tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32551774542345971042024-03-10T02:46:29.512+00:0040pluscareerguru40 plus career guru,career, careers, ageism, HR, recruitment, age discrimination, unemployment, recession, jobs, jobs crisis, over 40, over 50, over 60, mature, career opportunity, mid-life, middle age, new, job opportunities, job opportunity, work, finding work, job hunt, job hunting, find work, finding work, interview, tips, job search, Linkedin, get a job, social mediaNeil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.comBlogger451125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-46654413265518596292019-10-04T10:26:00.001+01:002021-04-22T13:32:15.692+01:00Why we should all embrace fintech<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0sOhd9_dNg6hN1wsKe4Uu2ZDt7rtQep1Aw7n-Dwx568DGri8BQ24ysBJcTGbL8WyNhwzTxDmg-86_Go-K-zks8uVzD80OYWGcBrHQnx38C5KB5YlCnKNbFn2Ed3pL4RmSfNQKGQESG1tz/s1600/Future+of+Money.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="324" data-original-width="572" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0sOhd9_dNg6hN1wsKe4Uu2ZDt7rtQep1Aw7n-Dwx568DGri8BQ24ysBJcTGbL8WyNhwzTxDmg-86_Go-K-zks8uVzD80OYWGcBrHQnx38C5KB5YlCnKNbFn2Ed3pL4RmSfNQKGQESG1tz/s400/Future+of+Money.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
If you ever read this blog, you’ll know that I am frequently pessimistic about the free for all which typifies business in the digital world. That’s because for every great leap forward, a new set of problems are created. And these problems are solved far too slowly or not at all by the institutions which are charged with the protection of citizens. <br />
<br />
Social media has become a mind-numbing addiction for millions. Online bullying and hate makes life miserable for young people, minorities and even politicians.<br />
<br />
Cybercriminals are targeting the vulnerable and law enforcement agencies are struggling to adapt to the new forms of crime which infest the internet. <br />
<br />
Surveillance capitalism has spawned new business models which intrude into the very fabric of our private lives, directly turning our most personal desires and fears into profit opportunities. <br />
<br />
Online gambling apps have put a betting shop into everyone's pocket with predictable consequences.<br />
<br />
The disruption (actually destruction) of long-established businesses is displacing millions of people from their jobs, whilst simultaneously creating comparatively few specialised jobs for a new digital elite. <br />
<br />
But there’s one technological revolution happening which excites and inspires me more than any other. It’s called fintech. This is shorthand for ‘financial technology’. <br />
<br />
Sounds boring right? It’s anything but. It’s potentially the greatest force for good to emerge yet from the digital revolution. And it's growing fast:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_TuxfH3_SWaYmgir7ZWZT0CYkyQlmDpF99SakN_Dlgy5zOY3D0TgbQYYijAo2nxJpqt9_Z_J_9dc2TpM3_zDYGoIZln_t35YeH8VNMj7bn0Vk1ALND3vlXPcHqqGMqtCYVONJ6IfwaX2i/s1600/Fintech+market+growth.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="352" data-original-width="742" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_TuxfH3_SWaYmgir7ZWZT0CYkyQlmDpF99SakN_Dlgy5zOY3D0TgbQYYijAo2nxJpqt9_Z_J_9dc2TpM3_zDYGoIZln_t35YeH8VNMj7bn0Vk1ALND3vlXPcHqqGMqtCYVONJ6IfwaX2i/s400/Fintech+market+growth.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Fintech is directly challenging the global dominance and exploitative practices of some of the world’s biggest and most disliked and distrusted businesses. The banks and big financial firms. <br />
<br />
Granted, fintech didn’t have a promising start. One of the earliest financial sectors to leverage the online world was payday loans. An exploitative and immoral financial business which brought misery to millions. So I felt genuine joy when Wonga, the biggest of these firms in the UK, was finally put out of business last year. (My post about this is <a href="https://40pluscareerguru.blogspot.com/2018/09/wonga-is-not-sort-of-fintech-we-want.html">here</a>). <br />
<br />
But Wonga wasn’t really a true fintech business. It was a just an early mover online. Before Wonga, payday loans had been available offline for decades. Wonga was merely the first payday lender to use the internet to upscale fast. <br />
<br />
True fintech businesses are a different matter. They are redesigning the financial world with a customer focus, more than a profit one. They are throwing away financial models which for decades have ensured that innovation and customer focus have been more or less absent. Models which through their universality, combined with customer inertia, have meant that just like casino owners, big financial firms could get and stay rich by doing not much at all apart from pretty much the same thing week in week out. <br />
<br />
Fintech founders come from a different place completely. They start with a problem and seek to deliver a solution. And that problem is usually a consumer problem. Want to reduce your energy bills? There’s an app for that. Want to get the best return on your savings? There’s an app for that too. Want to avoid overdraft charges? …you get the drift. <br />
<br />
But these are just the least innovative fintechs. The most ambitious are seeking to redesign the whole way in which people manage their money and delivering the tools to help them do it. They are rethinking and reshaping the relationships people have with the world of finance. They are taking away the complexity, tedium and difficulties that prevent most people make the most of their money. <br />
<br />
Basically, everyone needs the same thing with their money. We want it to be secure. We want to save some, spend some, invest some, borrow some. This is where the problem starts because most people lack the time and specialist knowledge to do this effectively. And very few people want to spend their time learning how to manage the complexity that is involved. This has been true since the banking industry came into existence. So a whole global tribe of advisors and intermediaries sprang up to service this need. Some were good. Some were criminal. Most were pretty mediocre. All charged a lot for doing not much at all really. <br />
<br />
To compete with the sleeping incumbents and financial giants, fintechs must do things better, faster and cheaper. And because fintech founders often have backgrounds in things other than banking, they bring a fresh and creative mindset to the questions of how to make money work better for people. <br />
<br />
Regulators recognise this revolution is their opportunity to reshape the way banking and finance works. It delivers the sort of more open, transparent and competitive markets that they have been trying to create for decades, mainly through the imposition of regulations and punishment for their breach. The money police made plenty of arrests for sure, but they rarely accomplished much else.<br />
<br />
And critically because fintechs are bound by exactly the same stringent regulations and controls that govern the whole financial sector, there’s almost no scope for fintechs to duck and cheat as we’ve seen in other fast growth online business sectors. <br />
<br />
The final proof that fintechs are destined to become embedded in all our financial futures is that the biggest investors in the new kids on the block are the old school institutions. It’s not quite turkeys voting for Christmas, it’s more like passengers on the Titanic leaping for the lifeboats.<br />
<br />
But fintechs are struggling to get through the mass of regulatory red tape. Instead of the digital free for all which has allowed the unscruplulous to take advantage, in fintech we have the opposite problem of stringent regulations killing many promising and transformational businesses before they even begin.<br />
<br />
Regulators have one last chance to prove that they can police this without killing it. They want more transparency, more competition and fewer obstacles to consumer choice. Fintech can deliver all these things and more. But as usual, the fraudsters are lurking in the mass of legitimate innovators. The regulators need to skill up fast or watch their wishes for financial market transformation evaporate.<br />
<br />
And since regulatory failures were at the very least an accessory to the 2008 financial meltdown, here's the chance for regulators to win back a good deal of the trust that was lost.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-37451047694765154632019-05-19T14:39:00.000+01:002019-05-20T12:50:09.599+01:00The great power of technology demands great responsibility<br />
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
<b>Technology is not a panacea; who uses it for what end is what matters.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Two stories generated headlines in the UK media this week. Both involved the careers of British men who pursued entirely different paths to reaching their more or less simultaneous denouement.<br />
<br />
One was a media celebrity and recognisable face to millions. The other virtually unknown and unlikely to recognised by anyone outside his immediate circle. The former was vilified; the latter applauded.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5uxnnpmlV4213i644H5PExBzc2kNOJOMVu1Hw-fNeZpPcRCocUGbxKRKxVnez7jgL9dgcB4UEEmmKYfQ8cGuEgbzQIChb_lGG9VfB3o6ww4I4Toifbo83cZY9fHPVhbPvW3UqthSPpA47/s1600/667px-Jeremy_kyle_seated.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="667" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5uxnnpmlV4213i644H5PExBzc2kNOJOMVu1Hw-fNeZpPcRCocUGbxKRKxVnez7jgL9dgcB4UEEmmKYfQ8cGuEgbzQIChb_lGG9VfB3o6ww4I4Toifbo83cZY9fHPVhbPvW3UqthSPpA47/s400/667px-Jeremy_kyle_seated.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jeremy Kyle at Radio Festival 2010<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo Credit: James Cridland</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The first is Jeremy Kyle. A sort of UK version of Jerry Springer. I say ‘sort of’ because while both used a similar show format, in comparison to Springer, Kyle comes off poorly. <br />
<br />
<i>"Jerry Springer was confrontational but had a charm to him that diffused some criticism,"</i> said TV commentator Cameron Yarde Jnr. <i>"He was witty but never came across as sneering."</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Kyle’s show was axed this week after it emerged that a show guest, Steve Dymond had committed suicide following his appearance when he failed a lie detector test. Today it’s being <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7045353/Jeremy-Kyles-linked-two-guests-suicides-including-mother-former-boxer.html">reported</a> that two more deaths are being linked to his show. <br />
<br />
Lie detector technology is old and crude. It’s cod-science. It can be gamed and even experts confess it's little more reliable than guessing. But its aura of science leads the public to believe it's infallible, when in fact it depends entirely on who is using it and for what purpose. When that purpose is sensationalism, it’s the devil’s own device. <br />
<br />
Kyle’s show ran for fourteen years on ITV where he was both ringmaster and provocateur in a show which a judge once described as <i>‘human bear-baiting.’</i> District Judge Alan Berg made this comment in 2007 while sentencing one of the show's guests, who’d head-butted his love rival during filming.<br />
<br />
Judges are not prone to exaggeration. Kyle’s show involved ‘guests’ who he’d bring on to his show to disclose their deepest and most troubling personal problems. The proposition to them was that Kyle would in some way ease their suffering and help resolve their problems. <br />
<br />
Any normal person would be deeply dubious that appearing on national TV in front of a studio audience who regard you as scum could under any circumstances be genuinely helpful. <br />
<br />
But these people are not normal. They exist in an impoverished parallel universe. They are educationally, economically and socially the least well-functioning members of society. <br />
<br />
Guests would be chosen and then persuaded to appear on the basis of the shock value of their predicaments. Domestic abuse, gambling, drug and alcohol addiction, paternity, infidelity, incest, rape; all were grist to Kyle’s mill. The more sordid the better. <br />
<br />
On The Jeremy Kyle Show, the host was <i>"as confrontational as the audience"</i>. Kyle would adopt a scarcely merited position of moral superiority, switching between compassion and hostility as a pseudo-counsellor. <br />
<br />
His program was carefully calculated to extract the ugliest and most shocking details of the lives of Britain’s underclass. And worse, to manipulate and goad them towards the inevitably violent outbursts which had to be restrained by the burly security types hovering sidestage. <br />
<br />
The show used every lever available to find and persuade those in torment to air their darkest secrets and grievances to the nation. This would be traumatic enough in private counselling, but Kyle used a contrived environment calculated to extract maximum sensationalism for his sneering and jeering audience. <br />
<br />
These lives are tragic enough without being used to generate ad revenue through the million or so daily viewers the show averaged. But there’s a market value to one million bored people with nothing better to do than delight in the life traumas of others. If any reality TV show revealed the ugly face of naked media capitalism, this was it. <br />
<br />
If this proves to be Kyle’s career terminus then I’d suggest it could have been foreseen. We can tell a lot about a person from their CV. <br />
<br />
Born in 1965, from 1986 to 1995, Kyle worked as a life insurance salesman, recruitment consultant, and radio advertising salesman before beginning his broadcasting career as a<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Kyle#cite_note-Silver2006-6"></a> radio presenter in 1996. <br />
<br />
These first nine years of his career were working in jobs which the goal was the achievement of sales targets. People are merely pawns to enable the sale. And they are controlled and manipulated with one goal only – making money from them. <br />
<br />
Kyle’s show took this ideology (if it deserves such a title) to the big stage of national TV. And for years, no-one at ITV was in the slightest bit troubled by the dubious morality of the venture. Big ad revenues are a powerful way to diminish moral scruples after all. <br />
<br />
I’m glad to see this monstrosity of television terminated, but beyond sad that it required someone’s death to bring it about. <br />
<br />
But to end on a happier note, we should look at the other career story. <br />
<br />
Julian Richer founded a business selling hi-fi in the 1970s. Today Richer Sounds has branches nationwide and around 500 employees. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqUSZe48Sf1_DSlhU8DWonbZDDKKYRG6P-JHAqkVcQtt_UPizjxcqNp8VjksgOPoupI_eLPF_yBROpC4gUV_yRvf1tf6e1lURF7My4oRmus727J4p1cg9JKCSRsTY4Z6DAglmimwOoK9WN/s1600/Richersounds_city.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="343" data-original-width="500" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqUSZe48Sf1_DSlhU8DWonbZDDKKYRG6P-JHAqkVcQtt_UPizjxcqNp8VjksgOPoupI_eLPF_yBROpC4gUV_yRvf1tf6e1lURF7My4oRmus727J4p1cg9JKCSRsTY4Z6DAglmimwOoK9WN/s400/Richersounds_city.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Richer Sounds branch London Bridge<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: Richer Sounds</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
This week Richer, now aged 60, announced he would commence the transfer of ownership of his business to his employees. He put 60% of his shares in trust for this, as well as making a bonus payment of £1,000 for every year of work to each employee. The average staff bonus would be £8,000, but since many staff have worked there for 30 or more years, some will receive much more. <br />
<br />
Julian Richer is the sort of entrepreneur and capitalist we need a lot more of today. And as a long-standing if infrequent customer of his shops, I have nothing but praise for the customer experience he and his people provide. If I have a retail hero, Julian Richer is it. <br />
<br />
The way he treats his staff shows in surveys which report that 95% of them love working for him. His approach translates into tangible results: In 2012, his 53 stores produced profits of £6.9m from sales of £144.3m. No mean feat in an economy full of high street retail failure and depressed consumer spending. <br />
<br />
Over four decades he has championed providing secure, well-paid jobs because he believes a happy workforce is key to business success. At a time when zero-hours contracts are blighting the labour market, he has been rewarded with loyalty from staff who worship him. <br />
<br />
Just like Kyle, Richer’s career is a product of who he is and what he believes in. <br />
<br />
When he was 14, during the energy crisis, he bought a case of candles for £3 and sold it for £15. That was followed by second-hand hi-fi equipment – he would do up turntables and sell them. By the time he was 17, he had three people working for him. <br />
<br />
At 19, he opened his first Richer Sounds shop at London Bridge. He is devoted to what he calls "the biz". His parents worked for Marks & Spencer – a firm which famously also treated its staff well. <br />
<br />
Richer has many parallel and philanthropic interests. He was the first patron of The Big Issue Foundation and an early director of the Prince of Wales's Duchy Originals. He's the founder of Acts 435, a charity launched by Archbishop John Sentamu to help those in need, and ASB Help, a charity to help the victims of antisocial behaviour. <br />
<br />
"The biz" is his life's work and he sees it as only natural that those who have contributed to his company's success, the staff, should inherit it. <br />
<br />
I don't think we should make the contrast between Jeremy Kyle and Julian Richer a binary one. Kyle is not an inherently bad person. He just made some bad judgements and probably lost sight that the net benevolence of his work was at best neutral and at worst negative. He possibly genuinely believed that he was doing good work, and chose not to reflect too hard on the basic morality of his business model.<br />
<br />
Technology is inherently neither good nor bad. It's morally neutral, therefore, it demands that we provide the moral compass for it. Sound <b>human</b> judgement is needed to provide this.<br />
<br />
Creators and users and their motives are what really matter. Perhaps we should care a little less about technological progress and a lot more about moral progress.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-51033587226351611332019-03-30T09:34:00.002+00:002019-10-02T12:15:34.379+01:00Fast fashion – British men to lead solution to a global problem <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1WQzS1gPcpjkDcBM6klsQQE0Hawbanj86jvHEJbCbzZGGm0iHhzRuK0eFq_5XFnN2hqFdDyMr4TvaPZZDQ5RnWhsRHxrRbhKuAgtEK1tK_vBEvMrSmq7zh8dTgwWtWUeA8Y19DniMGsul/s1600/clothes+shopping.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="485" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1WQzS1gPcpjkDcBM6klsQQE0Hawbanj86jvHEJbCbzZGGm0iHhzRuK0eFq_5XFnN2hqFdDyMr4TvaPZZDQ5RnWhsRHxrRbhKuAgtEK1tK_vBEvMrSmq7zh8dTgwWtWUeA8Y19DniMGsul/s400/clothes+shopping.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"This is nice - it will look perfect in landfill"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
1 April 2019 <br />
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Clarkson, Clegg and Facebook unite to clean up... </b><br />
<br />
Fast fashion is a big problem. According to the latest news, on average, people wear clothes just two and a half times before throwing them out. I am still trying to figure out how you can wear something half a time, but I’ll let you know after I’ve carried out some experiments. <br />
<br />
Anyway I must be a statistical outlier - if I throw something out, it is likely only because I have spilled creosote all over it and the stains look like something unspeakably horrible has happened to me. <br />
<br />
Fashion has been getting faster and faster for years. The fashion industry has created ever shorter cycles - winter and summer seasons have been replaced with lines which change every week or so. The original fashion put-down of ‘that’s so last year’ has become ‘that’s so last week’. <br />
<br />
This is all made possible through the outsourcing of manufacture to factories in the third world with low pay, child labour and terrible working conditions. And the insatiable fashion addiction of millions. Fast fashion is to the planet what fast food is to health.<br />
<br />
The environmental impact of making just one T-shirt is frightening. It uses enough water for one person to drink for two and a half years. Manmade fabrics take 200 years to degrade in landfill. <br />
<br />
The principal consumer culprits of this combined speeding offence and environmental catastrophe are young and female – or at least those whose wardrobes are overflowing with cheap clothes from the likes of H&M, Zara and New Look. I know this to be true because I have a daughter and apparently, it’s important to buy a new outfit for every climate change demonstration she attends. <br />
<br />
So I was pleased this week to hear about a new initiative to tackle the problem once and for all. A combination of celebrity influencer power and technology have come to the rescue. <br />
<br />
If fashion is just too fast, it needs to be slowed down. For possibly the last time in history, this job needs a man. Ideally an old and fashion-proof one. <br />
<br />
Step forward the man whose expertise on fashion and speed needs no introduction; Jeremy Clarkson. Apart from driving cars fast, nearly always without crashing them and only ever slightly injuring a few people with his bare hands, his fashion credentials are impeccable. <br />
<br />
After eco-crime accessories Trinny and Susannah praised Clarkson's style as resembling that of a market trader i.e. an authentic provincial homme du jour, he was persuaded to appear on their fashion makeover show <i>What Not to Wear</i>. Here he was awarded their all-time worst dressed person award. He responded to their attempts at restyling him with due distain. Clarkson said he would rather eat his own hair than appear on the show again. <br />
<br />
This week, as well as fumbling about a bit with Brexit, the government announced Clarkson’s appointment as Britain’s first Fast Fashion Tsar. He’s tasked with creating and implementing a road map to put a stop to the environmental destruction wrought by fast fashion. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitV6scU1uTC-lOaUG4qM0fmDHJruCk3MABNrslgvipy09H1YCsxo0G4QcEl9spVlDyiKBkKB43A-VMq1jWAPON0sbhtw1AyRDGXVlfYAauzjOmo1OKD56EyG7rlCjpuM4QDqB3axX2gnsm/s1600/Clarkson.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="297" data-original-width="434" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitV6scU1uTC-lOaUG4qM0fmDHJruCk3MABNrslgvipy09H1YCsxo0G4QcEl9spVlDyiKBkKB43A-VMq1jWAPON0sbhtw1AyRDGXVlfYAauzjOmo1OKD56EyG7rlCjpuM4QDqB3axX2gnsm/s320/Clarkson.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> Fast Fashion Tsar Clarkson arriving (late) for work yesterday </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Clarkson has already proven his green credentials on Top Gear and more recently The Grand Tour, where fuel economy is one of his top concerns: <br />
<br />
<i>"There's a gallon of fuel gone there, and another there...and yet another there. As a matter of fact, the only way this car could be less annoying to eco-mentalists is if its engine ran on sliced dolphin."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
So his qualifications are pretty unquestionable. If young women addicted to fast fashion are the problem, the choice of antidote of an old man who wants everyone else to be slower and less stylish than him is inspired. <br />
<br />
But one man, even one as accomplished and admired as Clarkson, cannot solve the problem alone. He needs technology. And this is where Facebook is stepping up to the challenge. Nick Clegg, former virtual deputy assistant prime minister and keen eco-mentalist himself, has spoken for the first time since his appointment in October 2018 as Vice-President, Global Affairs and Communications at Facebook. He’s announced that Facebook will launch a new app which monitors and reports the fashion speed of users. He said, <br />
<br />
<i>"Our new app FashBit, is definitely a good idea. I think. Yes it is a good idea um for sure. It gives users complete control over their fashion speed. So it’s like you know helping people which is a good thing. </i><br />
<br />
<i>Mark says it has digital stuff in it which is completely secure and which we only share with consent. Like location tracking that monitors the amount of time spent in fashion stores, and status updates to tell you if your fashion is getting dangerously fast. And it's free so everyone can use it. It’s a no brainer really."</i><br />
<br />
Facebook Chief of Data Acquisition and Repurposing, Brent Beard said, <br />
<br />
<i>"We've gone granular on this. We're mega-passionate about the planet and all the things on it we can help leverage. FashBit is our ideation of high fiving the unicorns.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Our online fashion integration technology unpacks the number and fabric composition of clothing purchases. It gives fashion brands drill-downs to know who is shortfalling on clothing purchases, so they can buy more energy efficient and laser-targeted advertising to them. In the meanwhilst, Facebook users who are maxing out in the apparel vertical will have fashion ads replaced with environmental ads - pictures of cute animals and cool nature stuff encouraging them to buy smaller shoe sizes which enables smaller carbon footprints."</i><br />
<br />
Asked about his new challenge, Clarkson was clearly ready to take up the gauntlet. He said, <br />
<br />
<i>"My message is simple – everyone who is not me should stop prattling on about it, roll their sleeves up and get busy saving the planet. I’ve been doing my bit for years.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I’ve been wearing these same jeans for over twenty years without a single malfunction and the boffins tell me that’s saved over 40 endangered species. Turtles are dying right now just so you can buy another bloody frock which doesn’t suit you anyway. Think about that while you’re browsing the interweb for your next outfit which will be in landfill faster than a Frenchman can drop his pants."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Fashion retailers and brands are yet to show unqualified support for this innovative approach, however. They believe self-regulation is adequate and have taken direct action by printing millions of T-Shirts with pictures of polar bears and slogans to help get the message across. Spokeshuman for the Clothing Retail Association of Producers (CRAP), Krystal Methany said: <br />
<br />
<i>"So, our members strive like endlessly to reduce their like footprint stuff yeah? They’re like so awesome you know and are like totally committed to sustainable, kind of inclusive business models? We print T-shirts with pictures of like elephants? And slogans which really make you stop and like um think? They've created like literally millions of jobs for poor and starving people who would otherwise have to eat uncool stuff like you know, soil? Yay! I should try that diet – no, no I’m only joking dot com. We hashtag adore them all."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Asked about the choice of Mr. Clarkson to lead this initiative, Ms. Methany said: <br />
<br />
<i>"Jeremy Clarkson said the exact car I have which is like a Mercedes sports car was ‘a pretty car for ugly people.’ That’s like literally a hate crime? So he’s you know like totally unadorable to me? He’s a gross old man who doesn’t get it that the fascist um fashion industry makes the world a more beautiful and peaceful place for sort of like everyone I know? You know?"</i><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-74549691955587946802019-03-27T14:54:00.000+00:002019-05-15T19:10:09.202+01:00Marketing to older demographics is a disgrace to the profession<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu0Ao5DjCR2ErmfZVskRVLTcGcpY61CNj2YzQPWGBr45FD5EQmYzXb90sAGmLOfhBZi3oon8f2EYASnnqJikIQPa5bSXQ_zpmvDPSqGxM0eh2FTjV5OTaYc0uBTP1G0WJcMgjMC8D5lu2X/s1600/ageism.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="377" data-original-width="632" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu0Ao5DjCR2ErmfZVskRVLTcGcpY61CNj2YzQPWGBr45FD5EQmYzXb90sAGmLOfhBZi3oon8f2EYASnnqJikIQPa5bSXQ_zpmvDPSqGxM0eh2FTjV5OTaYc0uBTP1G0WJcMgjMC8D5lu2X/s400/ageism.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">If you think this is how to appeal to mature consumers, you need to grow up.<br />
A lot.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Many marketers view older demographics with scarcely disguised distain and patronise them with naive assumptions about who they are and how they live their lives. The over 40's are a high value and discriminating (in a positive sense) target market, yet brands and marketers regularly fumble their marketing to them. Why?</b><br />
<br />
At the time of the 2011 Census, the median age for the population of England and Wales was 39 years. 27% was aged 40 to 59 years, and 22% was aged 60 years and over. In other words, almost half (49%) of the UK population is aged 40 or over. <br />
<br />
Not only that, all the data tells us that people aged 40 plus have greater wealth and disposable income than younger people. The over forties are the most valuable age demographic in the UK today. <br />
<br />
No business with any sense would want to alienate its highest potential market segment. So how can such an illogical situation be explained?<br />
<br />
I think the explanation is actually very simple. It’s because people in marketing and advertising are generally under 40 themselves. They see the world through a lens which reflects their own likes and dislikes. They simply cannot empathise with those who are older than they are. <br />
<br />
Empathy is the cousin of understanding. And without understanding, communication is always going to be difficult. <br />
<br />
In their defence, I was no different. When I was 16, anyone over 30 was really old. When I was 30, a 60 year old seemed positively geriatric. <br />
<br />
But ageist hiring begets ageist marketing, so the origins are not so much the fault of marketing teams themselves, but rather those who decide who is on those teams.<br />
<br />
It’s unconscious bias at its worst. It results in stereotyping and discrimination – something which the young are especially keen to call out - but only it seems when it’s about gender, sexuality or ethnicity. <br />
<br />
Brands which either appeal only to the young and/or alienate the mature are setting themselves up as hostages to fortune if they choose to stake everything on the fast-changing and transitory loyalties of the young. <br />
<br />
It just doesn’t make commercial sense to target only young people when older demographics are higher spending and less fickle. Chuck Shroeder, a former director at ad giant DDB and now 71 said: <br />
<br />
<i>“Advertisers assume that the “old” people of today are some monolithic group of codgers who don’t know anything. Product managers are all young and they don’t want advice from people who could be their grandparents. They have the same attitude I had when I was 30, largely based on hubris and youthful lack of experience. They don’t grasp that they could sell more product if they actually talked to the people who have the money.”</i> <br />
<br />
Asked to give examples of ageist ads, he said: <br />
<br />
<i>“I nominate the Esurance commercial with the elderly lady who is bragging to her friends that she saves time by posting her vacation photos on her “wall” rather than mailing them. We see her living room wall with pictures stuck on it. Funny eh? It implies that we old folks know nothing about Facebook, even though Facebook has more users over 50 than under.”</i><br />
<br />
Last week I observed a brand in action which would convince any young marketer to rethink their entire preconception of older demographics. But guess what, there were no young people there to witness this live case study of brand loyalty in action.<br />
<br />
This is a brand which has endured 50 years of highs and lows, drug and alcohol traumas, fickle fashion changes and more. <br />
<br />
I went to see hard rock band UFO play a sold out concert in Cardiff. This band was founded in 1969 and it has been touring constantly ever since. Founder and vocalist Phil Mogg will be 71 this year. The concert hall was packed with men almost none of whom were less than 40 years old. And whilst they didn’t have a mosh pit, they were jumping and singing along just like any audience of on-trend hipsters. This was no chamber music or smooth jazz. It was a loud and sweaty rock spectacular:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MjAtPd9jbhI" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
This was brand loyalty by the over 40s in plain sight. This tour is sold out nationwide. It’s the very real, cash-till ringing manifestation of 50 years of customer loyalty and spending. And a wake up call to everyone in marketing who thinks older men spend their time and money on gardening and golf. Or hula hooping...<br />
<br />
Wake up and smell the coffee kids.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">P.S. I learned with great sadness that a few days after this gig, Paul Raymond, seen above on keyboards passed away unexpectedly following a heart attack. As a more or less permanent member of UFO, he will be greatly missed. My condolences go to his friends and family.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-6866831244979543142019-03-19T14:13:00.000+00:002019-03-27T17:30:04.179+00:00 Career survival in the age of surveillance capitalism <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSEN6S0e1xpavV_7djUOZGXHdMvUdmkl4jGXr57Jrt5YvkSb3YGG-mlgIUFftyKenuuxKBjj1ZQPd1vQzcKxD-U7OE3tEhdxWRHJk6Cf8djAD2k3KNF9abaBB87z08JXqqLtwtP1H4tDdP/s1600/800px-Security_Monitoring_Centre.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSEN6S0e1xpavV_7djUOZGXHdMvUdmkl4jGXr57Jrt5YvkSb3YGG-mlgIUFftyKenuuxKBjj1ZQPd1vQzcKxD-U7OE3tEhdxWRHJk6Cf8djAD2k3KNF9abaBB87z08JXqqLtwtP1H4tDdP/s400/800px-Security_Monitoring_Centre.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
In my <a href="https://40pluscareerguru.blogspot.com/2019/02/participate-or-perish-implications-of.html" target="_blank">last post</a> I described the rise of surveillance capitalism. I also promised to provide some thoughts about how we can protect and grow our career prospects in an age where big data is deciding what we get to see, what sort of people we are and what we want.<br />
<br />
The terrifying thing about this is that without our consent, <b>algorithms are deciding on behalf of others what we deserve. </b>It’s an Orwellian universe in which we are pawns, valued, categorised and ranked according to our digital footprints. <br />
<br />
If you think I am being sensationalist, then I present Google founder, Larry Page’s disclosure of the corporation’s totalitarian ambitions as reported in Harvard Professor, Shoshana Zuboff’s earth-shattering new book, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610395697/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0" target="_blank">‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism; the Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power’. </a><br />
<br />
As Zuboff says, <i>“Page portrays Google’s totalistic ambitions as a logical consequence of its perfection of society. From his point of view, we should all welcome the opportunity…to willingly subordinate all knowledge and decisions to Google’s plan.” </i><br />
<br />
And people are at the centre of this bid for god-like power. Page said, <i>“…we have to understand the things you could buy, and…we have to understand anything you might search for. And people are a big thing you might search for. We’re going to have people as a first-class object in search…” </i><br />
<br />
In other words, Google sees its collection of data about people, including you and I, as central to its mission to change the world into a shape of its liking. I don’t know about you, but I consider this a very poor deal – I provide every piece of information about myself to a corporation over which I have no influence in exchange for some digital apps and services. Thanks Larry, but no thanks. <br />
<br />
If like me, you’d rather not submit to this assumption of control over your essential human rights to privacy, then what follows are my initial thoughts on reasserting some sort of control rather than sleepwalking into enslavement. <br />
<br />
I cannot provide a bullet proof set of rules which guarantee results. At best, what follows is what I consider to be sensible practices for damage limitation. Any thoughts and additions others can provide will be extremely welcome in the comments section. Or contact me through LinkedIn or Twitter and I’ll do my best to add any contributions by means of updates to this post. <br />
<br />
My thoughts and recommendations: <br />
<br />
<b>Assume everything you do online will be stored insecurely and shared</b><br />
<br />
Plenty of data collectors and users will argue that they never share data. The truth is that even if they do not, there are so many loopholes within current data protection rules that the only safe assumption is that everything we do which involves an internet connection is visible to someone somewhere and those people likely don’t care much about our privacy.<br />
<br />
<b>Assume that you are a brand</b><br />
<br />
Personal branding has been around for a while now. And it generally sucks in my opinion. It’s a spin off from social media culture in which individuals seek to market themselves with a view to securing fame and fortune. So I’m not talking about that. What I mean is that if you think of yourself as a brand, you’ll be less likely to do something which devalues your brand. Examples are easy and obvious – putting pictures of yourself onto social media which present you in a dubious light; expressing political opinions online; attacking others online – all these are brand damaging and will consequently have adverse career impacts.<br />
<br />
<b>Don’t let your rights to free speech work against you</b><br />
<br />
On the one hand I place high value on free speech, on the other, what price am I personally prepared to pay to exercise my rights to say what I think without restraint? Each person must make that decision for themselves, it’s not for me to say what you can and cannot do. My belief is that we should never say or do anything online which others could perceive negatively.<br />
<br />
<b>Align yourselves with others online who will reflect well on you</b><br />
<br />
I am the first to admit I am especially interested in what less likeable people think and say. It’s the social media equivalent of watching horror movies. But if you choose to follow a load of people online who have less than admirable credentials, you can safely assume this will do your career prospects no favours. So choose your online friends carefully.<br />
<br />
<b>Support your online community and put others first</b><br />
<br />
Whatever field you are in, it pays to show that you care about the other people who are in it. As Dale Carnegie said, <i>'You can make more friends in two months by being interested in other people than in two years of trying to get people interested in you.'</i> In the social media age, this means investing more effort in sharing, liking and commenting on others' content than pushing your own.<br />
<br />
<b>Give your apps and subscriptions a makeover</b><br />
<br />
Assume that every social media platform you are on and every app you use will be discoverable. Anything which a professional contact might consider shows you in a negative light should be unsubscribed or removed.<br />
<br />
<b>Check the permission settings on your mobile phone and turn off location tracking</b><br />
<br />
One of latest revelations is that Google Android phones track location even when this is turned off, they claim to enable core phone functionality. My guess is that even when our phones are turned off, location tracking is working at some level. So turning this off, won’t completely shut it down, but it should reduce the incidence of unwanted ‘help’.<br />
<br />
<b>Review the settings on your home assistance devices such as Cortana, Siri and Alexa</b><br />
<br />
If possible disable any non-on-command voice recording. <br />
<br />
<b>Last but not least, think about what you post online and how your boss or employer now or in the future would interpret it</b><br />
<br />
Assume everything you post online is visible to everyone. You have to care about this. Free speech is important but does your belief in it warrant the potential sacrifice of your career opportunities?<br />
<br />
<br />
It’s your call and these steps cannot give you complete control, but I hope they help preserve a little more of your personal privacy, autonomy and prospects. All comments and additions will be welcome in the comments below.<br />
<br />
P.S. My good friend Marcia LaReau has been hard at work already with her solutions for jobseekers to this problem. You can listen to her short Vlog commentary about this <a href="https://forwardmotioncareers.com/surveillance-capitalism-how-to-protect-your-career/" target="_blank">here.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-22761871339085497872019-03-18T14:40:00.000+00:002019-03-18T20:54:07.481+00:00The price of peace in Europe and who paid for it<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>How Germany lost the war but won the peace.<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I first visited Germany in the early 1970’s. I wasn’t much
more than a boy, but we had family friends in Nuremburg and as they were keen
to learn English and we to visit Germany, regular trips were made. I already had a keen interest in history, and I was
delighted to visit the enchanting streets of the medieval city with its imposing
castle and immaculate half-timbered buildings.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Scarcely 25 years earlier, like most German cities, Nuremburg had looked like this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOnUVRN76dmQ_AdQw1cDnwgvR6Zn4mVVHhtLCjy_U8PyNZLNGxZHMSvLzbEW41ThwE5kmw07MXRh3ITNbfQoS_hhI4s07LYSg2bPb34DB2rKfbKPBoZMqJWUSagzLIZ_6OUi9712uQ2tn_/s1600/435px-Nuremberg_in_Ruins_1945_HD-SN-99-02986.JPEG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="435" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOnUVRN76dmQ_AdQw1cDnwgvR6Zn4mVVHhtLCjy_U8PyNZLNGxZHMSvLzbEW41ThwE5kmw07MXRh3ITNbfQoS_hhI4s07LYSg2bPb34DB2rKfbKPBoZMqJWUSagzLIZ_6OUi9712uQ2tn_/s320/435px-Nuremberg_in_Ruins_1945_HD-SN-99-02986.JPEG" width="232" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nuremburg, 1945.<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: US Army</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yet within a few years, the beautiful city centre was more
like a Disney movie set. It was a fairy tale sort of place with not a trace of the destruction which had been wrought upon the ideological birthplace of the Third Reich:<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBwScSvRHDJTgVZ5BlkVdNqRXHrlRCYuLFvp6_8uVDCpLMpTtvzG9-WV2loHaenkM5mST34w9nZ9FVtt_5jfJZlD0JxL2eHorOLUtWB9yjgSqiKpYthCnCg5L9IvwmTOPQbWXyuD4h8bV-/s1600/1280px-Nuernberg_Burg_Panorama.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="580" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBwScSvRHDJTgVZ5BlkVdNqRXHrlRCYuLFvp6_8uVDCpLMpTtvzG9-WV2loHaenkM5mST34w9nZ9FVtt_5jfJZlD0JxL2eHorOLUtWB9yjgSqiKpYthCnCg5L9IvwmTOPQbWXyuD4h8bV-/s400/1280px-Nuernberg_Burg_Panorama.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nuremburg castle today.<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: <a class="extiw" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:User:AlterVista" style="background: none rgb(248, 249, 250); text-align: start;" title="w:de:User:AlterVista"><span style="color: black; font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">AlterVista</span></a></span><span style="background-color: #f8f9fa; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13.3px;"> </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I was too young to wonder how such a recovery was economically accomplished. But once I began my university studies of finance and economics, that question began to nag at me. How was such a rapid and complete transformation possible?<br />
<br />
What provoked an even stronger curiosity was that if Britain and her Allies had won the war, how come we seemed to be impoverished while Germans enjoyed such affluence? Our own bombed-out towns and cities were like Soviet concrete nightmares in comparison. Bad town planning was a totally inadequate answer. I already had a sense that this was to do with big money...<br />
<br />
The Germans were tight-lipped. Post-war Germans had a collective amnesia. They didn’t ever want to discuss what had gone on in Germany during the critical years of 1933-45. They were content to attribute their prosperity to hard work, ingenuity and self-discipline. And I fell for that line at first.<br />
<br />
As the years passed, I never lost my interest in this enigma. But more recently as Brexit has taken the centre stage of British and European politics, I felt it was high time to revisit the question, for it sheds useful light on the potential future for both the UK and the EU.<br />
<br />
Today I think I have a fairly accurate picture of exactly how this economic ‘miracle’ was achieved. But I don’t really believe in miracles and this was indeed not one. Instead, the truth lies in murky deeds and events which are largely unknown or forgotten unless we look into the darker recesses of political and monetary history.<br />
<br />
Like almost everything to do with post-war Germany, the roots are to be found in the leadership and ideas of Hitler's Third Reich. In fact Germany’s immediate post war economic plan was created under the auspices of SS chief Heinrich Himmler. In 1943, he tasked SS-Gruppenfuhrer Otto Ohlendorf to lead a panel of economic experts to plan the finances for Germany after they’d won the war. Ohlendorf was also leader of an Einsatzgruppe in Russia, found guilty at the Nuremburg trials of mass murder and hanged for his crimes.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEir7QYLiN6jj3sN8YTygqQjCrLw9VocrcWhFgSQCJGwLlwwp7ph52p4jaw7QUniOrgtPmgnTodkfoYah57FuJB5riN_QtneXmKbwk4W3f_aJX3frBIjLJpceN8JRNyPQN1XE68y73oLdisV/s1600/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J08517%252C_Otto_Ohlendorf.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="792" data-original-width="556" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEir7QYLiN6jj3sN8YTygqQjCrLw9VocrcWhFgSQCJGwLlwwp7ph52p4jaw7QUniOrgtPmgnTodkfoYah57FuJB5riN_QtneXmKbwk4W3f_aJX3frBIjLJpceN8JRNyPQN1XE68y73oLdisV/s320/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-J08517%252C_Otto_Ohlendorf.jpg" width="224" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption">Otto Ohlendorf.<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: Bundesarchiv<br />Bild 183-J08517 / CC-BY-SA 3.0</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Ohlendorf’s economic planning panel included Ludwig Erhard, future Chancellor of West Germany (1963-66) and banker Karl Blessing who was to become President of the Bundesbank (1958-69).<br />
<br />
Ohlendorf’s team recognised that Germany’s wartime economy would be unsustainable in peace time. During the war, it was propped up by massive money printing (which today would be called Quantitative Easing), the comprehensive pillaging of wealth from occupied nations and individuals alike, the engagement of slave labour and the denial of luxuries to most of the civil population of Germany.<br />
<br />
The other key tool was the sale of Reichsmarks to conquered nations at vastly inflated prices – something which today we’d call Forex fraud. We think of Nazis today primarily as murderous zealots, but genocide was just the top of the pyramid of Nazi criminality. Theft and illegal financial transactions were just as much a part, and ones which would continue to yield enormous benefits to Germany long after the killing was stopped.<br />
<br />
The absence of goods to buy in Germany imposed an enforced savings regime on Germans; there was little they could buy other than the basic necessities for life. In the (then expected) wake of Germany winning the war, these tools of economic exploitation and fraud could no longer be relied upon. So how could post-war Germany maintain its financial well-being in the wake of victory?<br />
<br />
It was Erhard who came up with the radical answer. He proposed that the Reichsmark would be abolished and replaced by a new currency called the Deutsche Mark. But here’s the trick. Savers (which everyone was whether they liked it or not) would have their Reichsmarks converted to Deutsche Marks at a ratio of 15 Reichsmarks for a single Deutsche Mark. Business assets however would be converted at parity i.e. 1:1. At a stroke, the savings of German people would be wiped out, but business assets would be preserved and bolstered. It was in effect a massive wealth transfer program from the German public to Germany’s political, industrial and business elite.<br />
<br />
The plan had a fundamental flaw however – it assumed Germany would win the war. By 1944, this was clearly not going to happen and so the Ohlendoft/Erhard plan was quietly shelved. However circumstances would lead to this plan re-emerging and being implemented sooner than anyone would guess…<br />
<br />
Less than three weeks after the successful D-Day Allied landings in France, Franklin Roosevelt was also thinking about how to organise the German economy after the Allied victory. He set up a meeting for representatives of the forty Allied nations at the New Hampshire Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods. Here, the leading economic minds of the time would determine how to treat post-war Germany and financially restructure the world in the aftermath of the bloodshed. The UK dispatched John Maynard Keynes, probably the pre-eminent economic theorist of his day. He had been highly influential on the leading US delegate, Harry Dexter White.<br />
<br />
But Keynes the mentor and White the student were to clash. Keynes' proposal was brimming with intellectual power. White was buoyed by the emerging US power vested in its economic and military might. Keynes advocated a globalised system which would stabilise global capitalism for decades to come. White sensed the winning hand was his however and sought to reshape the post-war world into a deal which made the US the pre-eminent global economic superpower. In what became termed ‘the New Deal’, he placed the dollar as the world’s reserve currency (there could really be no other contender) and the one to which the post-war currencies of nations in Europe would be pegged.<br />
<br />
It was inevitable White would win. As a final blow to Keynes, when weeks later they met to discuss the softening of terms for the repayment of US war loans to Britain, White was implacable; there would be none. Distraught at this outcome, Keynes was to suffer a heart attack within days of his return to Britain and died at the age of 62. His failure was also to ensure the UK was repaying war loans to the USA until 2006.<br />
<br />
The inescapable fact was that in the post-war world, only one nation had escaped economically more or less unscathed - the USA. By 1948, the new world order was becoming plain. The Cold War was a reality and Germany’s critical role in the NATO - Warsaw Pact balance of power was obvious. Without economic assistance, West Germany’s reliability as the bastion of the West was in question.<br />
<br />
Erhard and his colleagues took their old plans out of the drawer. According to Handelsblatt, 25 June 2006:<br />
<br />
<i>'On 20 April 1948, a heavily guarded bus with opaque windows brings them to the airbase at Rothwesten near Kassel. There, after weeks of persuasion, the German experts get the representatives of the Allies to go along with their concept: on 20 June 1948, small savers lose everything, whereas owners of shares and material goods lose almost nothing…Erhard’s policy has one aim and one aim only: to support businesses in building up their capital. This he sees as the royal road to dynamic growth.'</i><br />
<br />
Thus at a stroke, a Nazi economic plan for Germany was implemented three years after the end of WW2. But there was a big bonus too; the Marshall Plan was to see German debt (unlike Britain’s) written off. According to Professor Albert Ritschel in <i>The Economist</i> 25 June 2012:<br />
<br />
<i>'Here’s the core. German public debt in 1944 amounted to 379 billion Reichsmarks, roughly four times Germany’s 1938 GDP. Currency reform under the auspices of the US Army in 1948 wiped out this debt. To zero. From 1947 to 1952, the Marshall Plan bought West Germany a foreign debt holiday…that makes 465 billion Deutsche Marks of cancelled debt, still not including all deferred interest payments…Does that beat Greece? You bet.'</i><br />
<br />
This then is the reality of Germany’s phoenix-like economic resurrection in the wake of losing the war and seeing its cities reduced to rubble. It is also why I visited such a wealthy and prosperous country in the 1970’s while my own was bleak and impoverished. From an economic perspective, the US restored Germany not just from the ashes of defeat, but also put in place the foundations which would see it emerge as the economic master of Europe, despite the US abandoning its financial aid to Germany in 1973, when the costs of the Vietnam War meant it was no longer affordable. America had its own home-grown problems to address by then.<br />
<br />
From a British and US perspective, the liberation of Europe and the restoration of freedom to its people was accomplished at a very heavy price - not just the bloodshed of a generation. A debt which today’s European politicians would do well to remember I think.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-23488961585490702962019-02-17T12:02:00.000+00:002019-03-20T21:20:32.853+00:00Participate or perish – the implications of surveillance capitalism for your career <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqcCpanZ3BUhsKsmOFZuD65PAXWNjkOVoGpm4wYeWOd2Z84TNufFvplxpLvmDO0b9jt-6ToOwBhKb58ZIbaC0BPiI26BLYdd2cznAelbcR7kghbTGGfdsEbfE4vaPtHrR7hiSmfnHYWNEz/s1600/Surveillance.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="496" data-original-width="497" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqcCpanZ3BUhsKsmOFZuD65PAXWNjkOVoGpm4wYeWOd2Z84TNufFvplxpLvmDO0b9jt-6ToOwBhKb58ZIbaC0BPiI26BLYdd2cznAelbcR7kghbTGGfdsEbfE4vaPtHrR7hiSmfnHYWNEz/s400/Surveillance.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i></div>
<br />
<b>The fourth industrial revolution will not be our saviour, it risks becoming our enslaver. Big data and the internet are assuming control.</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
We have entered a new economic age under immense ignorance about our personal data and its use by technology. Our human rights are not so much being abused, as being expropriated and monetised by information oligarchs who are all but invisible to citizens and governments alike.This power to shape behaviour for others’ profit or power is entirely self-authorising.<br />
<br />
We are dazzled by the technological progress that the fourth industrial revolution promises. We are also blind to the invisible ways in which the digital world is assuming control of our very existence.<br />
<br />
There is a fundamental problem even with calling this the fourth industrial revolution. That’s because this title implies that it is relational to previous industrial revolutions. It is not. Previous industrial revolutions delivered mechanical, transport and communication advancements. <b>The fourth industrial revolution is capitalising on our very thoughts and actions. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
It has no foundation in democratic or moral legitimacy, as it usurps decision rights and erodes the processes of individual autonomy that are essential to the function of a democratic society. Once I was mine. Now I am theirs.<br />
<br />
And it is rolling out at breakneck speed, so fast that the legal and regulatory powers we trust to protect our lives and society are being left in the dust. <br />
<br />
<b>The relationship between speed of change and human lifespans is critical for survival. </b><br />
<br />
If we experience fundamental change over the course of our entire adult lives, we have a fair chance to adapt and survive. When fundamental change is happening in more or less real time, we struggle. <br />
<br />
The First Industrial Revolution involved the transition to new manufacturing processes in Europe and the US, in the period from about 1760 to 1830. It therefore took around 70 years – in other words more or less the average lifespan of a human being. <br />
<br />
This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, the increasing use of steam power, the development of machine tools and the rise of the factory system. <br />
<br />
The economic models associated with the first industrial revolution were the transfer of capital from a feudal elite, to a new class of commercial/industrial elites who owned and controlled not land but the resources and means of manufacturing production. <br />
<br />
<b>The Second Industrial Revolution </b><br />
<br />
This took place between 1870 and 1914. It therefore happened within a period of forty years or so; about half a human lifespan. It used new power sources such as electricity and the internal combustion engine to expand communications, domestic comfort and personal mobility. Major technological advances during this period included the telephone, light bulb, phonograph and the internal combustion engine. <br />
<br />
A key socio-economic change associated with the second industrial revolution was that women were increasingly freed of many domestic chores and their political emancipation enabled them to choose to free themselves of economic dependency on their husbands. <br />
<br />
<b>The Third Industrial Revolution </b><br />
<br />
The Third Industrial Revolution, or the Digital Revolution, refers to the advancement of technology from analogue electronic and mechanical devices to the digital technology available today. The era started during the 1980s and was essentially mature by the early 2000’s. It therefore took around 20 years or about half the duration of the Second Industrial Revolution. <br />
<br />
Advancements during the Third Industrial Revolution include the personal computer, the internet, and information and digital communications technology. <br />
<br />
The economic characteristics which emerged in the Third Industrial Revolution were the rise of globalisation, the industrialisation of second world nations and the rise of disruptive business models. <br />
<br />
<b>The Fourth Industrial Revolution 2015 - present </b><br />
<br />
This is fundamentally different from the previous three, which were characterized mainly by advances in technology. The fourth industrial revolution involves advances in what is called ‘connectivity’ rather than technology. Advocates claim this development has great potential to connect billions more people to the web, drastically improve the efficiency of business and organizations and help regenerate the natural environment through better asset management. <br />
<br />
I don’t see it like that at all. That’s because these are merely technical possibilities. Whereas what determines what ultimately happens to our society hinges not on what is technically possible, but <b>what is commercially advantageous to capital and investment. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimrs7-sW8KLPGlcKS3dyf_KOXVv53MvePiRa9xaK8kMAWwoJLKnFysb7P8yD8EPas1i7xzvfVjQk8HAxZbRdqdMfqqtNFgimuZv-0HwRRxsxOXsZdYl7Py7ZjQDH2Z6z3GXlQi_M7MewvE/s1600/41nfe-f7Q3L._SX324_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="326" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimrs7-sW8KLPGlcKS3dyf_KOXVv53MvePiRa9xaK8kMAWwoJLKnFysb7P8yD8EPas1i7xzvfVjQk8HAxZbRdqdMfqqtNFgimuZv-0HwRRxsxOXsZdYl7Py7ZjQDH2Z6z3GXlQi_M7MewvE/s320/41nfe-f7Q3L._SX324_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" width="209" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Much scarier than Steven King...<br />
Zuboff lays the truth bare in her new book.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
This is what Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff has termed, ‘surveillance capitalism’. <br />
<br />
Her definition of surveillance capitalism is: <br />
<br />
1. A new economic order that claims human experience as free raw material for hidden commercial practices of extraction, prediction, and sales; <br />
<br />
2. A parasitic economic logic in which the production of goods and services is subordinated to a new global architecture of behavioural modification; <br />
<br />
3. A rogue mutation of capitalism marked by concentrations of wealth, knowledge and power unprecedented in human history; <br />
<br />
4. The foundational framework of a surveillance economy; <br />
<br />
5. As significant a threat to human nature in the twenty-first century as industrial capitalism was to the natural world in the nineteenth and twentieth; <br />
<br />
6. The origin of a new instrumentarian power that assets dominance over society and presents startling challenges to market democracy; <br />
<br />
7. A movement that aims to impose a new collective order based on total certainty; <br />
<br />
8. An expropriation of critical human rights that is best understood as a coup from above; an overthrow of the people’s sovereignty. <br />
<br />
Surveillance capitalism is essentially parasitic. It feeds on the data that we all create though our engagement with the digital world. Google was the first to monetise this through the creation of targeted online advertising but today Google is applying the same business model to other applications. Apple, Facebook and Amazon have all followed in Google’s footsteps. <br />
<br />
The big data we all create is the raw material for surveillance capitalism. It’s all but invisible and is given away for free. It operates largely without our knowledge. The legal basis for its use is hidden inside the endless pages of legal mumbo jumbo which form the basis of every user terms and conditions document we consent to every time we sign up to a digital service or platform. <br />
<br />
The law and our institutions have been completely blindsided by the fourth industrial revolution. And that is because of the speed of mutation of surveillance capitalism. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation Rules (GDPR) which were introduced in 2018, began being drafted in 2012. They reflected the digital world as it was then, not as it is now. It’s little wonder therefore that it’s already hopelessly out of date and that the surveillance capitalists have moved on, leaving the regulators flailing in their wake. <br />
<br />
Surveillance capitalism is now becoming the technology framework that underpins our career opportunities just like every other aspect of our lives. If you think career technology is Linkedin, job boards and online job ads, you’re about ten years behind what is happening. The latest recruitment technology is pulling data from places you’d never even think about. If your smart fridge is ordering mostly beer and pizzas, if you use online gambling, if you take a payday loan - that data or parts of it will find its way sooner or later into the data sets the internet holds about you. For better or worse, but most likely worse. <br />
<br />
We can choose not to participate. We can choose not to use social media, or online shopping, or read online news reports. To live outside the digital grid. It’s increasingly difficult, but you can become digitally invisible. But in the age of surveillance capitalism, doing that is to choose to perish.<br />
<br />
We all need a strategy to cope. To mitigate the exploitative forces which are at work, and as much as possible turn things to working for us rather than against us. Boycotts and protests are not a practical or realistic answer. But there are things we can do to reassert our own power of self-determinism. But that's for my next post <a href="https://40pluscareerguru.blogspot.com/2019/03/career-survival-in-age-of-surveillance.html" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, if you're not scared half to death already and you want to reassert some control, my friend Marcia LaReau at Forward Motion Careers has antidotes ready. I recommend you read her blog post, <i>You are Being Stalked</i> <a href="https://forwardmotioncareers.com/job-seeker-alert-you-are-being-stalked/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-46621001497509694172019-01-21T13:55:00.000+00:002019-03-20T21:21:28.040+00:00HR data and analytics drives profits but at what cost? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNM3AE9dpuOZRfYUccxe6HXjKK0yqv0dgs0qcxngBEbUXKQGjmjhlj9uaB8tQ3GNaZwIfUPySmzBSHp7Olxk0CPdb90Y8n3gbRFxJxl_km714EnEKdLfMbWn_vT8MYcfPLkt4STBOP19_b/s1600/AI+distopia.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="370" data-original-width="550" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNM3AE9dpuOZRfYUccxe6HXjKK0yqv0dgs0qcxngBEbUXKQGjmjhlj9uaB8tQ3GNaZwIfUPySmzBSHp7Olxk0CPdb90Y8n3gbRFxJxl_km714EnEKdLfMbWn_vT8MYcfPLkt4STBOP19_b/s400/AI+distopia.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
<b>HR analytics can punish your employees, but you won’t worry about that if you want to win. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
In his 1976 book, 'Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation', author Joseph Weizenbaum laid out the case that while artificial intelligence may be possible, we should never allow computers to make important decisions, because computers will always lack human qualities such as compassion and wisdom. Weizenbaum made a crucial distinction between deciding and choosing. Deciding is a computational activity, something that can ultimately be programmed. But it is the capacity to choose that ultimately makes us human. Choice, however, is the product of judgement, not calculation.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Stephen Hawking went even further when he said, <i>"...the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete and would be superseded."</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I cannot say if this distopian vision will or will not ever manifest. But it is plain to anyone that we are racing down this path with scarcely any care. We are already seeing the first applications of big data and AI based workforce decision and management systems. HR leaders like it because it promises to solve several of their most longstanding and vexing problems.</div>
<div>
<br />
HR has been fed up forever about not being taken seriously. HR big data and analytics promises to be their saviour. It suggests that HR can transition from being perceived (wrongly in my view) as fluffy and utilitarian to having a proper seat at the leadership table, because like its rivals in finance, sales and marketing, it can now deploy hard ‘scientific’ data to back up its proposals. <br />
<br />
It also promises a happier, more engaged workforce. One in which every twist and turn of employee sentiment can be quantified and responded to. If the data says people are feeling worse about something, HR can know this quickly and help rectify the problem. <br />
<br />
I wish this were true. But I fear the opposite. That’s because every technological advance includes the option of being deployed for good or evil. <br />
<br />
What HR may not like so much is that HR data delivers an extremely useful tool for business leaders to push and punish people. It’s a deal with the devil, in which HR’s quest for happy, engaged workers, risks being hi-jacked by the rest of the business to brutally force up productivity and drive down cost. <br />
<br />
Incidentally, my argument skims over the very real practical questions around HR data and its inherent unreliability as Marcia LaReau has convincingly described <a href="https://forwardmotioncareers.com/hr-analytics-to-a-hammer-everything-is-a-nail/" target="_blank">here</a> in her post, ‘To a Hammer, Everything is a Nail’. <br />
<br />
Business has some critical problems today. Growth and profitability are chief amongst these. And countless studies show there is little correlation between hard profit and employee satisfaction. Sure there are plenty of examples of firms growing successfully who also invest in their people. But when we look at the most established large firms who are making the most money, most care much less about their people. <br />
<br />
This is actually a very simple economic truth to understand. In an open competitive market, whoever gets the most work done for the lowest cost, wins. And if that means some people suffer, then so be it. <br />
<br />
Every employee survey I have ever seen identifies that a person’s manager is the single greatest determinant of job satisfaction. It’s not pay, it’s not perks, it’s not flexible hours. It’s the person who manages you. If they are inspiring, caring, transparent, supportive, their staff will enjoy their work. <br />
<br />
But here’s the problem. Managers that display these qualities are becoming an endangered species. Because their bosses usually don’t care very much about strategic HR. They do care about smashing their immediate revenue and profit targets. HR gets people hired for them, sorts out people issues and keeps them out of court. Everything else is fluff. <br />
<br />
It’s that simple. Good leadership (not data) delivers happy and productive teams. <br />
<br />
But we also know that good leadership is a frustratingly elusive and expensive resource to acquire and maintain. One accidental bad hire of a psychopathic manager and the whole of an organisation’s carefully nurtured culture can be demolished in a few months. <br />
<br />
So if good leadership is expensive and scarce, but data is cheap and plentiful, the choice becomes a no-brainer.<br />
<br />
What is becoming visible now is that there are firms who take HR data very seriously. And what we can also see is just how punishing and dehumanising the application of HR data can be in practice. To verify this, all we need to do is examine the firms where HR data is most developed and embedded in the day to day operations of the organisation. <br />
<br />
And right now, probably the most advanced organisation in this field is Amazon. In January 2019, Amazon became the world’s third most valuable company by market capitalisation, after Apple and Microsoft. <br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YzdEQJ9V-8M" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Yet in some US states, nearly one in three Amazon workers are on food stamps. For Amazon, this is even better than paying people almost nothing. It is the transference of part of Amazon’s wage bill to the taxpayer. <br />
<br />
In Amazon warehouses, every second of people’s work is measured and evaluated. They may walk over twenty miles on a day’s shift. Their productivity is tracked and ranked against their peers, with whoever is at the bottom of the table likely facing disciplinary actions and threats. A toilet break can cost you your job if it exceeds a tightly prescribed time allowance. Many describe it as a daily hell, which they endure only because they have few other options. <br />
<br />
Welcome to the brave new world of HR big data. It’s being corrupted from the get-go. And if you’re an HR leader, be careful what you wish for.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-66991018507910603532019-01-06T10:09:00.000+00:002019-01-07T20:55:20.193+00:00AI in recruiting really means ‘abdicated intelligence’<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHTK-kpNyvVwAabqidSdo7FRRiC2Bpvk70s9DSfeu8iRnS_L_I6eyjiPC6g8X2T6QtPT6Se7D54UNpYSiEDURtofsmQKRr_hYff_QnDNJr_Dri46tRJvdGqR2TBpUPONkK0tDtof0ZZEbR/s1600/dumb-and-dumber1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="432" data-original-width="650" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHTK-kpNyvVwAabqidSdo7FRRiC2Bpvk70s9DSfeu8iRnS_L_I6eyjiPC6g8X2T6QtPT6Se7D54UNpYSiEDURtofsmQKRr_hYff_QnDNJr_Dri46tRJvdGqR2TBpUPONkK0tDtof0ZZEbR/s400/dumb-and-dumber1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
<b>What is advocated and marketed as technology-enabled recruitment processes increases the difficulty in finding and retaining great people. The best people are made not found. We don't need to get better at ranking people by increasingly tightly defined data points, we need to take ownership of our responsibility (and self-interest) to find good people and make them great. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Artificial intelligence is the big topic in almost every professional field right now. From drones in farming to robot surgeons, the overriding narrative is about the tasks which AI will enable us to perform better, faster and cheaper. <br />
<br />
HR and recruitment are no different. The application of AI is spreading like wildfire as new tools are developed which expand the range of tasks that AI performs to assist recruitment management processes. <br />
<br />
Until now, it was relatively simple to integrate the digital world with our own professional world. Have a LinkedIn profile which is properly constructed. Expand our professional networking onto one or two social media platforms. Write some commentaries or blog posts. By these means, anyone checking us out could easily discover our credentials. <br />
<br />
Some people understandably chose not to participate or did so in the most cursory way possible. They had no wish to participate in the online race. They had fears about privacy. They didn’t understand how social media worked. They had better things to do with their time. All these were legitimate grounds to not participate. But not anymore because… <br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<h2>
<b>
This is now all set to change </b></h2>
<b>
</b>
The next wave of AI and big data is going to transform the processes of hiring way beyond anything we’ve seen to date. Traditional recruitment is a gruelling, complex process for employers and recruiters alike. Recruitment teams have to be heavily incentivised to commit to the heavy workloads involved. And this costs money. A lot of money. But AI will streamline and speed up these processes. It will be able to identify suitable candidates in a few seconds. It will message the chosen few and chatbots will perform initial screenings. Candidate selection decisions will be made on the basis of data and scoring algorithms rather than fallible human interactions. Very little human intervention will be needed. <br />
<br />
Recruitment costs will fall even more. Hiring efficiency and speed will increase. Hiring choices will be validated and justified by the ‘scientific’ methods involved. <br />
<br />
At least that is the vision. The reality is more worrying. <br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<h2>
<b>
Why it’s flawed</b></h2>
<b>
</b>
Data is not science. The principal predictors of job performance cannot be discovered by algorithms. The first attempts to automate the selection process created a bigger mess than before. Online job boards and applicant tracking systems (ATS) drove application numbers sky-high and candidate quality tumbled. But acquiring 500 applications cost around $50. Using a professional head hunter costs about $30-$40,000 per hire for professional vacancies. These economics ensured that automated recruitment processes took hold and continue to grow in usage. <br />
<br />
Nick Corcodilos explains in this video why the application of data driven metrics to recruitment ensures that employers miss many of the best candidates for any given role: <br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Owh5VVSsOk" width="560"></iframe> <br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with everything Nick says here. This process is flawed. It cannot find the best people because the available data points cannot determine that they will perform well on the job. And because quite a few of the very best people choose not to present themselves online in their professional capacity. Yet for all its weaknesses, automated recruitment is only going to expand because the cost differential is so compelling. <br />
<br />
In a strong and growing economy, organisations can invest in quality processes. In an economy which is uncertain and faltering, when profits and growth are elusive, focus inevitably shifts to cost reductions. Cost trumps quality in such times. <br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<h2>
<b>
Your career is at risk if you choose not to participate</b></h2>
<b>
</b>
It seems logical to me that the current and anticipated applications of technology and artificial intelligence in recruiting will continue to erode the quality of hiring decisions made. This may deliver short term cost gains, but will push up long term costs as turnover rises and employee performance falls. <br />
<br />
Yet this is not my greatest worry. My fear is that the relentless advance of this technology will create a new underclass of smart, educated and capable people who have chosen for legitimate reasons not to present themselves online. These people will become completely invisible to the data capture bots. And that invisibility will slowly but surely eat away at their employment opportunities. <br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<h2>
<b>
There’s not a ‘talent shortage’, there’s a leadership vacuum</b></h2>
<b>
</b><br />
For organisations, the deployment of recruitment AI encourages organisations to abdicate their responsibility to create and nurture their own human talent pool. This creates a downward spiral of ever increasing data point discrimination reinforcing the mythology of what employers disingenuously call their ‘talent shortage’. <br />
<br />
And if the belief in the pseudo-scientific reliability of these systems persists within management, we will see the abdication of leadership’s responsibility for taking good people and helping them become great. Instead, the tools will be adjusted to cure perceived shortcomings, when the real shortcomings are rooted in the mistaken faith in progress through technology. <br />
<br />
Artificial intelligence is well named. Because it’s not real intelligence…<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
PS. My good friend Marcia LaReau at Forward Motion Careers
has a great post <b><u><a href="https://forwardmotioncareers.com/still-afraid-of-social-media-consider-this-before-opting-out/" target="_blank">here</a></u></b> about
what jobseekers can do to avoid becoming a victim of this situation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-59533582406062736792018-09-01T15:00:00.001+01:002018-09-17T11:15:13.813+01:00Wonga is not the sort of fintech we want thank you <br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtDERi_AcTMRnEKglJy-wn8xf3hyuWODijTXWTloIFiQ6uNoMHndYel3M9_Y_QqF54AYC94XjgF0GUj0Mvv-72O6TqZpgqmYC5YGJ64lCY0pXmR4kkeHaWIo7DIKAWWVm-iXIL_SKa7eHD/s1600/file000364857492.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="620" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtDERi_AcTMRnEKglJy-wn8xf3hyuWODijTXWTloIFiQ6uNoMHndYel3M9_Y_QqF54AYC94XjgF0GUj0Mvv-72O6TqZpgqmYC5YGJ64lCY0pXmR4kkeHaWIo7DIKAWWVm-iXIL_SKa7eHD/s400/file000364857492.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
Does technology have a moral compass? I guess most would say it’s morally neutral. It is the people creating it who must carry that responsibility. But technology and big data is the great power of our age. And with great power comes great responsibility.<br />
<br />
<b>When someone tells you big data is the answer, it’s smart to look beyond the data </b><br />
<br />
This week Wonga.com went into administration. It’s a business I’ve watched with interest since its foundation in 2006. But not with admiration, rather a growing unease that its business model wasn’t just unethical, it was fatally flawed. It was bound to have a messy ending. <br />
<br />
Wonga was the UK’s biggest payday lender. Payday loans in the USA remain illegal in 14 states yet created several multi-millionaires there in a few short years. And as is usually the case, when that happens, the idea travelled across the Atlantic very quickly to the UK. <br />
<br />
Not very long ago, Wonga was a posterboy for the fintech sector. They invested in lavish TV commercials. They sponsored Newcastle United Football Club for £8 million a year. And they were once courted by investors eager to share in their profits. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2Gfa-q6MKvOIhgrkCZq0g40vG8p4lcJBGgtPDDuWp_8lDM7FS9d4yP9sempiUX2-dG6ot0i9KCTC0Ru3LS7em-QtnGP4-LrZrhk7OXh9IpR9ebqpD6sojnC7S23sHUtTl6uhy8Z0XeNpw/s1600/.....Papiss_Cisse.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1422" data-original-width="800" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2Gfa-q6MKvOIhgrkCZq0g40vG8p4lcJBGgtPDDuWp_8lDM7FS9d4yP9sempiUX2-dG6ot0i9KCTC0Ru3LS7em-QtnGP4-LrZrhk7OXh9IpR9ebqpD6sojnC7S23sHUtTl6uhy8Z0XeNpw/s400/.....Papiss_Cisse.jpg" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Papiss Cisse of Newcastle United.<br />
Photo credit: Dudek1337</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
And Wonga's founders would be the first to admit that they trusted data and algorithms more than people. Couple big data with a fast and simple internet-based application process and Wonga were sure they would be the next big thing in money lending. They would take a proven business model from the US and turn it into a data-driven internet giant in lending. Tech is so much cheaper and more reliable than people after all. Or is it?<br />
<br />
It all went horribly wrong for reasons which are not the same as the ones talked about in the mainstream media. They give you the headline facts. I’m more interested in what created those facts… <br />
<br />
<b>A short history of payday loans in the United States </b><br />
<br />
Banking deregulation in the United States in the late 1980s caused many small community banks to go out of business. This created a void in the supply of short-term microcredit, which was not supplied by mainstream banks due to their unprofitability. That unprofitability was easy to explain – banking regulations wouldn’t permit the ultra-high interest rates needed to cover the high default levels that such loans inevitably create. <br />
<br />
The payday loan industry sprang up to capitalise on this void and to supply small short-term loans to the working class at very high interest rates. But how was it that they were able to make these loans when banks could not? <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLsKfV9bRCJEVJYBtR9b_YkIkqwmdU3EzVVdwRNDVhFRSW50Q9HSLK07forv4Q1qfGusAmE1ioAL3p-4LSbONn9OtKwfJQiExRPtGf4jfOmQKRbnNmLelKER79L5CPsLhS62Km4otelSYd/s1600/....Photo_of_Allan_Jones.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="948" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLsKfV9bRCJEVJYBtR9b_YkIkqwmdU3EzVVdwRNDVhFRSW50Q9HSLK07forv4Q1qfGusAmE1ioAL3p-4LSbONn9OtKwfJQiExRPtGf4jfOmQKRbnNmLelKER79L5CPsLhS62Km4otelSYd/s320/....Photo_of_Allan_Jones.jpg" width="270" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">W. Allan Jones, the 'father of payday loans'</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In 1993, Check Into Cash was founded by Allan Jones in Cleveland, Tennessee, and became the largest payday loan company in the United States. He’s known as ‘the father of payday loans’ - I am unsure if this is a tribute or an indictment - and his business was made possible only after he donated to the campaigns of legislators in multiple states, convincing them to legalize loans with such high interest rates.<br />
<br />
<b>And thus a massive new industry was born…</b> <br />
<br />
Subsequently, the industry grew from fewer than 500 storefronts to over 22,000 and a total size of $46 billion. By 2008, payday loan stores in the United States outnumbered Starbucks shops and McDonald's fast food restaurants. <br />
<br />
And this was the point at which two entrepreneurs named Errol Damelin and Jonty Hurwitz envisioned an internet-based payday loans business in the UK. Both had previous internet start-up experience; but critically neither had any experience of retail banking. I could see exactly how Wonga would make money. I had no doubt about that. What I could also see was that the business model was completely unsustainable. <br />
<br />
<b>What exactly are you disrupting? </b><br />
<br />
Wonga claimed and possibly believed they were disrupting big banks. They were not. They were actually disrupting doorstep money lenders and loan sharks; some of the most odious and exploitative businesses you will find. <br />
<br />
And guess which other online sector is also in trouble today? Online ticket sellers. They claim they are making event tickets more easily available. But they are actually using all sorts of devious online trickery, enabling inflated prices not to mention a raft of fees and charges which are added to the bill. If they are disrupting anyone, they are disrupting ticket touts and making a killing in the process. <br />
<br />
And just like the payday loans sector who became the target for heavy intervention by the Financial Conduct Authority, so too are the secondary ticketing websites, including Viagogo, StubHub, GETMEIN! and Seatwave. All are now under similar legal and regulatory threat by the Competition and Markets Authority. <br />
<br />
So when new businesses say they are disruptive, that’s not automatically a good thing. What matters is that the disruptors are challenging an expensive or exploitative sector, remedying the fundamental failures of that sector, not amplifying them through mere digital deployment. <br />
<br />
<b>Investors loved this business – at first </b><br />
<br />
In 2008, when Wonga was still an early stage start up, I was doing the rounds of venture capital firms in London, capital raising for another fintech startup. I distinctly recall one venture capitalist telling me that what he really wanted was another Wonga. <br />
<br />
Wonga had already raised £3.7m to fund its initial platform development. In July 2009 Wonga raised a further £13.9m of funding through other VC firms (including the one I talked to). These investments enabled Wonga to complete their first platform and begin lending money. <br />
<br />
The point here is that investors are looking for a quick return on their investment. Usually a sell out or exit after 3 - 5 years. They want a deal they can buy into cheap, and sell fast with a big return. This rapid rate of buying in and selling out enables them to avoid possible regulatory trouble because: <br />
<br />
<b>Regulators are far too slow to intervene to remedy exploitative practices </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
As I was watching the growth of Wonga and other payday lenders, I was also watching what regulators were doing. One of the first to take any notice was the Office of Fair Trading. Yet in their initial reviews they claimed that they had too few complaints to merit any sort of intervention. Instead they opted to merely keep an eye on things. It wasn’t until 2012 amidst explosive growth of payday lending and mounting criticism, that the Financial Conduct Authority decided to intervene. <br />
<br />
<b>The Financial Crash of 2008 was great news for payday lenders </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Although when Wonga was founded, the financial crash of 2008 was still ahead, when it came, this event was to ensure that payday lenders were to benefit. Banks and other mainstream lenders stopped lending to virtually everyone. But people’s need to borrow didn’t diminish, which left Wonga with suddenly much less competition from more traditional lenders. Moreover, the economic doldrums which ensued in the Great Recession created new customers in their droves.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY-mi2mUy5QbNqMW97k83X17-u6ZU4L5NPcHAxDjT6X0QWkMg5Exe78WV_45t3IxUG6iY1mC8e_kh1XArWek3p54VV2YNXZAqzMDfEQhTi38OAtVfoE7WIeR5RGUzvbi-I5Z4nBtcCaSB7/s1600/....Cost_of_borrowing_%25C2%25A3100_from_Wonga.com_for_30_days_17_Nov_2013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="344" data-original-width="1060" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY-mi2mUy5QbNqMW97k83X17-u6ZU4L5NPcHAxDjT6X0QWkMg5Exe78WV_45t3IxUG6iY1mC8e_kh1XArWek3p54VV2YNXZAqzMDfEQhTi38OAtVfoE7WIeR5RGUzvbi-I5Z4nBtcCaSB7/s400/....Cost_of_borrowing_%25C2%25A3100_from_Wonga.com_for_30_days_17_Nov_2013.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Screenshot from Wonga.com showing the cost of borrowing £100 for 30 days as at 17 Nov 2013</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In 2012, a typical loan from Wonga had an annual percentage rate of 4,214 per cent. This equates to a charge of £42.96 for borrowing £100 for just 36 days. The debate still rages about this. Payday loans are by definition very short-term. And small. But most traditional loans are bigger and long term, so historically, the annual percentage rate of interest (APR) was a convenient and appropriate way to measure the cost of a loan. Not so much when the loan is for just a few days. My view was and remains that APR is not relevant when assessing the cost of ultra-short-term loans. <br />
<br />
<b>No-body wanted to buy Wonga because other predators were eating it… </b><br />
<br />
In September 2012, Wonga reported profits of £45.8m for 2011 from revenue of £185m. But the threats and cracks were already showing. Not least of these was the Financial Conduct Authority’s new rules and ongoing investigation into the whole payday loans sector. <br />
<br />
Already anticipating a new financial compensation opportunity, legal claims management firms saw that payday lenders would become their next carcasses to feast upon. And they were right – payday loan regulation created a whole new raft of claims opportunities. Coupled with the capping of the fees that had originally made Wonga so profitable, these claims grew and grew until the business became unsustainable. <br />
<br />
Last week in a desperate last hour bid to save the Wonga from collapse, the shareholders stumped up a further £10m. But it was not enough. <br />
<br />
<b>Never leave the techies in charge of the business </b><br />
<br />
The mainstream media, politicians and even the Archbishop of Canterbury have complained endlessly that Wonga’s business was exploitative. I agree, but that’s not how the business made so much money. The key to business’s early profitability was NOT through its high interest rates, but the fees and charges it applied to every borrower that failed to meet their repayment terms faultlessly and the rolling over of these charges into new loans. <br />
<br />
Before regulators stepped in to tackle this in 2012, if a customer failed to repay the loan in full on the due date, a default fee would be charged and interest would snowball the debt endlessly thereafter. The debt would then be ‘rolled over’ into a new and bigger loan. Such things would involve a lot of letters and phone calls of course. And every letter and phone call would also incur a large fee which was also added to the debt. In the matter of a few weeks, a smallish loan could be transformed into a debt many times larger. This was insanely profitable. <br />
<br />
<b>Regulation is inevitable but is always too late </b><br />
<br />
On 28 November 2012, following concerns that small loans, intended to be short-term, could become prohibitively expensive, the government announced it would give the Financial Conduct Authority powers to prevent indefinite rolling over of loans and effectively limit charges. <br />
<br />
By this point, Wonga had already made millions in profits. But <b>from</b> this point, their business model couldn’t work. It was just a matter of time until the whole thing crashed. The only thing that surprises me is that the business was able to limp on for another six years. <br />
<br />
<b>When the body falls, the vultures complete the kill </b><br />
<br />
The coup de grâce that finally finished Wonga ironically wasn’t it’s business model. True, this had become fatally wounded by the imposition of regulations to prevent their loan roll overs and excessive fees for defaulters. What finished them was another group of predators – the claims management companies. In 2014, the firm introduced a new management team and wrote off £220m worth of debt belonging to 330,000 customers after admitting giving loans to people who could not afford to repay them. But even this was not enough to deflect the inevitable. <br />
<br />
<b>The endless cycle of financial ‘innovation’, profiteering, regulation and collapse </b><br />
<br />
Wonga is more than just a tale of dubious morality. It is a perfect demonstration of how a purely technological vision, lacking depth of understanding of the industry sector and its unique characteristics, inevitably wrecks the lives of customers, investors and staff alike. <br />
<br />
I am pleased that Wonga is no more. But I am not optimistic that we won’t see this cycle perpetuating again and again in other business sectors. It’s not entrepreneurial innovation or disruption, it’s a perfect storm of lack of morality, self-delusion, arrogance and greed, going unchallenged until long after the damage is done. And as usual the biggest victims are those least able to bear it.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-40410823409343591042018-07-19T10:40:00.000+01:002018-07-19T10:40:41.024+01:00Are we getting too fixated about the gender pay gap?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><br /></i>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisyw3CuujAMnqEQKZQLHdihwnuhv9pP9kBGu4RCBwDbs1VBfaUKDV-9LrASQfKiME4cwI575km0q2kStS7aWuQX3RgOLXnKG86ewsZQGMrL-Itjc7fcBsQv-NaZC3Qu5sZ2vJBgeWMnO5J/s1600/file231263245813a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="392" data-original-width="620" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisyw3CuujAMnqEQKZQLHdihwnuhv9pP9kBGu4RCBwDbs1VBfaUKDV-9LrASQfKiME4cwI575km0q2kStS7aWuQX3RgOLXnKG86ewsZQGMrL-Itjc7fcBsQv-NaZC3Qu5sZ2vJBgeWMnO5J/s400/file231263245813a.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Can you spot the missing person here?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i></div>
<br /><br />Pick up any mainstream media today and you’ll likely find another article about the gender pay gap. Media interest has been stirred up again because we have now passed the deadline for gender pay gap reporting to the government by employers. Many firms’ gender pay gaps are being brought into embarrassingly sharp focus and whether they can be justified or not is largely irrelevant; if you’re out of kilter, it’s going to ensure egg on faces and corporate embarrassment at the very least. <br /><br />Just this week, the UK headlines included the news that the BBC’s twelve most highly paid presenters were all men. This ranked as less of an important story than the football (which I choose not to interpret as a sexist fact, but I’ll take your counsel on that). It was widely reported nonetheless. The BBC is conceding that they have got it wrong and are protesting that they are doing everything possible to remedy it. Not a great piece of PR for the BBC, but it demonstrates that rectifying this particular injustice is a concern for them. <br /><br />While pay disparities by gender are being endlessly wrangled about, another legally protected characteristic is virtually ignored. I am not taking about sexuality, ethnicity or religion all of which are also protected characteristics and benefit from staunch lobbying and widespread public support. <br /><br />I’m talking about age. Age is also a legally protected characteristic. Yet ageism is the last of the ‘isms’ to remain socially acceptable. For some reason there is little equality amongst ‘isms’. <br /><br />Yet I’d argue that age is the most important of all the legally protected characteristics. Age is the most important characteristic because unlike gender, ethnicity, sexuality or religion, it applies to 100% of people all of the time. <br /><br />Age and experience generally confer more not less skill and competence. Research has consistently shown that older employees are more reliable, more conscientious, better communicators and even more creative than their younger counterparts. And contrary to common myth, they are also less absent. While I’ve not found data proving that boozy late nights tend to diminish with age and maturity, I do have a lot of empirical evidence pointing to this as fact. <br /><br />So something is just wrong when age discrimination goes unchallenged. It’s illogical. <br /><br />Ageism manifests particularly in the area of recruitment and hiring. Whilst it is illegal to specify age as a requirement, it’s so easy to fudge that it happens almost universally. <br /><br />Ageism in the workplace involves equality of opportunity being denied to millions of people. And in the west, where we have generally ageing populations, many compelled by their financial circumstances to work into their 70s, this economic exclusion is punishing people of all genders, ethnicities, sexualities and religions. It is also making older people more of a burden on everyone else, because they contribute less to the economy and society than they would otherwise do. <br /><br />So why is so little attention paid to this and why is neither the law nor public anger mitigating against this greatest of all injustices? <br /><br />The age and pay differentials are starkly different when we compare public and private sectors. First, the public sector pays significantly higher than the private sector at all ages except for a small age cohort between 40 and 50. In the private sector, pay peaks at around 45 years of age and declines steadily thereafter. In the public sector, pay is almost flat from the age of about 32 right through until 60: </div>
<span style="text-align: start;">
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdfnHhA1-CtQ_yAtRxyiy4QlGQtu8XyoBvqkLQKt5NdUF2Qff1vMuFUY7BEV4fSJwWjkrZ5b9ay2b6yTYG-r5mGsoIfeK9ZLXk6zGIZd2gSjvlxLldGUEn1o1AvH5D61AnpdFZX-gF6PCx/s1600/article-2231735-15FC6A0E000005DC-157_634x418.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="418" data-original-width="634" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdfnHhA1-CtQ_yAtRxyiy4QlGQtu8XyoBvqkLQKt5NdUF2Qff1vMuFUY7BEV4fSJwWjkrZ5b9ay2b6yTYG-r5mGsoIfeK9ZLXk6zGIZd2gSjvlxLldGUEn1o1AvH5D61AnpdFZX-gF6PCx/s400/article-2231735-15FC6A0E000005DC-157_634x418.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
So the public sector, which of course contains all those people who are responsible for the setting and enforcement of rules and retributions for infringements of regulation and law, experience little negative impact of pay discrimination by age. Meanwhile in the private sector, it’s a free for all. <br />
<br />
This aggregate data conceals the fact that older workers below the highest positions in the private sector are earning much less than the chart suggests. That’s because their age cohort also contains senior people in organisations at the very highest levels of pay. These people may not be numerous but their exceptionally high levels of reward obscure the modal experience, by making the average pay for their age group much higher than it would otherwise be. <br />
<br />
Ageism also compounds the gender pay gap. Whilst the gender pay gap has been steadily falling in aggregate, older women are especially disadvantaged. Ageism is punishing women more than men. <br />
<br />
Prof Malcolm Brynin found in the 2017 study for the Equality and Human Rights Commission that: <br />
<br />
<i>“The pay gap widens with age: older women experience a larger pay gap compared with their male peers than younger women with their male peers. This is primarily because women are more likely than men to take time out of the labour market to care for children. This may slow career development. The statistical analysis found that women's shorter job tenure, a likely consequence of starting a family, is a factor driving the pay gap. <br /><br />While younger married women earn more than unmarried women, this advantage reverses with age. From their 40s onwards, married women experience a pay disadvantage compared to unmarried women. This is likely to be linked with childrearing: the analysis found that having a child increases the pay gap considerably for women. Married men, by contrast, earn substantially more than unmarried men in all age groups. The ‘wage penalty’ for child-rearing, as a proportion of women’s pay, has increased slightly over time. However, as with the gender pay gap generally, the pay gap between men and women with children has also declined over time.” </i><br />
<br />
The prevailing mainstream media narratives are obscuring the real injustices around work and pay and are not fit for purpose in the 21st century. Ideas such as a patriarchy bent on the economic exploitation of women by men might have been credible 30 or 40 years ago. But today they are past their sell by date. If we look at the data instead of the news headlines, this fact is in plain sight. <br />
<br />
Applying the patriarchy conspiracy theory narrative to gender alone creates an illusion of social justice. The real injustices are not defined purely by gender. They are rather the unchecked growth in income inequality across all genders. The persistence of a mythology about youth trumping age and experience. The debt burdens placed on the young to secure university educations that deliver worthwhile careers to ever fewer of their number. And the unwillingness of corporations to invest in people at all stages of their working lives. <br />
<br />
None of these structural failures of fairness in the world of work have anything to do with gender. They punish everyone more or less equally regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. <br />
<br />
If you want to make a difference and lessen the injustices in the world, don’t default to the #MeToo bandwagon. There is a much bigger and more damaging discrimination going unchallenged. It’s ageism and it unites everyone, because everyone is or will be a victim sooner or later.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-46086782908269765782018-06-06T11:26:00.000+01:002018-06-08T19:13:06.416+01:00The real implications of GDPR for marketing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkXLvmFUMAe16G4t_pv8cR4R4WyoXuuTPcS3ipS80a_v6m-Y904QPuYr6PbdxI9sKWuaJ88J4lsfu2fxYvUIeK5HS7jgW8aDW1rjoFkn8UUOYk_gJTdvB1AncmanzGKdIzn5rAOk5LFdZq/s1600/file6271273137854.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="419" data-original-width="620" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkXLvmFUMAe16G4t_pv8cR4R4WyoXuuTPcS3ipS80a_v6m-Y904QPuYr6PbdxI9sKWuaJ88J4lsfu2fxYvUIeK5HS7jgW8aDW1rjoFkn8UUOYk_gJTdvB1AncmanzGKdIzn5rAOk5LFdZq/s400/file6271273137854.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>GDPR isn’t over; it has only just begun. GDPR may lighten your mailbox of spam, but it also has huge repercussions for business that no-one is talking about...</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Yes I know. Data protection regulation is a dull topic. But I'm writing about it anyway in this post, because GDPR has some profound and far reaching consequences for everyone.<br />
<br />
For the last few months, just about every post about GDPR has been about what businesses need to do satisfy this new set of data protection regulations. And the enormous fines that can be levied upon those who fail to comply. <br />
<br />
As the deadline approached, we all had our mailboxes filled with emails desperately begging us to give consent to receive communications from firms we bought things from possibly years ago, or maybe never. Some even from firms that we never knew had retained our email address for their own use. <br />
<br />
I am not unhappy about GDPR. It kills the abuse of email for a start. It will force businesses to take a hard look at their marketing, which has been a race to the bottom for far too long. Why would I or anyone else who bought a wheel barrow, tennis racket or dining table want to get emails about more wheel barrows or tennis rackets or dining tables every week for the rest of our lives? <br />
<br />
This sort of marketing might get a few takers, but it alienates many more. So most people have ignored these last ditch pleas. The result will inevitably be that our mailboxes will revert to a more modest overloading especially if you are in Europe. <br />
<br />
Finally on 25 May, the regulations came into force. There are big repercussions for business and this post outlines some of them. It will change digital marketing activities for the better I hope. It will force brands to invest more sensibly in building real customer relationships. It will also deliver even more power into to a handful of huge global digital businesses.<br />
<div>
<br />
<b>First it will decimate a huge business sector which almost no-one has heard of </b><br />
<br />
Behind the scenes, GDPR has caused the decimation of a huge industry sector which almost no-one knows about. <br />
<br />
The sector is called ad-tech. LUMAscape has made it their business to map this vast and sprawling network of firms who have built their businesses to provide personalised data to those who want to sell us stuff online. And it looks like this (or rather it used to):<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQR2_TdYdV1gw9t-JbN3YhxWu8EEpHGTMFFlTKsjMcGwy4uRRhgdBZjMzdetsEoMwz8nzizyU29qBifbC6PpVpyhoDU4nSdkhfUUcuhhk2s8z4kga7-dPOp1NAy8Ph1PBc8ZIoAb0NTaQg/s1600/...LUMAscape.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="611" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQR2_TdYdV1gw9t-JbN3YhxWu8EEpHGTMFFlTKsjMcGwy4uRRhgdBZjMzdetsEoMwz8nzizyU29qBifbC6PpVpyhoDU4nSdkhfUUcuhhk2s8z4kga7-dPOp1NAy8Ph1PBc8ZIoAb0NTaQg/s400/...LUMAscape.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
Ad-tech businesses mushroomed because the internet’s default business model is advertising. Advertising works on the principle that targeting specific ads at the right people is more cost effective than randomly advertising to everyone. And because our internet browsing data in aggregate is so much richer and more detailed than any other form of data, the people in ad-tech anticipated there was huge money to be made by delivering the data and tools to assist this targeting. <br />
<br />
And at first they were right; VC investment and revenues poured into these firms until 2011, since when it has declined. It is absolutely no co-incidence that it was 2012 when the EU announced that GDPR was coming: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpO9VK1gySQK1e0kyas8-UPgwykEoG2G91V0s7iAqiyjDwwSU5S49y29l3qxTHn7k_Ri8QURL9vnyx2P9E6TC6xGTTWx0l49chUfYxFVml7wGAEjwqmiG52xaqcNSTujThNRfsE3gBp3YP/s1600/...A-tech+and+martech+investment+WSJ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="853" data-original-width="1280" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpO9VK1gySQK1e0kyas8-UPgwykEoG2G91V0s7iAqiyjDwwSU5S49y29l3qxTHn7k_Ri8QURL9vnyx2P9E6TC6xGTTWx0l49chUfYxFVml7wGAEjwqmiG52xaqcNSTujThNRfsE3gBp3YP/s400/...A-tech+and+martech+investment+WSJ.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The whole ad-tech sector was predicated upon one massively flawed assumption. The ad industry thought that consumers would welcome ‘relevant’ and targeted ads. They forgot or at least ignored that hardly anyone actually likes advertising. We just hate targeted advertising a little less than we hate untargeted advertising. <br />
<br />
But pre-GDPR, this dislike of advertising was not enough to stop the exponential growth of the sector. Which ironically gave rise to another high growth sector – ad-blocking software. <br />
<br />
Some ad-tech companies have pulled out of Europe altogether. All have effectively had their oxygen of data cut off because post-GDPR, they require positive consent from us to hold and process our data. And almost no-one in their right mind will knowingly grant this consent. According to independent research by PageFair, only around 3% of people give this willingly and many of these are not eager customers, they are competitors, regulators and other snoopers. Suddenly around 97% of firms ‘prospects’ are reduced to zero or as close as makes no difference.<br />
<br />
<b>Without active consent, the value of an email address is zero</b><br />
<br />
The targeting data created by ad-tech firms brought about a transformation that no-one liked. Coupled to an email address, this became gold dust in online marketing. Combined with the ability to send emails to millions of people and almost free, the floodgates were opened. It didn’t matter if only 1 in 10,000 people actually took up an offer, because the costs of communicating it were almost zero; it created a free for all and our mailboxes groaned under the strain. Email open and click rates have unsurprisingly been in free fall for years.<br />
<br />
This was because many businesses adopted more or less the same flawed model in approaching online marketing. Email addresses appended to other data were key to this. It’s what marketers call the ‘top of the funnel’. This metaphorical funnel has personal data tipped into the top. And prime amongst this data is the email address. This was the data that would enable a business to send us emails to buy more of their stuff. And opting out of retailers’ email lists wouldn’t solve the problem if even one retailer was unscrupulous enough to pass on our details to someone else. Everyone knows this but no-one likes it. <br />
<br />
GDPR will change this (at least amongst companies that care about acting within the law). They will be forced to completely rethink how they market themselves online.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Why GDPR will fill Google, Amazon and Facebook’s pockets </b><br />
<br />
These changes will confer even greater power to the tech giants such as Amazon, Google and Facebook. These firms have secured their positions because they have an entirely legitimate reason and our consent to hold our personal data. And because targeted ads are not their primary form of ad revenue. Just look at Amazon's share price surge post the advent of GDPR:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaCMETlUm1TFeXlGs2PjhW8GEfgT9mnyBKUTK57kzSAAUT0uyf1e56Zix_ojeYAmK7VQp557XTA2Ck05mYlxHonN5Br83z1eik2ySHBMYZAgO-Gf71nnvaY5riEA8-B17Vqz5UHPOcmHaL/s1600/Amazon+share+price+5+June+2018.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="449" data-original-width="686" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaCMETlUm1TFeXlGs2PjhW8GEfgT9mnyBKUTK57kzSAAUT0uyf1e56Zix_ojeYAmK7VQp557XTA2Ck05mYlxHonN5Br83z1eik2ySHBMYZAgO-Gf71nnvaY5riEA8-B17Vqz5UHPOcmHaL/s400/Amazon+share+price+5+June+2018.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
The collapse of the ad-tech sector will create growth at least initially in other forms of online advertising, less emails and less targeted advertising. It will also I suspect lead to less scrupulous firms adopting devious tactics to secure consent to receive emails. The model for this is that at every step of engaging with a business online, we will be faced with craftily hidden email consents. This is in breach of GDPR which prohibits ‘implied consent’, but it won’t stop some people trying to work around it. <br />
<br />
An unintended consequence of GDPR is that it has ensured the recovery of Facebook’s share price is complete. A combination of the weakness of the governmental interrogations from the US and EU and the impact of GDPR has enabled Zuckerberg to make a full recovery from the Cambridge Analytica crisis:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ15gO2HItktCbQVnulSY7LXgz_h2c8TaF9cqEsC4bQ2wmnX7X3aYO2oJQLctQQPcPN5biGmOucfxgRQ7fDyjoftNVYtmJGL63bE65j50Pkgq8Kp9b0QQ6O5D9epHkQ-lenvIjQ1PCkzYa/s1600/...FB+shareprice+1+June+2018.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="410" data-original-width="620" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ15gO2HItktCbQVnulSY7LXgz_h2c8TaF9cqEsC4bQ2wmnX7X3aYO2oJQLctQQPcPN5biGmOucfxgRQ7fDyjoftNVYtmJGL63bE65j50Pkgq8Kp9b0QQ6O5D9epHkQ-lenvIjQ1PCkzYa/s400/...FB+shareprice+1+June+2018.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This is the unforeseen consequence of GDPR. It has comprehensively disarmed some enfant terribles of the advertising world only to confer more power to a handful of giant tech firms and those who for whatever reason will flaunt the rules.<br />
<br />
<b>I still think GDPR is actually good news for business </b><br />
<br />
Most businesses are sitting back now breathing a big sigh of relief that they have completed their GDPR compliance project. Thank god that’s done. But it’s not. It’s not even started really, because now the challenge is how to grow businesses online in a post-GDPR world, where suddenly they have consent to email just a tiny fraction of the people they used to.<br />
<br />
Businesses need now to take a hard look at their online strategies. The lazy marketers’ fall back of emailing thousands of people with offers is finally dead. Now it’s time to get back to real marketing and figuring out how to make your customers really love you online.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-54897273125031216602018-05-19T17:13:00.000+01:002018-05-25T14:06:46.862+01:00The internet wasn't built in a day, but the barbarians are already at the gate<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<b></b><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuIQLMV7ZP6tx-97Mhp6xqmXITsHRTLeJrPAL7aqeb6soi391OX4xNL7K9CqyGjnQuaOQNoSHfWEThrcLcAHr0kSHESHF_xHTiPRhtvh5xrxNw23whrYVn_fvK3h_uGyaWD8rUIPxon6-S/s1600/Louvre-peinture-francaise-p1020324.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="984" data-original-width="1280" height="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuIQLMV7ZP6tx-97Mhp6xqmXITsHRTLeJrPAL7aqeb6soi391OX4xNL7K9CqyGjnQuaOQNoSHfWEThrcLcAHr0kSHESHF_xHTiPRhtvh5xrxNw23whrYVn_fvK3h_uGyaWD8rUIPxon6-S/s400/Louvre-peinture-francaise-p1020324.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif; text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Hubert Robert: Vue imaginaire de la Grande Galerie du Louvre en ruines</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<div>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br /></div>
<b>
</b>
<br />
<div>
<b>The greatest challenge the internet faces isn't what it can make happen. It's what it can stop happening. And right now, it's not stopping enough from happening.</b></div>
<br />
The online world has become one in which deceit and deception are running riot and out of control. Caught in the middle of the cross-fire, businesses and brands are under pressure from fraud and regulation simultaneously.<br />
<br />
Increasingly, the only way to gain advantage online is to cheat. If you are a business that plays fair and by the rules, it is increasingly difficult and costly to win online.<br />
<br />
We have a perverse situation emerging in which legitimate businesses are having to spend millions to defend their businesses on the internet, while armies of digital pirates are cheating their way to win online sales. The internet has become a new Wild West for fake goods, fake sellers and now fake reviews. This descent into online anarchy threatens business and society alike.<br />
<br />
Against this tide of trickery we have a thing called the General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR. Compliance with this has been estimated to cost every legitimate business an average of $100,000. Few will risk non-compliance as penalties for so doing are 4% of annual global turnover or €20m, whichever is greater. Six years in the making, GDPR perfectly illustrates the ineffectiveness of conventional law-making to tackle the problems that the digital world creates. It's like the cops arriving in town six years after the bank has been robbed.<br />
<br />
Instead of creating a level playing field in which free, fair and open competition is supported, the internet is creating its own distorted markets where <i>caveat emptor</i> is a more vital consumer watchword than ever before. <br />
<br />
This is a far cry from what the original internet visionaries had in mind. The open, transparent and fair digital marketplaces their dreams envisioned are manifesting instead as nasty neighborhoods full of muggers and criminals. And even the boundaries between the good and the bad guys are getting blurred.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj-k0kbp-xPdGNYSM9wkueY_DHhcAh0sV4oAHSxnsxAvBKqZBnvYBT3xyh9TLaPA30uqcv8Ve-aP5IBeKaB7Tg1Gc-tGu_vJhaA6EWd64JW3KSZEawOlbRUsrjfxSxM2UGGNl6GgVx3nwP/s1600/file0001718693091.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="620" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj-k0kbp-xPdGNYSM9wkueY_DHhcAh0sV4oAHSxnsxAvBKqZBnvYBT3xyh9TLaPA30uqcv8Ve-aP5IBeKaB7Tg1Gc-tGu_vJhaA6EWd64JW3KSZEawOlbRUsrjfxSxM2UGGNl6GgVx3nwP/s400/file0001718693091.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>So what’s my evidence? </b><br />
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
I could cite dozens of examples to evidence my assertion, but to save space, here's just one more or less random case.<br />
<br />
In December 2017, the boss of German shoe brand Birkenstock accused Amazon of a failure to tackle fraudulent sellers flogging cheap knock-off versions of its sandals. Chief Executive, Oliver Reichert accused Amazon of acting as "<i>an accomplice" </i>to sellers of cheap copies of their sandals. He said, <i>"The truth is that Amazon makes money with these fakes. As far we're concerned, Amazon is an accomplice."</i><br />
<br />
Birkenstock terminated its business relations with Amazon's European website on January 1, 2018 because of <i>"a series of violations of the law on the marketplace platform". </i>Reichert said: <i>"If you sell dodgy merchandise on your market place, you have to answer for that."</i><br />
<br />
<b>Guess what? There’s an app for that… </b><br />
<br />
Several entrepreneurial businesses recognised early on that the growth of online business would inevitably create numerous marketplaces where an independent measure of product quality and customer satisfaction would be beneficial to businesses and consumers alike.<br />
<br />
Businesses like Trustpilot recognised the opportunity and soon established themselves. And platforms such as Amazon, Ebay and Trip Advisor promptly integrated their own customer rating systems so that consumers could see independent opinions from other buyers. <br />
<br />
Sounds good in principal, but in practice, these systems are just not working. They are being gamed on a massive scale. Some US analysts<b> estimate that half of the reviews for certain products posted on websites such as Amazon are fake.</b><br />
<br />
<i>"Sellers are trying to game the system and there's a lot of money on the table,"</i> said Tommy Noonan, who runs ReviewMeta, a website that analyses online reviews. <i>"If you can rank number one for, say, bluetooth headsets and you're selling a cheap product, you can make a lot of money,"</i> he said.<br />
<br />
Three quarters of UK adults use online reviews and almost half believe they have seen fake reviews, according to a survey of 1,500 UK residents conducted by the Chartered Institute of Marketing. The government's Competition and Markets Authority estimate such reviews influence £23 billion of UK customer spending every year. <br />
<br />
<b>Fake Amazon reviews are being openly traded on the internet. </b><br />
<br />
The BBC found online forums where Amazon shoppers are offered full refunds in exchange for product reviews. The platforms are well aware that such fakery is going on, but evidently have not managed to eliminate it. <br />
<br />
In 2016, Amazon introduced a range of measures to combat what it called <i>"incentivised reviews"</i>. Instead of solving the problem, this effectively drove it underground, leading to the emergence of Facebook groups where people were encouraged to buy a product on Amazon and post a favourable review in exchange for a full refund. <br />
<br />
This is the insidious nature of the online economy – controls recognise a problem and clamp down, only for it to adapt, reconfigure and re-emerge elsewhere in the system.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBrEiNfYXF3lhxMuhALXypEWKhNxulD3G9FarwQ0Kl4tR8_mjBPQh3viXw-GfbnIN5Jb_Vvt5BbK1-wGNkSe6x4b-VU893W01PSAuGqi5PwzXQL29CyJQqAlfI3GC8IXDOjTrUDbfFNtCn/s1600/Pandora+by+John+William+Waterhouse.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1195" data-original-width="679" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBrEiNfYXF3lhxMuhALXypEWKhNxulD3G9FarwQ0Kl4tR8_mjBPQh3viXw-GfbnIN5Jb_Vvt5BbK1-wGNkSe6x4b-VU893W01PSAuGqi5PwzXQL29CyJQqAlfI3GC8IXDOjTrUDbfFNtCn/s400/Pandora+by+John+William+Waterhouse.jpg" width="226" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pandora by John William Waterhouse, 1896</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Amazon says:<br />
<br />
<i>"We do not permit reviews in exchange for compensation of any kind, including payment. Customers and Marketplace sellers must follow our review guidelines and those that don't will be subject to action including potential termination of their account." </i><br />
<br />
Fair enough, but no policy such as this will deter those who can gain from breaching it. They simply increase the sophistication of their deceit. This is a war which the platforms and brands are not winning because the stakes are just too high, the available remedies too feeble and the villains too fast moving.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>In the final irony, can Trustpilot be gamed too?</b><br />
<br />
Responding to adverts posted on eBay, the BBC was also able to purchase a false 5-star review on Trustpilot. Trustpilot say they are <i>“committed to being the most trusted online review community on the market. We have specialist software that screens reviews against 100's of data points around the clock to automatically identify and remove fakes”</i>. I can be committed to anything I choose, but that commitment doesn't make it manifest. If even Trustpilot can be gamed, that's like vote rigging worthy of a rogue state.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>So I'll say again - the greatest test the internet faces isn't what it can make happen. It's what it can stop happening. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Consumers are being conned. Brands are being hijacked. Online marketplaces are being corrupted. Internet markets are not delivering their promises. And the war on this banditry is being lost. This is not so much the Wild West where a marshall’s posse would hunt down the miscreants, it’s more like a digital Mafia state.<br />
<div>
<br />
And GDPR will do absolutely nothing to deter even the smallest gangs of bandits.</div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-74081961741932763372018-05-16T10:15:00.000+01:002018-05-16T20:25:00.045+01:00Gibson, Eurovision and the disruption of music <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbxthcjXpV2fR_dDI5r10OWVK-wcxfnGd7XUfFGgiRVQRJmLlCTuMNfFIsWojtsdDNIIqs997Zfd1elhWRgT5Jgv1TfRYfck5oyDAB_FmF6LnV1BsmbKH-eeRrRRkcBmAymTpiA3tJQDVQ/s1600/Keith+Moon+plaque.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="478" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbxthcjXpV2fR_dDI5r10OWVK-wcxfnGd7XUfFGgiRVQRJmLlCTuMNfFIsWojtsdDNIIqs997Zfd1elhWRgT5Jgv1TfRYfck5oyDAB_FmF6LnV1BsmbKH-eeRrRRkcBmAymTpiA3tJQDVQ/s400/Keith+Moon+plaque.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">No Substitute: Keith Moon's memorial plaque at Golders Green Crematorium<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bluerasberry/342350905/" target="_blank">BlueRaspberry</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
<b>The digital revolution is eroding rather than enhancing creativity. The idea that waves of digital disruption will unleash spectacular </b><b>creativity</b><b> is just not living up to its promises.</b><br />
<br />
If we want to truly understand how digital technology changes the world, then we can learn much from an examination of the very first industry it disrupted. And the industry with the longest timeline of digital degradation is music. <br />
<br />
Today, the music industry is not only financially shrivelled, it has been denuded of its vital creative life force. We’ve never listened to more music, in more ways, in more places. Yet after reaching a peak in 2000, the music industry <b>now earns half the money it used to.</b> It has lost over $7 billion of revenue since the dawn of the internet. <br />
<br />
Anyone who was alive between 1950 and 1980 can recall that music then was in a golden age. Yet these were difficult economic times for the UK. Burdened with a disintegrating empire, faltering manufacturing, the rise of militant trade unionism and the costs of surviving rather than winning two world wars (it was the USA which ‘won’ WW2, at least economically speaking), things in Blighty were pretty bleak. <br />
<br />
But in the 1960’s against this unpromising backdrop, Great Britain gave birth to a whole host of world beating music superstars whose like we will never see again. The Beatles, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis. In the 1970s and early 1980s, this creative torch was carried on by a new generation; Queen, Black Sabbath, David Bowie, U2, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and Def Leppard. <br />
<br />
To see the sort of brilliantly creative controlled chaos I am talking about, just watch this clip of the Who playing live in 1978 including Keith Moon, just weeks before his untimely death:<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n19GVGtBAUE?rel=0" width="568"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything here is analogue. No digital enhancement or aids. No light show. Just raw talent, spontaneity and naked musical energy unleashed.<br />
<br />
Every one of these bands sold millions worldwide and still does. Every one is cited by today’s contemporary artists as being influential. None of them began with anything other than their own passion, talent and determination. And they needed it, because whilst plenty of live venues existed and record contracts were generous by today’s standards, getting anywhere at all required dogged persistence for years to become established. I know the histories of every one of these bands and they all began by slogging it out with no money, playing in dingy clubs and pubs, slowly building their fan base from the bottom. <br />
<br />
The internet and the concurrent explosion of media options was the catalyst for the comprehensive destruction of this creative powerplant in Britain’s economic engine. The internet’s first salvo was free file sharing. The second was the consequent demise of radio and live music venues. Next was Amazon and iTunes extermination of music retailers. Finally we now have an overwhelming flood of material – the replacement of carefully crafted work with a deluge of mediocre mass market music amongst which, the best new things are hard to find. <br />
<br />
When the internet began, most musicians rejoiced. It was seen as the great equalizer. Through free global reach, the best talent could reach bigger audiences and rise to the top regardless of whether or not they had the support of a record company. The punk DIY ethic would empower all musicians in a new musical democracy. But as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/didnt-like-that-new-album-another-one-is-coming-before-you-know-it-1522076320?mod=djem10point">The Wall Street Journal</a> describes, that dream did not materialise – instead it created an unforeseen consequence: <br />
<br />
<i>“It has never been easier to listen to vast quantities of music, discover new artists and create, distribute and promote your own tunes. But there’s a downside: It is harder for artists to break through the cacophony of today’s global pop-music machine. <br /><br />“The music business is pumping out more music than ever before, industry experts say, the result of cheap digital-production tools, round-the-clock social-media marketing and the prodigious output of hip-hop stars. Both artists and fans are feeling submerged.”</i> <br />
<br />
The internet has ensured we are drowning in music. And it’s not just artists who are struggling with this. Just last week, a business which is one of the very few I actually and genuinely love, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy – Gibson guitars. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0V131cgNtjNlFw9EFP6UiCsPyTkpDKaXorgTEEpMVLE_jwd4pvGOhrDMovOsQGug2UPnLYi_x97E0Q5VnzfgbLSb2Pi5x8v2Ymr6wqjPL1zMtjUfGEm_SuwTGPK-tSiWv1KJHl4iABrHo/s1600/800px-Gibson_Guitar_Factory%252C_Memphis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1202" data-original-width="800" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0V131cgNtjNlFw9EFP6UiCsPyTkpDKaXorgTEEpMVLE_jwd4pvGOhrDMovOsQGug2UPnLYi_x97E0Q5VnzfgbLSb2Pi5x8v2Ymr6wqjPL1zMtjUfGEm_SuwTGPK-tSiWv1KJHl4iABrHo/s400/800px-Gibson_Guitar_Factory%252C_Memphis.jpg" width="265" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gibson's factory in Memphis<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: <a class="external text" href="https://flickr.com/people/44082489@N00" rel="nofollow" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #0b0080;">H. Michael Miley</a><span style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #54595d; font-family: sans-serif;"> </span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Gibson lost the plot and the struggle to redefine itself for the 21st century. Its management decided that it wasn’t simply the greatest guitar maker in the world, but rather a ‘lifestyle brand’. This redefinition would build on its immense heritage and grow by debt-funded acquisitions away from the core of the brand. But this wasn’t transformational innovation. It was a layering of bad decision upon bad decision, piling up to wreck a business that as recently as the early millennium could lay fair claim to being a world leader. Today, Gibson is carrying around $500m of debt and its future looks decidedly uncertain. <br />
<br />
Unlike say Polaroid, Gibson has not been blindsided by superior digital products and shifting consumer preferences. Certainly, their premium pricing, slipping quality control standards and poor staff treatment didn't help. But <b>Gibson is nonetheless indirectly a victim of the internet</b> because it sells new guitars when consumers want used ones which the internet delivers in droves: <br />
<br />
<i>“The market has softened. It’s not as vibrant as it was in say the early 2000s,” </i>according to Brian Majeski, editor of Music Trades. <i>“We think that an enormous factor…has been the improved availability of used product, and the rise of a generation used to buying things on the internet.” </i><br />
<br />
Reverb.com, an online clearinghouse for musical instruments, will sell between $400m and $500m worth of guitars in 2018, Majeski estimated – <i>“and almost all of them are used”. </i><br />
There’s a further great irony here too. Music isn’t something people love less than they did. Musicians still love music and so too do audiences. It’s not as if something came along which suddenly made music obsolete. <br />
<br />
On one hand, digital technology has enabled musicians access to equipment and media capabilities that their forbears could only contemplate if they were the most famous and successful performers. On the other hand, the fragmentation and demise of radio, record labels and touring venues have taken away the vital infrastructure which supported and enabled hundreds of performers and their multi-million pound contributions to retail, jobs and ultimately GDP. <br />
<br />
The music industry globally may not be dead, but it is a shadow of what it used to be. Not just commercially, but also creatively speaking. And the ways it survives at all are often truly tragic. Only last weekend I watched the Eurovision song contest (or rather the first thirty or forty minutes of it – because I could bear no more). This is a sad manifestation of music indeed. It’s an over-produced, politically correct, mush of mediocre performers. It’s not even a pure talent contest – it’s a sanitised mashup masquerading as a beacon of increased international understanding. It is fundamentally contrived and has little or nothing to do with talent or real music. <br />
<br />
In case you've never seen it, here is a sample of what's on offer. And despite the video title, I'd contend that this isn't the worst, it's actually a pretty representative sample:<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lzZGabs3emQ?rel=0" width="568"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Instead of spreading peace and love around the world, Eurovision actually embodies some of the worst characteristics we complain about in the rest of society – it is highly creative only in the ways it generates money by leveraging nationalistic pride and prejudice. Even Terry Wogan, the UK’s presenter of Eurovision since 1980 stood down from the BBC One's broadcast in 2008 saying <i>"The voting used to be about the songs. Now it's about national prejudices. We [the United Kingdom] are on our own. We had a very good song, a very good singer, we came joint last. I don't want to be presiding over another debacle". </i><br />
<br />
This is what the digital revolution does to creative industries; it sanitises, it packages, it expands quantity but erodes quality. Essentially it devalues everything it touches. Eurovision certainly shows no signs of throwing up the next David Bowie or Queen. But I guess it might just manage an Ed Sheeran or Beyoncé clone.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-16271624397068915882018-04-28T22:11:00.000+01:002018-04-29T08:35:20.769+01:00Why people are a better brand investment than machines<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDz4S6fM86nrlhXRR1GBttDrZWR06q3pHpy54EoENbu57kS0HKhWehWkZmCajkQxi4Z3s7OYXCd4ErO5OoY-QY3aM8IhzFAGlE7Q_zsMXT9fbyfR3JMDMwHmXB7WS1RfPfLLyGRs9ElGhv/s1600/...TSB.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="432" data-original-width="692" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDz4S6fM86nrlhXRR1GBttDrZWR06q3pHpy54EoENbu57kS0HKhWehWkZmCajkQxi4Z3s7OYXCd4ErO5OoY-QY3aM8IhzFAGlE7Q_zsMXT9fbyfR3JMDMwHmXB7WS1RfPfLLyGRs9ElGhv/s400/...TSB.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption">Today, TSB's 'local bank for local people' claims are looking like a sham.<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnesener1900">Gnesener1900</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
...especially if you are a bank.<br />
<br />
<b>A crisis is the one thing which is guaranteed to expose the reality of a brand versus the contrived and manicured fantasy which is used to promote it.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
TSB’s chief executive, Paul Pester <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43923561?intlink_from_url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cyn9wrk75k4t/tsb-bank&link_location=live-reporting-story" target="_blank">admitted this week</a>, <i>‘we are on our knees’</i>, following a failed server migration of 1.3 billion customer records. This has gone disastrously wrong leaving hundreds of thousands of customers unable to pay their bills. Worse, some customers have been able to log into other customer's accounts, see their data and even make payments with other people's money.<br />
<br />
The bank's employees have been working day and night to try and help customers solve the resulting problems like paying for their rent and utilities. But as the week came to a close, and despite a team of IBM 'experts' being parachuted in as an elite shock force to assist, the problems were still not completely solved.<br />
<br />
Business customers have faced consequential losses such as non-payment of suppliers and non-delivery of goods. TSB staff have been so stressed and frustrated in their efforts to help customers that some have collapsed in tears, saying it's the worst experience of their working lives.<br />
<br />
This situation is more than embarrassing and stressful for everyone involved. It demolishes the carefully constructed brand that TSB has been investing in, positioning the bank as one which places people at heart of everything it believes in:<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YJzJCd_pwy8" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
TSB's regulator, the FCA, is now investigating the issue and the Information Commissioner says she wants to know more about potential data breaches. The Government has asked for assurances and wants answers to its questions to TSB. Even when the IT problems are solved, the pain will not be over for TSB.<br />
<div>
<br />
This sorry tale will eventually become a footnote I am sure, but today, right now, it is fraying nerves and spreading havoc in TSB's customers’ lives. And it seems inevitable that many customers will leave the bank at their first opportunity after this crisis is resolved. <b>For TSB, this disaster looks likely to cost them much more than the £100m of savings the migration originally promised.</b><br />
<br />
Meanwhile in China, <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/robots-greet-customers-worlds-first-12417793" target="_blank">the world’s first robot-only bank branch has just opened</a>. This is heralded as an exciting step towards a modern, tech enabled future; a homo-sapien free environment, cleansed of the inconsistencies and inefficiencies which are allegedly the hallmark of humans.<br />
<br />
The irony here is that it is the <b>people at TSB branches that are keeping the bank from sinking</b> when faulty technology has dragged the whole edifice almost into ruin.<br />
<br />
Banking and IT have an old and awkward relationship. Banking IT systems are not like apps where glitches can be smoothed out over time. They demand 100% reliability and complete accuracy from the get go 100% of the time. Anything less is a big problem. Building or significantly changing any banking platform is a high risk and demanding challenge.<br />
<br />
As we've seen with TSB, government and regulators are today emboldened, swift and merciless when it comes to punishing banks for errors and misdemeanors. After years of a light-touch attitude, post 2008, the climate has changed and banks are today probably the most closely regulated and scrutinized business sector in the UK.<br />
<br />
Thirty years ago, banks were early adopters of what we now call data harvesting. This was decades before Facebook managed to finally wake the world to the importance of data security and privacy. Sure, we had Data Protection legislation and regulators. And banks were generally compliant with their data protection obligations. Regulatory enforcements were few and the public’s greatest annoyances were telephone sales calls and junk mail. <br />
<br />
But this customer irritation at some of the earliest (ab)uses of technology by banks ought to have provided early warning that a very human-based relationship demanding and rewarding trust was unlikely to be entirely substitutable by anonymous automation. In fact, I’d argue that trust is the number one most essential requirement for a customer’s relationship with their bank.<br />
<br />
Yet, this fundamental truth seems to have been ignored in the relentless drive for ever lower costs. The endless push for greater speed, and cheaper services seems to have trumped every other aspect. Especially trust. <br />
<br />
In areas such as marketing and loan application processing, banks were some of the first businesses in the world to decide that IT could make faster, more accurate, more consistent and cheaper decisions than their human employees. This led to the steady removal of middle managers and the downgrading of staff until a bank branch was staffed by people who had little more skill than supermarket checkout operators (and similar pay and conditions too). <br />
<br />
Now these last remaining humans in bank branches are facing imminent extinction as they too are replaced by robots which don’t go on holiday or demand pay increases (or any pay at all for that matter). <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, banks (always some of the most unpopular and complained about businesses), are shutting branches, removing staff, and turning everything digital. This cost cutting is justified in the name of customer convenience and modernisation. And to cement the argument, every senior bank spokesperson will tell us that this is what most of their customers want. <br />
<br />
But most is not all. And the duality where banks are simultaneously some of the least-loved businesses while moving ever closer to completely people-free service, is not a recipe to build any sort of customer love and affection.<br />
<br />
There is and has been for decades, a space in the market for a bank which recognises that customer service delivered <b>by people to people </b>is an untapped and growing market. TSB recognised this and decided this was their opportunity to command a unique market position. Unfortunately, they forgot that occupying this position demands not just that you proclaim it, but also that you live by it.<br />
<br />
Most people require relatively little from their bank. Strong security. Error free payment processing. Good and caring advice. Easy access. Fast and painless resolution of problems. It is hard to see how a combination of branch closures, increased automation and demoralised, low paid staff help deliver these things. <br />
<br />
And 'adding value' (<i>sic</i>) by dubious marketing adds insult to injury. Hardly anyone really cares about an extra 0.1% of interest, or free travel insurance, or fancy TV advertising. They do care about being well looked after.<br />
<br />
Banking for most people is service they cannot live without. And whilst I don’t think banks can or should be backwards looking, there is a stronger argument than ever for a bank which truly understands they are in a people business. And that investing in people might just be a safer bet than investing in their replacement by machines.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-8913337497505817752018-04-18T14:27:00.001+01:002020-09-22T10:23:28.023+01:00In these days of no trust<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGUvNyukouZC0mke2ovlN5-zO-SfhS1khw435fjaw5NCIrzI8oRs81Sd5nxyl_sVAK0Bp4-eqfOZUlbGvab2ynqyzzzAi9F69ZSeq9vMO8L8pKSHsbROv152aCg0nz9hDGndsIyhmTm5OI/s1600/Student+demo.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="646" data-original-width="878" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGUvNyukouZC0mke2ovlN5-zO-SfhS1khw435fjaw5NCIrzI8oRs81Sd5nxyl_sVAK0Bp4-eqfOZUlbGvab2ynqyzzzAi9F69ZSeq9vMO8L8pKSHsbROv152aCg0nz9hDGndsIyhmTm5OI/s400/Student+demo.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption">Students are rightly getting mad, but for the wrong reasons<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BillyH">BillyH</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><br /></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Universities are failing our young people more than ever.</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have always believed that there are some key parts of society where Britain can be proud to rank amongst the very best in the world. Our emergency services. Our armed forces. Our artists and musicians. Our scientists. Our legal system. And our educational establishments.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, the last few months have not been good for higher education’s
reputation in the UK. Recently, Channel 4’s investigative journalism programme
Despatches went to town with an exposé of the expenses claimed by university
vice chancellors.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Guardian was not slow
to voice its righteous indignation about the expenses claimed by vice
chancellors that Channel 4 uncovered from a Freedom of Information Act
disclosure:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbjQsmEOQ8pjjzR00IFDaNJtEM3zMxYcztxyoCjuJMetyQRbvZI7f1_Ur4_mArID0KCFQM7N-_KMAO5vdtIAzuncwwpsFGL0_VgzBdv7R21Y8dxXiDU37cv1cYMDidZB5EZSMw4YyxuYeS/s1600/Guardian+universities.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="624" data-original-width="640" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbjQsmEOQ8pjjzR00IFDaNJtEM3zMxYcztxyoCjuJMetyQRbvZI7f1_Ur4_mArID0KCFQM7N-_KMAO5vdtIAzuncwwpsFGL0_VgzBdv7R21Y8dxXiDU37cv1cYMDidZB5EZSMw4YyxuYeS/s400/Guardian+universities.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-no-proof: yes;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype
id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t"
path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:451.5pt;
height:438pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\NEILDE~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.png"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/24/flowers-drinks-and-a-dog-vice-chancellors-claimed-8m-in-expenses-over-two-years">https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/24/flowers-drinks-and-a-dog-vice-chancellors-claimed-8m-in-expenses-over-two-years</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But expenses are just the latest round in this ongoing reputational
crisis. In recent months, as vice chancellors’ pay packets have become public
knowledge, universities have been hard at work defending these on the basis
that pay is set by independent panels and that these jobs involve the
administration of large organisations with multi million pound budgets. Ironically enough, this is the
same well-worn argument used by banks to defend their executive pay; that to attract and
retain top talent, these people have to be paid huge salaries.<br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p>The UK’s higher education institutions are facing a crisis of trust. And for every criticism, come denials, rebuttals and rationalisations.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">But vice chancellors' pay is not why higher education is in crisis…<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the UK, universities have become corporatised
and politicised. Higher education is now funded mainly by student debt. It is
this debt which has enabled the massive (over) expansion of higher education and
salaries for those at the top. This debt is gilt-edged because it is
underwritten by the government. But as debt has a tendency to do, it is now
spiralling out of control:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv2Gmhr5nZLcmTPP1WpK8NB69RmRdnKnrWzgiMVRUcM2gZrszs6qPh7zN6Q81TX_Kvn61zvmn4DQ89zrDiWDGfKy8sSrpYMV8TMJmUFGDTi27N-av75V0J3Du0yj22HIbVQ77ZATdwgkZE/s1600/Student+debt+UK.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="587" data-original-width="1179" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv2Gmhr5nZLcmTPP1WpK8NB69RmRdnKnrWzgiMVRUcM2gZrszs6qPh7zN6Q81TX_Kvn61zvmn4DQ89zrDiWDGfKy8sSrpYMV8TMJmUFGDTi27N-av75V0J3Du0yj22HIbVQ77ZATdwgkZE/s400/Student+debt+UK.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-no-proof: yes;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape
id="_x0000_i1027" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:450.75pt;height:224.25pt;
visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\NEILDE~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image003.png"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yet universities are still significantly funded from the
public purse. This means they are morally accountable to the public. And the
public doesn’t like what it sees.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Personally I do not consider that a chauffeured car for a busy
vice chancellor is unreasonable. Neither is extensive overseas travel. Nor is
entertaining key contacts at top restaurants. Not when we consider the
potential gains which can be made. So I think Channel 4 and the Guardian are picking the wrong fight here.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But to students and the public alike, these things reek of
self-interest, of corruption, of a loss of moral compass. The problem is not
one of defensibility, it is one of perception and trust.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Vice Chancellor’s salaries
and expenses are the wrong target…<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
…because this is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">not the
problem</b>, merely a symptom of it. The real problem is that our higher
educational institutions have become more detached than ever before from the
very reason for their existence. Rather than facilitating young minds to investigate,
question and reason about the world, they have adopted a new raison d’etre,
namely the brainwashing of their charges to eliminate ideas which for any reason they find unlikeable or
politically unacceptable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Free speech within university campuses is now actively policed
so that only those who support approved ideologies are given a voice.
Anyone who might potentially challenge those views is kept out. No
platform for them. Worse, if they even set foot on campuses they risk verbal
and even physical assault by masked and hooded representatives of the student
body, as Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg discovered recently. One of the most
articulate, rational, reasonable, courteous and unthreatening MPs you will
find, he was jostled about while masked students screamed ‘Bigot’ at him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even his political opponents such as Shadow Education
Secretary Angela Rayner, condemned his treatment by the thugs:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiolDAz2fykqRWgj245pcf0DniQ0hnpWNFReZdP_27tcCwwM3VP6PYFB3OKPO2Fivd2EPgJOKw7JrdqrAWjyOubERaJTSQCoYk9Wq_ftSGRdzdMlu2CCQJHphuKiYSW2qSb2g8GaPBzndjz/s1600/Rees+Mogg.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="257" data-original-width="508" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiolDAz2fykqRWgj245pcf0DniQ0hnpWNFReZdP_27tcCwwM3VP6PYFB3OKPO2Fivd2EPgJOKw7JrdqrAWjyOubERaJTSQCoYk9Wq_ftSGRdzdMlu2CCQJHphuKiYSW2qSb2g8GaPBzndjz/s400/Rees+Mogg.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-no-proof: yes;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape
id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:382.5pt;
height:192pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\NEILDE~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image005.png"
o:title=""/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Such shenanigans are not new. Students have always tended to
the left in their politics. What is new is that universities have built walls to keep out anyone who might challenge their new and incongruous positions as both guardians of knowledge and huge
money making machines. Anyone who might engage them in civilised debate. And anyone who might, heaven forbid, question their self-appointed ownership of moral as well
as educational authority. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So instead of exposing young minds to diverse thinking about the world, campuses are erecting barriers to some ideas. All ideas should stand or fall on their own merit,
not be whitewashed because they are banned. Or because someone might find them offensive for
whatever reason.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But all of this is a sideshow. It is an aspect of education;
it is not what education should be fundamentally about. Education should be
preparing the next generation to embark on successful careers, and by so doing, enriching themselves and the whole of society. The hard truth is that higher education should
be pushing our GDP, trade surpluses, and household incomes higher. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yet the reverse is happening. The output of universities in the form
of worried young graduates, is creating a new class of disenfranchised and
impoverished young people whose disproven faith in their educational investment has led them not to the beginning of glittering careers, but instead to the hell of
internships, zero-hours contracts and low paid service jobs in a gig economy. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So we have more young people than ever questioning quite rationally whether they really want to take on £50k of debt, when they have little
confidence that they will find a good job after graduation. We have employers
moaning about the low quality of recent graduates. We have current students demoralised by the paucity of tuition hours. We have professors not teaching but spending
most of their time working on research and academic papers, while the actual teaching
work is sub-contracted to poorly paid visiting staff. And we have highly politicised
campuses which tolerate only those with the 'correct' political point of
view.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Higher education in the UK displays all the elements of a
classic bubble about to burst…over inflated and debt-funded revenues, self-indulgence
by those at the top, emerging scepticism about sustainability, denial of the
problem.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And most telling of all, the collapsing of trust. This is
the real betrayal of our young people’s lives and prospects. Bubbles always
burst when trust evaporates. And trust ebbs fastest when denial is strongest.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Update: Just nine days after I wrote this, assuming no-one else felt universities were obstructing free speech, a cross party panel of MPs and peers </i><i><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43544546" target="_blank">published a report</a> saying they also think they are. Fear I am unconsciously becoming connected to mainstream group think...;-)</i><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-65844836516961515272018-04-13T21:24:00.001+01:002018-04-20T08:41:46.331+01:00Zuckerberg snatches victory from the (false) teeth of his nemeses<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOiehGpiSEWgi2h0pxBebvHF_LDkLhknxGKb1AyDMrr2kNbWT959y0Y5UfVhs0eQlWSzppTpdsAzFhzr2fzEviLb6V3hLUrdVFK0YfGmmrKouZnxqcoWGwYRcZcaq_GKBfPnxxM321WqFV/s1600/..Mark_Zuckerberg_in_Prague_2013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="398" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOiehGpiSEWgi2h0pxBebvHF_LDkLhknxGKb1AyDMrr2kNbWT959y0Y5UfVhs0eQlWSzppTpdsAzFhzr2fzEviLb6V3hLUrdVFK0YfGmmrKouZnxqcoWGwYRcZcaq_GKBfPnxxM321WqFV/s400/..Mark_Zuckerberg_in_Prague_2013.jpg" width="265" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The disarming face of the man who sold the world.<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/67789586@N06/8827232234/" target="_blank">Lukasz Porwol</a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Zuckerberg's triumph of timidity signals no change soon.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Tuesday this week was billed as the ultimate showdown
between the analogue world and the digital. A colossal Congressional panel (average age 62) deployed to
call to account a small and nervous looking 33 year old boy called Mark Zuckerberg.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The old media delighted in the spectacle; Zuckerberg is the embodiment of their nemesis more than any other. This boy and
his Facebook money making machine have humbled their own media empires and taken billions
of dollars worth of advertising revenues that in decades past would flow unchallenged to them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In my <a href="https://40pluscareerguru.blogspot.com/2018/03/cambridge-analytica-techkreig-is-upon-us.html" target="_blank">last post</a> about this I opined that politicians and the
legal system would be wrong footed and far too slow to act to remedy the distortions of power that Facebook has created in our society. And that a multi-billion
dollar business like Facebook could easily resist the challenges from a
bunch of old people who have only the faintest grasp of how the digital age is
turning their world on its head.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over the course of Tuesday and Wednesday’s hearings, we could watch
Facebook’s share price react in real time to the questions and Zuckerberg’s
fielding of them. He may have needed a booster seat to get his arms on the
table, but <b>during the course of the hearing, Facebook’s market cap increased by
$4bn. <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Not a bad financial outcome for an event which had the potential (a now totally disproven theory) to send Facebook's market value into collapse. The markets never lie about confidence. The irony was that Zuckerberg's obvious nervousness and expressions of contrition, inspired and revitalised market confidence. But it wasn't so much that he played a blinder as that his army of opponents couldn't even see the ball, let alone run with it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
The politicians lost massively
on points. There were some entertaining moments such as when Mr Z was asked if
he would like to disclose the hotel he stayed in last night, or the email
addresses of the last people he had sent emails too. These were smart and meaningful questions, but they did nothing to address the critical and fundamental matters of what and
how Facebook would change in future. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Zuckerberg deflected many questions by kicking the can down
the road with responses such as <i>‘ I don’t know, but I’ll get my people to come
back to you about that’</i>. This is hardly a confidence inspiring answer, but the
markets reacted with relief because it was a sure sign that Facebook was more
likely to survive with cuts and bruises than fatal injuries.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Zuckerberg had prepared intensively for the hearing with a
team of consultants and lawyers grooming him so that instead of his robotic and hollow sounding delivery of norm, he conveyed a humility and
likeability that seemed to charm some senators. They reacted like indulgent
parents, wooed by the contrition of a wayward child.<span style="color: red;"> <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
But I didn't buy any of it. This is a man whose outward appearance of geeky frailty conceals a mind which is entirely committed to the exploitation for his commercial gain of any and every human weakness, whether we are a leader of government or a dishwasher in Detroit. In that sense, his mission is truly egalitarian.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He was able to duck answering questions he didn’t like.
His preparation and the ignorance of his interrogators ensured that none were able to press him to the point
where he became visibly uncomfortable.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But despite his appearance and demeanor, Zuckerberg is not a child and neither is he undergoing a transformation
from inadvertent miscreant to redeemed character. He, by design and no
small amount of luck, leads one of the most valuable business enterprises on
earth. He is at the helm of a business which enables digital lawlessness more than any
other.<span style="color: red;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
His preparation and demeanour of vulnerability successfully blunted the assault of an array
of America’s most senior and powerful people, <b>b</b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">ecause they were completely under equipped to effectively challenge him.</b> Most displayed a complete void in their understanding of how the
internet works, let alone how Facebook works.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The format of the hearing didn't enable any genuine insight.<span style="color: red;"> </span>Every time it got even half-way relevant, such
as when South Dakota senator John Thune asked about the technical and
linguistic difficulties involved in programming AI bots to discern hate-speech, the exchange was abruptly terminated as each successive legislator
ran up against their four-minute time limit. Their world and Zuckerberg’s are so different as to be unable to communicate effectively. That is no fault of Zuckerberg’s; it is the fault of a generation of leaders who have comprehensively failed to keep in touch with the world they are supposed to be leading. The tragic irony here is that both politicians and social media claim to be all about open communication and building a better world.<br />
<br />
These increasingly unrelated world views retain one common aspiration; the building and protection of wealth and power. And now these two worlds are in collision. Those with directly vested financial interests in Facebook sensed this was a stalemate and were thus relieved of their deepest fears. The markets could see this event was now unlikely to damage their
financial interests and that their investment was no longer looking as shaky as
it did just a week ago.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That Zuckerberg and Facebook should triumph in this
encounter proves I think that the power held by the owners of digital real
estate is unlikely to be dented anytime soon. Or at least not until government gets to understand what their role is in a digital world.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
Prepare yourself accordingly.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-84221847489791914442018-03-21T13:39:00.001+00:002018-04-13T21:28:55.323+01:00Cambridge Analytica: Datakreig is upon us<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIMW9Q8D1LpRbmOiToZV2yI9ZwIf1E76j1j7mvwwPui3rt6ObASoRGGdtyVL6ZWy0a865t2YDmDvfo9g25QRou6WgLG5BsETMCtpaElCAU12JKbdPth_9pSiYumQ6kBomwBfl1SE39C4ZF/s1600/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-646-5188-17%252C_Flugzeuge_Junkers_Ju_87.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="544" data-original-width="798" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIMW9Q8D1LpRbmOiToZV2yI9ZwIf1E76j1j7mvwwPui3rt6ObASoRGGdtyVL6ZWy0a865t2YDmDvfo9g25QRou6WgLG5BsETMCtpaElCAU12JKbdPth_9pSiYumQ6kBomwBfl1SE39C4ZF/s400/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-646-5188-17%252C_Flugzeuge_Junkers_Ju_87.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #222222; font-family: sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo Credit: </span><span class="licensetpl_attr"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-646-5188-17 / Opitz / CC-BY-SA 3.0</span></span></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The new Agents of Fortune have emerged from the shadows</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the summer of 1940, the Nazi Blitzkreig overran the whole
of Western Europe. Blitzkreig was a revolution in warfare. It used the
concentration of forces, speed and communications to outwit the bigger and
better armed allied powers of Western Europe. I use the word ‘speed’ advisedly;
German troops used a lot of amphetamines, but that’s another story. Great Britain and
France had prepared for a traditional war. They were outwitted and outmanoeuvred
at every turn. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over seventy five years on and Datakreig is on the rampage.
The Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandal has remarkable similarities to the 1940 Blitzkreig. It represents a revolution in how power is acquired and disseminated (or more likely sold) by a new breed of digital data warriors. With or without
the use of amphetamines, they are running rings around a complacent and out of
touch old media, government and judiciary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yesterday I observed how this scandal was unfolding and how
the public were reacting. Most used the situation to voice their political prejudices, citing this case as proof of the correctness of their viewpoints. In my opinion:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fact that the now ex-CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander
Nix went to Eton is not evidence of a global elite intent on enslaving the
rest of us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The (big) dent in Facebook's share price doesn’t mark the beginning
of the end for the big digital media firms.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fact that Facebook holds an immense amount of personal data
is not a crime <b>IF</b> it is gathered fairly and transparently and only shared with
our full knowledge and explicit consent.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, there is something deeply unsettling emerging here. Lines must be drawn. But where?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Use of our individual and personal
data for political purposes is unacceptable in a democracy<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The way that the Trump campaign used social media data would
be recognised and well understood by any marketing specialist or military
strategist. But this doesn't make it acceptable within the political process.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Better intelligence and targeting than your competitors or
rivals provides a serious tactical advantage. And Cambridge Analytica’s
strategy worked better than probably even they had expected. A previous attempt
to use it with Republican nominee Ted Cruz had disappointing results.
Nonetheless Cambridge Analytica were surely not exactly grief-stricken having
pocketed $5.8m in fees for this work.<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The pooling and utilisation of personal data in this way is
probably at least tacitly accepted by social media users as a fair exchange <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">if it is just being used for advertising
products and services.</b> Irritating perhaps, but a reasonable price to pay for an essentially free platform. After all, most people would accept that old media advertising is fair and
reasonable, provided it can be clearly identified for what it is, ie. not cloaked within editorial content.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But politics is not about commerce. It is about power. And personal digital
data is not old media. It is or should be private. When our data is being
passed to political groups, a line is crossed. Yet Cambridge Analytica may
well not have broken any laws however unacceptable their actions may be – because
the law is completely out of step with the nature and pace of the digital
revolution. If and when legal actions and government interventions occur, we
can fully expect that by the time they are enacted, the game and its tactics
will have moved on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">This is a very
unequal struggle<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Data regulators are not adequately empowered to act
independently of the judiciary. The UK Data Commissioner has a team of ten people
working on this case. That’s ten UK civil servants with their hands tied behind their
backs vs. a corporation with total assets in 2017 of $84billion.<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The power and capital amassed by Facebook is more than
monopoly power; FB had a revenue of $40.6bn in 2017, which is greater than the
entire GDP of many countries.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because the UK Data Commissioner cannot raid premises
without a court order, the whole world knew they intended to examine Cambridge
Analytics' servers long before they actually gained access. Facebook on the
other hand entered Cambridge Analytica's premises on Monday. We can conjecture that both Facebook
and CA will have erased without trace any evidence of possible malpractice long
before the civil servants arrive. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And it has now emerged that Cambridge Analytica used
ProtonMail accounts set to self-destruct without trace within two hours of
being delivered. This fact alone suggests that they were intent on establishing a cloak of secrecy over everything they did. There will be no paper
trail here…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Remember though that
the whistle blowers have a deeply vested interest<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The media forces which have ranged themselves against the new agents of
fortune are the old agents of fortune. The New York Times, the Observer and
Channel 4 Television News. The old guard are used to having the power to
influence events. Usually in favour of their own proprietors' political and business
allegiances.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So we should also recognise that the whistle blowers are not without their own motives. Old media has been losing billions in revenues to digital
platforms for years. They have tried every trick to get in step with the
digital revolution and have mostly failed. The Cambridge Analytica situation
is possibly the best news old media has received in years. They can fully
expect that in the coming weeks and months their digital nemeses will likely
have their wings seriously clipped.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Datakreig deploys
pace and opaqueness to assure its goals are accomplished<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Tech knows it can easily exceed the pace at which government and
regulators can respond. Digital media owners know that their opaqueness, resources and
pan-national organisations make them able to out run and out gun regulatory controls.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Cambridge Analytics represents a new revolutionary guard.
Whether they acted legally or not is a moot point. Data regulations and enforcement
are hopelessly out of step with digital media. The big digital media firms can
afford the best lawyers and tech heads to ensure the not very digital regulators are
outwitted at every turn. Just like blitzkrieg, they use speed and camouflage to
leave the forces of justice choking in their dust.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If we wish to live in a democracy, we can and should
demand that legal lines are drawn over how our personal data can be used. Government
action requires though that we wait for their painfully slow next moves. I'd venture that a much more effective response is to vote
with our consciences, our smartphones and our wallets...<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br />
For my views on Mark Zuckerberg's Congressional hearing click <a href="http://40pluscareerguru.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/zuckerberg-snatches-victory-from-false.html" target="_blank">here</a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-63026572015646463922018-03-14T13:09:00.001+00:002018-03-16T12:04:53.834+00:00Why doing more social media is a dumb strategy<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv55jsH_QZzAM_hRI7LcDmX9DXlc90AZ100_P6EiP38nmbA67-aC2dZaenTAL1GBvKf2IXZk2mv2louqR-pK1LtVdUKqhzXBUGDaj6-gqxkXu3UQzrAgyOAMcoi-qy5noL8QCWNWD7xwiI/s1600/file000684519545.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="620" data-original-width="465" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv55jsH_QZzAM_hRI7LcDmX9DXlc90AZ100_P6EiP38nmbA67-aC2dZaenTAL1GBvKf2IXZk2mv2louqR-pK1LtVdUKqhzXBUGDaj6-gqxkXu3UQzrAgyOAMcoi-qy5noL8QCWNWD7xwiI/s400/file000684519545.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<b>Because it's not how big your numbers are, it's what you do with them that counts.</b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think this year will mark a turning point for social media
platforms. It’s a perfect storm which has been brewing these last couple of
years. Consider this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Teens are leaving
Facebook in their millions.</b> Why? Because their parents are there and they
don’t want to be seen in the same place, or have Mum and Dad see what they are
saying or doing. (‘twas always so right?) They are also fed up with online
bullying, sexual predators and relentless advertising. The selfie generation are
choosing to make their social networks private not public. So they have
migrated to Instagram, WhatsApp and other platforms where they can retain privacy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Brands are failing to
get the leverage on social media they aspired to</b> because they bought into
the myth (literally investing billons) that social media would enable them to
build a huge audience of committed followers for a fraction of what they were spending
on old media. It didn’t work because old media advertising methods don’t work
on social platforms where trust and affinity is created more by listening and engaging
with people than telling them stuff about you.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The platforms
themselves are under increasing pressure from the public and regulators</b>
alike to stamp out the activities of the undesirables, everyone from ISIS
terror cells to child groomers and political extremists. In doing so, many people
who express politically 'unacceptable' sentiments are getting their accounts
suspended, while the real villains duck, dive and re-emerge under new names as
soon as they are shut down. This builds resentment and alienation amongst
people who place value on free speech.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Meanwhile the
earnings by the platforms are in many cases getting nowhere near the level they
need </b>to achieve a sustainable business. Twitter made<b> </b><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">$91m profit in the fourth quarter of 2017 on
revenue of $732m. <b>The first quarter in their 12 year history they have made
any profit at all.</b> The market responded positively to this news, but I see
little prospect of this being a mark of turnaround, because new users are not
growing. Meanwhile operating costs look likely to increase as they have to
apply more resources to regulating user activity. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>We are fast reaching social media saturation.</b><span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> For every PewDiePie millionaire teen
YouTuber there are thousands of other wannabes. And the queue is growing every
month. Just last week I encountered a YouTube star called Huw who has become
the number one most followed YouTuber on organic vegetable growing. Huw has
75,000 channel subscribers. Building this following has taken him 6 years. And
he’s earned just £12,000 from his success. That’s an average of just £2,000 a
year, or £166 a month. Huw is a young man however and I am sure he'll succeed in his career. It's just that it won't be on YouTube.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><b>Social media is
starting to come of age and in maturity, the holes and shortcomings are coming
into plain sight. The myths are being outed. <o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The myth for
business users that creates the greatest damage I think is that success is
rooted in big numbers. This is a case of the platforms believing their own
hype. This deception carries right through to the analytics they provide to
users. Look at your Facebook, or Twitter or Pinterest analytics and you’ll see what
I mean. They focus on short term numbers – the last day or week or month. They
also encourage us to strive to constantly get bigger numbers. More followers,
more shares, more comments. More is always better right? No it’s not actually. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>It is for the platforms</b>
because this increases the money they can charge advertisers. For content creators it’s a pyrrhic
victory however. Why? Because whilst having 100,000 subscribers is great if you
are a YouTuber, that audience creates (a smallish) ad revenue stream for you. But
100,000 Twitter followers counts for very little. 50,000 LinkedIn connections?
Meh. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Just like the
platforms themselves, the investment of work, time and money to achieve
anything resembling a commercial success is just too high. And the hurdles are
getting ever higher as the competition for eyeballs grow exponentially as more
and more people pile in.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">If you are using
social media as part of your business strategy, the time has come to get real
and face up to reality. Social media is still here and it is still powerful.
But only if you go about it in the right way. Here are the things I think we
should face up to:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>A thousand or ten
thousand or a million connections have no value in and of themselves.</b> Sure they might make you feel good, but
if they are not in some way making your business more valuable, they are
worth almost nothing. If you see success as simply making these numbers
bigger, you are chasing the wrong goal.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>No one cares what you do.</b> What they care about is WHY you do it.
This is why most businesses large and small struggle to get social media
working for them. Because what they do is simply to make profit for
shareholders. ‘Buy my stuff because it’s great’ has no currency on the
social web.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>But we have a nice mission
statement.</b> So what? Does that
mission live and breathe in everything everyone does everyday? And does it
make people want to help you? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The only way to have
people care about us is to show we care about them. </b>This means that we listen more than we
speak. That we talk about what people care about – and usually that is not
ourselves. And that we demonstrate our care for them through our online
actions more than our words.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">So a million follows
or likes or whatever might be the result of years of effort. But it’s worth
nothing unless it delivers a return. That return on investment is also set to
decline. Unless we rethink what we stand for and why anyone else would give a
s**t.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-79153785867372764822018-03-02T11:09:00.002+00:002019-07-20T19:27:56.588+01:00 What non-marketers should know about the state of marketing today… <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi22bALVf8QjZGGlFw0pfqgLoKSz8B1fYrt2H11vGSAY84W_NFPKbw3QDG8hQtoDf4UZD9hqbldgwBrQkRQELKqoqSXyADQDIDwtQlvPROeJsQ09HVpI3Lv0c1Mt5wRjKJ2kR4u48SiMh-v/s1600/...give+up.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="434" data-original-width="803" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi22bALVf8QjZGGlFw0pfqgLoKSz8B1fYrt2H11vGSAY84W_NFPKbw3QDG8hQtoDf4UZD9hqbldgwBrQkRQELKqoqSXyADQDIDwtQlvPROeJsQ09HVpI3Lv0c1Mt5wRjKJ2kR4u48SiMh-v/s400/...give+up.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<b><br /><br />There’s a whole generation of marketing folk faking it...</b><br />
<br />
This post is about the state of marketing in the 21st century. This is something I care deeply about because marketing has been my career for my whole adult life. <br />
<br />
To be frank, I am concerned about the condition of my profession. Mark Schaefer, one of my favourite marketing gurus, cited the subtitle of this post in his excellent <a href="https://www.businessesgrow.com/2017/12/04/digital-marketing-trends/" target="_blank">Grow blog</a> late last year:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><b>"Every CMO I talk to tells me they can’t find the right
people to fill marketing jobs. And yet, I have a lot of friends having trouble
finding a job. The disconnect is in the skills gap.<o:p></o:p></b></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><b><br /></b></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><b><a href="https://www.unilever.com/about/who-we-are/our-leadership/keith-weed.html" target="_blank">Keith Weed</a>, the CMO of Unilever, claimed in an interview
that there is an entire generation of marketers who are “faking it” and called
for an overhaul of the marketing function.<o:p></o:p></b></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><b><br /></b></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i>Marketing titans like P&G acknowledge that their <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/04/28/procter-gamble-co-earnings-drop-on-industry-slowdo.aspx" target="_blank">biggest brands are struggling</a> to find relevance and,
over the last few years, fired thousands of marketing professionals who aren’t
keeping up.</i><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px none; color: #282828; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 1.1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; word-break: break-word; word-wrap: break-word;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><b>The truth is, the marketing jobs are out there but CMOs
can’t find the RIGHT skill sets they need to fill them and this is creating a
true employment crisis."</b></i><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
I am sad to say that I agree. Marketing has always been a profession which is misunderstood by those outside it. But worse, today, it's now also a conundrum to some people within it. <br />
<br />
The reasons are complex, but one of the main drivers is the pace of change brought about by the transition to a digital economy. This change is so rapid and profound for marketing that whole new skill sets are required. And few marketers are keeping up.<br />
<br />
I am fortunate to know a great many senior and excellent marketing people. But even these folk, despite their impressive resumes are struggling to keep up with the pace of transformation. <br />
<br />
I also know or know of others who at best are fudging it and at worst being downright deceitful about how they can help their employers and clients achieve their goals. <br />
<br />
You’ve probably heard the idea, star of a thousand social media memes, that we should 'fake it until we make it’. Sadly this idea seems to have taken hold amongst some marketing people. <br />
<br />
According to the very brief Wiki page, ‘fake it until you make it’… <br />
<br />
<i>“…is an English aphorism which suggests that by imitating confidence, competence, and an optimistic mindset, a person can realize those qualities in their real life. It echoes the underlying principles of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as a means to enable a change in one's behavior. <br /><br />In the 1920s, Alfred Adler, a disciple of Sigmund Freud, developed a therapeutic technique that he called "acting as if". This strategy gave his clients an opportunity to practice alternatives to dysfunctional behaviors. Adler's method is still used today and is often described as "role play". </i><br />
<div>
<i><br /></i>
So the origins of this idea are highly specific; it’s a cognitive therapy for people with mental illness. Which is a very different thing to ubiquitous career best practice.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizhSyI_tay9T1cVWKRChuxglxuv5rSNlxmG-_4lP9XW2MUdlcb2FcbnODP2qXGuj4QqT728E1J7PVilJZtMtEVGU_MN1CtVD4Nlx4gu7qJdNXmaR9WlKhd6XeTbDj1f8oi7B9La8CJq9gU/s1600/..Fake+it.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="902" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizhSyI_tay9T1cVWKRChuxglxuv5rSNlxmG-_4lP9XW2MUdlcb2FcbnODP2qXGuj4QqT728E1J7PVilJZtMtEVGU_MN1CtVD4Nlx4gu7qJdNXmaR9WlKhd6XeTbDj1f8oi7B9La8CJq9gU/s400/..Fake+it.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">No. Just No. (Sorry Steven)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
And if you are a marketing professional or aspire to be one, I'd venture that such a mindset is downright dangerous for you, your business and the reputation of your profession.<br />
<br />
The trouble is that some people have got much better at faking it than they are at delivering the goods. And in an age where change is so rapid, the people who hire marketing people unless they are marketers themselves are easily misled by the all the jargon and persuasive patter.<br />
<br />
If you hire or engage with marketing people, but are not one yourself, here’s my top 10 things I think you should know: <br />
<br />
<b>1: Successful digital marketing doesn't hinge on search engine optimisation (SEO). </b><br />
<br />
Because ranking high on Google does nothing to increase customers’ love for your brand, product or service. It’s just good housekeeping. No more no less. <br />
<br />
<b>2: Unless you’re an online retailer, selling things from your website is not the be all and end all.</b><br />
<br />
It is people's obsession with turning their online presence directly into £s which distorts and corrupts their vision about how their online presence should be designed. And it leads to pop-ups, sign ups, redirects and other irritations which alienate the very people we want to love us.<br />
<br />
For many products and services, the only time people will visit your website is to check you out. As often as not, those people will not be potential customers, they will be real competitors. For some businesses, a traditional website is actually a handicap. And the best website in the world is not going to help you unless people find something there to make them love you.<br />
<br />
<b>3: Social media enables you to build a tribe of loyal supportive followers. </b><br />
<br />
It can. But only if you have a strategy which gives your prospective customers something they want to engage with. And which integrates your social media with the rest of your business. Social media is not a digital advertising platform, despite Twitter and Facebook telling us that advertising with them will turbocharge our business. (Hint: they have their own agenda…). <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD731saOhSHYYGNijh0xwTF3nwoSkyoWdDfl0Q57JKTTV931ByYBwlYHGsSr2RZ-EcsrDuI044oxI54ViRRKbbdg7lD25-RxuOmcLYot6ErFhv6XH8KYipzzTmp_kYc-_WRpRoW7KUmorD/s1600/..Worry.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="602" data-original-width="587" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD731saOhSHYYGNijh0xwTF3nwoSkyoWdDfl0Q57JKTTV931ByYBwlYHGsSr2RZ-EcsrDuI044oxI54ViRRKbbdg7lD25-RxuOmcLYot6ErFhv6XH8KYipzzTmp_kYc-_WRpRoW7KUmorD/s320/..Worry.JPG" width="312" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>4. An effective social media presence for your product or service must differentiate you.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
It is pure folly to look at who has the most YouTube subscribers, or Twitter followers or Facebook likes and copy them. Because the chances are, they are not your role model and don’t know what they are doing either. 'Me too' might be the latest trendy hashtag, but as a marketing strategy, it's a non-starter.<br />
<br />
<b>5. Young people who have spent the whole of their (brief) adult lives using social media are not automatically experts on using it for marketing.</b><br />
<br />
They are just familiar with the platforms <b>as a user.</b> This is not without some value, but it is limited. It’s like appointing someone as a car designer just because they know how to drive. <br />
<br />
<b>6. Marketing and advertising agencies are hideously expensive.</b><br />
<br />
There’s a reason big agencies have plush offices and slick sales people. And it’s not because they are experts at what they do. It's because they are experts at extracting money from clients who should know better. This industry 'norm' evolved in an age when big TV and press campaigns and media commissions made a fortune for agencies as well as media owners via opaque cartels. They continue to do this because when their marketing clients are under-skilled, they can still be bamboozled.<br />
<br />
<b>7. There's a whole new wave of online influencers that are potentially more valuable to you than Kim Kardashian (probably)</b><br />
<br />
If you look at YouTube, only three of the top 500 most subscribed channels are brands (Time Warner, Disney and Sony Music). The other 497 are people with little or no marketing budget, no big teams of advisors and little in the way of help. What they do have is passion, persistence and a love for what they do. They are in marketing speak, ‘authentic’. This authenticity and focus means they are accruing ever more power and influence. And they are the people who will make or break your brand online.<br />
<br />
<b>8. Marketing, Advertising, Social Media and and Sales are not the same thing.</b><br />
<br />
Business owners often conflate these. In essence, marketing is how you create <b>preference</b> for your brand versus your competitors. Advertising is how you build <b>awareness and interest</b> in your products. Social media is how you <b>connect with and build relationships</b> with the people that matter to you. Sales is how you <b>monetise </b>that interest. Mixing these up creates truly horrible outcomes.<br />
<br />
<b>9. There are no shortcuts to building a world-beating brand. </b><br />
<br />
It takes consistent effort, month in month out. And if you are unclear about how what you do is different from your competitors, and cannot articulate that difference in an engaging way, you will have a hard time using digital (or any other media) to grow your business. <br />
<br />
<b>10. The digital age requires a transformation in marketing thinking way beyond anything that has gone before.</b><br />
<br />
<b></b>And this is why so many marketing professionals are struggling to keep up. It demands that the very ideas of how businesses grow are completely reinvented. There is very little from the traditional tactical marketing toolkit, which has currency today. <br />
<br />
I’d urge every business owner to ask themselves this about their marketing: <b>“Why and how will we make people love us online?”</b> Answer that question successfully, and you will be better placed than most to get to the forefront of the digital marketing revolution. <br />
<br />
Oh and keep your fake antennae in a state of permanent alertness… <br />
<br />
Finally if your marketing person or people are doing a fabulous job for you, I'll be happy to hear about it in the comments. They do exist and deserve the attention we reserve for endangered species...<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-17229553179965652942018-02-22T13:31:00.000+00:002018-02-22T14:08:22.478+00:00Comeuppance<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRH-cZ3L4uFrjRu5jK1nnkAfw4ZDo1VWBecbPUrtMepCypaWrRPle-d5JVcV2MVV0i7hUUV8EeL1-KOhp8SiYMQdi1AvSfwv4GuYboV3zfCEesh6CijJlZx27Bk8HyrjBW7G97odMD8gEL/s1600/indignation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="424" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRH-cZ3L4uFrjRu5jK1nnkAfw4ZDo1VWBecbPUrtMepCypaWrRPle-d5JVcV2MVV0i7hUUV8EeL1-KOhp8SiYMQdi1AvSfwv4GuYboV3zfCEesh6CijJlZx27Bk8HyrjBW7G97odMD8gEL/s400/indignation.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">A cautionary tale for
interviewers - we reap what we sow, especially if we treat people badly.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This post will give you a smile if you
have been rejected following a job interview. It shows how an interview can expose the interviewer's shortcomings just as much as the candidate's.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was recently told this story by a candidate for
an internal promotion at the firm she worked for. It was a panel interview with
the the head of department, prospective line manager and an HR person.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The line manager was cocky. Her approach was to pile overbearing pressure onto the candidates. Her tone was brusque, interrupting frequently
and generally trying to unsettle the applicants. Every candidate said it was
the most traumatising interview they had ever had. One left in tears. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Part of this interviewer’s ‘technique’ was to probe every
answer <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ad nauseum</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At one point, the interview went like this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Line manager: “If you were appointed into this role, what would you do
to reduce the gossip and rumouring amongst your team?”<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Candidate: “I’d make
it a team meeting agenda item and make it plain to my team that this is
unacceptable because it creates all sorts of damaging consequences for the firm
and potentially their own career progression”.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Line manager: "How do you know that would work? And why have you not
done this already?"<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Candidate: "Well I did
have a discussion with my team about it, and they understood and it has
noticeably lessened the problem."<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Line manager: "So why have you not spread this to the rest of the company?"<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Candidate: "Well that
is above my pay grade."</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Line manager: "But if this has been successful with your team why would
you not want to share this with your peers?"<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Candidate: "I think it should
be endorsed by you first."<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Line manager: "But this is the first time I have heard about this. Why didn’t
you tell me about it?"<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Candidate: "I did. I
sent you an email."<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Line Manager: "I never saw it."<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Candidate: "When you
didn’t reply, I sent it again. Twice."<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Line Manager (visibly irritated): "Well send it to me again and I will
look at it."<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
She didn’t get the promotion allegedly because another
candidate who was judged to deserve the promotion more than she was offered the
role.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But her feedback said she had performed well at interview
and that she would be given the next available managers job when it became
available.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A good interviewer doesn’t bully or pile on pressure. They
probe without menace. They need every candidate to perform to the best of their
ability, not the worst.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This isn’t the last time this sort of interview will happen,
but maybe, just maybe, this person will wind their neck in a bit from now on...<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<br />Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-25050026788956209422018-02-20T22:29:00.000+00:002018-02-20T22:29:42.089+00:00The gig economy good or bad? Either way, it’s a life changer… <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEYv_fIDWuUt8gRkaVBPKFIz5-73Il4FZq5cxMVtam1CodZ_jsi_6AMBAuws2rEb0Bhjh86fU8QpGb3aDvV6eHtIj_wy6EQWRhLIQN1HAqEBMeWjpiTD-hFQzIQ1RZ6uZwACINyXO1wt6A/s1600/alone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1" data-original-width="1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEYv_fIDWuUt8gRkaVBPKFIz5-73Il4FZq5cxMVtam1CodZ_jsi_6AMBAuws2rEb0Bhjh86fU8QpGb3aDvV6eHtIj_wy6EQWRhLIQN1HAqEBMeWjpiTD-hFQzIQ1RZ6uZwACINyXO1wt6A/s1600/alone.jpg" /></a></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOjzJngVoqehv64Ctmi0KibC69bwoLBWGdXVIaKDT7vqkQxygoLOOOOi5Ej7rwdZeqotO7F3AHcwOaUGqrJodyG1IyDypM0pSDVSyOFfn8dNFisWtdtucquLK5gXAvoFTlqR-4SVKkipov/s1600/file2021235840650.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="465" data-original-width="620" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOjzJngVoqehv64Ctmi0KibC69bwoLBWGdXVIaKDT7vqkQxygoLOOOOi5Ej7rwdZeqotO7F3AHcwOaUGqrJodyG1IyDypM0pSDVSyOFfn8dNFisWtdtucquLK5gXAvoFTlqR-4SVKkipov/s400/file2021235840650.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not fitting in is quite possibly your greatest strength...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i><br /></i><i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
Actually it’s a case of angels and demons…<br />
<br />
<b>First the demons: </b><br />
<br />
What do you think of when someone says ‘gig economy’? Perhaps it's Uber drivers. Or zero hours contracts. Or people selling their services on Fiverr. <br />
<br />
It’s true that these are all aspects of the gig economy. But they are not THE gig economy. I don’t even like the term. I much prefer the expression coined by a friend of mine, Laura Degiovanni at <a href="https://tiiqu.com/">TiiQu</a>. She describes something she elegantly terms, ‘the fluid workforce’. <br />
<br />
The fluid workforce describes the aspiration of businesses and skilled workers alike to shift from permanent employment in jobs, to a flexible pool of people which adapts and evolves more quickly to better fit the ever changing requirements of organisations.<br />
<br />
This is a natural and logical reaction to a world where change is forever accelerating. Contracts are specific and time bound. And pay is often higher than it would be for a permanent position, because many or all of the overheads of a traditionally contracted full time employee are absent. <br />
<br />
At least that’s the theory. The reality for most gig economy workers however is that the unscrupulous have been faster to adopt this new idea than larger and more established organisations. The latter are rarely at the forefront of change because they are more complicated organisations and want more checks and balances. So they are moving, just not very fast. <br />
<br />
<b><br />The myth of tech and a better society </b><br />
<br />
Here’s the rub - the mainstream Uber-teched gig economy is something which does very little to enable most people to prosper. It’s currently more like the bottom rung of the labour market. One where long hours, harsh terms of employment and tedious jobs are the norm. And if you work at Uber, according to whistle blowers, you can add gender inequality, sexual harassment and bullying to that list. <br />
<br />
I have never met anyone who said to me, “I love being in the gig economy because I am so well paid”. Much more likely is that the positives they will regurgitate are based around the PR about flexibility and freedom. That’s fine if your earnings are not that important to you. But last time I checked, most people regard pay as a pretty important thing. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuwZoMOL9yuSHOAJjKTnHQ2iIvhPEUYpdQL07Pina0zIhPwoeV2VLLOJfwVdejFd26mS9H07ozhpGZpYpKA3f9Q0J9q55PE-Fpv_jnvy_xj6bBa3leaqfHpaKRIWcwYIaAw-aRUCxWLhYK/s1600/Uber_taxi_in_Moscow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuwZoMOL9yuSHOAJjKTnHQ2iIvhPEUYpdQL07Pina0zIhPwoeV2VLLOJfwVdejFd26mS9H07ozhpGZpYpKA3f9Q0J9q55PE-Fpv_jnvy_xj6bBa3leaqfHpaKRIWcwYIaAw-aRUCxWLhYK/s400/Uber_taxi_in_Moscow.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">NOT my idea of career fulfillment <span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: Hipsta.space</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />The Ubers, Fiverrs, AirBnBs like to describe themselves as disruptors. Radical rethinkers who are applying technology to build a better world for everyone. I don’t think of them in that way at all. I see them as micro-chipped buccaneers who are busy making a killing on the backs of low pay and sometimes even no pay. And thanks to their global internet-based business models, also able to dodge the usual obligations around everything from fair pay and conditions, to transparency and tax. <br />
<br />
They don’t get investors buying in because of their radical and visionary improvement of the world. Those days disappeared after the 2000 dotcom bubble burst. Investors buy in because they see growth and profit potential; and if labour costs are low, the profit potential is high for whoever can secure sector dominance.<br />
<br />
<b>Low pay is not the only exploitative characteristic involved</b><br />
<br />
Why pay little when you can get work done for free? Every time you post a review on Trip Advisor about that restaurant or bar you just visited, you are doing their work for them. You might think it doesn’t take much time and you want to tell others so they know about your good or bad experience. But multiply this by a few thousand or million and suddenly, this amounts to a pile of free content acquired for absolutely nothing. Day after day after day...<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo0vHDN_NEqJipZZV2Anhn69I8WvlBotFGnk0yUmccbnzkMWdPfLQ6lUQapZD9j706Wce1tGBUIyP3V1sftdYhT5nPF_2HYOyNwBK2H_6PBPa9U3_mGq5AplR6DRrhoDc7yY8iGITWpDKG/s1600/Anti-Amazon_sticker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="528" data-original-width="795" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo0vHDN_NEqJipZZV2Anhn69I8WvlBotFGnk0yUmccbnzkMWdPfLQ6lUQapZD9j706Wce1tGBUIyP3V1sftdYhT5nPF_2HYOyNwBK2H_6PBPa9U3_mGq5AplR6DRrhoDc7yY8iGITWpDKG/s400/Anti-Amazon_sticker.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Cheap and convenient means someone else suffers. <span style="font-size: xx-small;">Photo credit: LavaBaron</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
It echoes the old wave of self-service tech at the supermarket, petrol pumps, bank cash machines. These are all ways businesses have found to cut the cost of their services by getting us do their work for them – and it’s easy enough to persuade us to embrace the change when it delivers greater convenience for us.<br />
<br />
So the gig economy is fast becoming in many people’s minds a place where career dreams are at best put aside, or at worst permanently laid to rest. But it doesn’t have to be like this… <br />
<br />
<b>Now for the angels </b><br />
<br />
I don’t want to come over entirely negatively about this. There are some little niches of joy amidst all this low pay and mind numbing labour. I was recently working on a client assignment for a musical equipment manufacturer. Drums to be specific. <br />
<br />
They wanted to upgrade their digital media and marketing strategies. I started looking at YouTube videos posted by drummers and drum manufacturers and compiling data about the views and subscribers. What emerged was that just like every product sector from cosmetics to fashion, cars to gardening, the biggest brands were being completely outgunned online by what I call the ‘boys (and girls) in bedrooms’. <br />
<br />
In fact only three corporations rank amongst the biggest 500 YouTube Channels* Despite the multi-million budgets and expensive marketing consultants and agencies, the biggest brand in the drumming sector had less than 10% of the YouTube subscribers that the most successful YouTube drummers had. This is a pattern which we see in just about every sector and every market. <br />
<br />
<b>The social media stars are not brands, they are people like you and I</b><br />
<br />
This is a very different gig economy. One where people earn handsomely for doing something they love. And I am part of this as are many other people I know. Most however would never describe themselves as working in the gig economy. But that doesn't mean we are not.<br />
<br />
A friend of mine has built a successful and very well paid career as an after dinner speaker and stand up comedian. He's found his niche and has a fully booked diary every week of takers all happy to pay him several thousand pounds for him to do a turn at their dinner or event.<br />
<br />
Another friend of mine is an accomplished voice over artist. Their client list is global and includes some of the best known brands in the world. The work is highly paid and is so much in demand that this person is seriously thinking about quitting their 'proper' job so they can do this full time.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2d6yPtw7jG86YuCMEI6tHdBYlgxD0mE28uB3flDaR2A6AsFloqTVcR5lHlN72ORWAdUhHGdxPqiQ8eZwwPqPUet0cTJj-qPGL8eJ4Q97Mpvuwsnm_Xpz2oTz3CaEO55vu13KEkj0mf6Ic/s1600/Journey+live.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="530" data-original-width="885" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2d6yPtw7jG86YuCMEI6tHdBYlgxD0mE28uB3flDaR2A6AsFloqTVcR5lHlN72ORWAdUhHGdxPqiQ8eZwwPqPUet0cTJj-qPGL8eJ4Q97Mpvuwsnm_Xpz2oTz3CaEO55vu13KEkj0mf6Ic/s400/Journey+live.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Journey found their frontman on YouTube<br /><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> Photo credit: Bob Larson/Contra Costa Times</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
In a more high profile example, the platinum selling band that is Journey found the replacement for their departed singer Steve Perry on YouTube. Perry’s replacement was a man called Arnel Pineda, an unknown singer from the Philippines, who had been posting his covers of Journey songs on YouTube. <br />
<br />
These are all tales from within what we could call the gig economy. These gigs are potentially life changing for the better. Others are a return to Victorian workhouses.<br />
<br />
In my next post about this, I’ll venture some thoughts about how we can fly with the angels rather than be devoured by the demons...<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*Disney, Time Warner and Sony</span>Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-66842471710161135662018-01-14T12:37:00.001+00:002018-01-14T12:44:21.997+00:00Carillion reveals the real threat to jobs - debt<i><br /></i>
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="265" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Yas_Marina_Hotel_by_Rob_Alter.jpg/1920px-Yas_Marina_Hotel_by_Rob_Alter.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: start;">The Yas Viceroy Abu Dhabi Hotel built by Carillion. Photo credit:Rob Alter</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I started work on my book with Marcia LaReau, <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Careermageddon-Cracking-21st-Century-Career/dp/0999206206/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1515932995&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=carrermageddon" target="_blank">Careermageddon</a>,
we did not have an agenda. Our view was that the evidence will take us where it
will.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
But after three years research, even I was surprised where we ended up as we sought to discover the real destroyers of jobs.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Careermageddon is a politically neutral book. The conventional ‘wisdom’
about jobs from the left is that government must borrow and spend to create
jobs. Amongst the right it is that the free market is more efficient, therefore
tax cuts and business friendly policies are the best framework.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The trouble with the free market is that if government uses private contractors, it does not absolve itself of risk, because private companies act primarily in the interests of shareholders and investors. And this can lead to some pretty nasty outcomes for employees and customers.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This week we have seen the unravelling of Carillion, one of
the biggest construction firms in the UK. It holds numerous government construction
contracts including the UK's high speed rail network expansion, HS2. I flagged this
three years ago <a href="https://40pluscareerguru.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-politicians-wont-solve-jobs-crisis.html" target="_blank">here</a> as an example of government spending folly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Carillion is massively in debt. The debt burden is so great
that the future of the firm and around 20,000 UK jobs and a further 23,000
overseas jobs hang in the balance. It has a £900m debt pile and £600m shortfall
on its pension plan.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is just the latest in a long and sorry catalogue of
failed businesses which are massively over borrowed to the point that even the
smallest shortfalls in revenues compound over time to become catastrophic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The biggest threat to jobs which we identified in Careermageddon
is not technology. It’s not migrant workers. It’s not globalisation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s debt. Personal debt, corporate debt, and government
debt.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Whatever happens to Carillion, the debt spiral will be even more compounded – it won’t be written off, it will just move and spread
elsewhere.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Which leads me to three simple conclusions. Government needs to
take greater oversight of the debt vulnerability of firms it contracts with.
Business needs to borrow less and invest more not in executive bonuses and shareholder
dividends, but in long term assets and debt reduction. And people need to
reduce their personal debt so they have greater financial resilience when disaster
strikes.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
It might not be fun, but if you want to make a worthwhile new
year’s resolution, reducing debt is a much more worthwhile one than most that I have
heard.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-82629506600057299312017-11-03T15:11:00.000+00:002017-11-03T15:36:54.692+00:00 Why can’t the BBC tell us what’s really happening?<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilulZHGMAsUGZxSla8GFq0F72eWR5WmuCcrxNdA5X3LdtggKqXSh-t2Z51UyEcL6GZmXRRwa_4MeUQel4CwGuz1w2lVc7oucYe1qiB4wn_cZ3mpTvk_D36yDr-3oix4_jnC0pdPc45ykSb/s1600/file4741270417603.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="620" data-original-width="413" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilulZHGMAsUGZxSla8GFq0F72eWR5WmuCcrxNdA5X3LdtggKqXSh-t2Z51UyEcL6GZmXRRwa_4MeUQel4CwGuz1w2lVc7oucYe1qiB4wn_cZ3mpTvk_D36yDr-3oix4_jnC0pdPc45ykSb/s400/file4741270417603.jpg" width="266" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Bank of England:<br />
Remembered where the UP button was yesterday</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
In my opinion, yesterday was the best news day in the UK since I started this blog. Yet anyone watching or reading the UK mainstream news could be forgiven for assuming quite the opposite.<br />
<br />
I'm referring to the news that the Bank of England is raising interest rates for the first time in over 10 years.<br />
<br />
The simple and obvious impact of this is that if you are a saver, this is minor good news. If you are a borrower, it’s not. Yet reality is seldom this binary and most people both save and borrow albeit in varying proportions.<br />
<br />
So the BBC TV News thought it would be appropriate to ask two types of people what they thought. One who was struggling with a low income, a mortgage and the costs of a young family. The other a retired bloke who relied on his savings income. Naturally enough, they gave totally predictable answers. The saver that it would make little difference to his income and the borrower that any extra costs would be hard for them to bear.<br />
<br />
I guess this is the result of the BBC striving to be inclusive; less London centric and eliteist. But it turned much better news than any sports victory, royal wedding or Oscar win, into the overall message that whether you’re a borrower or a saver, there's little to celebrate.<br />
<br />
The Guardian’s headline followed a similar vein – <i>‘<b>More costly mortgages in wake of rates rise’.</b></i><b> </b>Buried in this piece was the fact that this amounts to a £22 a month increase on average for homeowners with mortgages. It didn’t mention that those on the lowest incomes will have smaller mortgages and so their increase will typically be much less.<br />
<br />
I’m not saying that this isn’t tough for those on the lowest incomes. But this news is a minor revelation. It represents a tentative first step back towards normality from which all will ultimately benefit. This is the real story, but it’s just not reported that way.<br />
<br />
The increase was just 25 basis points (0.25%), taking the base rate from its all-time low of 0.25% to 0.5%. This isn’t a hike, it’s a <b>tiny</b> increase. I am old enough to remember when base rates reached 17% and a 1.00% move in either direction barely merited a mention. Yet the BBC described this news as ‘interest rates will be doubled’. Technically correct, but also completely misleading to anyone who doesn’t watch these things closely.<br />
<div>
<br />
Mark Carney, the Canadian Governor of the Bank of England has proven to be a shrewd judge of when to intervene with rate changes. With inflation at around 3%, high levels of employment (despite poor wage growth) and growing consumer debt, a rate increase has been on the cards for months now.<br />
<div>
<br />
As central bankers repeat <i>ad nauseum</i>, base rates are a blunt instrument, but they are also an <b>immediate </b>way to cool things down, especially inflation. Carney described it as <i>‘easing off the gas a little’</i>. In other words, moving further away from the quantitative easing panic button which was pressed repeatedly in 2008 to retain liquidity in the wake of the collapse.</div>
<div>
<br />
It is also an experiment to see how things react. The FTSE 100 surged:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoHWk09-lwpb7pNK7oEPXRuHuJHmpBr9qVjSCgfVbS1tNoaSI7MuTT7eQIH_QJTv6PRI3plqqqkWPsNHgQMcD5fIGxNfFr5OrB0EUXIROZh_FfgK_3x8kg70sR77iu9XXfCQ-fkq_yJeKl/s1600/3+October+2017+FTSE.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="303" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoHWk09-lwpb7pNK7oEPXRuHuJHmpBr9qVjSCgfVbS1tNoaSI7MuTT7eQIH_QJTv6PRI3plqqqkWPsNHgQMcD5fIGxNfFr5OrB0EUXIROZh_FfgK_3x8kg70sR77iu9XXfCQ-fkq_yJeKl/s400/3+October+2017+FTSE.png" width="400" /></a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The pound fell a couple of cents against the US dollar. This is not a catastrophe – it’s a fairly normal adjustment. And it’s part of why a free-floating domestic currency is so helpful in keeping an economy under control. The Greeks would chop off a finger I reckon to have that option.<br />
<br />
I predict further small rises leading up to the Article 50 deadline on 29 March 2019, unless there is some drastic reaction which persuades against this path. Carney wants to ensure that whatever form Brexit finally assumes, when it happens, he has the scope to move rates accordingly to keep the UK ship stable. <br />
<br />
Forget what the Westminster monkeys on both sides are saying about Brexit. The Bank of England is doing a fine job of preparing us for any scenario. And bear in mind that the BBC and the mainstream press have long forgotten how to tell us the things we really need to know.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3255177454234597104.post-65365248783801597402017-10-14T12:50:00.000+01:002017-10-14T13:26:05.156+01:00Big firms are trashing their own people assets<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6QBYWfqzljg?rel=0" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Age and experience exposes the naivete of youth Clip courtesy BBC's The Apprentice</span></div>
<br />
<i>By </i><i><a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/neilrpatrick">Neil Patrick</a></i><br />
<br />
Recently I had some bad news from a friend. His wife had been laid off in a corporate restructuring.<br />
<br />
This lady had spent over ten years with a global blue chip employer and through professionalism and hard work had risen to the position of Global Marketing Director.<br />
<br />
She’d done absolutely nothing to deserve her ejection. On the contrary, she had been diligent and committed. Her results and appraisals had been excellent. Her colleagues thought highly of her. <br />
<br />
Yet in an HR spreadsheet exercise, she and several hundred other senior colleagues were terminated. No ifs, buts, or options. Just out.<br />
<br />
<b>Age is always side slipped in diversity programmes</b><br />
<br />
The firm’s plan was to cull the most senior and expensive people and hire younger – and of course cheaper people. Doubtless, someone had bandied around the term ‘Digital natives’ in the discussions about this decision.<br />
<br />
Perversely, their website talks a lot about creating a more diverse workforce – yet this diversity appears to mean just gender and ethnic diversity. They seem to have forgotten that age is also a diversity issue and a protected characteristic in law (in the UK, under the Equality Act, 2010).<br />
<b><br />Money talks and…you know the rest</b><br />
<br />
I understand a severance package (doubtless constructed with bullet proof legal advice) is in place. But this is not the point.<br />
<br />
The point is that this is no doubt thought of as cutting out the dead wood and saving money in the process. <br />
<br />
<b>We need to look at people as part of the balance sheet more than the P&L</b><br />
<br />
The second irony is that her employer is one of the biggest and most prestigious advisory and consulting firms in the world. i.e people you’d expect to understand that assets like people are part of the balance sheet (at least conceptually), not just a cost on the Profit and Loss account.<br />
<br />
Older and more expensive people are more valuable than younger and cheaper people. We need them both and we need them to work together respecting and harnessing each other’s unique skills and aptitudes.<br />
<br />
After so many years, my friend’s wife is older. She’s more experienced. She’s more valuable than however many cheaper young people they could hire instead. Perhaps not if this was a potato farm. But this is a global leader in knowledge-based advice and solutions for large corporations and organisations. They trade in intellectual capital. And intellectual capital isn't bought, it is grown and nurtured over years.<br />
<b><br />How many times do we hear CEOs spouting the mantra that ’Our people are our most valuable asset’?</b><br />
<br />
That’s right. They are. And when you have invested a decade in nurturing an asset, surely it’s idiotic to just throw it away for a cheaper and less effective one?<br />
<br />
But she’s in marketing; like its cousins, sales and advertising, marketing jobs are notorious for over-valuing one personal characteristic; youth.<br />
<br />
Ageism is illegal in the UK. But it is also the last of the ‘isms’ to remain socially acceptable. And since it is so easy to fudge, many employers breach this law routinely.<br />
<br />
So her chances of a rapid and smooth transition to a comparable role elsewhere are slim and will become slimmer with each month which passes.<br />
<br />
<b>There’s no such thing as a specialism where youth trumps everything else</b><br />
<br />
Most people believe that marketing demands high creativity, high energy, media know-how. Exuberance and slick presentation skills don’t hurt either. These are characteristics which are incorrectly (see my post about this <a href="https://40pluscareerguru.blogspot.com/2013/08/proof-at-last-older-employees-are-not.html" target="_blank">here</a>), believed to be more prevalent amongst the young. The reality is something else. Effective marketing teams are experts at revenue generation; nurturing client relationships; data gathering and interpretation; brand building; managing specialist suppliers. <br />
<br />
I work all the time with smart, enthusiastic young people who have marketing roles. They are wonderful. But they are also inexperienced and limited in their understanding of how to build successful businesses. They simply have not had the depth of experience to obtain the perspectives which I learned often painfully through 30 years of hard won experience.<br />
<br />
Sure our world is transforming faster than ever before, but this doesn’t mean it is entirely different. The digital revolution doesn’t change the fundamental workings of economics and business, it just changes the ways in which these goals are attained. The Zuckerberg mythology is just that. Facebook is a success not because of Zuckerberg’s youth. It’s a success because he did better than his Silicon Valley peers…who guess what, were also young and inexperienced. <br />
<br />
Youth alone is not a panacea for the digital age. The future belongs to those organisations who can figure out how to satisfy the aspirations and nurture the talents of young and old alike. It’s called ‘inclusivity’ guys…<br />
<br />
Digital business is not at all beyond the comprehension of older employees. In fact I’d wager they could bring a good deal of common sense to some of the short sighted nonsense I see written about SEO, social media and other preserves of the tyros.<br />
<br />
Please, please please, let’s stop believing that somehow culling the most experienced people is a recipe for progress. <br />
<br />
It’s not. It’s like setting fire to your best work and flushing the ashes down the toilet…<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Neil Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15453744260747911733noreply@blogger.com0