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...
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
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.
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.
Monday, 28 September 2009
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.
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.
Friday, 25 September 2009
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
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.
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.
Monday, 21 September 2009
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
