drcontrarian - Tumblr blog

drcontrarian · 4 years

Text

The New Normal - From a Real World Perspective

I think it is pretty ironic that our attitudes towards toilet paper reveal what shitty humans we are.

And it is ably demonstrated by ‘everyman-and-his-dog’ offering advice on the Post-Covid world and inane ‘tips to transform yourself in a crisis’ that masquerade as marketing advice; as if these pundits have experience in the effects of the pandemic.

On the plus side, true blue capitalists are hard to keep down and it is good fun to watch.

But that does not mean we can’t grapple with some of the issues we are all facing. I thought a useful approach would be to attempt to identify some of the underlying fundamentals that may indicate the direction/ momentum of change.

And then, just because I hate the generic ‘consultant-speak’ like ‘become more responsive’ and ‘identify strategic opportunities’ as the ‘changes’ we should embrace, I will instead offer specific, detailed tactical changes that may or may not play out, but are worth thinking about.‘

Before we get to the short-term (Part B)changes that will manifest post-pandemic 2020, consider the broader socio-economic context (Part A) that it will play out in.

PART A: Macro Changes

There are a few drivers that are shaping the landscape of our future.

ONE: Major changes information technology has brought about

The Guardian published a piece in 2017 that presaged the end of capitalism.

“First, it has reduced the need for work, blurred the edges between work and free time and loosened the relationship between work and wages. The coming wave of automation, currently stalled because our social infrastructure cannot bear the consequences, will hugely diminish the amount of work needed – not just to subsist but to provide a decent life for all.

Second, information is corroding the market’s ability to form prices correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information is abundant. The system’s defence mechanism is to form monopolies – the giant tech companies – on a scale not seen in the past 200 years, yet they cannot last. By building business models and share valuations based on the capture and privatisation of all socially produced information, such firms are constructing a fragile corporate edifice at odds with the most basic need of humanity, which is to use ideas freely.

Third, we’re seeing the spontaneous rise of collaborative production: goods, services and organisations are appearing that no longer respond to the dictates of the market and the managerial hierarchy. The biggest information product in the world – Wikipedia – is made by volunteers for free, abolishing the encyclopedia business and depriving the advertising industry of an estimated $3bn a year in revenue.”

TWO: It’s what people want

It is what people want, probably in response to the helplessness that is induced by ONE above.

Recently, the ABC (Australia) published a piece that observed that senior officials from the governing (conservative) party as well as members of the community took exception to the way people were hoarding and ‘profiteering’ by arbitraging the shortages wrt to everyday items like toilet paper.

Seeking out gaps in the market and exploiting price anomalies are the everyday activities of anyone involved in any kind of trade, from shopkeepers and grocery wholesalers to money market high-flyers who trade synthetic derivatives of complex financial instruments.

As a free-market economy, successive governments of all persuasions for the past half-century have embraced the idea that government should not run commercial enterprise. They've preached privatisation, asset recycling and the fundamental belief that free trade and minimal government intervention will maximise wealth and lift society as a whole.

Traditionally conservative governments are responding in ways that left-leaning/ socialist regimes could until recently only dream of. Tom Quiggan said this in an article on ThinkSpot:

“The current government led response to the pandemic and the financial crisis appears to be panic driven. Momentum is growing behind the idea that governments should be able to bail out every individual and every industry that is facing financial stress. While this is normatively appealing, it is unsustainable for anything beyond a few weeks and unlikely to be productive. Throwing money at failing systems is how we got to the financial crisis we are in now. It also means that debt and taxes are virtually guaranteed to increase in the next years or services will have to be cut dramatically.

The children of today are the tax payers of tomorrow and they will suffer immensely if the system is not fixed.

These massive bailouts will have the effect of rewarding those who made poor decisions and wound up in debt. They will punish the prudent who were saving money during the perceived good times. This will fuel yet another divide in society as the prudent and hard working become distressed or angry at being fleeced (again) to support the imprudent and wasteful.

Quiggan is essentially heralding the undesirable consequences if the traditional conservative/ libertarian approach to the economy is not upheld. But it is not, and even the most casual observer will recognise this in the communities we live in.

One cannot possibly believe that traditional, industrial capitalism will not be transformed into something completely different. We are creating a new normal and we don’t quite know what it is.

Whether it is labelled as a ‘neo-socialism’ or a ‘neo-capitalism’ does not matter, but it is one where trade is less free and the government (or some central bureaucracy) holds power over supply. Because the government has played the role of payer and lender of last resort, why not payer and lender of every resort. Debt jubilees/ Universal Basic Income and the like are the nature of things to come.

It is either that, or war.

Cryptocurrency is the dark horse. It could undermine the power of a central authority and give people unfettered freedom to move money around at will, without knowledge or intervention of any government. It will likely be regulated before it fulfills its potential.

It should be exciting, but I find it scary. And the reason for that is philosophical. I don’t have faith in man’s ability to create something good out of this.

THREE: It is the nature of Man

(You can safely skip the next paragraph because it is a philosophical justification for my overall pessimism.)

From a religious philosophical perspective people are cast as ‘sinners’. Sinners are (by definition) those who ‘miss the mark’. If you want to get an idea of what the global culture is like (what it values) then simply look at the aggregate of what ‘trends’ on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Half the world’s population are on those platforms, so that is as representative a sample size as you can get.

What Nietsche meant when he declared God dead, is summarised by Mark Sayers:

“What we are experiencing is not the eradication of God from the Western mind but the enthroning of self as the greatest authority.”

Now what could go wrong when those who ‘miss the mark’ become the ‘authority’?

The first two observations about the changes happening are probably uncontroversial. My pessimism about the quality of that future outcome is arguable if you have faith that humans on the whole always improve things ; i.e we are progressive in a way that leads to a (greater) good or at least better.

I am pessimistic about Man’s ability to create a positive/ beneficial world when it becomes untethered from the Judeo-Christian fundamentals. Even if the idea of religion and God sits uncomfortable with you, any objective observer of history cannot realistically deny that ‘western civilization (and all of our laws) are founded upon these Christian foundations.

Whether we would be better or worse off when we divorce our societies from these belief systems is a matter of opinion (and I don’t need to debate that here) - but I offer it as my rationale for being sceptical about a humanistic framework as the basis for lasting stable societies.

PART B: Micro Changes

John Batistich writes in Smart Company predicting the following changes in the retail environment:

Consolidation (specifically in Supermarkets)

Higher concentration

Fewer stores

Online step-change

One department store

Two discount department stores

More local

Rent reversions

Percentage rent

Make expenses variable

Cash economy declines

Cashflow management

New concepts

Most of these observations are simple, legitimate extrapolations of current trends, so I will limit my commentary to a few observations:

Rent reversions will be at unprecedented levels for many categories in many areas - I predict that it will be up to 50%. (This will place pressure on Superannuation funds’ returns, adding to economic woes, and pressure on Boomers to remain in the workforce.)

Making rents/expenses variable is something that I long advocated (see Beat of the Mall). This pandemic has proven that risks can’t be isolated to between categories/ sectors and that variable rent is a sensible way of synchronising the timing of economic fluctuations (good and bad) between members of a supply chain.

The downside is that one person’s variable expenses is another person’s variable income. Variable incomes are typically associated with higher risks and higher risks are features of an unstable ecosystem.

In an article in QSR Magazine Micha Magid the co-founder of Mighty Quinn’s Barbeque (US fast-casual concept) , is brave enough to nominate fairly specific outcomes. I smummarised those in a previous post.

They are worth reading because they are very specific, practical outcomes that are articulated. For example:

Approximately 25 percent of all restaurants remain indefinitely closed with 90 percent of the closures hitting independently owned locations.

Delivery focused restaurant brands do very well into the end of the year.

Great ethnic restaurants become increasingly harder to find

The salad chains underperform the rebound as raw food still caries caution in the national psyche.

I would like to add a few more specific prognostications to this list as it applies to the hospitality sector:

The return to ‘business as usual’ will be a gradual process, initially driven simply by people getting frustrated with isolation, and then once restrictions are lifted, the high unemployment rate will depress spend. (A recession or worse is actually likely).

Retailers will start practicing surge pricing

Consumers will hate queuing, so ordering ahead, table ordering and click and collect will continue to grow

A greater focus on food safety & hygiene (keep cups may lose momentum)

Unreasonable demands for small (uneconomical) deliveries - accepted during the pandemic - will prove the undoing of many restaurants

Price of meals will escalate to accommodate rising input prices (drought, fires etc) and unsustainable delivery costs as competition is reduced and the remaining operators have more flexibility.

In response to the above, consumer demands and expectations around customisation and health will put pressure on production times and costs.

The life cycle of new concepts will shorten, making innovation nonviable for landlords whose capital contributions allowed many concepts to be born

#Covid-19

0 notes

drcontrarian · 4 years

Text

Where are the Retail Leaders when you need them?

Dear Mark McInnes (& Cohort) : Just in case you were wondering what the little guys think of your actions, this is for you.

In any crisis there are multiple opportunities to take advantage of the situation; opportunities to build and opportunities to destroy. Disappointingly, almost without exception (Lowes - in Australia - being one of the few) are showing their true colours.

Almost all of the largest brands have chosen to shut their doors under the guise of ‘community safety’. This is cynical on an unimaginable scale. More than that; it is outright deception and opportunism.

These large brands are using the pandemic to re-set their cost base in terms of rents and wages.

Mark McInnes is apparently waiting for a call from the ‘landlords’. So, he decides to unilaterally and flagrantly breach commercial contracts on a large scale, and then puts the onus on the aggrieved party to make contact? To talk to you about the safety of YOUR staff?

As I wrote here in detail, the facts of the matter are:

Tenants are not entitled to a rent abatement.

Environmental threats like these (when the buying public abandons you for whatever reason) are for the retailers to wear.

You cannot simply transfer your business risk to other parties.

Landlords may be entitled to paid rent (by contractual agreement) but the risk that they carry is payment default and consequential vacancies.

The risks that each party carries are connected, but they’re not the same and the issues, the remedies and responses are not the same.

In a commercial eco-system like a shopping centre, the actions of ANY party could have a material, lasting impact on the whole system.

And finally, actions have consequences and often also unintended consequences. In the case of the approach taken by the majority of the big labels, the unintended consequence is the destruction of many indie retailers.

Chain- and independent retailers have a symbiotic relationship in the shopping centres: the large brands (are supposed to) draw the people with their high brand awareness and the indie retailers leverage that traffic.

In turn, the indie retailers add flavour and point-of-difference and serve as incubators for new ideas and different experiences that propagate new retail.

The retail evolution demands that the avant garde retail must fail because the system-risk of large retailers failing is terminal. The little guys are sacrificed at the altar of innovation. This is necessary.

But the big guys acted like the petulant school kid who took the ball to stop the game when they couldn’t get their way.

If the big brands abdicate their responsibility, they also shut down all the other forms of retail. They are willingly, purposefully collapsing the whole system in their own selfish interest. But they don’t appreciate that there may not be an ecosystem to come back to ‘on their terms’.

Of course, in a free market, they are entitled to take those actions and deal with the legal consequences as they may be. But to CLAIM that is for the safety of your staff when you just want to get rid of them or not pay them is poor form. To claim that is for the safety of the community, when you simply want to box your landlord into a corner is unforgivable.

The market will remember you.

When you attempt to come back and fail, you will have destroyed all shareholder value and you will have damaged the playing field for all the other innocent players, maybe irrevocably.

You will blame Covid-19, and retire with a golden parachute. You will probably need to believe that narrative if you want to be able to live with yourself, but let me tell you dear Mr Big Brand CEO, the seeds of your failure was sown long before Covid-19.

You failed to partner with your landlord in the good times.

You failed to manage your costs responsibly.

You failed to innovate because you thought you would just ride out your tired old ‘concept’ through to retirement.

You failed to mitigate your risks properly.

You failed to act responsibly and ethically when you were blindsided.

In fact, you are not only short-sighted and stupid, you are the worst kind of wicked.

The worst because you are sanctimonious and self-righteous while the world around you burns. The very people who built the business for you are now abandoned and alone and desperate. If anyone can borrow six months worth of payroll at nearly zero percent interest, it is you. That would be a smart thing to do; and the business would be paid back in future loyalty, commitment and engagement many times over.

But you can’t see that; and let me propose to you that because you can’t see this is the REAL reason why you are not able to cope with this crisis.

I’ll await your call.

#Covid-19

0 notes

drcontrarian · 4 years

Text

13 Predictions about the post-Covid Hospitality World

In this article - well worth the read - by Micha Magid the co-founder of Mighty Quinn’s Barbeque (US fast-casual concept) , a number of very specific predictions are made. I have summarised 13 that I liked below. The only caveat is that the assumption is that people will have the money to behave in the ways predicted.

Approximately 25 percent of all restaurants remain indefinitely closed with 90 percent of the closures hitting independently owned locations.

Delivery focused restaurant brands do very well into the end of the year.

Digital order channels are flowing, people embrace their missed sense of normalcy and business is back.

Fast casual and quick service continue to outperform the beleaguered restaurant industry while the casual-dining sector suffers as people just aren’t ready to linger in dining rooms.

Small independent restaurants still struggle in the fourth quarter and many favorites have closed forever while others are able to slowly get back to business.

The salad chains underperform the rebound as raw food still caries caution in the national psyche.

Great ethnic restaurants become increasingly harder to find as they suffered the most closures while the remaining survivors are slow to return as consumers dine out with an irrational abundance of caution through the end of 2020.

It’s a burger, pizza, pasta, BBQ, burrito world through the end of the year.

Mobile user interface, customization and ease of ordering become just as important as in-house service. For the second half of 2020, order ahead and digital delivery ordering are the primary drivers of the rebound in restaurant revenue.

Large malls continue to suffer. The slow-motion brick and mortar retail apocalypse will accelerate as bankruptcies spike following holiday 2020.

The mall repositioning away from apparel retail and into food and entertainment will no longer work.

Crowded communal tables in food courts … too soon.

As the work from home population increases the residential adjacent restaurants will see increased profitability from a stronger lunch day-part in a time of softening rents.

#Covid-19

0 notes

drcontrarian · 4 years

Text

Landlords , tenants and rent abatements in a time of crisis

WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR

Tenants have stopped paying rent on an unprecedented scale.

The government has urged Landlords to be reasonable without mandating a process.

The Landlords / PCA have announced a few platitudes about working together, without offering a concrete solution.

The Government has not only used the business community to be their de facto tax collector (BAS), it is now forcing them to play Centrelink to channel benefits to the unemployed.

So we are faced with a conundrum.

THE FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE

Tenants are not entitled to a rent abatement. Every business has a different risk/opportunity profile. Some businesses are benefiting from the (so-called) pandemic and others are decimated. Environmental threats like these (when the buying public abandons you for whatever reason) are for the retailers to wear.

It is not helpful to demand a rent reduction you are not entitled to. You cannot simply transfer your business risk to other parties.

Landlords may be entitled to paid rent (by contractual agreement) but the risk that they carry is payment default and consequential vacancies. Lease agreements are supposed to give REITs et al a secure and steady cash flow, but the reality is that beyond the tipping point, mass vacancies will kill the asset - permanently.

It is not helpful to demand a rental payment when the trading environment has changed so dramatically and so rapidly. And it is not particularly helpful to NOT communicate with tenants during such uncertain times.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN

Tenants with expired leases will argue for ridiculous ‘market rents’ upon renewal, when the current situation is clearly not ‘the market’.

Retailers with large footprints in certain portfolios will seek to use the shift in balance of power to reset their baseline occupancy cost.

Tenants with current leases will argue that the current situation is not the normal market and seek rent relief.

Landlords will use the opportunity to force a few vacancies that may suit their master plans.

Landlords will attempt to navigate this on a case by case basis.

Every business that has been avoiding tax obligations, underpaying staff will be at the front of the queue for those very government hand-outs that they did not want to provide for.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN: LANDLORDS

If you have been claiming to value ‘sustainability’, NOW is the time to practice what you preach. Sustainability is more than being green; it is also about social and economic sustainability. (Remember the Triple Bottom Line?)

Be humble: You don’t know retail. Your proximity to it may give you a sense that you know what it is like, but you don’t.

Be cautious: your relationship with your tenants is tenuous at best, playing hardball with their livelihoods will do untold damage to your brand in the communities those tenants and their employees live in.

Be responsible: declare a rent moratorium for three months with only outgoings (excl Marketing) payable with an undertaking to extend leases by the same period of the abatement

Be smart: revisit your master plan so that you can be ready for a new retail landscape.

And as a bonus - be innovative. Just like ‘late night’ trading is an archaic relic that lingers for no good reason, so the structure of the standard specialty lease is flawed. It is not only useless (as can be seen in the current circumstances) it does not reflect the true nature of the relative risks and it is not responsive enough to trading conditions and competitive environment. (Read Beat of the Mall for some innovative thinking on retail leases of the future.)

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN: RETAILERS

Be humble: you are entitled to nothing, so be prepared to walk away with nothing.

Be cautious: changes that you are making to your business now to stay afloat is training your customers to expect that into the future and it may not be sustainable.

Be responsible: preserve your cash as much as possible (and manage the flow) because there will be significant ‘ramp up’ costs when the switch is flicked in the future. (Like re-stocking etc.)

Be smart: use the time to think about what your business and brand should be and work on the plans, strategies and systems that will set you up for the future.

And as a bonus - be innovative. Every dress shop looks the same. Every shoe shop looks the same. Every bag looks the same. Every travel shop looks the same. And not only do they look alike, they operate alike. Is it any wonder that they are all going broke? In every crisis there are opportunities if we only stop wasting time feeling sorry for ourselves. A shop is just a box with three walls and a door - treat it like a blank canvas. Pivot to something that people are willing to pay for (and talk to your landlord about it.)

0 notes

drcontrarian · 4 years

Text

NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN

Older people get really arrogant over time.

As one of them, I can tell you it is because we find it hard to believe that people can’t see the lessons of history.

The frustrating thing is that it also applies to smart people as much as anyone else.

Black Swan events, whilst by their very definition so rare that it is hardly worth trying to anticipate them, are nevertheless sufficiently understood at least in principle so that there is no excuse for not responding appropriately.

Politicians who create a narrative that there is ‘no rule book for this’ are simply too ignorant or opportunistic to study history. There is nothing new under the sun (Prov) and therefore there is a rule book for everything.

We own a cafe in a regional tourist town. In 2020 alone we have already experienced TWO supposedly ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ events. Disaster is really not that infrequent.

The responses of the government are flawed in ways that are not excusable. I am not being bi-partisan here; ANY and all governments across the political spectrum are all responding quite similarly.

The flaws are a result of a lack of foresight. Because they are not looking far enough ahead, the necessary trade-offs that are being considered in the short-term are wrong.

At the bottom, the question at this time is really: what is the price of a life? Because for those many, significant, long-term consequences for an entire population must be weighed up against the value of lives saved by the current actions.

The question becomes an intractable problem when the severity of the impact can easily be mitigated by the (potentially) impacted people.

Put simply, if you can save your own life easily, how much must other people be prepared to suffer if you choose NOT to value your own life?

I would like to suggest a different frame on this contagion: what if you consider it a fact that people don’t get ‘given’ a virus, but that they ‘take on’ a virus? For example, if I choose to open my cafe and take people’s money and become infected by handling contaminated money; did I get given the virus or did I take on the virus?

I find it particularly interesting that the government response to ostensibly save lives is so over the top, but the very same government also advances both abortion and euthanasia legislation. There is a paradox there that I can’t quite grasp.

Then I am reminded that the government is composed of career politicians who are tuned into WIFFM (what’s-in-it-for-me) and they are not inclined to let a good crisis go to waste.

There is indeed nothing new under the sun.

#Covid-19 #virus

0 notes

drcontrarian · 4 years

Text

The 6 Stages of a National Crisis

Stage 1: Exclamation Stage (aka WTF?)

It’s happening!

What’s happening?

Be careful!

Do this!

Watch the looters!

Stage 2: Crying Stage

We need goods

We need services

We need people

We need support

In can’t believe this is happening

Stage 3: Admiration Stage

For the volunteers

For the donors

For the heroes

Stage 4: Blaming Stage

The Government

The left

The right

Everybody else

And of course, #ScottyfromMarketing

Stage 5: Post Mortem Questioning

Why were these people not insured?

Where does all the aid go?

Who is paying for all this?

Who is not paying?

Stage 6: Reality Returns

Long after the volunteers, donors and celebrities have disappeared off to the next tragedy, the reality slowly returns. Fences remain to be fixed. Back roads remain inaccessible. Neighbours start fighting again. A small business goes broke six months later when all the cash reserves are burnt and people changed what and how they buy in small, unforeseen ways. Volunteer organisations and initiatives in other areas suffer from lack of funds because it was diverted somewhere else more pressing. Insurance costs increase, electricity goes up. Taxes go up, benefits are cut somewhere else to pay for the outcry during the disaster.

The drought lingers. Six months later the price of bread goes up because a farmer missed a season. Another divorce and another farmer wants a wife.

A baby is born to a single mother because the father lost his life saving someone else. A widower starts drinking too much because he lost his wife in the tragedy, and is abandoned by his kids for being so difficult. Road rage incidents and suicides spike, but no one knows why.

By the side of the road we see a few green shoots coming through. An entrepreneur comes up with a program to ‘help’ small business survive and instead of seminars on ‘going online’ there are seminars on ‘recovering from a disaster’. Short-term ‘programs’ become new bureaucracies that take on a life of their own beyond their use-by-date, allowing the government to expand its reach and control.

In short, life returns to normal. Different, but normal.

#climatechange #bushfires

0 notes

drcontrarian · 4 years

Text

Real Trends that are not Fads in Hospitality

Found a reasonably thorough piece of research, that summarises the trends in the hospitality industry. It is very much in accordance with my own experience:

TREND 1: STAFFING PROBLEMS WILL NOT GO AWAY.

Hospitality is a people industry. But good people are hard to find — and keep. Staffing issues are — by a significant margin — the biggest challenge facing the industry. Concerns over difficulty in finding and retaining staff are widespread, as are complaints about poor work ethic, especially among casual staff, and a lack of skills. A related issue is high wages (especially penalty rates).

• TREND 2: HEALTHIER FOOD IS NO FAD.

People are eating healthier food. Venues are reporting a growing interest in healthy foods and cuisines, with less healthy offerings in decline. Traditional fast food is down, with chains increasingly offering healthier options. Healthier cuisines like Japanese are becoming more popular, while those regarded as less healthy, such as steak houses, are declining.

• TREND 3: CONSUMER TASTES ARE CHANGING.

The low end is moving up-market, while the high end is moving down. Fast food is moving towards fast casual offering something more of a dining experience, while at the same time the upper end of the market — often called ‘fine dining’ — is becoming less exclusive.

• TREND 4: FINANCIAL PRESSURES ARE INCREASING.

It is not easy running an eating venue. There is no end to the money going out. The survey asked operators to rate a dozen different cost and business pressures as to their effect on profitability. Not surprisingly, wages for casual staff rated highest and wages for fulltime staff rated second.

• TREND 5: THE VIRTUAL WORLD MEETS THE PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE.

The world is moving online — but eating out remains a physical experience. Where do the two meet? Consumers are increasingly booking online (though phone calls are still used more often), and they often rely on online recommendations.

• TREND 6: MARKETING IS BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT.

Exposure, mindshare, visibility. Call it what you will. Good marketing can be the difference between success and failure in the dining business. Online is important, but there is no substitute for an appealing shopfront.

• TREND 7: CUSTOMERS ARE BECOMING HARDER TO PLEASE. The customer is always right. The customer is also often demanding, inconsiderate, or downright rude. Venue operators have noticed customers are expecting more and are more likely to complain if they do not get it.

• TREND 8: ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IS DECLINING:

Australians love a drink. Most restaurants, and a fair proportion of cafes and fast food outlets either serve alcohol or allow their customers to bring their own. BYO restaurants are in the minority, and very few clubs and pubs allow alcohol of any sort to be brought in.

• TREND 9: IS THE DELIVERY BOOM REALLY HAPPENING?

More and more people are eating restaurant meals at home, brought to them by delivery services. But the research shows that the boom may be over-hyped. Operators may be predicting big things, but the actual proportion of meals being delivered remains comparatively small, and consumers have not moved strongly in that direction.

• TREND 10: THE OLD CUISINES ARE DECLINING.

Some cuisines are up, some are down. It’s the never ending story. Old favourites like Chinese and Italian are declining (though still popular), and Modern Australian and healthy eating are on the rise

#Hospitality #Trends

0 notes

drcontrarian · 5 years

Text

Fake it 'til you make it - or not?

Fake it ‘til you make it.

Fake it till you make is an aphorism (source unknown) that has a ring of insincerity to it if considered superficially. But by that standard, a hero who does something brave, while doubting their own ability, would also be insincere. Unless of course, by faking something we mean to lie/ cheat or steal, and I doubt that was the original intention.

‘Faking’ confidence is about not showing fear, assuming a bit swagger. It is not about stealing expensive clothes to look confident, or lying about how much money you have. Renting a limo to create an aura of success is acceptable faking, but stealing the limo or proclaiming you own it is not acceptable faking.

So, is it good advice?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘good’ advice (see ASIDE below) but I would consider it (really) good advice.

(ASIDE: The world is filled with people giving other people advice. But not all advice is equal. If good advice is advice that ‘works’ it may be considered good advice. But advising someone to put a bullet in their head is by that definition good advice on how to kill themselves. Does that then mean then that advice must also be ‘ethically appropriate’ (or whatever subjective value judgement you want to impose) for it to be considered ‘good’? For the purpose of this exposition, I will avoid the value judgements and merely consider advice to be good if it achieves the intended outcome, regardless of what the outcome is.)

It is good advice because:

It clearly works.

Just scan through LinkedIn. Despite the clear and obvious insincerity of SOOOO much that is written, shared and commented, those people get followers, get brand recognition, and get business.

It is a well-known psychological phenomenon.

Have you ever noticed how a sports person would slap themselves, or jump up and down for instance to get ‘hyped’?

Do you know that when you are negotiating with someone it is to your advantage to get them to sit in a soft (relaxing) chair and to hold a warm drink because it makes them more flexible and more amenable?

The above are applications of what is known as ‘embodied cognition’ - which is in part simply explained by thinking about it as actions preceding the emotion or thought. (If you start acting happy, you will feel happy.)

Pity I can’t follow my own advice, and the problem runs deep. I have a perverse commitment to truth to the point of brutality. My self-image is deeply tied to that idea to the extent that it is a non-negotiable value. I commit to the integrity of that identity at the expense of ‘faking’ where necessary, however harmless the fakery and however beneficial the fakery will be.

Nobody wants honesty & truth. When they say they do, they mean honesty and truth only to the extent that it is positive.

The relentlessly cheerfulness, positivity and encouragement that permeates LinkedIn and the like will continue, not because people are (truly) cheerful and positive, and certainly not because of what people are posting are worthy of acclamation and encouragement all the time, but because it works.

Jack Nicholson was right when Colonel Jessup in Few Good Men claimed: ‘you can’t handle the truth’. The system can’t handle the truth, so faking things is what lubricates our social interactions one white lie at a time.

[Jessup] *You want answers*?!

I WANT THE TRUTH!

*You can't handle the truth*!

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?(!) You, Lt. Weinberg?(!) I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom!

You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago's death - while tragic - *probably* saved lives!

And my existence - while grotesque and incomprehensible to you - *saves lives*! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties… You *want* me on that wall. You *need* me on that wall.

We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use this words as the backbone of a life spent *defending* something. You use them as a punchline!

I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then *questions* the manner in which I provide it!

I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.

*Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you are entitled to*!

Tom Cruise represents ‘The System’. Jessup is the maverick, who speaks to truth.

In the end, the system wins.

0 notes

drcontrarian · 5 years

Text

Customer Service : not what you think

There is an important distinction between customer service and customer experience that is often lost in translation.

It is not too dissimilar to the notion of ‘brand’ in marketing parlance. The cadre of corporate slashies (consultant/ guru/ influencers) see brands as something that can be managed and corporations have brand managers tasked with that responsibility. Logos can be created and managed, Brand communications can be managed. Tag lines can be tweaked. But a brand is whatever a customer thinks it is.

Volvo has tried, at least since 1993, been trying to claim to be innovative, sporty, space-age, fun and all the usual automotive cliches. But to this day people still overwhelmingly associate Volvos with being ‘boring but safe’.

Just like brands are the associations CONSUMERS have about your product/ service, so are experiences the CONSUMER’S EMOTIONS and associations and memories of a particular interaction.

People aren’t given experiences, they have experiences. As a retailer or a marketer, you cannot control or create that experience. You can offer an activity that induces an experience, but you can’t make the experience.

When people walk through a wood; one may be awestruck, another will be fearful. Another may be lonely and yet another will be bored.

There is no doubt that consumers in affluent societies, tend to value experiential elements as much or more than physical elements, simply because they already have their physical needs covered. If you have a lot of money, you have enough TV’s, so it is obvious you will then value a holiday more than a TV.

Clearly, that does not apply to ALL demographic segments in a society, but assuming that you are serving that segment, then you are offering opportunities/ environments for people to have experiences.

The travel agent provides the logistics to get to the Taj Mahal, but can’t control the tourist’s actual experience of it.

Now, if the slashies are to believed, all people value experiences, and that means the process of buying a ticket must be ‘an experience’ in some way. It is a complete crock, because they have conflated the emotions people desire to have with the solution they offer.

If you are a travel agent, or heaven forbid, a luggage company or whatever associated travel product, I can assure that 95% of people do NOT want to have a relationship with you and they don’t want to have a ‘brand conversation’ with you. What they need is for you do your thing (book the ticket, make the arrangements etc etc professionally) with courtesy and efficiency at the lowest possible reasonable cost.They don’t want any pain. That’s all. They don’t need your love, they don’t need the trumpets to sound when they enter the shop, they don’t need to be hugged or given a pet monkey or a pedicure while they wait.

What customers want is for you to fulfil a need they have. You organise your entire business around fulfilling that need: it is called a business model. Then you execute professionally, efficiently and with proper consideration that you are dealing with human beings.

As such, civility and common sense is in all likelihood all that reasonable customers expect. As for the unreasonable customers; well, they are better off with your competitor anyway.

#Branding

0 notes

drcontrarian · 5 years

Text

7 Retail Miracles

Department stores have been dying for three decades; it must be the longest time any business format has spent on its deathbed, yet they are still around, signing 20-year leases. That is a miracle.

Consultants predicting the rise of some technology and the death of others and the future that will pan out in a certain way, get it wrong more often than not. Yet they keep getting invited to prognosticate on stages all over the world as if they actually know what they are talking about, and they never get caught out. That is a miracle.

Lease agreements are anachronistic, one-sided form of institutional torture propping up archaic business models at the expense of the little (voting) people, yet these have never been mentioned in the same breath as Royal Commission or senate enquiry. That is a miracle.

When two supermarket chains control 70% of the market, 80% of the suppliers and 90% of all the good locations, and a new entrant can become a fast growing, number one-ranked in customer satisfaction business success story - that is a miracle.

When a group of companies (banks) can use publicly funded infrastructure (telephone networks) to tax citizens on so-called free trade (eftpos charges) at a rate that constitutes about one quarter of the business’s net profits) without any sign of revolt - that is a miracle.

When the Government creates a set of rules that allows non-citizens (large corporations) to use the public infrastructure (educated workforce, roads, water etc) to generate large benefits for themselves, whilst making zero contribution (pay no tax); yet at the same time the same Government rigidly clamps down on a small business (little people who vote for them) who may be a day late on their BAS returns and pay immensely disproportionate amounts of tax; and there isn’t a civil war - that is a miracle.

What to conclude from all this?

The limits of human stupidity knows no bounds.

But there is also the seventh miracle:

Every day, across the wide expanse of this great nation hundreds of thousands shopkeepers in little shops bravely set up and open their shops without a customer in sight. But somehow, from somewhere (no marketing, no brand, no strategy) yet customers start appearing, with money and their pockets and they buy - barely enough for the shopkeepers to return the next day and do it all over; but they DO - that is a miracle.

Human ingenuity also knows no bounds. And despite uneven playing fields, unfavourable odds and seemingly insurmountable obstacles - the little guys keep the wheels of commerce turning.

These are the true heroes of the nation who suffer, but persevere. And this is no hyperbole. It is one thing to face a single tragedy with bravery, but it takes a soul-destroying effort to grind it out day after day after day after day after day after day after day - with no prospect of great wealth of other reward.

These are the men and women who should be our Australians of the Year. Not another overexposed media personality or over-privileged sports star. So, this Australia Day, when you are out celebrating, have a look around and honour those little guys who opened their doors for you.

Image credit: http://www.iosho.co.in

#australia #retailer #courage #small business

0 notes

drcontrarian · 6 years

Text

Other people's money

I have been sitting on this post for more than a year. Then someone wrote this: The morality of the progressive elite. I hesitated because it is easy to miscontrue this and to be perceived as being petty. But, really, on the most fundamental level the question is this:

If you are being generous with other people’s money, are you really being generous?

Bear that in mind as you read on:

Over the years business organisations have been eaten away slowly from the inside by social justice warriors. How this happened, requires us to go back a few years and in the evolution of the business organisation.

Business organisations used to have a simple, clear objective: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. To do this, they innovated, developed products and served the needs of the people in a market place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. The business wins and the consumer wins.

The thin edge of the wedge has been sustainability, introduced some two decades ago, by the proponents of sustainability who proffered a solution to a problem that did not exist. They suggested that organisations should broaden their focus to include an emphasis on environment and on community.

Broadening the focus automatically and explicitly also equates to a dilution of focus – that stands to reason. That is the guaranteed least impact, and that alone should make the hair on the neck of any self-respecting CEO stand up. Adding ‘sustainability’ as a filter though which the organisation will flow decisions, is not additive, it is dilutive to all resources at an organisations disposal, including management attention. Actually, that is not quite correct; it is additive in the overhead department.

The reason for the success of the message despite the obvious cost (loss of focus and additional overhead) is that it seems to ‘obvious’ that businesses need a healthy community to thrive and destroying the environment is tantamount to destroying your future. So the social justice warriors (SJWs) would have you believe.

The SJWs succeed with their message because they have successfully recast the organisational narrative to cast the business as a ‘citizen’ with a ‘responsibility’. At first blush it seems reasonable, and as soon as that mindset gain

ed traction amongst a cadre of unthinking executives, the battle was over.

In effect, the SJWs have succeeded in levying a tax on business corporations that they are just too happy to pay, since they don’t realise they are paying it. In practice a few individuals have succeeded in getting the corporation to fund their own personal ideologies under the guise of corporate social responsibility.

Isn’t that just super? I get the shareholder to pay for my warm and fuzzy feelings.

It doesn’t mean that the cause is not worthy of support. I am not suggesting that communities don’t need to be healthy, that charities don’t need money and that the dolphins don’t need saving. The question I am raising is what the role of the business corporation is and who should be funding these initiatives and whether executives really understand the slippery slope they have embarked upon by embracing these causes?

The idea of healthy communities has become a crack in the corporate focus that allowed a whole bunch of other socially progressive, typically post-modern causes to enter the boardroom and then the work place: gender diversity, aboriginal affirmative action, anti-racism and so forth.

Again, on face value, the causes seem worthy, reasonable and ‘right’. Who could argue with that, right?

But, adopting these social causes does come with baggage:

One, it further adds to the dilution of business focus.

Two, it perpetuates the practice of individuals looting the corporate coffer to fund their personal ideology

Three, it smuggles multiple assumptions into the organisation that seriously contaminates the culture of the organisation in ways that are not immediately obvious. This point is particularly important. The multiple assumptions smuggled in are for instance:

The belief that these programs and initiatives actually work and are worthy of support – when they rarely work.

The impact of these causes is exclusively beneficial, when it is not.

That it is a corporate and not individual responsibility to propagate these causes

That because these causes are (currently) popular and topical, they are also important.

That the impact of supporting the cause is limited to supporting the cause, when in reality it also impacts culture, moral ecology and even business productivity.

Let’s unpack some of these assumptions to consider how they impact the functioning of the business. Consider affirmative action for instance, and consider the various ways in which the good intentions actually have the opposite, detrimental impact.

By accentuating the race in making decisions about promotions, you actually emphasise that this group is inferior and need special considerations to level the playing field. It perpetuates a culture of victimhood, which highlights the inequality without alleviating it. In fact, by promoting someone beyond their level of competence, you are accelerating their inevitable failure.

The impact is extended to all employees who feel aggrieved at losing out on a role, not based on performance or fit for the role, but because of the colour of their skin. This has an immediate and lasting impact on motivation and productivity. The reverse also applies of course – if an Aboriginal person is overlooked for a role despite obvious competence and fit, they would feel aggrieved and rightfully so. The only relatively objective course of action is to base it on a clear set of performance criteria.

Many people want to view history as a series of unpunished crimes, and feel compelled to right the wrongs. The truth is that the past cannot be changed. And if the crime of the past WAS to judge people on the colour of their skin, then it cannot be remedied by judging people on the colour of the skin again today. That would simply be perpetuating the crime.

Once you start factoring in skin colour and sexual organs as a criteria for advancement, then it opens the door to other non-performance related criteria. Is their equal representation on the Board (or senior management) of: Women? Of Black people? Of blind people? Of immigrants? Of blondes? Can you see how ridiculous it gets very quickly?

Or are you saying that women need consideration ahead of the disabled? Or immigrants? On what basis do you make that decision? These are the decisions that one must attempt when standing on that slippery slope.

Consider the facts if I described them neutrally:

There is demand that you support a cause that is prejudiced against majority of the corporation’s employees, will impact the productivity materially and gain no commercial advantage but the personal satisfaction of the individual at the expense of the shareholders.

Will you, Mr CEO spend the money on that cause? Would you encourage your managers to do so? Are they all entitled to pick their favourite cause or are you going to pick the ones you personally feel the strongest about to spend the shareholders money on?

I am sure this will be misread by many. This is not a racist or misogynistic position. I am not promoting that we all take an uncharitable view of the world and not care about community or environment.

I am saying that we as individuals have a collective responsibility to make the world a better place.

But it is for each one of us to decide how we do that and how we resource it. It is devious, and defeats the point of the exercise when the only ‘good’ that we do is by forcing other people (shareholders) into funding our pet projects.

If you really want to make a difference AND really believed in it, do it on your own time and with your own money. If everyone in an organisation makes a contribution to their communities that are authentic with the serious personal investment of their own time and money, then the individual is securing the environment the corporation needs to thrive in – healthy communities and healthy environments. It is the individual who needs to make a difference – in that way actually secures their own futures.

Organisations need to seriously rethink their approach to these SJW causes. It is a slippery slope that will eventually make the organisation vulnerable to attacks from anyone with an axe to grind who can demonstrate that their cause does not get the airtime it deserves.

Can you realistically support every cause? And more importantly, can you really justify why you are supporting the one that you do and not any other?

If you want alleviate poverty, go do the CEO sleep-out on your time and donate your money. Your shareholders may want to save the whales instead.

If you want to promote gender diversity, then choose to not spend your money in businesses where they discriminate and force the change you want to see with your personal sacrifice of not buying something you may have otherwise wanted.

If you want to promote Aboriginal workplace participation, give up your Saturdays to teach them at the local community college for free, because I may want to spend my money eradicating domestic violence.

If you don’t like how corporations are treating women, divest your shares.

And importantly Mr CEO, what are you going to say to me when I come to you and suggest that all people who work for our little outfit should be Anti-Abortion because we can’t have the company endorse people who wilfully murder the innocent. How are you going to say NO to me (which I guess you will want to) when I approach you to support such a just cause?

Organisations are over-run by Social Justice Warriors, and on the surface their arguments make sense. It has reached the point where these causes dictate behaviour (code of conduct) and it is only a matter of time before they dictate strategy.

These SJWs hide in HR Departments and Comms departments typically, hardly ever where the business actually gets done. Those people out there making stuff and selling stuff don’t have the time to investment in distractions. The only way these SJWs can justify their existence is to elevate these externalities to internal imperatives. CEOs are taking along for the ride on the promise that they are ‘showing leadership’ and will gain the admiration of their peers. Appeal to vanity has always been powerful and few have been able to resist. Can you resist?

But if you are really brave, Mr CEO, you will break the mold and re-claim the following:

Any social cause is something that individuals should take responsibility for and it cannot be outsourced to corporation. Your corporation can be known for enabling people (employees) to make a difference in the way that they individually believe and where it personally matters.

You will stand up for the shareholder and be honest: no more spending their money on your causes. You will respect them enough to allow them to spend their money the way they see fit.

No more artificial decisions-making criteria: people will be judged on their ability and their competence in contributing to the commercial purpose of the organisation. You respect differences in race and gender (and any other physical difference) enough to claim that it truly does not matter. The ultimate sign of respecting the individual is to treat them equally. No special programs. No mandates. No quotas. Nothing but merit.

The business exists for the purpose of delivering a return for their shareholders. Many stakeholders benefit from an organisation that is successful in achieving that, and each stakeholder is respected equally and they are equally capable of deciding how they want to invest or spend their returns. No more Big Brother; we trust people to choose wisely in their own right.

A responsible organisation is not the one that gives the most money to charitable causes or subscribes to the latest pop-culture cause. It is the organisation that recognises individual merit, enables the stakeholders to do good things according to their personal judgment and does not compromise ethical standards.

There will be a return to the fundamentals of business: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. That is, to innovate, develop products and serve the needs of the people in a market place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. It is a return to focus on the true reason for being.

Image: socialmoms.com

0 notes

drcontrarian · 6 years

Text

Freedom

If Hitler was alive today, would he be interviewed on TV- or Radio Talk Shows?

If he was to be interviewed and given a ‘platform’, would that have been wrong?

There is always someone who seems to offend the sensibilities of the Left, so we might as well consider the worst case scenario.

Let’s ignore for the moment the bigotry involved by the left, for if their spokespeople (senior politicians - including Hillary Clinton - and celebrities alike) call for and end of civility and the result is undeniable Antifa violence in the streets, their talk is justified because it supports the cause and come from within.

Let’s just focus on the principle, and not the politics.

Freedom of speech is the liberty to express your thoughts.

The cliched example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is often trotted out as an example of how all speech is not free. It is not a good example, because that is clearly not merely an expression of thought.

I, too, don’t believe in unlimited freedom of speech. It only works in a certain context - let’s call it a certain socio-cultural environment. (More about that later.)

But freedom of speech is a core human right and any limitations put on this right is bound to have adverse ramifications. Freedom of speech is one degree removed from freedom to think; and I would argue that it is in fact inseparable because we often ‘talk through our ideas as a means of thinking.

If you are not free to speak, you are not free to think.

Unless you are free to offend, you are not really free to speak.

Unless you are free to think wrongly, you are not free.

As shocking as this may sound, it is perfectly okay to be racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic or whatever ‘wrong think’ someone might be accused of. Because unless you allow someone to think the opposite of what you think (say, anti-racist, anti-homophobic etc), why should THEY allow YOU to think the opposite of them?

And if you believe that other should not have the ability to make up their views because they happen to be contrary to yours, because they are ‘clearly wrong’, then you must surely understand that YOU are not only being a victim of an ideology, but also a bigot who denies others the freedom you claim for yourself.

Unless you can call for an overthrow of the government, you are not free.If you are not free to even incite violence, you are not free. There would have been no French Revolution if there wasn’t an incitement to violent uprising.

Ideas are expressed. When ideas are expressed as ‘speech’, they may be manifested in behaviours and practices and ultimately even law. When these ideas are adopted and become practice (or law) that is when a society is impacted and shaped in a certain way.

Racist laws may be enacted for example.

But that is only a problem if the society does not want that. Japan has pursued ethnic homogeneity for a very long time and this is embedded in their culture and their policies and their laws. One might call it racist. But it is not a problem for Japan if that is what the Japanese people want; whatever you or I may think about it.

I mentioned earlier that there is a context in which free speech is not only desirable, but necessary. A democratic society is one element of that context. Because in such a society, the best ideas will win and and will reflect the will of the people. There is no need to fear bad ideas and no need to ban them.

In the context of a democracy, freedom of speech has a natural inhibitor, the voice of the people, and it works. I have a serious problem when democratic opposition transmogrifies into boycotts, bullying and outright physical violence.

[The relatively new strategy to target people’s livelihoods and to threaten and bully anyone associated with a person you agree with is reprehensible and cowardly. Your ideas should battle against other people’s ideas.]

If one group of people reserves the right to ‘ban bad ideas’, how can we be certain that one day they won’t also ban a good idea? Because any cause, any human endeavour, no matter how noble, eventually becomes irredeemably corrupted (just ask any Church).

The only safeguard we have is to deny ANY group of people the right to ban ideas. And I don’t really care how noble you think your cause is, or how meritorious the outcomes will be for some other group of people.

We are our ideas.

If Hitler was around, I’d absolutely invite him on my podcast, talk show or whatever, because I would love to shine a light on his beliefs, because I think my ideas about the human race are more meritorious than his, and any audience who is free to listen and think for themselves will draw the same conclusion.

The Hitler-problem became a problem when he usurped the authority to oppress dissident voices, which is exactly what the Left is doing.

Message for Marketers/Brands and Organisations

Brands need to think about this clearly, and then make a firm decision that they will stick to: What is your role in socio-political issues? Should you promote ‘causes’? Should you participate in the ‘conversation’?

Socio-political issues are important. I write about it all the time on this, what is essentially a business blog. But there is a world of difference between understanding what is happening in the marketplace, and taking sides in a debate.

An organisation (brand) is nothing more than the group of people who work in it. It is, in my view, untenable for any commercial enterprise (larger than 3 people) to arrive at a position (on any social issue) that will embrace the views held by every member of that organisation fully. The economic impact of promoting inherently divisive issues is rarely quantified, but I believe it to be significant. Knowing a little bit about human psychology, it stands to reason that people will be less engaged in ‘work’ if work also involves a cause that is anathema to them.

My advice is to be socio-politically agnostic as much as practical: when pressured to adopt a cause, resist, when targeted by activists, ride it out.

If you want to stand for something, stand for great service or quality products.

Postscript

I write this as a postscript so as not to muddle the key point I want to convey, but it is an important contextual consideration when we discuss freedom of speech.

There are other contextual elements that makes freedom of speech tenable; democracy being one and the other is that ideally the culture should also have a Judeo-Christian foundation. If there is a coherent set of values that unites the body politic, and such values have been shaped in pursuit of eternal, transcendent and objective truths, then the people of that culture will naturally impose limitations on their own expression of ideas, recognising that some of these may be inappropriate or sinful. Ideally we want people to police their own thoughts, and not need others to do so.

Whilst secular commentators may be too theologically- and philosophically illiterate to realise it, but the very notion of sanctity and ‘worth’ of the individual (Imago Dei) is a Judeo-Christian idea. A truly Christian culture cannot simultaneously be fascist or oppressive.

Image: https://benamimusic.com/2013/05/13/what-is-freedom/

0 notes

drcontrarian · 6 years

Text

NO MORE

I write this to shine a light on a peculiar madness.

It is time we stopped using products developed by white men. Especially middle-aged and old white men.

Take this product for example.

It was developed without consultation with anyone in any community, despite the fact that the service relies entirely on community infrastructure and participation. No fees were paid to governments, although the service relies on the technical infrastructure provided by governments and states all over the world. Arbitrary decisions were made about standards and protocols without consideration to people’s abilities to participate. The consequence is that billions of people are excluded from benefiting from the service. In an act of arrogant Eurocentrism, it was determined that unless you can read and write English and additionally, without due consideration of disadvantaged nations have access to electricity, phone lines and computers etc, you cannot participate.

And worse yet, the product was designed to cross borders without permission in a typically aggressive form of techno-colonialism.

There was no proper governance or oversight, despite the fact that the product has made all institutions, including governments, banks, the military and dozens of such critical institutions very vulnerable to manipulation and attack - even terrorism. There was no Board, not to even mention that there was no diversity represented in the decision making.

The product turned out to be a great enabler of crime, corruption, violence, hate speech, bullying and every social evil. Ad typical of the evil patriarchy, the relentless objectifying of women though the pornography.

Yet, there is no form of accountability for the creators.

The product is now the single biggest consumer of electricity, and yet there has been no efforts made to consider the sustainability of the product and to remedy the environmental impact.

It is a typical white, elitist, eurocentric product that was created for the benefit of those who already had all the advantages in the world.

I am looking at you, Tim Berners Lee and the damn world wide web.

It is time to #nomoreinternet until they have apologised, corrected their ways an instituted proper restorative programmes to ensure there is equal access to everyone.

As I said earlier; I write this to shine a light on a peculiar madness.

Image: http://every-day-is-special.blogspot.com/2015/08/august-23-happy-birthday-world-wide-web.html

0 notes

drcontrarian · 6 years

Text

Real leaders needed to battle economic terrorism

Or, how to respond to a consumer boycott

So, Sleeping Giants has been going after Alan Jones’ advertisers. Organisations and initiatives like these are an interesting feature of Leftist politics and Social Justice Warrior strategies.

To be very clear:

I am not an Alan Jones listener and have never been

I have not heard his conversation with the CEO of the opera house

I don’t like horse racing

I don’t like gambling

I am addressing the principle at stake only.

When someone said something that the Left may disagree with, te strategy playbook reads like this:

I mobilise voters/consumers/ people to attack companies associated with that individual. (It could be an employer or advertiser or sponsor etc.)

The economic pressure forces that individual to retract, retreat or apologise.

Victory for our cause.

It may be an effective strategy, but it is profoundly immoral AND it is fundamentally fascist. In fact, I would call economic terrorism. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Does that not accurately describe the methods employed by Sleeping Giants?

The SJWs have an underlying premise: Any associate of my enemy is fair target if I can’t get to my opponent. That is, associates/ sponsors/employers etc are guilty by association.

Let’s examine this premise:

Companies (employers, sponsors, advertisers) are nothing but a group of people.

These people typically come from all walks of life.

Rarely would even a handful of people be involved in the decision to advertise/employ sponsor - and 99.9% of the organisation would be oblivious.

The decision to advertise/sponsor is in order to reach listeners/viewers - NOT to enable or endorse the individual.

The impact to boycott/punish/terrorise the organisation impacts everyone who is part of the organisation - every employee, shareholder, supplier etc - a long chain of people.

All of these people are innocent - collateral damage to a cause which they may or may not believe in; but I doubt very much that they would willingly have inflicted the economic pain on themselves for that cause even if they were loosely in agreement. Despite them not necessarily endorsing the person expressing the views, and despite them not even being aware of the decision, they become the victims in a cultural war they don’t even know is happening.

The person they intend to punish (a player in a footy club or Alan Jones etc) are in fact immune to these acts of terror because they are usually already economically independent anyway.

Can you fault any one of the above statements as untrue?

The very simple logic (which the radical Left seems to have difficulty grasping) is pretty clear: if the only people who are getting hurt in the battle are INNOCENT, maybe the means don’t justify the end.

And besides, what about going after your opponent directly - dare I use a traditional expression - like a man, instead of the innocent bystanders? The moral imperative is to play the man, not the ball.

And, by the way, to argue that the actions are necessary in order to ‘deplatform’ the individual you disagree with is still stupid and hypocritical. Most of your ‘actions’ take place on social media platforms - like Twitter - and the very same activists are the ‘eyeballs’ that keeps Twitter alive and viable. Yet Twitter is full of porn peddlers and nazis and pedophiles and anarchists and terrorists - or any number of people they might disagree with. Twitter is the platform that enables these undesirables.

Why don’t they target every advertiser on Twitter? Why don’t they destroy the Twitter platform? Because it would hurt them, that is why. And that is why it is hypocritical.

If Corporate Australia does not want to become a victim of every whim of a group of idealogues, they should collectively have the balls to tell these pressure groups to piss off. But then again, Corporate Australia is not renowned for having balls, so I expect that they will continue to suffer the consequences of their timidity.

And do you know what the irony is? MANY senior leaders will agree with me, but NONE will say so in public. Which raises the question:

Are you still a leader if expediency trumps conviction?

Image: theaustralian.com.au

0 notes

drcontrarian · 6 years

Text

Why did the retail chicken cross the road?

Retailers often face tough choices:

Should we have an online business or not?

Should we open in this location or not?

Should we endorse LGBQTI event or not?

When the decision is discussed/made, these decisions are constantly being framed as something they are not. (This is difficult to explain succinctly, so bear with me.)

Every decision is (ultimately) a binary decision. But because we live in a complex, analogue world, it is very difficult if not impossible to reduce every decision to one and one only binary option. That is why in negotiation, selling, discussion, politics and decision-making in general, people tend to introduce different frames.

(On a side note: ‘framing’ is a psychological stratagem that is an excellent way to sell/persuade people in a retail selling context.)

To understand this properly, we must understand how ‘framing’ and ‘false binaries’ relate to this, so a few examples from our socio-cultural environment to illustrate.

FRAMING

Every decision we make is through a frame. Say you want to attend an Inside Retail conference. You could view it through different frames: Education, Entertainment, Networking or Personal Branding, for example.

Similarly, you could look at the abortion debate through a series of different frames:

The child’s right to life. A woman’s reproductive rights. Pro Life. Pro Choice.

Most reasonable people would on face value agree that we should be free to choose and that we don’t want to kill innocent babies. But you can’t believe in both those decisions, so you have to choose your frame for looking at the decision.

Frames are often implicit and formed by unconscious bias, and it takes real effort to identify and counter these.

This causes us to introduce false binaries into the decision-making.

FALSE BINARIES

Simple binary choices (either/or) are very often false choices because choices are made in a complex, non-binary world. (Aka false dichotomies.)

The US is going through the nomination process of their next Supreme Court judge. The decision to appoint Judge Kavanagh is a binary one. But the discussion is framed as a series of false binaries. If you endorse the (conservative) judge who is being accused of attempted rape, then you are against the #metoo movement. If you vote against the judge, you deny justice because you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. (“One of the Best Speeches You Will Ever Hear from the Senate Floor” to read an intelligent, balanced take on the nomination.)

Closer to home the NSW State Government wants to knockdown and rebuild stadiums in a billion dollar project. Peter Fitzsimons of SMH is an opponent of the idea. He juxtaposes this as a decision about spending money on schools vs spending money on stadia.

The government will either spend the money on the stadium or not, but that does not mean they are doing it at the expense of education. If this were the case, then every dollar the government spends outside of education is at the expense of education. Is saving a couple of frogs in the forest really more important than educating our children? Upgrading a bridge in a rural country town is more important than healthcare?

That is what a false dichotomy looks like.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Consider the questions at the top of the post again. What are the questions you grapple with? In each case, evaluate what your ‘frame’ is.

When people ask the rhetorical question like “where is he/she coming from”, they are seeking to understand your ‘frame’.

Just because you don’t appoint a female as the next board member does not mean you oppose diversity. Just because you appoint a woman as the next board member, does not mean you are a feminist. (In fact just because you oppose ‘diversity initiatives; does not mean that you are an out-of-touch misogynist.)

Just because you don’t have an e-Commerce site does not mean you don’t have a strategy or that you are not innovative.

In these tough decisions, always ask yourself if this is (a) the legitimate binary choice, and (b) what frame is being used to look at the question.

FUN EXERCISE:

If the question is ‘why did the chicken cross the road?’ you may get different responses. In each case the response reveals a different ‘frame’. Can you pick it?

Why did the chicken cross the road?

She wanted to stretch her legs

She was afraid someone would … Caesar

To get to the other slide

To search for food

There is a rooster on the other side…

I don’t know, let the chicken mind its own business

Because she could

0 notes

drcontrarian · 6 years

Text

Not failing is succeeding

These are indisputable facts axioms about success:

Everybody wants success

There are many people peddling recipes for success

None of those recipes worked for anyone else except the person peddling it

No one knows for sure how to make success certain

The only true advice given are platitudes (perseverance, grit, passion etc) - but these are self-evident to the point of worthlessness.

I have always found it hilarious when commentators (say football) describe a movement that was so fantastic and brilliant, only to fail at the last moment when someone dropped the ball. The mentality being that they failed at the final hurdle.

The fact is, the point where you fumble, drop the ball and fail, is always at the last hurdle - at the last pass. There cannot be another pass if you dropped the ball so it always the last pass. The hurdle at which you fell is always your ‘final’ hurdle because it is the last one you attempted.

This is the way people look at failure, and this is the way we look at success. People look for that one thing that put you over the top - the one thing that made a difference. That one thing that explains it all.

There is never one thing that explains it all.

Since it is human nature to want to (a) survive, then (b) thrive and (c) grow; we seek to understand how we may do that, and we look for that one answer that explains it all.

Reality is a lot more complex.

Before the player dropped the ball, there were a myriad of other moves that where people were marginally too slow, to fast, to high etc - which then culminated in a configuration of players and ball that resulted in the dropped ball. A ball can be dropped due to fatigue, pressure, lack of skill or any combination of (other) reasons. Just because you dropped the ball and you could not score the try, it is not the reason you did not score the try.

Any event is part of a chain of events. Our simple mindedness seeks to attribute too much weight to that final event. A virus may cause the flu, but can you ignore the fact that your system was rundown, that you kissed an infected person, that you were in the wrong place at the wrong time --- all factors that could have put you out of harm’s way.

If there is no single thing we can pursue to assure success, what are we to do?

It stands to reason that our approach should confirm with reality.

If there are many reasons that contribute to success or failure, then we should seek to NOT fail at all those little things, rather than aim for the glory shot.

A boxer rarely knocks the opponent out with a single punch, even though it may appear that way.

If you want to hit the target, you need to not screw up many, many things. You may think all that it takes to hit the target is to aim straight. But in order to aim straight, you need a lot of other things not go wrong.

Because there is not one single thing you can do to attain success, there is no simple recipe. When Stephen Bradbury won his Olympic skating medal it was a clear case of ‘not screwing up’. This does not mean success is about waiting for others to fail, because that makes achieving success a passive fluke. The winner of any race is the one who did everything they needed to do AND not make mistakes. The point is that doing everything you need to do is on one level generic (commitment, passion etc) and on another it is specific (run, shoot, kick, sell etc) and whilst necessary, neither of these types of activities are sufficient to ensure success.

The takeaway from this is: Don’t look to gurus who peddle a recipe that worked for them. Look to all the failures around you and learn what not to do. There are many more examples of failure than there are of success and with such a big population of mistakes, statistically the conclusions are likely to be more valid.

Failures have more in common than successes.

0 notes