the people who network the best, who have that ability and confidence to mingle and not mangle in social and corporate circles. They don't have to be close friends, in fact they are likely to be on the fringes of your circles as theorised by Malcolm Gladwell when he discussed the 1974 study by sociologist Mark Granovetter assessing a group of men in Newton, Massachusetts and how they found their jobs. Granovetter found 56 percent of those surveyed found their current job through personal relationships, with only 19 percent using traditional job-searching routes, newspapers and executive recruiters and 10 percent applying directly to an employer. What was also surprising is, of those in the study, only 17 percent saw their personal contact often, like good friends, 55 percent saw their contact only occasionally and 28 percent barely met with their contact at all. Considered a seminal work, Granovetter's findings have been confirmed again and again via continuous research and today are more relevant than ever because that super connector you seek isn't likely part of your family circle or one of your work colleagues. It's because your close relationships exist in your world and know the things you know and do the things you do, that the importance of knowing someone from outside the circle, with more connections and accessing different information becomes paramount.
The value of these super connectors lies in the way they do business, helping others achieve because the noise around networking has always been about individualism and what's in it for me. Being that guy at the party is something a lot of us want but sometimes it's just easier knowing who he is. With more than a billion people, one in seven on the planet, connected via the plethora of networks, the importance of knowing a super connector, or even someone who knows someone who is a super connector has become important if you have aspirations, ambition or just want to change the world. Let me know if you know someone like that, I'd like to change the world too.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Remarkable.
Who do we talk about? What do we talk about? We talk about people, places, events, products and anything unusual, extraordinary and worthy of acclaim. We do this because it makes us different, cognisant, cool and if we get it right, remarkable. Whenever we tell someone about a hidden gem of a restaurant, a new product or destination, we are seen as cool, remarkable in our understanding of the scene and using information and word of mouth to stand out from the crowd. Many join the Twitter universe to achieve remarkability but few shine, as evidenced by their lack of followers.
So it comes as no surprise that a Wharton School study analysing the worth of remarkability, shows the value of sharing something remarkable. Examining over 6,500 brands and products, they asked people to score remarkability to analyse how perceptions were correlated and how frequently they were discussed. Some conclusions were obvious as banks and financial institutions were not talked about as much as Facebook, Google, celebrities, movies and hot eateries. Other brands stood out because they not only strayed from the norm, they created a new norm of remarkability. Jimmy Choo shoes are the same price as a small Korean car, uncomfortable after five minutes of standing in them but from a fashionista stand point, clear winners for remarkability, correlating with increased exposure, branding and profit.
The ability to surprise, delight and at the same time exceed expectation is the hallmark of remarkable brands and remarkable people. Seth Godin in Purple Cow, discussed the finer points of remarkability, acknowledging remarkable doesn't mean remarkable to you, it means remarkable to me, it's very individual and remarkability lies on the edges and is about the best, the fastest, the easiest, the biggest, the brightest, the most fashionable and the most difficult to accomplish. To Seth, it is not the same as being noticed, as walking down the street naked will get you noticed but it won't accomplish much.
So from an individual standpoint, what can we gain from the Wharton study? It's not about buying what's fashionable because that trend soon becomes unfashionable. It's not about achieving once and then living off that accomplishment. It's about finding your inner remarkability, what differentiates you, by way of thinking, by way of achievements, by way of constantly reinventing yourself and by way of understanding your relationships, your brand and what you bring to the table.
In today's crowded market place, to accomplish and achieve remarkability, you need to step out of your comfort zone, you need to push back your fear of change and you need to do it with authenticity. As Oscar Wilde so succinctly put it "be yourself; everyone else is taken", giving breath to the idea of individuality as a key to being remarkable. To be remarkable means moving away from the middle ground and that means no longer being able to please the majority. That is the greatest fear for most people, but if you never polarise anyone, never push the envelope, never stand for your commitments, what hope is there to be remarkable?
So it comes as no surprise that a Wharton School study analysing the worth of remarkability, shows the value of sharing something remarkable. Examining over 6,500 brands and products, they asked people to score remarkability to analyse how perceptions were correlated and how frequently they were discussed. Some conclusions were obvious as banks and financial institutions were not talked about as much as Facebook, Google, celebrities, movies and hot eateries. Other brands stood out because they not only strayed from the norm, they created a new norm of remarkability. Jimmy Choo shoes are the same price as a small Korean car, uncomfortable after five minutes of standing in them but from a fashionista stand point, clear winners for remarkability, correlating with increased exposure, branding and profit.
The ability to surprise, delight and at the same time exceed expectation is the hallmark of remarkable brands and remarkable people. Seth Godin in Purple Cow, discussed the finer points of remarkability, acknowledging remarkable doesn't mean remarkable to you, it means remarkable to me, it's very individual and remarkability lies on the edges and is about the best, the fastest, the easiest, the biggest, the brightest, the most fashionable and the most difficult to accomplish. To Seth, it is not the same as being noticed, as walking down the street naked will get you noticed but it won't accomplish much.
So from an individual standpoint, what can we gain from the Wharton study? It's not about buying what's fashionable because that trend soon becomes unfashionable. It's not about achieving once and then living off that accomplishment. It's about finding your inner remarkability, what differentiates you, by way of thinking, by way of achievements, by way of constantly reinventing yourself and by way of understanding your relationships, your brand and what you bring to the table.
In today's crowded market place, to accomplish and achieve remarkability, you need to step out of your comfort zone, you need to push back your fear of change and you need to do it with authenticity. As Oscar Wilde so succinctly put it "be yourself; everyone else is taken", giving breath to the idea of individuality as a key to being remarkable. To be remarkable means moving away from the middle ground and that means no longer being able to please the majority. That is the greatest fear for most people, but if you never polarise anyone, never push the envelope, never stand for your commitments, what hope is there to be remarkable?
Thursday, March 21, 2013
I am the greatest.
So proclaimed Muhammad Ali, at a time when no one could contest that line. He was the greatest at his job, knocking men senseless in 15 rounds of pugilistic mayhem that came to be called the Heavy Weight Championship of the World. Apart from a few prize fighters, Joe Frazier and George Foreman, most everyone agreed on Ali's CV as the best in the game. A quick right hook would take care of anyone doubting his credentials and so he was able to carry on his self branding exercise with total belief in his abilities. Most people can't get up at the office morning tea and proclaim their greatness because we don't abide with the philosophy of self promotion and aggrandisement. We don't do it because we live in an egalitarian society and anyone seen to be acknowledging themselves as better than the rest, is quickly labelled wanker or worse.
Yet you are likely to be really really good at what you do and no one notices because you don't want to be boastful or arrogant about your achievements and abilities. You keep working with perceptions, doing a fabulous job, getting on with your colleagues, putting in extra hours on the weekend, along with late nights will get you noticed by the boss and so build a great reputation. Unfortunately acclaim for your skills and achievements happens only twice in your employment, once when you are hired because your skills are recognised as being the best and then again after you leave and the company finds out how much you actually accomplished. In between it's up to you, so give the boss a break, the boss isn't a mind reader, point out your worth with diffidence, show your best side in meetings and don't expect anyone else to be responsible for your forward movement in the company. The boss as Father figure has long been extinct and to rely on someone responsible for an entire company, to be responsible for you and your brand is ridiculous on all levels.
The capacity to show your wares, to build your reputation and to market your brand has never been more available and attainable. There are enough opportunities to highlight your skills, socially and business wise anyone not working on their profile has been living under a rock, in a cave or has never turned on a computer. Don't be a casualty, don't be road kill on the "super highway", leaving your brand in the hands of others, especially your boss is tantamount to becoming the invisible man. Stake you place at the table, be it corporate or social, don't just take up space, contribute and create and your value will be recognised.
As long as communication and promotion is a two way street, your brand has the ability to stay interesting and engaging without being ego centric or conceited. Growing your cache will enhance opportunities within your circle, work wise and socially. Ali worked for years becoming the greatest, recognised for his unique abilities and personality. Aside from the gym work, if Ali had started online today, the world would have known about him in a day. If Ali had left it to his trainers he would still be in the gym pounding the big bag. What are you waiting for?
Yet you are likely to be really really good at what you do and no one notices because you don't want to be boastful or arrogant about your achievements and abilities. You keep working with perceptions, doing a fabulous job, getting on with your colleagues, putting in extra hours on the weekend, along with late nights will get you noticed by the boss and so build a great reputation. Unfortunately acclaim for your skills and achievements happens only twice in your employment, once when you are hired because your skills are recognised as being the best and then again after you leave and the company finds out how much you actually accomplished. In between it's up to you, so give the boss a break, the boss isn't a mind reader, point out your worth with diffidence, show your best side in meetings and don't expect anyone else to be responsible for your forward movement in the company. The boss as Father figure has long been extinct and to rely on someone responsible for an entire company, to be responsible for you and your brand is ridiculous on all levels.
The capacity to show your wares, to build your reputation and to market your brand has never been more available and attainable. There are enough opportunities to highlight your skills, socially and business wise anyone not working on their profile has been living under a rock, in a cave or has never turned on a computer. Don't be a casualty, don't be road kill on the "super highway", leaving your brand in the hands of others, especially your boss is tantamount to becoming the invisible man. Stake you place at the table, be it corporate or social, don't just take up space, contribute and create and your value will be recognised.
As long as communication and promotion is a two way street, your brand has the ability to stay interesting and engaging without being ego centric or conceited. Growing your cache will enhance opportunities within your circle, work wise and socially. Ali worked for years becoming the greatest, recognised for his unique abilities and personality. Aside from the gym work, if Ali had started online today, the world would have known about him in a day. If Ali had left it to his trainers he would still be in the gym pounding the big bag. What are you waiting for?
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
That's not a knife.
In the inimitable words of the Winfield smoking, Harbour Bridge rigging, prawns on the barbie throwing Paul Hogan in Crocodile Dundee, "this is a knife". Indeed, while his twelve inch blade used to slice the hide from Northern Territory crocs and keep his girlfriend safe from New York muggers was never going to make it back on the list of airline carry ons, it seems incongruous that smaller versions are now allowed to be carried in the back pockets of US airline passengers. The federal Transport Security Administration has scrapped the ban on pocket knives and small folding knives under 6 centimetres, that was part of the September 11 fight back on airline safety. Many are not happy about the decision for passengers to have the ability to carve their names into meal trays once again.
The obvious air crew, flight attendants and air marshals, none of whom were consulted, are taking a stance against TSA administrator, John Pistole, who indicated "this would bring US security regulations into line with international standards and was designed to help airport staff find more dangerous items such as explosives". Pistole inferred security needs to become based more on risk, hence the focus on explosives, sending up a shouts of joy from the NSKA, National Small Knife Association. Having poked fun at the decision via the imaginary NSKA, flight crew were also concerned that along with knives, passengers are now allowed to carry assorted sporting equipment such as billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, lacrosse stocks, a couple of golf clubs and an array of novelty bats under 60cm in length.
So from April 25, I still won't be able to take my bottle of assault shampoo on board but I can step into the aisle and work on my back swing or even my slap shot if I so desire. After all how much damage can be done with a Big Bertha driver or the pointy end of a pool cue? This is where you insert movie scenes in a pool hall and think Vin Diesel taking on ten tough guys with just a cue stick, not to mention MacGyver, who could take over a small country with a knife and a novelty bat. It will be interesting to see reactions from the local carriers and airports, where over zealous customs personnel pride themselves on detecting concealed aerosol cans and perfume in excess of 100ml.
The TSA has suggested lines at airports would flow better without the hold up of knife confiscations but as of the decision, no rulers have been allocated for staff to check the differences between 6cm and 7cm knives. Will this omission add to the hold up, as men argue about mathematics long exaggerated or will the odd Crocodile Dundee weapon slip through? The decision made by the TSA, will polarise flyers who pray for shorter security lines while demanding aircraft cabins to be devoid of any opportunity for chaos and disruption. Is this the sharp end of the wedge of change?
The obvious air crew, flight attendants and air marshals, none of whom were consulted, are taking a stance against TSA administrator, John Pistole, who indicated "this would bring US security regulations into line with international standards and was designed to help airport staff find more dangerous items such as explosives". Pistole inferred security needs to become based more on risk, hence the focus on explosives, sending up a shouts of joy from the NSKA, National Small Knife Association. Having poked fun at the decision via the imaginary NSKA, flight crew were also concerned that along with knives, passengers are now allowed to carry assorted sporting equipment such as billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks, lacrosse stocks, a couple of golf clubs and an array of novelty bats under 60cm in length.
So from April 25, I still won't be able to take my bottle of assault shampoo on board but I can step into the aisle and work on my back swing or even my slap shot if I so desire. After all how much damage can be done with a Big Bertha driver or the pointy end of a pool cue? This is where you insert movie scenes in a pool hall and think Vin Diesel taking on ten tough guys with just a cue stick, not to mention MacGyver, who could take over a small country with a knife and a novelty bat. It will be interesting to see reactions from the local carriers and airports, where over zealous customs personnel pride themselves on detecting concealed aerosol cans and perfume in excess of 100ml.
The TSA has suggested lines at airports would flow better without the hold up of knife confiscations but as of the decision, no rulers have been allocated for staff to check the differences between 6cm and 7cm knives. Will this omission add to the hold up, as men argue about mathematics long exaggerated or will the odd Crocodile Dundee weapon slip through? The decision made by the TSA, will polarise flyers who pray for shorter security lines while demanding aircraft cabins to be devoid of any opportunity for chaos and disruption. Is this the sharp end of the wedge of change?
Friday, March 8, 2013
Random closeness.
Much is made about the cause and affect, social media has, from a societal aspect of forming tribes, giving everyone a voice and making the world a smaller place and enabling people who have lost touch to reconnect. It would be rare to find someone using Facebook et al, who has not used social media to track down long lost friends, acquaintances and colleagues, or conversely, who have not been tracked down by someone from their past. Those initial contacts bring with them anxiety about the initial contact, wry smiles built around the nostalgia of good times past, a history shared, a slice of time when things were different, you were younger and life seemed simpler. The amazement and excitement of finding someone thought lost from your past brings with it questions of what to do next, are they still the same person, do they still like Kiss or have they moved on beyond the bond that bound you?
That aura, that warm and fuzzy feeling, that excitement and angst built around affinity for place and time associated with that person, can quickly fade. It fades for all kinds of reasons, nothing in common beyond a quick catch up on times past, you were already moving apart all those years ago and sometimes they just don't reply to your posting.
This particular trend of random closeness is often just that, random, capricious, haphazard, meaningless without substance of a long term relationship. It's that substance in relationships that bind, it's the fabric, the meaningfulness and soul in relationships that is the connective tissue and that is hard to maintain over a wifi signal with someone just found for curiosity's sake, not living in your city or country without the opportunity to connect in the flesh.
Much is written about the power of the net bringing the world closer through connections beyond immediate circles but more often than not, those connections are not meaningful, just dots in a line, not relationships and we should not confuse the two. Random closeness, like random acts of kindness brings with it a feeling of geniality but like random acts of fitness, is useless unless taken up with commitment for long term fraternity. Random closeness is like the school reunion built on curiosity of what people look like now and bench marking achievements and accomplishments against what was envisaged for the future.
To engage in random closeness to build up social numbers is akin to wanting celebrity, which is all about being loved by a lot of people from a distance. How do you know who the real friends are without looking them in the eye and pressing the flesh. All of this seems to be backed up by numbers garnered over the last 12 months with sites such as Facebook losing popularity in 14 of the 23 countries where it has a 50% penetration. There will be competitors vying for your attention and Google will be at the forefront looking to bring your circle of friends to another platform but the underlying issue of having close friends and then random closeness through a collection strategy will consign sites to a shallow accord long term.
That aura, that warm and fuzzy feeling, that excitement and angst built around affinity for place and time associated with that person, can quickly fade. It fades for all kinds of reasons, nothing in common beyond a quick catch up on times past, you were already moving apart all those years ago and sometimes they just don't reply to your posting.
This particular trend of random closeness is often just that, random, capricious, haphazard, meaningless without substance of a long term relationship. It's that substance in relationships that bind, it's the fabric, the meaningfulness and soul in relationships that is the connective tissue and that is hard to maintain over a wifi signal with someone just found for curiosity's sake, not living in your city or country without the opportunity to connect in the flesh.
Much is written about the power of the net bringing the world closer through connections beyond immediate circles but more often than not, those connections are not meaningful, just dots in a line, not relationships and we should not confuse the two. Random closeness, like random acts of kindness brings with it a feeling of geniality but like random acts of fitness, is useless unless taken up with commitment for long term fraternity. Random closeness is like the school reunion built on curiosity of what people look like now and bench marking achievements and accomplishments against what was envisaged for the future.
To engage in random closeness to build up social numbers is akin to wanting celebrity, which is all about being loved by a lot of people from a distance. How do you know who the real friends are without looking them in the eye and pressing the flesh. All of this seems to be backed up by numbers garnered over the last 12 months with sites such as Facebook losing popularity in 14 of the 23 countries where it has a 50% penetration. There will be competitors vying for your attention and Google will be at the forefront looking to bring your circle of friends to another platform but the underlying issue of having close friends and then random closeness through a collection strategy will consign sites to a shallow accord long term.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Heroes and Villians.
The world needs more heroes. Sure Batman, Spiderman and Ironman are doing their thing in the movies but is Ironman going to get you through your week, including important meetings with the boss, that gym session you've been dreading, the senior management presentation or the family dinner with Uncle Joe that always ends in tears? We are constantly looking for role models, mentors and people to admire, making our sometimes humdrum dailies bearable and giving us the power to carry on through periods of stress and anxiety. More often than not, when it comes to our heroes, we look in the wrong places and more often than not, we are be disappointed.
So it came as a shock to read that Tom Hanks had been arrested for strangling and murdering five people in a drunken rampage, on his way to escaping into the Hollywood hills in a stolen Mercedes. A stolen Mercedes that had already been involved in a school crossing homicide, where Hanks ran down three children and a crossing guard. Who is left to admire if Tom Hanks has sunk so low, who is left to look up to if Tom Hanks is capable of such atrocity and how do we find another Tom to admire? People in Hollywood and as far afield as San Diego were aghast, commenting they had no one left to admire and respect, now that Tom had fallen from grace. For many, Tom was their last hope for a role model for their children, their relationships and their daily interactions at work.
Lance, Oscar, Lindsay, Tiger, Charlie, OJ, those guys from Enron and Opes Prime, not to mention Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart, local boys like Alan Bond and Craig Thomson and a host of others, who have risen to power and money on the back of our trust and belief, are either facing charges, in jail or trying to live through the disgraced state of their past indiscretions. So who's left, who do we look to, who we admire, who do we approve of when it comes to bench marking attitudes, behaviour and social commentary. Now the last Hollywood hero has been debunked and we are left in limbo, in a vacuum when it comes to the archetypal example for our kids to admire, for us to deify as upstanding and courageous in the face of daily challenges.
Before Hollywood, before the Kardashians and before mass media became the beacon of societal mores, we had role models closer to home. We had role models in parents, work colleagues and high achieving friends. The problem arose when Mum and Dad became less exciting than the current high scorer in your favourite sport, or your work colleague just wasn't doing it for you like Lady Gaga was doing it for you. Sure the local models may not have been as shiny, as popular or or even as gifted when it came to texting inane messages to fill the tweetosphere but they had one important advantage over Lance and the rest of the fallen.
They were here, they were real and they cared about you. Time to flick the Who magazine and have a chat with your Dad, talk with the people at work who are making a difference to others and look closer at your inner circle. You'll be surprised who you can look up to.
PS. For the trusting, Tom didn't do all the bad things mentioned, although his next movie Cloud Atlas doesn't make up for all the previous good work.
So it came as a shock to read that Tom Hanks had been arrested for strangling and murdering five people in a drunken rampage, on his way to escaping into the Hollywood hills in a stolen Mercedes. A stolen Mercedes that had already been involved in a school crossing homicide, where Hanks ran down three children and a crossing guard. Who is left to admire if Tom Hanks has sunk so low, who is left to look up to if Tom Hanks is capable of such atrocity and how do we find another Tom to admire? People in Hollywood and as far afield as San Diego were aghast, commenting they had no one left to admire and respect, now that Tom had fallen from grace. For many, Tom was their last hope for a role model for their children, their relationships and their daily interactions at work.
Lance, Oscar, Lindsay, Tiger, Charlie, OJ, those guys from Enron and Opes Prime, not to mention Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart, local boys like Alan Bond and Craig Thomson and a host of others, who have risen to power and money on the back of our trust and belief, are either facing charges, in jail or trying to live through the disgraced state of their past indiscretions. So who's left, who do we look to, who we admire, who do we approve of when it comes to bench marking attitudes, behaviour and social commentary. Now the last Hollywood hero has been debunked and we are left in limbo, in a vacuum when it comes to the archetypal example for our kids to admire, for us to deify as upstanding and courageous in the face of daily challenges.
Before Hollywood, before the Kardashians and before mass media became the beacon of societal mores, we had role models closer to home. We had role models in parents, work colleagues and high achieving friends. The problem arose when Mum and Dad became less exciting than the current high scorer in your favourite sport, or your work colleague just wasn't doing it for you like Lady Gaga was doing it for you. Sure the local models may not have been as shiny, as popular or or even as gifted when it came to texting inane messages to fill the tweetosphere but they had one important advantage over Lance and the rest of the fallen.
They were here, they were real and they cared about you. Time to flick the Who magazine and have a chat with your Dad, talk with the people at work who are making a difference to others and look closer at your inner circle. You'll be surprised who you can look up to.
PS. For the trusting, Tom didn't do all the bad things mentioned, although his next movie Cloud Atlas doesn't make up for all the previous good work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
