Pre-budget disappointment

It seems that the pre-budget report has failed to impress. You only need to scan through the responses of business media to see that opinion is certainly not weighted in Darling's favour.

A common thread is that Darling isn't thinking big enough and is instead trying to palm us off with lots of little and therefore ineffectual measures. As Matthew Gwyther from Management Today states: "For an event that had the potential to be one of the more seismic economic policy announcements of the 21st Century, it was about as much fun as doing your tax return. And rather less rewarding. Where was the stirring rhetoric, the grand gesture, the bold decision making?"

This disappointment is echoed by Marc Barber of smallbusiness.co.uk, who expresses concern that the 50% tax on bankers' bonuses is more of a gesture to keep the tax payer at bay, rather than a move that will have any great impact. He says: "It seems this decision was designed to assuage voters’ anger at the fat cats clawing at our money, although it is more useful as a deterrent to the bonus culture than a serious effort to offset our debt."

There is also much criticism of the 0.5% increase in National Insurance, seen to be yet another slap in the face for the self-employed and smaller businesses. And of course speculation is rife that delaying cuts on public spending is a pre-election tactic, that as one blogger accuses: "...leaves this for the next government to deal with."

While I'm tempted to agree with many of these sentiments: yes, taxing bankers' bonuses doesn't address the root cause of the financial crisis; no, increasing VAT and National Insurance is unlikely to help small businesses, I wouldn't want to go all out and jump on the 'bash the budget' bandwagon.

As Marc Barber concedes, Darling has kept to his promises and included measures to help small businesses, including the deferral of the 1p corporation tax rise and the ‘time to pay’ scheme. The measures are there, it would just take nothing short of a miracle to satisy all the talking heads in the middle of a recession. Surely, even if Darling gave his own home to drive money back into the economy, it wouldn't be seen as enough. Coupled with an imminent election, it's no wonder that the cynics are out in force.

This is not to say the report is beyond criticism, far from it. As I've already stated, more could have been done to protect businesses from increases in tax and the banking crisis does seem to be on an endless loop that sickeningly repeats itself. However, from a business perspective, if finances are so tight as to be toppled by a relatively small tax increase, what does this say about your ability to safeguard profit and cash flow? Any business leader worth his or her salt should know that a business will always be subject to external factors, whether that's a slowdown in the market or a tax increase.

Not so long ago, the papers were falling over themselves to proclaim Great Britain a nanny state. But when the chips are down we're all quite happy to demand more hand-outs and berate the government for not doing more for us. You can't have it both ways. The reality is, if you refuse to take the necessary precautions when times are good and/or refuse to adapt to changes in pressure, then maybe you shouldn't be trading full stop.

It's tough love. But someone's got to say it.

A little bit technical

Let's face it, nowadays you're just not allowed to be untechnical. Time was, I could quite easily get out of anything remotely complex by flogging the old "I'm just not technical." line. Website management: "Why would I know? I'm not technical."; setting the video: "You'll have to do it, it's too technical for me."; or even turning on the oven "Goodness these buttons are all a bit too technical." But if I tried that these days I'd be laughed out of the kitchen, the living room, my job! In short: I wouldn't survive.

To give you a working example of how technology has infiltrated my life: in the last half an hour I have created an Open ID and discovered how to 'whitelist' email addresses. I've even enabled the macros in a document (I hear the techies amongst you shudder with disbelief). Hardly complex or revolutionary, but for a natural technophobe like me, these sorts of achievements feel like climbing mountains. Albeit small ones.

The problem is that with all these changes in technology, we just can't afford to ignore all the tools and tricks that allow us to get by on a daily basis. So integral to our lives has technology become, that saying you aren't technical is akin to saying you can't write in your mother tongue. Of course there are different levels of aptitude: in the same way that some of us can write in full sentences but can't spell, whereas others of us are journalists, copywriters and novelists, technical skills range from base to brilliant. The point is that we should all have them to some degree, or we'll soon start to struggle.

It can of course go too far one way and I appeal directly to all those companies that knowingly or not have penalised the very elderly by making it mandatory to access services online, thereby making some services inaccessible to those that desperately need them. Unforgiveable, even in this day and age.

Having said that, for the rest of us, with regular access to PCs, mobiles, blackberries, iphones and the like, we simply need to accept that we can't ignore technical advances anymore. Technology is an integral part of our language and we need to embrace it.

What this really means is accepting the pace of change. Accepting that knowledge isn't fixed and confined to reference books. Knowing that despite what we knew last year, we always need to build on it, expand it, challenge it and keep apace with a mutable technical economy.

This is often to our advantage of course. New technology means new ways to reach people, faster ways to access what we want and most importantly, the opportunity for expansion, innovation and growth. For anyone that's stood scratching their heads over the 'opportunities' section of a SWOT analysis, this is where technology gives you all manner of options. Staying ahead of the technical game makes you leading edge and often inspirational.

But remember: it's not for long. Look up McKinsey's 3 horizons of growth and you'll understand that improvement is a constant process. I'd even go so far as to say, much as I'm loathe to quote anything I've read in the gym: 'success is a journey, not a destination.'

And finally, to the person who recently decried my efforts to understand social media: It's most definitely not about sex, I promise.

The power of brevity

The Global Language Monitor has declared the word 'Twitter' the top word of 2009, according to IT Pro. This is in a top ten that features words as diverse as Obama and Vampire and is based on a global survey of words used by English language speakers.

If you're wondering how this is worked out, languagemonitor.com explains that GLM uses a Predictive Quantities Indicator (PQI), which it describes as "...the proprietary algorithm that tracks words and phrases in the media and on the Internet, now including blogs and social media. The words are tracked in relation to frequency, contextual usage and appearance in global media outlets, factoring in long-term trends, short-term changes, momentum and velocity."

The top ten (I'm sure you'll be interested to know) looks like this:

1. Twitter — The ability to encapsulate human thought in 140 characters

2. Obama — The word stem transforms into scores of new words like ObamaCare

3. H1N1 — The formal (and politically correct) name for Swine Flu

4. Stimulus — The $800 billion aid package meant to help mend the US economy

5. Vampire — Vampires are very much en vogue, now the symbol of unrequited love

6. 2.0 — The 2.0 suffix is attached to the next generation of everything

7. Deficit — Lessons from history are dire warnings here

8. Hadron — Ephemeral particles subject to collision in the Large Hadron Collider

9. Healthcare — The direction of which is the subject of intense debate in the US

10. Transparency — Elusive goal for which many governments are striving

If this survey is to be believed (it can't of course track everyday speech, which may contain quite different words), it says a lot about how the power of micro-blogging, as opposed to just social networking. Note, Facebook and other sites that fall under the same social networking umbrella as Twitter don't feature here.

Twitter's popularity seems to arise from its simplicity - as yet it isn't cluttered with adverts, photos and all the other paraphernalia that dominate Facebook and the like. Its main function is sharing thoughts and links (to other sites, articles, photos etc.) in no more than 140 characters. Despite such a tight restriction, it continues to be incredibly popular. Somehow people like the discpline. It may not have exceeded facebook yet in terms of users, but the fact that people are talking about it shows what a hot topic it's continued to be.

Arguably, the popularity of Twitter's enforced brevity reflects an increasing intolerance of irrelevance and waffle. With so much going on in our lives, quite often we simply don't have the time to read long emails and weighty attachments. Twitter says: "Tell me what you want to say as quickly as you can." and we do. Of course with so many links to articles, the truth is that we're still taking the time to read things that interest us, we just don't need to wade through paragraphs of unnecessary explanation to find out if it's of interest in the first place.

Whether Twitter will continue to discipline us remains to be seen and I predict that sooner or later the powers that be won't be able to help themselves and will start introducing advertising features and other peripheries that add little to the medium.

I only hope that this trend towards succinct forms of communication continues. That people use it for their emails, their web copy, their mailshots and other forms of advertising. Maybe one day we'll stop using words to baffle, confuse and over-complicate and see simple, straightforward communication as the way forward. I sincerely hope so.

A guide to improving internal brand perception

You may be an internal communications professional, a CEO, a marketing executive or even a brand manager. But whichever category you fall into, you’re likely to have met resistance to internal brand communication at some point.

This could be down to the sheer volume of employees you work with (there’s always going to be some people who can’t stomach the brand), problems with internal politics, or simply neglect over time.

Whatever your issues, promoting the brand is never an easy task, so we got to thinking about some of the simpler tricks you can use to improve brand perception and smooth the process of brand communication across the board.

It’s not about you
One of the more common misconceptions about branding is that the brand belongs to marketing. What this often means, for brand professionals and employees alike, is a divisive way of thinking i.e. if I don’t work with the brand then I don’t need to worry about it and vice versa.

For many ‘pro-brand’ people this can lead to transparent brand touting exercises, which try to convince people that the business’s brand must be accepted at all costs, regardless of people’s individual brand perceptions.

While people who are new to the business will need to gain an understanding of your brand values, your employees should also understand that they are instrumental in sustaining the brand. So rather than just telling people what the business stands for, ask people for their (honest) interpretations. This way you can make brand building an inclusive process.

Brand feedback can be gained in various ways and shouldn’t just be slotted into an induction programme. You may want to try annual employee surveys or workshops. The latter is a more positive, interactive medium for feedback and will also encourage people to see themselves as part of brand building, rather than simply brand recipients.

In groups, encourage people to think about all the different ways in which they represent and use the brand, so that they gain an understanding of how their actions, in particular how they communicate with clients, prospects etc. impact the brand. If people do express negative attitudes, explore these with them. Use their thoughts and feelings to discuss with others how to address poor brand image. If for example, your brand emphasises excellent customer service and your employees feel that this is contrary to the reality of the situation, look into the reasons and feed back to managers etc. as appropriate.

You aren’t responsible for how people behave within the business, but you can use your knowledge to positively influence others’ actions. Above all, remind yourself and others that the brand doesn’t exist in a vacuum and requires input from everyone to survive.

Brand champions
Identifying and utilising ‘brand champions’ i.e. those that like and endorse the brand, is an essential part of successfully communicating your brand.

As you might expect, many brand champions work in senior positions and/or commercial roles, such as sales, commercial development and of course marketing. However you will always find people in other departments who are equally pro-brand, they just don’t have the opportunity to show it in the same way that others do.

A good way to root out your brand champions is to ask for volunteers from each department to put forward a representative, who you can call upon for assistance in cascading brand messages. Make it clear that their involvement won’t be time-consuming (this is the most common reason people use not to get involved) and you should soon have a group of brand enthusiasts.

While a lot of brand communication will need to come directly from you, involving others in communication activities will gain you credibility. Employees are always more receptive to people they know and are therefore more likely to accept messages from your representatives at face value than they would from you.

Treat your employees as customers
One technique that brand professionals should always employ (and indeed any professional), is to deliver the same level of service to employees that you would to a customer. That is, not only in the level of courtesy that you display, but in your general responsiveness and the professionalism with which you communicate. This is how you create respect for your team and thereby positive associations with the brand.

Aside from impeccable one to one correspondence (well written, concise, not a typo in sight), your one to all communication will need to employ similar marketing techniques to those that are used for external marketing. For example, one to all emails need to be engaging, brief, easy to digest and in the tone of voice that reflects your brand. They must also display an appropriate use of brand graphics that don’t dominate the email’s message.

It’s also important to encourage senior executives and others who regularly send out correspondence to follow a set of guidelines that explain how to construct a brand-friendly email. Again, asking others to follow your example helps to make the brand applicable to everyone.

Creating an internal brand
It’s one of the lesser used tools, but developing an internal brand can go a long way to increasing employee engagement. By an internal brand we mean an employee-facing brand that is recognisable as belonging to your business, but offers a variation on colours, images and even tone of voice. For example, it may have a slightly friendlier tone, or use more fun images than those traditionally associated with the external brand.

To give you an example: an old colleague of mine, who is also an extremely experienced project manager, suggested to the internal communication team at her current employer that they use an internal brand for the roll-out of a new HR self-service system. Rather than welcoming the suggestion, the communication team was extremely scathing, sending her off with her tail between her legs and in the direction of its strict external brand guidelines. An attitude that was dismissive at best and foolish at worst.

The project manager I’m thinking of had worked with many brand teams in her time to ensure the successful implementation of HR self-service. Therefore she had first-hand experience in the value of internal branding for ensuring acceptance of new technology. And of course what works for technology can work for anything – give employees their own brand identity and you let them know that what you’re doing is about them and not just the business.

Accept the bah humbugs
It’s important to accept that you’ll always have moaners and back stabbers. Some people are anti-brand and will stay that way whatever you do. A good example of this came from a marketing ex-colleague of mine, who one particular employee had turned into his nemesis: challenging and complaining about any communication that related to the brand. Far from rising to his negative comments, my colleague just accepted that that was the way he was, responded politely and left him to it.

As she did, the best way to handle someone who dislikes your work on principle is to greet their objections with courtesy and sincerity. Welcome any suggestions, however provocative they may be and above all, assume the role of consummate professional. This way they have far less cause to challenge you.

Have a plan
You may not be an internal communication expert, but when rolling out large-scale brand exercises, such as a rebrand, always have a communication plan. Again, as you would with your customers and prospects, think of the best times and ways in which to reach employees, so that communication is as constructive and well-received as possible.

In summary
There’s no one single method that ensures positive brand perception. Brand building is a continuous and often challenging process that requires constant nurturing.
But with the right level and tone of correspondence, alongside good internal support, you can soon start to affect brand attitudes at every level of the business and make the brand of interest to everyone (well, almost).

Latest whitepaper: how to make the best of a trade show

Once feared to be a dying breed, trade shows have defied the digital age and continue to be an invaluable source of leads for many businesses.

But useful as they are, finding the right shows can be one of the hardest tasks a marketer can undertake. A good event will bring great rewards for years to come, whereas getting it wrong could be potentially disastrous for your business, both in terms of lost revenue and brand damage.

With so much at stake, we got to thinking about which are the key considerations for choosing an event and how to make a show deliver optimum value for your business.

What events should I attend?

The first and most obvious question you’ll need to ask of any trade show is: ‘What’s the show about?’ This should be followed shortly after by: ‘Who’s going?’ and ‘How many people are attending?’ Once you’ve ascertained that it’s a relevant subject matter and your target audience is attending, you’ll be in a good position to start making some analysis.

As a rule of thumb, a generic event must attract your target audience in large volumes, whereas smaller events must be specific to your product or service. It’s simply a numbers game: you will generate a higher percentage of leads at a niche event than you would at a generic one.

Just to be clear: by ‘generic’ we mean generic within your marketplace. For example, if you sell marketing merchandise e.g. branded stationery and are attending a marketing exhibition, you may be reaching the right people, but you have no guarantee that they are looking for products like yours. In this scenario, high volumes are essential to increase the likelihood of attracting people to your stand. On the other hand, if you attend a promotional marketing exhibition, you know that delegates are specifically looking for products like yours (if not yours specifically) and are therefore far more likely to drop by your stand.

An important question to ask is: ‘Which of my competitors will be attending?’ Request information on both those that attended the previous year and those who have re-booked. This will tell you whether the show is regarded well amongst your competition and whether it could be valuable for your business.

Be brutal with ROI

However large or small the event, be ruthless when it comes to estimating your return on investment. And do be aware of sales people who try to tempt you into attending an event based on business names and/or size of business. Household names are all very well, but if the event is only attracting 100 delegates and is not specific to your product or service, what is the likelihood that you will walk away with leads and ultimately contracts from those businesses?

As an example you could be a computer hardware manufacturer that has paid £5000 for a stand at an IT conference and exhibition. The conference is reaching 100 IT decision-makers, all from companies like Lloyds Bank, Vodafone and Topshop.

On the day, out of the 100 businesses, 70 are already satisfied with their current hardware supplier and are not looking to review this. Of the 30 that are looking, only 15 haven’t already found a preferred supplier. Of the 15 that haven’t found a preferred supplier, only 10 will be looking at the conference. Of the 10 businesses, only 5 have the time to visit your stand. Of the 5 only 3 actually give you their contact details. Therefore you walk away with 3 leads and with a current conversion rate of 20%, none of them convert to sale.

The business has achieved no ROI and lost more than £5000 from attending the event.

We have deliberately created a bleak scenario here to demonstrate that leads are dependent upon much more than job titles and that it is easy to be wowed with impressive sounding names that in reality mean very little. Yes, if the exhibitor had won a single contract with Vodafone it could have brought in a large contract, but with the likelihood so reduced, it wouldn’t be worth the gamble.

How much should an exhibition cost me?

Another key consideration is the actual cost of each lead. Essentially, the amount that you spend is entirely dependent on how much you are prepared to pay for each lead.

Exhibition leads are always more costly than, for example, direct mail or website leads, so you should expect your cost per lead to be higher than usual. However the cost per lead still needs to bear some relation to the average contract/sales value. For example, if you are a car retailer, with an average margin of £5,000 per car, your cost per lead can be higher than for say, a laptop manufacturer.

Use your cost per lead to determine whether a show is cost effective for you. So for example, the car manufacturer may decide that their CPL should be no more than £150. If the event costs £10,000* and they expect 100 leads, at a CPL of £100, it’s worth attending. In theory, if the car manufacturer spent £150,000 on an event and realistically expected 1000 leads, at a CPL of £150 it would be extremely valuable to their business.

As in the example of the computer hardware manufacturer at the IT conference, do be brutal in your lead estimations. It’s often useful to visualise an event, or even attend the show in question as a delegate, to inform your decision.

*Do consider that costs include more than just stand space and must factor in accommodation, carpet laying, contractors, meals and equipment hire etc.

How to exhibit

Your objectives should always influence the scale and nature of your presence to some degree. For example, if you are launching a new brand and exposure is critical to success, make sure that you go the extra mile with the stand design and size, so that it won’t be easily missed. Also concentrate on maximising visual exposure at other points around the exhibition hall, for example through sponsoring a seminar area. Equally if lead generation is more important you may not want to go all out on stand size and sponsorship, but instead focus on ways to attract visitors to your stand through aggressive pre-show promotion.

In most cases trade shows are all about leads. However, don’t forget that leads and brand are mutually supportive in marketing i.e. you can’t have one without the other. That means regardless of what’s most important to you, don’t neglect your leads or brand, even if you weight your spend differently according to your objectives.

Standing out

The stand must look slick, eye-catching and inviting and be positioned in a high traffic area e.g. near a cafe or rest area. If there is a dedicated zone for your type of product then it is advisable to exhibit in this area, to avoid missing visitors that are looking for your product and could bypass your business otherwise.
The stand must be well manned at all times and preferably include an interactive feature e.g. a demo area, or plasma screen presentation. There should also be an easy way of capturing leads, either through your own lead forms or hand-held data capture devices.

Your sales people must be alert and on hand to help at all times. Huddling, surfing the Internet and ignoring visitors will all be detrimental to your brand.

Sponsorship

Sponsoring an event is extremely costly and is usually more applicable to larger players in the market who quite simply have more money to spend. If budgets are limited, it is best to keep sponsorship to times when you are promoting a new product or service so that you know you have something exciting to shout about.

It is also important to challenge exhibition organisers’ perception of sponsorship value – only pay what you feel something is worth and make this clear to the organiser. Also have an idea of how much value the sponsorship will add to your presence at the show, to help quantify how much you are prepared to spend.

Sponsorship should never just be the plastering of a logo on signs and merchandise. Try to do something different and preferably interactive e.g. a breakfast networking event where you have the opportunity to promote your product or service, or cafe area sponsorship with customised messages, for example on takeaway cups, that clearly communicate your brand.

Think about how else you can add value to the event e.g. through case study speakers, or your own demonstration and/or seminar rooms. Again, only opt for extra presence if you feel that it will significantly increase your brand presence/lead count - depending on your aims for the event.

Do consider making use of any visitor mailing lists, for contacting delegates both before and after the event. Not all event organisers will make these available, but some will offer mailshot opportunities either via third party email, or their own mailing houses and it is usually wise to make use of these.

Preparation

Crib sheets with sales messages for the show are essential to ensure consistency from your sales people. What do you want people to say about your business? Are there specific products/versions you want to promote? What is your Unique Selling Point (this is a common exhibition question when visitors are faced with a lot of companies selling the same product)?

If you are promoting a new product or service, is everyone well-versed in the key features and benefits? Some responsibility must be placed on your sales people to be well prepared for the show, therefore it is not unreasonable to make it clear that penalties may be applied for those who are unprepared on the day.

Set targets for sales people so they have an idea of what they’re aiming for and budgets permitting, factor in a post-show reward. Include conversion rates and expected sales from show leads, to put their work into context. Even if it’s simply a bottle of champagne for the person who generates the most leads.

It’s important to issue a pre-exhibition pack with dates, times, directions, targets, crib information, where they can find follow-up templates, accommodation, evening events etc. Try to include something fun, like drinks events you may be attending to keep people’s interest up and motivate them prior to the event. This pack will prevent you (in theory at least) from answering endless queries. To this end, issue it at least 1 week prior to the event.

Follow-up

Key to making an event work is how you handle follow-up. Follow-up should be conducted promptly, either the day following the show or at another date agreed with your new contact. Make sure leads are categorised into low, medium and high priority, so any delays due to low staffing don’t impact your ‘hot’ leads.

Prepare your follow-up materials in advance of the event so that they are quick to access in the aftermath. Use templates that can be easily edited and mail merged so that communication is consistent but fast.

If you can send something with your communication to make it stand out from other exhibitors, then this will help you to continue making an impact on your prospects.

Never a given

Even with your tried and tested shows, make the organiser work for you. No-one should assume your continued support, however successful the show may be.

Most importantly, trade shows aren’t right for every business. Good event organisers will recognise this, but always beware those that don’t have your best interests at heart. If in doubt, go along for a look, but leave the decision until next time.

Marketing Direct article on racist brand values

http://www.marketingdirectmag.co.uk/news/966514/COMMENT-South-Africa-brand-values-dictated-white-people/

Sugar: “Moaning small business owners live in Disneyland” | Growing Business

Sugar: “Moaning small business owners live in Disneyland” | Growing Business

Why moaning about the recession is old hat

The recession has been a media feeding frenzy for months, almost years, now. And it's really starting to grate. I write this after having come across yet another doom and gloom article on the economy.

Now I understand why people feel it necessary to constantly write about the recession - I'm doing it right now, so it would be senseless to criticise people for using it as a talking point. But I don't understand why so much of this comment is just that - comment, words - no rallying cries to action. No inspiration to motivate people into a better future. It's almost as if we enjoy finding new things to moan about, most recently the let down on economic growth prospects.

No we haven't grown yet and when we do it's likely to be a slow start, but if you're familiar with the term 'self-fulfilling prophecy' then this is definitely one of them. If we truly believe that the economy will struggle indefinitely, then it's more likely that it will continue to for a long time yet. I'm not talking about something as trite as 'Positive Mental Attitude', but simply recognising that we shouldn't accept that a certain state of play is inevitable. It's a bit like looking at all the problems with the environment and saying: "That's it, we've had it." and then using it as an excuse not to recycle or switch to energy saving light bulbs (which a lot of people do, incidentally).

There are always ways to make a difference, to punch above your weight, to change the shape of things to come. I agree to some extent with Dragon Deborah Meadon's sentiments that most businesses that fail in the recession perhaps shouldn't have been trading at all. There are indeed plenty of businesses that have continued to thrive and that has a lot to do with their business model: recognising the changes in consumer demand and adapting to the times. Much as many of us miss Woolworth's, this was largely their downfall. Great in their heyday, but simply not able to keep up with an ever evolving consumerist landscape.

I also know that the recession has affected many people very badly and had a terrible impact on their lives - no-one would dispute that. But in looking forwards we have to stop resorting to the easiest common denominator, which is counting our woes and looking for the nearest person or institution to blame. It could be the government or the banks, but it's never ourselves.

Social networking: back to basics?

I stumbled across an interesting debate on a social networking site called Ecademy (if anyone wants to check it out). It's a bit like LinkedIn, but a lot more interactive.

The debate came about following an email from Penny Power (a business guru, from what I can gather) who wanted to tell me and a lot of other people about an 'excellent' event that she'd attended the night before. I didn't know who Penny was, but being naturally a little curious I followed the link to find out more. I have to admit that I did raise an eyebrow when I discovered that Penny was the speaker at this event, promoting her new book.

Reading on, it materialised that Power was extolling the virtues of social networking and their role in helping us to 're-boot' following the economic downturn. Penny's thinking is that times of hardship have made many of us realise the need for better, more humane values and that social networking is helping us achieve this.

Now I do appreciate these sentiments: there's nothing wrong with promoting a 'back-to-basics' approach to business and I agree wholeheartedly that it's missing from a lot of businesses. However, I couldn't help but notice the irony of expressing these sentiments through the use of social media in an act of blatant self-promotion. Particularly when you consider that the email I received appeared to be a personal message and then transpired to be a bit of PR.

I don't want to do Penny a disservice: in all fairness she was only doing what a lot of business people do - making the most of her available tools to promote herself and thereby keep the money rolling in. But I do think a more honest approach to the real value of social media would have prevented these sentiments sounding so hollow.

There is a triviality to social media that means when not handled carefully, it can be very much an inhumane (for want of a better word) form of communication. As I commented on Penny's blog , there is often a level of disconnect as a result of glib, frequent communication. There is most certainly, on both an organisational and personal level, a sense of brand building. Anyone remember Tom Peter's Brand You? (I think this is the only thing I remember from my university days...).

I am a frequent user of social media, for my sins. I like to dabble in a little Twitter, facebook and LinkedIn. But I'm not convinced just yet, that it has made I or anyone else more humane. Let's call a spade a spade and see it for what it is.

25 years since Band Aid

I watched an interview with Midge Ure this morning on BBC news, talking about Band Aid and how the money they raised has helped farmers in Ethiopia. As a result of their aid, famers have been able to diversify their crops and look at new ways of sustaining food supplies even when drought hits.

There's a lot to say about the Ethiopian famine and Band Aid. One of the things that really impresses me is the way that this mass fund-raising effort caused a seismic shift in the way that we view others and our role in helping them. The en masse effort that went into raising money showed that giving isn't just done by terribly rich people in fur coats handing out pennies to the poor. It's something that needs to be done by everyone and is in fact a socially responsible thing to do.

As Midge Ure states, charity doesn't have to be about patronage and shouldn't be a way of exerting control or superiority over others. Giving, when handled well, concerns itself with enabling - acting as a conduit to better things. I believe Ure when he says that the Ethiopians he's met are incredibly hard-working people who want to do things for themselves - but they've been blighted by the unfortunate combination of traditionalist methods and climate change. The money raised can't change the latter, but it has gone a long way to addressing the fundamental way that Ethiopian farmers do things.

I think both of these points have relevance in business. Farming is of course a form of business and should tell us a lot about the way that we do things. More often than not it's only when things get into a difficult or unmanageable state that we start to ask ourselves: 'what went wrong?'; 'what happened?'. If only we had looked at the basic structures and principles that we base our business on at the outset, we could have avoided this situation. By that I mean, creating a platform that allows for change, evolution and growth and not restricting ourselves to the here and now. And don't be afraid to ask for help - venture capital and other fund-raising firms do offer support to businesses, to enable themselves to achieve growth.


In terms of social responsibility, most businesses could learn something from this too. Think about what impact your business behaviours have on employees and the community; spare a thought for lower energy consumption and recycling; encourage employees to take part in and even fund their time away on charity-based activities. But remember that charity starts at home - be good to your people and the rest will follow.

Are you a verb yet?

I galvanised my thoughts this morning with a brief article on bbc news about Google's recent success. The latest figures show that the behemoth search engine reached an astonishing net profit of £1.64 billion in the third quarter. Eric Schmidt, chief executive for Google, reportedly said "The worst of the recession is clearly behind us." It's a wonder he could speak with his tongue wedged so firmly in his cheek.

Of course the billions in the bank are one clear indication that Google is doing rather well these days and far far ahead of its competitors. Or as one senior anaylst delicately put it, Google's success has left "...Yahoo withering on the vine..." one imagines that the chief exec of Yahoo may well disagree with Schmidt's sentiments on the recession.

But one thing that always strikes me as a clear marker of success, the one thing that says "That's right guys, we've got it firmly in the bag." is when you reach verb status.

By 'verb status' I mean when someone can use your name as a verb without being in danger of confusing anyone or sounding pretentious. For example, if you've ever referred to hoovering, or in this scenario, 'googling' someone. How wonderful to be so powerful that you deserve a place in the English language.

But it's worth considering that when a business reaches this ultimate arena of success, is when the real work needs to start. Being known well enough to become a verb is a great sign of status, but it's also when you risk simply merging into the collective unconscious. To continue with the hoover example, you may refer to the act of hoovering, but nowadays it's the Dyson that's the 'must have' vacuuming machine. Dyson may not quite be verbified, but there're very few people who wouldn't know what you meant if you talked about using the Dyson, or getting the dyson out. Or at least you'd hope so! I might use the word hoover, but it wouldn't make me buy one.

Such is my ignorance of hoover that I had to do a quick web search just to check that they're still trading (I was tempted to say 'google search' but let's face, they don't need my help). It turns out you can buy all sorts of hoover applicances that are entirely unrelated to dust - something that my lovely thumb indexed Oxford dictionary could not tell me. You see what I'm saying?

Well, just in case you don't, the thinking is this. We all want to reach a certain stage in business and we all have different ways of measuring success. To me the real accolade is verbification, but I'm sure that when the powers that be at Google discuss success over skinny lattes in the boardroom they won't be saying "Yes I know we made our 5oth billion yesterday, but are we a verb yet?". And when we reach that stage of success, whatever it may be, that's when we really need to start proving ourselves and continue to show that yes, indeed, we are the best.

Lord Mandelson on government intervention

There's an interesting point that Lord Mandelson makes early on in his speech at the New Industry New Jobs conference, where he talks about a 'synthesis' between the 'interventionist' and 'pro-market' schools of thought i.e. using one approach doesn't necessarily preclude the other.

I like this way of thinking because it fits with my overall view of life and business: creating balance (you'll probably have noticed this theme running through a few of the other blog posts). Essentially what Lord Mandelson is saying, is that government shouldn't seek to dictate how business is done, or who's in the market, but it should provide assistance and skills drives where a lack of funding or knowledge could prevent necessary growth.

The example given is where the government has given funding for renewable chemical firms that have the skills in place, but not the capital they need to make their research a reality. This is what he terms 'capacity building'.

It might be conceited to say it, but at 2nd Head, capacity building is really what we're all about. Not just in the terms of providing financial support, but also through offering businesses the tools they need to support themselves in long-term growth, rather than simply rocking up and doing it for them - surely that's more about control than support. It's the microcosm to the government's macrosmic works, but each effort, regardless of scale, should go some way to making a difference to the market and keeping a sense of balance in place.

In such turbulent economic times that will hopefully come as a long-needed relief.

Lessons from Peep Show

It may seem a Friday bloggish thing to do, commenting on popular films and tv shows, but I'm going out on a limb to say: "If the theme is right, then comment anyway."

The latest series of Peep Show has covered quite a few topical business issues, not least redundancy and the consequences of office vandalism, but most recently: the importance of good branding.

Now I'm not even remotely suggesting that Peep Show offers a realistic, thought-provoking or debate-worthy insight into any of these topics. But like any good comedy, it does touch upon familiar, real-world scenarios, which is what makes them so funny. So you can see why sometimes when the nerve endings start to jangle, you might want to take a risk and use it for serious comment.

So, branding. The scenario that I'm thinking of is where Mark (the geeky one, for those of you unfamiliar with Peep Show) has been helping his ex-colleague/boss to set up a new consultancy business - operating from his boss' bedroom on a particularly insalubrious housing estate. Being an old-school salesman, his boss doesn't look for much guidance on business matters, simply throwing himself into the project with little thought for the finer details - one of which is the company's business name. Having toyed with 2 not especially imaginative ideas he finally decides to use them both and unbeknownst to Mark, prints up his business cards with both of them on it.

Even for people uninvolved in the branding process, it's apparently obvious why such a gungho approach is not the best route to business success. Partly because it implies little thought, decision-making skills or creativity, but mostly because it leaves your target audience uninspired and confused. If you don't know who you are, then how can you expect someone else to? And if people are unsure in any way about your business, then it reduces the likelihood that they will want to work with you.

While there must be very few businesses out there who would take the Peep Show approach, there will be plenty that struggle with a sense of corporate identity. Perhaps as the result of a merger or acquisition, where different cultures are coming together, or perhaps because they've been trading for so long that a real understanding of who they are and what they stand for has become lost. There's a myriad of reasons why it can happen, but it's a common scenario.

At start-up, most businesses will have a good sense of what they're about. This is largely to do with numbers. If you only employ a handful of people, largely made up of entrepreneurs then business ethos, even if not written down, is a daily and pressing concern. The problem is that if you don't articulate and define your business ethos at this stage then you're far more likely to encounter problems later on.

Assuming that you do take the time to capture your mission and vision statement, settle on the right tone of voice and transcribe your messaging, it's essential that you have processes in place that work to effectively communicate your values through each stage of the business. That means your 5th and your 50th employee should have exactly the same level of understanding about your business. It could be through induction plans, annual workshops or easy access to materials via the company intranet, but whatever you do, it must be consistent, highly visible and easy to understand.

Moreover, those who are involved in the recruitment process should work to identify who are the best fit candidates, in terms of ethos and personality, as well as their core business skills. Likewise, if you're in the process of making an acquisition, ensure that whoever you're acquiring has a good cultural fit with your business.

It may seem an idealistic vision to have everyone 'living the brand', but it's certainly something we should all be aiming for. Consider that your brand isn't just a business name, corporate colours and a strapline, it's not even about the numerous corporate documents that explain in fine detail what your brand represents. Your brand is the way in which your people work and communicate both internally and externally, it's the heart and mind of your business. So do what you can to keep it healthy.

Cameron and the media

At the risk of rehashing some old arguments, I thought it might be worth thinking about David Cameron's comments on the impact that the media has on children.

In the article that I stumbled across on Brand Republic, the journalist makes reference to an ongoing feud between the Conservatives and magazines like Nuts and Zoo, although in his most recent comments Cameron hasn't specifically named any individual publication. Reading between the lines it would seem more probable that he is indeed referring to lads mags rather than Management Today or Computer Weekly.

Right/wrong? Good/evil? White/Black? Yes/No?

Goodness it's such an old argument I don't know where to start. The media has long since been blamed for its influence on young people, for triggering mental illnesses like anorexia, for encouraging heroin chic, objectification etc. etc. The liberal view point on this is most commonly: let them get on with it; there's much more at play than just the media; consider your other cultural and social influences e.g. the role of parenting, peers etc. In short: magazines don't appear in a vacuum.

The other side of the coin, to take the most extreme viewpoint, is that lads mags and the like are all just a form a extreme wickedness and the root cause of most social evils today. Use the word evil a lot and you'll just about get there.

I am your classic fence sitter. I don't necessarily like the peddling of nude images and yes I would judge someone over the age of 21 for regularly buying (or at all) the not quite top shelf publications. It's the rule of dad i.e. what would you think if your dad did it? You get what I'm saying. However, much as I don't like them, how damaging/responsible for corrupting young minds do I really hold them to be?

To be quite honest with you, unless things have changed dramatically since I was a girl, most young women aren't all that exposed to these sorts of images anyway, beyond a casual, slightly more than cursory glance in the local newsagent. Unless your dad does buy them of course.

For young men, again, these sorts of magazines do perpetuate a certain type of image and are to some degree responsible for the way that men, especially impressionable young ones, view women. But by the time most men or boys have had any kind of relationship, they soon realise that the reality is quite different. Yes they can desire whatever they want, but as to whether it actually exists is another matter.

This brings me to the more disturbing part of the argument. On the whole the artificial, air brushed, super undersize me images haven't worked - are we not either on the verge of or in the middle of an obesity endemic? But in some ways that's the whole point: we are starting to see a worrying dichotomy emerge, where children especially are either alarmingly thin or morbidly obese. A rather nasty struggle between the reality of an over-fed, consumerist landscape and that same landscape's guilty conscience. Which will it be?

There is much talk in general about the new pressures that children face, which reach much wider than whether they wear a size zero - let's not forget it's not just girls that we're talking about here. Only the other day the Sunday Times ran a feature about the pressure on young people to outdo their peers with their academic performance. 3 As at A-level is no longer the holy grail that it was once cracked up to be.

We see the same thing in business where young people are struggling to be noticed because there are now so many of them vying for the same roles and the problem is that they're all bright, competitive young things. It's no longer enough just to be a nice person with some decent GCSEs and a baden powell award. Ah, them were the days.

So what are we really looking at here? Well, to prevent myself from really going off on some super tangent - as if you weren't lost already... I'll bring it back to the magazines. The magazines and the pushy parents and the high cost of living and capitalism and anything else we'd like to blame it on. I'm keeping my position on the fence: it's not just the magazines we see, although they do play a part. To me it's about a lack of perspective. A submergence in a cauldron of unreality, a lack of faith in our own convictions, even too much social networking, dare I say it.

So it you are a parent, a school teacher, a friend, a politician or a business leader, try and remember the qualities that count. Because being a good scout, girl, boy or otherwise, should count for something.

The invention of lying

I was fortunate enough to have an afternoon foray to the cinema yesterday, to watch Ricky Gervais' latest film: The Invention of Lying. For anyone that hasn't seen the trailers, the film is about a world where lying simply doesn't exist. In Gervais' dystopia, not lying also requires brutally honest truth and as a result, no imagination or fantasy. As an example, the film industry is restricted to producing dry accounts of events in history, which necessarily entail no embellishment. Gervais is the luckless film writer, recounting depressing events that no-one can bear to hear about, such as the black plague. He is therefore quite openly and to his face, regarded as a 'loser'.

I won't give away much more than that about the plot itself, but one part of the film that is worth drawing attention to, is the scene that depicts a 'real world' coke advert. In the advert the CEO of Coca Cola explains that he is asking us to buy coke so that he can make a profit. He admits that too much coke can cause obesity and it is just flavoured water after all, but he'd still like us to buy it. Quite a world away from advertising as we know it.

Of course what the unflinching nature of this advert implies, is that marketing is in essence, lying. And that in fact all forms of imagination carry with them a level of deceit. It's an interesting thought and I'm sure one that has occurred to most people at some point. Marketing, by its very nature, is trying to dupe us into believing things that are more often than not, untrue.

To some degree this does hold water. If a company is trying to convince you that by using a particular brand of mobile phone you'll have better relationships with your friends, then of course that's not true. But it's worth bearing in mind that adverts very rarely tell us something as a direct lie: it's all implied. The line 'We're better. Connected' does leave us to believe that the mobile provider in question can bring more to our relationships, but there is a big difference between this strapline and saying 'We guarantee people will like you more when you use us.' Some marketeers do use the word 'guarantee' and that's where I feel the line has been crossed.

Marketing is fine when it's glossing things up for you; it's telling you what you want to hear. In fact, like anything that uses a bit of imagination, a lot of advertising is actually quite enjoyable. Not because people have been sucked into a world where they believe word for word what they are being told, but because there are many clever and amusing ideas in advertising. Take the award-winning 'compare the meerkat' campaigns. Many people like this advert because it's downright entertaining, not because they love the idea of comparing the market. At least I hope that's the case...

It is, however, somewhat galling when you do see companies taking things too far and using loaded words like guarantee. Online dating sites are often quite guilty of this, as are age reversal creams. As if a person would want to put themselves through the process of proving that they are not actually emotionally attached to someone, or showing that yes indeed, their skin is still looking old and haggard.

You can always argue that if someone is naive enough to believe what marketing tells them, then it's their own fault - but we need a balance here. Marketing should be aspirational, fun and intriguing, but it should not deliberately mislead or prey on people who are vulnerable to false advertising. With the advent of more socially responsible advertising, you can see how this works. As an example, drinkaware.co.uk is used on most alcohol adverts now, to encourage people to take a more realistic view of what alcohol does to them. You're still asked to believe that your life will be better if you drink Jack Daniels, Baileys etc. but there is a more balanced view creeping in.

I would never suggest that we should aim for the kind of advertising that I saw in 'The Invention of Lying' (much as it amused me). Marketing should paint a thousand pictures; it should be a kind of commercial poetry if you will. But lay off the hollow promises. We could all do without them.

The rule of 10,000

At dinner last night one of my friends introduced the concept of the 10,000 hour rule. Basically the idea is that it takes 10,000 hours to master any particular skill. The examples given were Paula Radcliffe and Bill Gates. Obviously very different in their disciplines, but studies have shown that they each had to apply 10,000 hours before achieving the kind of success they're known for today.

Astonishing.

I had a little think this morning about the number of hours that I've been alive for. I have to admit, it was quite a humbling experience to realise that I've only been alive a paltry 262,800 hours (give or take an hour or two). Surely it must be in the millions by now! But what this does mean is that to be a master of any skill, I would have to have spent 4% of my life doing it. And sadly I think the only thing that comes close is sleep. I am a master of sleep! Bring on the sleep olympics.

So what am I trying to say? Well, firstly I like the idea of the 10,000 hour rule. I like the idea that through dogged hard work alone, you have a real chance of achieving great things.

Secondly, I hate this rule. Why on earth didn't I know about it sooner? It's going to take a hideous amount of time and effort, well, approximately a whole whopping 10,000 hours of it, if I'm even going to get close to being an olympic athlete. I'm just not convinced such levels of application are right for me. It's just a nagging thought.

The moral of this rule (if there can be such a thing), for us plebs who like to have a bit of work-life balance, is that hard work does get you somewhere. It can't get you everything, because luck, natural ability and 'sod' will get in the way at some point, but it's always worth a go. You never know where you might end up.

Enjoy your Friday everyone.

Online advertising overtakes tv ads

Looking around the news today I was tempted to comment on the switch of Sun support from Labour to the Conservatives. However I think there's been enough political comment from 2nd Head recently and as this would bring us back to issues of loyalty and trust, I couldn't necessarily say anything altogether inspirational on this topic!

The good news is that I did find an article on advertising that caught my eye. The headline relates to online advertising superseding tv advertising for the first time: up by 4.6% and totalling 1.752bn between January and July. Some impressive stats.

Quite as you may expect, much of this shift has been put down to the recession. Tv advertising is notoriously expensive and so it stands to reason that as belts tighten there would be an online shift. I am however in agreement with Thinkbox, the marketing body for the main UK commercial television broadcasters. In an admittedly not unbiased statement, it claims that tv vs. online can't act as a fair comparison. This is mainly because 'online' doesn't just encompass banners and podcasts, but all online activity, such as search engine optimisation, which arguably doesn't fall under the umbrella of 'advertising'.

Thinkbox also goes on to explain that the two mediums aren't mutually exclusive and should work to complement each other. Again, I am in agreement. It can be tempting to focus on one form of marketing as 'the new way' and soon find you've thrown all your eggs in one basket, when it's equally important to keep an eye on others areas.

A good example of this is my own thoughts regarding trade shows a few years ago. As someone who's worked in marketing for a while, I've doen my fair share. My fair share of lugging boxes; phonecalls of panic because plasma screens haven't arrived; phone calls of panic because sales people haven't arrived and so on. So you can imagine that seeing a downturn at a couple of successive exhibitions did cause (if I'm honest) a slight leap of hope. Was that it for exhibitions? Were the days of cart horsing around finally over?

Well, no.

There were indeed a few times that our leads started to plummet and in a relatively competitor friendly industry, as it was at the time, it seemed that our counterparts thought the same. We were generally in agreement that with so much available online, people were staying in their offices and finding everything they needed over the web. End of.

But as we soon found out, it just wasn't the case. Much as people like to browse the internet, they also like to be reached in other ways. It's why people don't just do their shopping online, it's why we still like to read the papers and buy magazines. Very few of us are one dimensional and even if we try to cut ourselves off from all the other mediums available, there's an extent to which we're always going to be exposed to forms of marketing that aren't online. That includes print advertising, tv ads, screens in the post office and so on. And exhibitions of course.

I'm pleased to say, grudgingly, that my last trade show for my previous employer (just this summer) was the best I ever experienced. Typical, you may say, but there was something wonderful about saying goodbye to all that hard work in such a positive, humming environment. Yes it was an incredible amount of hard work, but it paid off more than ever before. Even my most cynical colleagues were lauding the obvious effects.

Of course whatever older mediums you use, it's always important to monitor what you spend, to know who and how many are watching/reading/logging/clicking. But to ignore all traditional forms of marketing would be madness I tell you. Simply madness...

Brain training tests

Today's discovery is a new national brain training test called 'Brain Test Britain'. The idea is that individuals undergo a series of brain training games over the course of 6 weeks, starting with a benchmarking test. The theory goes that in 6 weeks time, if you have committed to regular brain training activities then you will hopefully have shown some improvement and be better at completing other mental tasks. Of course it's also a way for scientists to understand exactly how unintelligent the nation has become.

I jest, of course.

But why are we so interested (interested or obsessed? I sense that the word 'obsessed' may be too strong) in brain power? It is, after all, not the first time that people across the UK have been asked to participate in aptitude tests. Most of us will remember Anne Robinson testing the nation's IQ a few years ago. I have to admit I couldn't personally bear to get involved in this and be lumbered with an albatross-like IQ that I'd have to bear for all eternity (or something like that...). Or the possibility that a letter might appear in the post, personally signed from Anne and confirming that I am, indeed, the weakest link. How did she know?!

Apologies for the digression here. But the question remains, what is so compelling about testing out and challenging our mental faculties? Is it not enough that throughout life we undergo compulsory examinations that are designed to show what we are capable of?

There are many reasons why this could be. Firstly, it's simply good fun. Putting ourselves through regular sudokus, crosswords and epsidoes of Countdown (well maybe not the latter for those who are employed) is actually enjoyable. The reward of completing a task and getting it right quite naturally brings with it a sense of fulfillment and that little bit of everyday happiness that is necessary to keep our lives ticking over. 'It's the little things in life...' etc. etc.

The second reason is that many of us thrive on a bit of competition. Even when it's with ourselves. Whether working to be better than your partner, friend, or your performance in last week's paper, the knowledge that you may have outdone someone, on some level, is quite frankly deeply satisfying.

And it's the latter reason that makes me wonder, yes you guessed it, about its place in business.

Competition is important in business for so many reasons. Perhaps most obviously because if you aren't competitive as a business then you're unlikely to survive (unless of course there's no competition out there, which in this day and age is almost unheard of). But also because your people need to feel some degree of pressure to prove their worth and a bit of healthy competition between colleagues can help to achieve this. What's more, performance management is built on the concept of self-improvement and if you can't compete with your previous performance then there's very little chance of improving at all.

Having said this, let's not get carried away. Competition is good when it's structured e.g. in an appraisal and assessment environment, or as part of team events - a company away day or the like. However, competition is not good when conducted in an aggressive or egotistical manner. As an example, one would expect a sales team to thrive on meeting and beating targets. But when good performers start gloating or use their success as a means of intimidation, it can start to eat away at team morale. The result of which can even be a loss of competition between colleagues and instead endemic levels of under-performance.

Competition is an important and integral element of business life. People should be encouraged to perform at their optimum level, but when spirits are low and behaviours start to disintegrate, watch out for those individuals who may be using their abilities against others. Their talents should be fostered, but not at anyone else's expense.

Banker bonuses and prescription drugs

When I first looked at the news this morning I was tempted to write something about continuing speculation over inflated bonuses in the city. Apparently this is on the agenda for the Labour party conference and therefore to all intents and purposes continues to be a pressing issue.

There were, however, two reasons for not commenting on how much bankers are paid: firstly, the likelihood that I could actually offer original or insightful comment on this issue (they're paid too much, the tax payer, since bailing out the banks doesn't like it etc. etc.); secondly, there was another more interesting story about Gordon Brown and prescription drugs.

For anyone that didn't see it, in an interview on BBC1's Andrew Marr programme, Gordon Brown was grilled about a possible use of prescription drugs to get him through the general election. The feeling at the Labour party conference was that such a line of questioning was inappropriate for a programme that is upheld as one for serious political debate.

Much as I believe in honesty and integrity when it comes to politics and in fact all areas of life, there is something a little cheap about such intrusive interview tactics. If there were serious causes for concern about drugs interfering with his capabilities as PM then I could see why a question about his personal life would be justified. However, seeing as this was just blind curiosity, based upon a supposition that other politicians may dabble in the odd bit of paracetamol, it does strike me as a little unfair.

Perhaps part of the reason for asking about Brown's use of painkillers is due to a general dumbing down of politics to appeal to a wider and more scandal-hungry audience. We've seen it for years now, most evident in our unhealthy fascination for affairs and the like. Regardless of the fact that adultery (to coin an old fashioned term) is neither illegal nor proven to have any direct impact upon a person's ability to be a an effective politicial animal, it seems to be the one thing that we can use to drag a senior figure down.

Why should we reduce politics to such an inane level, other than to serve mindless gossip and ultimately make political issues palatable in the most destructive way possible? Yes, politics are relevant to and should concern all of us, but the process by which we should achieve that is through educating people about the real issues at stake, rather than by reducing our leaders to little more than celebrities. You'll be pleased to know that I won't get started on the 'sleb world today...

Similarly, there should be greater recognition of the damage that gossip has in the workplace. To give HR due credit, there has been much better recognition of office bullying and certainly in larger organisations, it is now commonplace to implement policies that handle such intimidating behaviour. Yet those ever prevalent office whispers do continue to circulate.

Perhaps one trick here, without patronising our colleagues, is to increase awareness of the effect that certain types of behaviours can have. For example, among younger members of staff, are they aware of the boundaries when it comes to sharing personal information? With the advent of such gossip powerhouses as facebook, people can often find that their colleagues are privy to all sorts of information that can be used against them. It's this sort of boundary blurring that often leads to lower morale, as colleagues struggle to overcome any rumours that are used against them.

You can't control everything and nor would you want to; people can and will talk. But a greater respect for the privacy we should accord our personal lives and those of others, could go a long way to focusing on the real issues at hand, be that the hard world of business or the even harder world of politics.

On hair

As it's a Friday I thought I'd lighten the mood a little, with some thoughts on hair.

The BBC breakfast show (I do watch and read things that aren't related to the BBC, honest!) was interviewing some influential women about their hair. Or at least I think that's what it was all about. Why they like to straighten it, wear wigs etc.

I was a little suprised that they wanted to have an intellectual discussion on this issue, which was peppered by some quite sincere attempts to explore the oppressive ideology that says women, especially black women, must have straight hair. Why does Michelle Obama wear her hair straight when she could have an afro? Etc. The interviewee refused to bite however and simply said "I wear my hair straight because I like it like this. That's it." Oh dear, serious debate over.

I'd like to add at this juncture that I'm not as obsessed with the Obamas as it may appear.

I don't have any strong feelings on hair and I really can't, try as I might, bring it back to business. Oh, other than perhaps a memory of my previous job that has always amused me. A young colleague of mine who prided himself on being a little bit 'out there', did at one point grow a rat tail (you know, a long bit of hair that well, looks like a rat tail...). When he went to a sales demonstration sporting the new look, his manager got the rat tail and tucked it into his shirt collar. I think he was quite embarrassed.

So the moral of the story? Care about your hair. Especially in business. But don't think it means too much, it really doesn't.

G20 co-ordinating world economy

The news today is all about the G20's new decision to control the world economy. My understanding is that this bold move involves a combination of planning for current recovery, while taking measures to ensure long-term global financial stability.

Wow. Attempting to exert and maintain control over the world economy is about as ambitious as it gets. Apart from maybe a pipeline ambition for 'world peace'. I wonder which is more achievable.

But I don't want to be one of those cynics who sneers at all politics and all political figures, just for the sake of it. It's an easy bandwagon to jump on, surely. In all honesty I can't help but be impressed that in such a short time, Obama has made inroads in so many different directions. Of course the G20 isn't all about Obama, but just think: climate change; the health system; guantanamo bay; the world economy. If that isn't sticking up two fingers to George Bush then what is?

I don't know the detail of policies, strategies or objectives in any of these cases. But I like the sheer gutsy nature of such a turnaround, where even apparently insurmountable, mind boggling issues are being faced. It could be seen as bravado; too much too soon; all hot air and no action, but when you think about the opposition that this quite wonderful man faces (yes, I did just express a political opinion...), does it not seem more riddled with integrity than flaws?

Bringing it back into a business context, a simple comparison can be drawn here. How often have you seen a new manager sweep boldly into an office and start making radical changes? It's a common scenario and can meet with widespread resistance. But that doesn't mean that it isn't necessary and often long overdue for an organisation. As long as you have clear objectives and truly believe that this is change for the better, then it's worth it. Do think about the detail, please, but go ahead: make some changes.

Building business relationships

I came across an interesting blog from Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. He was discussing the speculation and subsequent concern about Great Britain's relationship with America, now that Obama's in power. A relationship that has always been deemed to be special, but as he accurately points out, is actually just one of many 'special' relationships that America has with countries throughout the world.

Relationship building has never been easy, whether in the annals of political history, business relationships or just everyday friendships. But the inherent problem when it comes to these more high brow relationships is that each party, at some level, has to acknowledge that they're hoping to gain something from it other than just good old companionship. And that's what makes them fickle and so damn hard to maintain.

In politics and in business you're always looking at a balance of power. A trade-off of wealth for protection; the old adage of 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' and so on. So when something happens to threaten this balance it doesn't always take long to upset the apple cart and find a once excellent relationship has died.

I'm sure many of us have been in the rather unpleasant scenario of watching a business partner defect to another supplier, because they feel that we're no longer delivering the goods, or vice versa. So how can we hold on to these often invaluable partnerships and what do we do if they happen to fail?

It may seem a bit old school to say it, but a bit of honesty and integrity never did anyone any harm. Remember what they taught us in our youth about treating others as we'd like to be treated ourselves? Well that can go a long way in business. If you want to be paid on time, then get your house in order so that invoices are all always paid before the deadline. If you loathe sharp practice, such as the frighteningly common '30 day free trials' that lock you into long-term contracts, then make sure you don't resort to the same practice yourself. Staving off cynicism and acting in an appropriate, decent manner is one of the keys to business success.

Likewise, in the same way that you wouldn't enter a friendship with someone you know to be a bullying or domineering individual, why do the same in business? This isn't politics, we aren't talking life or death, or the possibility of war. If someone goes against your ethics as an organisation, then simply don't enter into a contract or relationship with them. It is only because unreasonable behaviour is tolerated that it continues to exist. And in the same vein, if a partner changes their ways, due to acquisition or simply the pressures of business, don't leave it too long before calling it quits. Nowhere is this more important than in reseller relationships, where your brand is at stake.

After all, if you hang out with the wrong crowd, sooner or later it's going to affect you.

Recession news reaction

BBC news reported this morning that the CBI is predicting yet more doom and gloom for the economy. Richard Lambert suggests that we can look forward to at least 18 months of belt tightening for both business and consumer.
I can't help but feel that there is to some extent a sense of self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we shout about the economic downturn, the more likely it seems that we will be struggling for some time to come. There's nothing like putting the frighteners in people to get them to act in a prescribed and not necessarily natural way. Perhaps if we all just bit the bullet and got on with things, we'd stand to achieve recovery far sooner.
Isn't it about striking a balance? If we learn to save and spend in equal measure, rather than spending blindly in times of prosperity and resorting to knee jerk frugality in a recession, we'd be far more likely to sustain moderate growth.
I'm no economist, but it's just a thought.

Cover pricing

The BBC news website is reporting on the practice of 'cover pricing', which has been used in the construction industry for years and is now experiencing a crackdown. The OFT has fined 103 firms over £129.5 million for what are widely agreed to be unfair price distortions.
Surprisingly there are those within the industry that feel cover pricing is fair game, as it's been commonly used for years.

My understanding of cover pricing, for anyone that's as unfamiliar with it as I was this morning, is that the term is used for businesses that tender for work at distorted prices. They are able to do this by persuading competitors to submit dummy bids at a similar cost and then pay them a cut once the work has come through.

Surely this is just an issue of honesty. Whether usual or unusual, sharp, deceptive or simply underhand practices like this should at the very least be frowned upon, if not punished by financial penalties and I'm glad to see that this is what's starting to happen.

Trust is at the very heart of many business relationships and without this firms will really suffer. More's the pity that it's often the few that serve to undermine an industry's reputation. It's not far removed from the expenses scandal in some ways, where a group of individuals or businesses become unfairly tarred by the actions of others. Common as it may seem, there will always be those who unjustly end up carrying the can for years to come.

Surviving brand damage

I was quite interested to see the Sunday Times reporting yesterday on Burberry's recent success. It's now in the FTSE 100, which is an excellent sign that it's truly making a comeback. It's always good to see a brand survive such horrors as the chav effect. According to BBC news they actually had to stop producing check baseball caps and have a full crackdown on imitation gear - the mind boggles at how wasteful and costly that must have been. Mind you there are plenty of other brands that have survived potential brand obliteration. Take Nike for example, with all those sweat shop associations that could well have ruined them not so long ago.

It would seem that more often not B2C organisations are more at risk than B2B. True, there have been plenty of software scandals, but do they really hit home in the same way as with high street brands? B2C is often more widespread and therefore more public, which means it's naturally more exposed and open to interpretation.

Needless to say there are brand challenges for all of us and these musings follow our own decisions at 2nd Head about the new brand. Watch this space...