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.

 

The hyperbole trap

The hyperbole trap

Aug 21, 2019 | Communication, Customers

 

We marketers as a stereotype tend to adjective driven descriptions that make little logical sense, and in some cases, are in fact misleading.

Yesterday in a major supermarket deli section I saw two examples that should be taken out the back and flogged.

The first was ‘organic salami’. I am aware of organic chicken, beef, tomatoes, and others, but I am unaware of an organic salami running around anywhere. I am not sure I would recognise a live salami if I saw one.  Presumably the motivated copywriter hidden in the bowels of the retailer, or more probably, a well-meaning deli manager in the store, wanted to differentiate this salami from the others on display. They were probably made in the same factory, from the same ingredients as some of the others,  and certainly were not certified organic. Hyperbolic over-reach, and either completely incorrect, or the rules governing the use of the word ‘organic’, have been radically and terminally loosened since the last time I looked.

The second, equally misleading, was ‘Fresh Sea Barramundi’. Unfortunately for the copywriter, barramundi is a fish species that does not live in the sea, it is native to the coastal rivers of northern Australia, with close genetic relatives found throughout S.E. Asia.  The only exception to this rule of nature is when the barra is ‘farmed’, presumably not an attractive description. Again, a misleading and factually wrong product description used in the quest for hyperbolic impact.

I am nit-picking, these examples are relatively minor in the scheme of things that are manipulated to attract consumers, but nevertheless, struck a chord when I saw them. I will admit to a chuckle at the evident lack of recognition that most consumers are not fools, and would see through the hyperbole for what it was: flowery and meaningless language.

However, retailers are held to account. Regulators do not like false product descriptions, and more importantly, consumers, who have come to accept that the food they buy in supermarkets is as described, may start to have the trust eroded, just a tiny bit by such nonsense, and in the long term, this will damage the supermarkets brand.   

Do you allow your marketing people to wax illogically lyrical, or insist on well crafted copy that delivers a value proposition devoid of superfluous hyperbole?

 

Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gault.

 

 

 

 

The huge power of relative risk in sales.

The huge power of relative risk in sales.

Jun 28, 2019 | Communication, Sales

‘Risk’ is an emotive word, it immediately conjures up danger, and an instinctive reluctance to avoid it, if at all possible.

Relative risk is often used in a selling situation as a means to motivate the potential buyer to take that last step, and buy, immediately. The risk may be of missing out, of a price rise, or of an unpleasant event happening, and many other things that might incite a sense of urgency. Unless you apply some added, and not usually made available logic, you can be seduced by the size of the stated risk, and buy, when it may not be a logically consistent decision to do so.

When you see the word ‘Risk’ in a brochure, offering research numbers that demonstrate how much this new ‘whizzo’, newly developed after much research,  will reduce your risk, do not take them at face value.

For example, if I was selling a new medication aimed at older fathers, of which there is an increasing number, I might use something like the copy following.

‘For men of 50 fathering children, there is an 18% greater chance of those children suffering seizures, than children of a father of 30′. New ABC medication from XYZ company can more than halve this risk’

This first part of this copy would be alarming to any man in this group, but misleading. It is a relative risk, comparing one group to another. It does not tell you how likely it is that an individual child will have a seizure, which is an absolute risk. The second part, promises a huge reduction in this risk as an inducement to buy, but again, very misleading, because the reduction in risk is relative.

Had the copy been complete, it would also have told the reader:

The child of a father aged 30 has a risk of seizure of .024%, 24 out of 100,000 children.

The child of a father aged 50 has a risk of seizure of .028%, 28 out of 100,000 children.

(Data source new scientist November 2018)

An increase of 18% to the risk of children of fathers over 50 suffering seizures, compared to that of fathers of 30 sounds shocking, but when you consider it is 4 children in 100,000, it is less so. Equally, the reduction coming from new ABC medication is less impressive when viewed as an absolute reduction, from 4 to 2, and the (poor) statistician in me tells me it is within the boundaries of statistical error in any event.

Daniel Kahneman in his great book ‘Thinking Fast & Slow’ uses a number of examples similar to the one above, and in addition would apply the question: ‘How much would you pay to reduce the risk of your child having seizures from 4/100,000 to 2/100,000’? to get a better measure of the price difference between a purely rational decision, and an emotional one.

Emotion sells way, way better than rationality, so the usual way to present data will almost  inevitably be relative. Watch out for it, and ask the appropriate questions before you jump to a purchase decision. 

 

Header cartoon courtesy of Scott Adams and ‘Dilbert’ https://dilbert.com/

The new competitive advantage in a digital world

The new competitive advantage in a digital world

May 15, 2019 | Communication, Marketing

Data collection has become an obsession of marketers in particular, but all sorts of other assorted boffins as well.  We have data up to the wahzoo, and do not know what to do with it all. So, we throw it against the wall and come up with all sorts of nonsensical stuff designed to sell digital ads to marketers too silly to think clearly about what they are doing, and why they should be doing it with digital.

Data is now a huge, though largely unmapped  industry, infested with data snips designed to track consumers so they can be targeted by advertisers, or perhaps more accurately, promised by the sellers of digital space to silly advertisers with too much of someone else’s money to spend.

The only industry that has actually done well in this mess are the scammers, and those who produce ad blockers, which in itself is a measure of how poorly  served we are.

Advertising used to be the means by which we were delivered information important to making purchase decisions. Now digital advertising is used as a means to follow up, make money for the scammers and fraudsters, and  occasionally, set about delivering information to someone who wants it.

The new competitive advantage is not to get more data, but to be able to turn the data you have into actionable market intelligence. 

This brings us back to the foundation of advertising and marketing,  understanding your customer better than your opposition. Given they usually have the same data set as you, your competitive advantage is in the use you make of it.

Header cartoon courtesy Tom Fishburne at www.marketoonist.com

 

 

 

Why does ‘Hindsight Planning’ really work?

Why does ‘Hindsight Planning’ really work?

May 6, 2019 | Communication, Small business, Strategy

For years I have used a process I call ‘Hindsight planning’ with clients to conceive then execute  a strategy that delivers sustainable prosperity. 

Put simply, rather than planning forward, as it usually occurs, from an  analysis of the current situation towards a goal,  I seek to have them articulate the goal in great depth, and from a range of perspectives so that they ‘internalise’ the goal as if it has been achieved. They have absorbed an  emotional attachment to the goal as if it was the current reality, rather than a goal.

I always thought it was a bit of a semantic trick, but it turns out I was wrong.

Hindsight planning is rooted in psychology.

Daniel Kahneman in his book ‘Thinking, Fast & Slow’ said it best: ‘Once you adopt a new view of the world, or a part of it, you immediately lose much of your ability to recall what you used to believe before your mind changed’

In other words, hindsight planning is more than a semantic trick, it is a process of replacing the current reality with a new one, that just happens to be the goal you set out to achieve. Once you believe the new reality, it is easier to look backwards and articulate the things you did right, and those you did poorly, the resources you needed, the timing, capabilities, and all the other things that require assembly for the achievement of a stretch goal.

When you need help with this challenging idea, call me, and challenge me to do for you what I have done for others.

Header Photo: the last known photo of the Titanic as it left Queenstown Ireland, on April 12th 1912. A little but of hindsight would have gone a long way!!

11 ways to uncover the lies in data

11 ways to uncover the lies in data

May 3, 2019 | Communication, Governance

Data does not have an agenda, it does not lie, but it rarely shows the whole story.

Think of the data that would be gathered and analysed after the announcement of a chunk of native forest was opened up for logging. The botanists would have one set of data and analysis of the impact, the accountants another, the entomologists another, those concerned with native animal habitat another, and so on. None are wrong, but all are incomplete without the input of  the others.

Corporate use of data does have an agenda, performance, and unfortunately often personal advancement. Similarly, data delivered as fact by a politician has an agenda: getting elected.

The data does not have an agenda, those who use it often do.

Bias in data can be conscious, as well as unconscious. Someone has to decide what data is collected,  what hypotheses to test, and how it is to be used. All can be shaped to meet a predetermined outcome.

When making a major decision we all look for the data that will give us confidence in our choice.

However, we are all also familiar with the nagging feeling that the data we are looking at is nothing short of bullshit.

So how can you tell?

Here are 11 simple tests to apply.

  • Where did the data come from? Organisations, geographies, people, all make a difference.
  • Was the collection method designed by someone with a vested interest in the outcome?
  • What are the gaps in the data? These can easily be created by the manner in which questions are asked, or often, not asked.
  • What assumptions were made in assembling and analysing the data? No data survives the filtering imposed by the assumptions in the assembly and analysis processes.
  • What statistical measures have been applied? The number of initial data points, upper and lower control limits, confidence levels, all the statistical tools available, but too often dismissed by non statisticians and those running an agenda.
  • Be wary of creative articulation. Percentages are regularly thrown about as ‘proof’ of something. A 50% increase in accidents in your suburb in the past year may mean there were 3 compared to 2 last year. Similarly, averages are often misleading. We expect the mean to be close to the median (middle point in a range) but often it is not.
  • Who gains or loses from the outcome? Just look at the current political ‘debate’ in this country for ample evidence of this. There are no laws about truth in advertising for political ads, therefore the numbers quoted are heavily edited, or it would seem, often just made up.
  • Is the data describing just correlation or is it truly causation. This is often used to make a case. For example this compelling case put forward by the economist a while ago ‘proving’ that intelligence increased with consumption of ice cream.
  • What are the alternative explanations of the conclusions articulated, and what are we not being told?.
  • Is the data giving you the answer to the question being asked, or to some other question? And, how well is the question reflected in the answer?
  • Has anyone with an established perspective opposite to the outcome of the data had a critical look at it? This is often a good way of finding the holes in the collection and analysis.

While statistics can be made to lie, they will also deliver transparency when you understand the basic measures. People will often tell you what they think you want or need to hear, and when it is backed by data, it becomes more credible, particularly if it confirms an already established point of view.

Finally, if it seems too good to be true, there is a fair chance that it is, our instincts are usually pretty good, so follow them until proved otherwise. 

I am  by no means a data nerd, but I do believe that good data can make our collective lives better by improving decision making, and removing just a little of the bullshit sprayed at us so regularly and methodically by everyone with a cause.

Data does not lie, people using data can, and do.

The header cartoon is from David Somerville’s Random Blather blog, an extension of Hugh McLeod’s original.