Perot had it right, “find a snake kill a snake”… 

 

The full quote, as I recall,ended, “don’t convene a committee on snakes”.

There’s a refrain I hear, almost every time there’s an internal delay or glitch in any piece of work my team do with pretty much any corporate customer.

It goes like this…

“It’s not worth trying to get this changed, we all know it’s wrong, but, it’s just too hard to fix”.

If you’re in a business and you are apologising to me as a customer, (or a supplier), for some evidently awful internal process that impacts on your business (and mine) you’re not just part of the problem, you are, for me at least, the problem.

La Fontaine's Fables

Vintage engraving from La Fontaine’s Fables, Illustraed by Gustave Dore. The Countryman and the Serpent

 

Sure it’s tough standing up for what you know is right, sure it’s tough being the one bold person who says what everyone is thinking, sure it’s tough to take on the pedestrian procurement process, the accounting anachronisms, the resourcing rubbish, the shibboleths of sales, the malaise of mediocre marketeers. It does take courage and integrity to challenge the corporate inertia, to take a risk, to fix the big stuff but hey, every other bugger is playing it safe, going with the flow, making no waves, keeping below the parapet.

You know it’s corporate bollocks, you know it needs fixing, if you don’t do it, it won’t ever get done.

Make a difference, make a mark, make a stand. Kill that snake

NB: No real snakes were harmed in the writing of this post.

Advertisements

Why marketing will be responsible for the death of democracy …

Voters ballot close-up

No, you can’t always get what you want … 

I’ve blathered on for years to anyone who’d listen (and many who wouldn’t) about the value to our democratic process  of  instantaneous communication, the benefits of being able to express our individual opinion rather than have our elected representative express our opinion (as long as it aligns with their own, and their political masters’) current stance.

I’ve been loquacious around my view that it’s extremely rare that I, you, or anyone will actually share a world-view that’s well aligned to whichever mendacious under-achieving power-seeking slimeball appeared less repulsive than their opposition last time we all trooped into a cubicle and (despite this being the 21st Century, “the Digital Age”) placed our stubby pencil cross on a piece of paper.

But, perhaps inevitably, I began to doubt myself. The media, the cognoscenti, the chattering classes were truly surprised by the result of the recent UK referendum on which bunch of untrustworthy political animals should make important decisions for us. And then, our chums in the obese former colony across the sea astounded us all by choosing the more ridiculous of two people for whom the idea of integrity and honesty seem to be irrelevant concepts that don’t apply to them.

And the pollsters, the media, the cognoscenti, the intellectual elite, got it wrong, again!

And I realised where my thinking, (that instant and ubiquitous communication was a good thing for democracy) was going wrong, and would only get worse.

It’s about information.  In order to make informed and inclusive judgements, we need a big-picture view of the world, many opinions, many cultures, broad-brush data, challenge, diversity… and that’s not, increasingly, what our digital world offers.

family-listening-to-radio

When I was a lad there were a few newspapers, the radio, television was in its infancy, there were literally a handful of information sources, sure the papers had editors who chose a broad political line but generally we all worked to a fairly common view of the world, common sources of information, the only filter bubbles being our personal circumstances and prejudices, and they tended to be similar to the other folk in the street.

It’s that filter bubble effect that will hurt us, filters now driven by algorithm. As I read the FT (or, let’s say the Daily Mail for the sake of balance) online, it’s identifying my interests, and presenting the stories relevant to those interests, my news feed is getting increasingly niche.

My Facebook feed is not your Facebook feed, my Twitter feed is not your Twitter feed, I see a different Linked-in than you. Increasingly, as the marketing algorithms identify what I like, I’m likely to get less and less randomness, less surprise, less exposure to other’s views, every interaction with my world of information will become increasingly affirmative that the way I see the world is the way the world is.

We get to see more and more of the stuff that we already agree with, to the exclusion of different opinions.  Is this partly what’s driving intolerance, misunderstanding, prejudice and divide over understanding and caring?

And if that’s true, then our ability to see the world through others eyes, to engage, to understand and empathise with those unlike us will wither and atrophy, division will grow and we genuinely won’t understand why.

Filter bubbles, you get to see what you are used to seeing, or, more and more often, what an algorithm decides is like the things you already like, there’s no value for Amazon in showing you stuff that doesn’t give you that warm comfortable, “oooh I like that” feeling.

Filter bubbles, good for marketeers, bad for a true world-view.  An increasingly narrow set of information delivered uniquely to each of us as the social media algorithms work really hard to make themselves attractive to us, telling us more and more of what we know, delivering diminishing levels of challenge, less randomness, we miss the ambient intelligence of exposure to a whole newspaper, not just the bits we already like.

We’re being spoon-fed our own preferences.

Unhappy Baby Being Fed In High Chair At Meal Time

So, how does anyone get an objective view of the world as we increasingly get an algorithmically-curated information stream designed to make us easy for advertisers to target, not to share, explore or explain how the world might look to a third-generation unemployed chap in Derbyshire or Illinois?

I wish I knew… do you?

The parting of the procurement ways

IMG_0032There is, slowly but surely, a growing awareness in the B2B marketplace that, (thanks to the web-driven commoditisation of pretty much everything), it’s not your product, your service or your price that makes the difference, it’s your relationship.

It’s getting to be all about the people.
Paradoxically however the organisations intended to deliver value to the people, paid for by the people, staffed by an enormous number of the people, our central and local government services, our public sector bodies all persist in the practice of building or buying teams of expensive resource to produce pointless questionnaires, RFP’s and ITT’s to verify  that the likes of IBM, BT, Oracle and Thales are not fly-by-night cowboys operating out of a railway arch in Clapham.
Why does the public sector persist in mandating a procurement culture which inevitably delivers the apparently cheapest but actually, invariably, over time, priciest solution with, thanks to penny-pinching procurement the highest likelihood of catastrophic and expensive failure?
Why do all the suppliers have to invest in expensive teams of expensive people jumping collectively through an ever-changing series of procedural hoops which just endorse what (if they are any good at all) the buyers must already know?
Why does the public sector spend a fortune (our taxes by the way) excluding the human element from all procurement when the commercial world is recognising, rewarding, investing and coaching on things like trust, integrity, longevity and respect?
I’d like to think that those who ‘serve the public good’ recognise the value of those things too.