Blog off

I like a good blog and, in my brief time writing them, I hope I have written one or two that have amused, provoked or entertained to one extent or another. But my regular use of Twitter (@mattsmithwpb) has made writing blogs feel increasingly onerous and this bothers me.

Now I am not predicting the death of the blog. It’s just that from a personal point of view I have concluded that I must re-invent the way I write my own content.

As a side effect of tweeting, the discipline of 140 characters has encouraged speed and concise writing (as well as abominations of language and grammar) to the point of excluding anything that may enhance the point being made. Comments are easily taken out of context and can appear unnecessarily emotive and reactionary. This is a rum state of affairs because sometimes the best creative writing efforts are borne of a stream of consciousness that is not edited to death. It’s a journey that starts in one place and ends in another but when the route must always be 140 paces you can’t travel far. The broadcast scale and speed of Twitter has no time for much more than news statements or one-liners which are hugely entertaining to read and write but like any quick dalliance with strangers will inevitably at some point leave you feeling unsatisfied (dirty Twitter).

So I am resolved this year to nourish and cherish my blogs. Of course this has spurred other thoughts on how to deliver more creative content but I am not sure the world requires or is ready for my first video blog?

Lottery winners who don’t feel rich

There is an irony in the nature of the Western “Occupy” movements. In real terms, most of the protesters remain in the top 1% earners in the world. In his book of last year, the Haves and the Have- Nots, World Bank economist Branko Milanovic states that to be in the top 50% of earners on the planet, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000. We Western Europeans should discount our dollar-denominated incomes by 10%-20% to allow for differences in purchasing power but even so most of us are doing very nicely.

If it were really about the evils of capitalism then we should be protesting against ourselves. According to the U.N. nearly half the world’s population, just under 3 billion people, earn less than $2 a day and the World Bank say 95% of those living in the developing world earn less than $10 a day. So it appears that many westerners we consider poor are among some of the world’s most well-off.

The Occupy movements are about trust. It is as deep rooted as instincts get. As a species, we often prefer to see those who breach trust punished – even if we all consequently suffer for it. Co-operation has underpinned our success from the earliest times – from the earliest harvesting to the first basic rules of society. Commonality of purpose and neighbourly behaviour enable us to achieve bigger things. All the big scandals are about breaches of trust – MP’s expenses, phone hacking, and even the credit crunch (no-one could trust the dodgy mortgage assets they had been sold).

But globalisation is redefining how physical communities experience trust (or a lack of it). The nation state might not have a fully fledged mechanism to manage the global super rich at the moment but it has served many of us very well. As Milanovic notes, “One’s income … crucially depends on citizenship, which in turn … means place of birth. All people born in rich countries thus receive a location premium … all those born in poor countries get a location penalty. It is easy to see that in such a world, most of one’s lifetime income will be determined at birth.”

If you are born in the West at any level you can be said to have gained a significant advantage. Cecil Rhodes wasn’t far off the mark when he said, “Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.”

“I’ve got no silver and I’ve got no gold, Just a whole lot of happiness in my soul”

So Ken Dodd knew what it was but in the age of austerity have we grasped it yet? Consumer confidence measures suggest not but economists have always struggled with the idea of measuring happiness.

Happiness has to some larger or lesser degree always been connected to material well being. Ever since the fifties the standard of living has improved at an astonishing rate and happiness for many people has been inextricably tied up with this journey. Sadly, the credit crunch (though the effects have been largely well managed so far through fiscal and monetary policy) has resulted in rocketing rates of mental health issues as economic realignment takes its toll in human as well as monetary cost.

Some would contend we must be happier as the low paid of today live longer and better lives than the rich of two hundred years ago. There are too many variables for this to work for me but what does appear to be true is that the raising of the “standard of living” bar appears to have converted “wants” into “needs” so now when expectations go unfulfilled people are disappointed.

It may be linked to the birth of mass envy through advertising or poor self esteem through phenomenon like celebrity culture. As a species we do seem to love stuff that (like junk food) in large doses is bad for us. (If you don’t believe me compare the way you feel about yourself after watching University Challenge with how you feel after enjoying an omnibus of Eastenders or Celebrity Big Brother – its called priming I believe).

I have come to the unoriginal conclusion that happiness works like a compass and a good compass doesn’t point to the same direction all the time. There’s a fixed limit on the amount of positive emotion to be experienced by anyone through anyone thing. at any particular moment. If this sentiment is dawning on us I won’t be betting on a consumer led recovery.

Social media – fact or astroturfing?

Recently I attended a round-table on Social Media (http://content.yudu.com/A1t073/midjul2011/resources/40.htm). I am not an unconditional advocate, it is not for everyone but I am an active user (@mattsmithwpb if you are interested) so I thought i might share my thoughts so far.
Social media’s selling points are speed and scale. It spreads information and connects people in their thousands quickly. The Arab Spring, super-injunctions, and the News of the World story illustrate its ability to quickly publish global online sentiment and influence people’s perception of events.
But for it work properly, social media requires content. Good content is rarely conventional nor are the campaigns and communities that support it. This is problematic for big businesses. Corporates do not deal in real news on the whole (e.g hacking, Trafigura etc) – they want to manage you. As a result companies have not got past first base. Sites such as Facebook remain primarily an extension of advertising strategy that might entertain fleetingly but are not long-term initiatives to build consumer communities. I am sure people will cite exceptions but they will be marketing campaigns none the less.
Social media works if you have something genuinely interesting to say and this is a big ask for mass market brands unless they put a lot of effort into micro marketing – and there is little evidence of that to date. the overarching problem is that most of us take the attitude that life is too short to be “pally” with companies. Much like “customer loyalty”, social media sounds like a good idea but implementing it is really about customer management.
Where social media is informing big companies is in its ability to deliver a snapshot of what people are thinking. Now corporates may covertly try to influence this snapshot (they do honest) but as themselves they will continue to shy away from it because unless their news and opinions are regular and interesting social media will be a bit of an uphill battle.
This is why I think smaller companies and niche providers can do well out of it. It can amplify that niche quirky element smaller businesses have – the reason we like them and use them. It’s hard to see how a mass market fridge manufacturer / retailer can make social media really work. but it is easy to see how a wealth management boutique / broker or niche retailer for example could easily have regular and enlightening views on subjects many of us will feel strongly about. This is not about giving away your intellectual property. It is about illustrating you have intellectual property.
The opportunities go even further in a business to business environment. At its most basic it is as an extension of PR but it can extend your reach among your peers. This is because in the workplace there is an economic imperative to network, be informed and participate. Thought leadership, experience and expertise in a particular area are in demand. If your pay-rise depends on being “part of your industry” you will probably at least explore it. Used properly the mix of tweets, linkedin groups and blogs can keep you and your business “front of mind” and develop your personal and business brand. With the right people in your business you can establish a dynamic and presence previously unavailable without huge PR fees.

So social media is not for everyone and if you do not know what astroturfing is it might not be for you just yet

The problem with the Millibrand

Ed Milliband is invisible at the moment. Having won the leadership a little over a year ago he is now a brand in trouble – and this means trouble for Labour. His overwhelming problem as far as theUK electorate are concerned can be reduced to two words – his brother. This is not even a problem entirely of his own making – he has his parents to thank for that – but it’s an invidious position for any public brand to inherit. He doesn’t even own his own product name! For most the Millibrand always carries nostalgic echoes of the more centre left David.

What’s worse not only do the rest of the country look at the Labour Party who voted him in and collectively wonder “what were they thinking?” but those in Labour in the know are already distancing themselves from the problem (David for one) so they can re-emerge post Ed to fight again. “Lucky Ed” has also had to endure the IMF’s and BOE’s support of Osbourne along the way. If he currently lacks intellectual product he also lacks sexy packaging.

I think it is fair to say that Ed Milliband will not be leading the Labour Party at the next general election or that if he does they will lose and deal with him afterwards.

The return of the Dark Lord

He is a bit shorter than Darth Vader and not as much fun but this week the seventh series of Lord Sugar’s most successful business venture to date – the Apprentice – began with not one but two consecutive nights of Britain’s most unlikely entrepreneurs fighting it out for a new kind of prize. It might be the last big reality TV show still in production but the recession has obviously affected Alan’s flagship product as he now no longer offers a job but a £250,000 investment into a “joint venture” business. In these difficult times they’ve modified the product but kept the same old familiar packaging.

The logic of the show has been sacrificed somewhat. The candidates are not pitching business ideas – as they do in the more worthy though dryer Dragon’s Den – but doing tasks and trying to prove themselves Alan’s most eligible partner. The ultimate winner then decides which sort of business they want to run and the Dark Lord provides the entire financial injection and personal expertise in running the new company. Sugar and the winner will be joint owners, with each taking a 50% interest.

It seems odd to me to invest in a person without knowing what they are going to be doing for you but it’s no less clear than the nature of Sir Alan’s investment itself. Is the money an equity investment or equity / loan split (which is what any venture capital business would do)? Do all shares carry equal voting rights, are they the same class for dividends? What are the exit arrangements? Are there call and put options on shares? Who advises the winner? Etc etc.

Mercifully all that is required of us superficially is to enjoy the contestants’ humiliation and gasp at the awfulness of some of their behaviour (ever hopeful we might discover another Stuart Baggs “the brand” to pour scorn upon).

The researchers have found the requisite desperados willing to say any old nonsense to get our attention. “Don’t tell me the sky’s the limit when there are footprints on the moon,” said Melody Hossaini, and “I’ve got plenty of charisma and, yeah, I’m not bad looking,” from Vincent Disneur.  But my favourite Baggism so far has to be from Helen Milligan, at 30 old enough to know better, who pronounced  “My social life and my personal life don’t mean anything to me.” What a human being! Sign her up to the dark side Sir Alan.

When a cook bites off more than he can chew

Jamie Oliver is suffering from brand over extension  Dream school takes slebs (admittedly brainy ones) and endeavours to use their star dust to engage difficult teens in education. These kids have all the appeal of anyone who is as likely to put a brick through your window as look at you. So on the one hand we should applaud his intentions (if they are as pure as I hope). The problem is that well meaning motives are not enough to assume you can go dabbling in anything you choose. In the same way people seem to think that because your opinion can be heard it should be heard, Jamie’s knack for turning around disaffected yoof seems to know no bounds when actually it should.

It’s the Fifteen gig all over again but this time without the cooking and that is the problem  In his cheeky chappy way (he refers to teaching these kids as that “school malarky”) he appears to be saying that where professionally qualified teachers have failed, a few days of slebs and TV can succeed. Of course there is no come back when said slebs disappear to their next project and these kids realize they were merely feeding reality TV’s voracious appetite for cheap stars.

Teachers around the country cringe as his programme ironically panders to the narrow minded instincts of middle class parents everywhere. Bloody teachers!

What next? Well he could try another public sector area like health. At least Jamie’s hospital would serve the food Heston Blumenthal would approve of and I like the idea of Jamie operating with a pestle and mortar and spatula throwing in a few herbs and removing an appendix with the kind of panache mere surgeons could only dream of. Alternatively he could refocus on current operations. I had a coffee in Fifteen the other day and the atmosphere was not all that.

 

The Porn Ultimatum

The Telegraph had a gem of a front page this week. The lead picture on 22^nd Feb  featured ex Home Office Minister, Jacqui Smith, in the neon lights of SoHo on the pretext of investigating the porn industry. In the death throes of a political career here was Jacqui Smith’s last chance to make it in the “meedja”. 

From the make-over in 30 minutes show to ridiculous plot lines we go along with for the sake of being entertained, conceits exist everywhere in the media.  But despite her protestations about getting to the bottom of this issue I can’t help thinking Jacqui Smith too is pulling the wool over our eyes? How unacquainted with porn is she? The fact her husband was buying it on expenses without her knowing doesn’t mean she didn’t know what it was.  Secondly she was a Minister of the Home Office – surely Law and Order meant she had to have some handle on it? Being photographed in SoHo may make great promotional material but frankly two hours at a PC would tell her everything she needs to know (and I suspect she does). 

Who’s playing who here? I’m starting to feel used. Should I  expect Michael Grove to take a PGCE after failing to sort out our schools? Will Liam Fox quit to learn how to shoot guns? Will Vince Cable admit to knowing nothing about economics (or maybe he is already doing that)? 

A career after politics is hard – ask Lembit Opik – but rebuilding on the very platform that helped end your career seems an interesting starting point. It seems even though she may not like it she understands porn well enough to know that sex sells.

King plays his own game but the government holds the aces

There is much gnashing of teeth at the creeping increase in inflation and Mervyn King’s ostensible refusal to do anything about it. I believe Mervyn is engaging in sensible economic management rather than inflation management but his motives for doing so are very different from mine. For me, with fragile economic recovery underway sporadically across the UK, the current policy delivers a dose of inflation that will inflate away our debt and low interest rates will protect vulnerable home owners bracing themselves for the public sector cuts. Banks can borrow for next to nothing, lend at higher rates and restore balance sheets. Savers? – well at least they will not be homeless.  Meanwhile politicians of all persuasions are grateful for a steady hand on the tiller while they set about righting the fiscal situation of UK PLC.

 Mervyn knows all this but he harbours another ambition. Politicians’ gratitude for Mervyn’s safe pair of hands has blinded them to the deleveraging programme he has embarked upon. By taking the wind out of the sails of every asset class –  but in particular property –  Mervyn is administering medicine we probably all need but frankly we are not going to like. Furthermore, ethically I am not sure an unelected official should be doing this without the nation’s mandate. We are going to fell poorer for a long while to come.

 So will Mervyn get his way?  Mervyn is due to notch up ten years in 2013, just in time for a new man to take the helm with two years to run to the General Election. By this time the coalition will be at war – with both parties positioning themselves as the success story of the last three years. What Dave and George will have realised is that Mervyn’s secret plan to deleverage every asset type will not have made any of us feel any richer and that will win votes from noone. In an indebted society, monetary policy is the single biggest thing to make us feel richer or poorer – the government will realise this at election time. Expect a new man (or woman) to be more understanding.

Measuring happiness? Don’t make me laugh

Our masters have decided it is high time to make wellbeing the goal of policy. Judging by the PM’s reaction to news of the Royal Wedding (apparently the cabinet  spontaneously burst into cheers as they realized they would no longer be in the spotlight while they dismantle the UK), all we need to do is have a regular Royal Wedding and the job will be a good’un.

Measuring happiness is fraught with difficulties. Previous research into defining and measuring happiness has elicited confused findings. This is largely due to the massive discrepancies in the type of questions and scales administered and how distinct nations understand the concept let alone general methodological approaches.

But my gripe (for I have one at least) is when did politics get so good at its job that we can abandon the Herculean task of minimizing misery ( like child poverty, unemployment, long term care, credit crisis et al). Are we done there so now we can comfortably move onto maximizing a vague concept of happiness?

By repositioning happiness in the political and public arena we are no longer dealing with what we need but what we want. This way lies madness. The Buddhists are right – by learning not to want is how we get enlightenment. Measuring happiness comoditizes it and moves the public mindset to one that believes not only that it exists around them but that one might not have got enough of it. This is enough to give anyone a decent bout of anxiety – it’s a kind of materialistic approach to happiness (materialism of the “I want” kind rather than the ”I need” kind) that has done as much as anything I can think of to make people unhappy.

If happiness becomes another job of the state it will produce more expectation laced with an appropriate tidal wave of public apathy. A life of perpetual satisfaction is not the ultimate good (can you have really lived without experiencing unhappiness?). People are happy for the right reasons, according to their own values. Its a personal moral journey, not an administrative one.