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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.