Who, and How, do we trust?

Sep 30, 2019 | Governance, Leadership

 

 

To me it is a paradox that we have never been so connected, and yet we have never been so polarised and isolated.

With all the information we could possibly hope for, we as a society seem to avoid using it to make sensible rational decisions that will stand logical scrutiny. 

We humans evolved in groups of around 150, according to the well accepted theory first posited by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar. It is the number of people with whom we can maintain stable personal relationships. 

Richard Edelman in his presentation at the Davos conference earlier this year put it as, ‘Trust is local, and very personal’. The comment is based on the 2019 version of the long running Edelman Trust Barometer. It seems to reflect the ambiguity of our evolutionary selves, limited as we are to Dunbar’s number of 150, and our modern  selves, inundated with ‘friends’ served up by the connectivity of the net.

We have substituted the ‘natural’ depth of a relatively few relationships, with the breadth of many superficial, perhaps illusionary ones.  I have 800 connections on LinkedIn, and while I have been very careful, really only know a small number. There are 6,000 names, email addresses and phone numbers in my contacts list, all of whom I have physically met at some point in the last 20 years, but again, really know only a tiny percentage of them.

In a complementary piece of research to the Edelman barometer, the  IPSOS  Global trustworthiness index showed that scientists are the most trusted profession in the world, followed by doctors. Globally, politicians are the least trusted group. 

In other words, the group least trusted by people are those who are instituting the policies that impact on our lives, often in contradiction of the suggestions of the most trusted group in our midst. Our children will inherit the impact of many of the decisions we make, should we not be making them with the best information we have, informed by those who understand it, in the best interests of those who follow us?

It seems not, and my head hurts trying to figure out why.

 

The photo in the header is lifted from a video taken at the UN last week where President Trump and Teen activist Greta Thunberg presented their differing views.  The most powerful man in the world, Vs a 16 year old Swedish schoolgirl. Who do you trust?

 

 

 

 

Do you need a Digital Strategy?

Sep 27, 2019 | Change, Governance, Strategy

 

 

‘Digital Transformation’ and its sibling ‘Digital Strategy’  have become clichés, unfortunately, as it distorts the management and leadership challenges involved.

However you choose to label the evolution from the analogue world of last century, to the digital ecosystems we now see evolving, it is a process, starting with the simplest things, and moving progressively along to the more complicated.

‘Digital’ is no longer a choice,  it simply is!

How many of you have a ‘Telephone Strategy’? Nobody, it is simply a necessary tool, used better by some than others.

The failure of many ‘digital transformations’ I have seen has little to do with the digital tools, and a whole lot to do with the way people are managed, led, and the manner in which the enterprise leadership enables the evolution to digital to occur.

As with any process, in any transformation, including ‘digital’, there are some pretty simple to say, but hard to execute steps to be taken,

  • Define the business outcomes you are seeking.
  • Start with the simple, test, learn, and move progressively to the more complex, building as you go.
  • Recognise and accommodate the wider impacts. In any digital evolution, your business model should evolve in sympathy. As you progressively digitise, the friction  between the old and the new will become more intense, and potentially disruptive to operations if not managed well. This seems to frequently lead to some expensive consultant recommending you devise a ‘Digital Strategy’.
  • Define the new capabilities required. Inevitably new capabilities will replace the ones that made you successful last century. This part of the evolution can be very confronting and painful, but is inevitable. It can also chew up lots of cash, which is often hard to justify using the short term quantitative measures we favour over taking a longer term, but more qualitative view of what the future might look like.

Nothing about a digital transformation is easy, but if it was, anyone could do it successfully, and we know from observation that is not true.

 

Header credit. Another stinging but insightful cartoon by Tom Fishburne at www.marketoonist.com

Please sir, can I buy another ‘Indulgence’?

Please sir, can I buy another ‘Indulgence’?

Sep 9, 2019 | Governance, Leadership

These days, we indulge ourselves in an ice-cream after going to the gym, an extra piece of cake, a new dress when we do not really need it, but they make us feel good.

A bit of harmless indulgence seems OK.

Except when it is  not.

The word originated in the middle ages, when the few rich and powerful people, ruled spiritually as they were by the church, could wander along to their local bishop and buy an ‘indulgence.’  It was simply a bribe to regain Gods favour after a bit of rape, murder, incest and pillage.

An ‘indulgence’ bought you forgiveness, it seems  much easier than  changing behaviour.  You are forgiven,  so now it is Ok to go out and do it all again. Forgiveness and salvation are for sale. Whoops, another ‘indulgence’ required!.

It was how the church made its money, gathered power, and exerted control over the politics of the day.

Seems not a lot has changed, although we have put different packaging around the sale of ‘Indulgence’.

The church in the middle ages has largely been replaced as the controlling institution in our lives by governments, and the body politic more generally, of all sorts of persuasions. These continue to evolve, and sell ‘indulgence’ in more sophisticated ways. They sell, and trade favours, make laws and determine the degree, and against whom they are enforced. They make decisions binding on the rest of us, that are coloured and directed towards those seeking advantage and able to pay for it, in one way or another.

Greed, ego, personal advancement, power, and self-aggrandisement seem to have replaced the  observance of the common strictures of the major religions as the spiritual framework guiding much of our private and public lives.

As individuals and communities we are the lesser for it.

Anyone got an Aldi bag?? 

 

PS March 29, 2020. 

Re-reading this post, it seemed sensible to clarify the reference to the Aldi bag that was current at the time of writing. A Chinese ‘businessman’ had given 100k in cash, in an Aldi bag to an official of the NSW Labor Party. No doubt paying in advance for an ‘Indulgence’, or two.

it also seems likely in the reconstruction that will soon be occurring, both from the fires over Christmas, and the subsequent Corona induced catastrophe, that there just may be lots of Indulgences’ for sale.

Is this statement a turning point in Corporate Culture?

Is this statement a turning point in Corporate Culture?

Aug 28, 2019 | Communication, Governance, Leadership

In 1970, Milton Friedman wrote an article for the New York Times  that set the tone for enterprise management and culture from that time. His argument was that the role of the executive was to conduct the affairs of his employer: ‘in accordance with their desires, which is generally to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of society both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom’

The executives ‘social responsibility’ was to act in the best interests of his employer. By doing otherwise, he is making a judgement about what others outside his employer may wish to spend their money on, and making that choice is outside his responsibility. To do otherwise is to accept the socialist view that political mechanisms, rather than market mechanisms, are the more appropriate way to allocate scarce resources to their best use.

Last week, the ‘Business Roundtable,’ an association of the CEO’s of many of Americas leading  companies released an update, signed by181 of those CEO’s. Titled ‘Statement on the purpose of a corporation’ it committed their leaders to: ‘lead their corporations for the benefit of all stakeholders, customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders’. 

In todays world, remarkably different from that of the 1970’s, such a statement makes sense, not just as a statement of intent, but as a driving value. Who now does not want to build customer loyalty by looking beyond the transaction currently on the table, and the battle for talent is now mobile, transparent and global, so being acknowledged as a great employer builds competitive advantage.

In Australia, the content of Royal Commissioner Haynes report should tell us all we need to know about the cultural changes necessary in many of our largest corporations. While the government procrastinates and prevaricates, hoping the fence gets a bit more comfortable after their surprise election win, perhaps we, as those charged with the responsibility of managing and directing those corporations, will have gained a little wisdom.  

For the fabric of our communities, let’s hope so.

The header cartoon, courtesy of Tom Fishburne was published to poke fun at the hypocrisy evident in much of the corporate PR speak about sustainability. However, it struck me as also being a metaphor for the Business Roundtable statement, given the pressures of Wall Street, and entrenched ‘short termism’,although I hope I am wrong.

 

Sustainability in blogs used.

 

Not all data is created equal

Not all data is created equal

Aug 16, 2019 | Governance, Management

We seem to believe, sometimes accurately, that the lack of data points is indicative of a less than a reliable outcome.

We also think that the more data points the better, but then we  tend to ignore the outliers, while privately acknowledging that is where change, and key insights, first emerge.

At other times, we are paralysed by the lack of data, or have so much of it we use misleading analyses to make our lives easier. The use of averages is a prime example, often resulting in absolutely misleading conclusions.

There was plenty of information about the distribution of icebergs in the North Atlantic in April 1912. However, the only data point that really counted, was that of the lookout on the foredeck of the Titanic.

Captain Smith was motivated by the race to set a new record for the Trans-Atlantic crossing time, and reassured by the information that there were ‘probably’ no icebergs so far south, he piled on the speed.

Whoops, missed the one really important data point.

The lesson: Not all data is born equal, and it is the insights that come from the analysis that really counts.

.

 

 

The cost of failing to build brands

The cost of failing to build brands

Aug 12, 2019 | Branding, Customers, Governance, Marketing

 

Direct marketing is highly tactical, it is a one on one communication from the marketer to the consumer. Within the boundaries of some limitations, the outcome of direct marketing can be quantified with a considerable level of confidence.

You either got a response, or you did not. It is tactical, short term, and transactional.

Because it is so responsive to short term quantification, and our digital lives are all about quantification, these tactical elements are now predominant. However, there is no evidence that tactical activity alone will build a brand, and plenty that an overuse of tactical stuff will actually destroy a brand.

By contrast, building a brand takes time, investment, a great strategy, and the nerve to continue in the face of debatable real time data, and short term expediency.

Just look at what has happened to proprietary brands in supermarkets. They have been destroyed by the power of the retailers demanding tactical promotional dollars, which is code for retailer margin protection. This has been given by suppliers, usually reluctantly, at the expense of brand building, simply because it is easier and expedient in the short term to comply.

Consider Meadow Lea. At its height, Meadow Lea had a 23% market share at premium prices in a crowded and growing margarine market. The great advertising supported by a range of customer focussed promotional activity that had built the brand, was stopped in favour of tactical retailer price promotions. Now, 20 years later, Meadow Lea is just a label on a few Sku’s in the chiller cabinet.

Imagine you are the marketing manager of a branded product, you have a finite marketing budget. You need to convince the CEO, who is an engineer or an accountant, that it is better to keep advertising for  the long term health of the brand, than give in to powerful retailer demands for various forms of retailer margin supplementation, which will retain distribution in the short term. This has been a very hard argument to win for all but a very few FMCG marketers. With the benefit of hindsight, it has been a vital one that was lost.  

Had the argument been won, and a balance between the two been found, what would have been the difference to the revenue and margins of both retailers and Meadow Lea Foods?? Most probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and consumers would have benefitted by  continued value innovation in the spreads  category, which has been stagnant for years.