Market Forces: Will Friday be Scottish Independence Day?

With voting for the Scottish Referendum taking place in just 5 days time, and the day of reckoning almost upon us, the promotion of ideas and ideologies is at its most extreme and my marketing instincts are being overloaded.

Propaganda, PR and Passion are at their height.

But never before, on the streets of Britain, have I seen such a display of passionate politics. On both sides of a debate.

Yesterday, as my husband and I sat in the sunshine at a pavement café, drinking tea and eating cake, we heard the rousing tones of Dougie MacLean's Caledonia drifting over the city in which we've lived most of our lives. While it's not my husband's favourite song, it was a moment that - for me - captured the essence of what is happening right around us: a groundswell of national pride.

Little did we know at the time, it was THE Dougie MacLean, busking on the high street, just around the corner from where we were enjoying that terribly British tradition of afternoon tea.

Superstar or street smart, conservative or labour, Scottish nationalist or not, the Yes campaign has united individuals from all facets of the political and social spectrum and that's what has made it so unique.

A glance at the two campaigns, side by side, standing out on our main street yesterday showed one thriving and thronging with people, brandishing balloons, and eagerly interacting with inquisitive voters. The other, a small table with a union jack as a table cloth, surrounded by a small clutch of activists scouring the crowds looking for people to speak to.

Scanning down social media timelines showed similar imagery around the country. Thronging crowds in Glasgow and Edinburgh waving flags and singing anthems and small gatherings of No activists, posing gingerly for their requisite selfies.

I've never seen anything like it. Ever.

If I were to use one word to describe what I have seen happening on the streets, it would be this: Jubilation.

A feeling of great happiness or triumph.

A campaign that, win or lose on Friday morning, has already won.

A campaign that has awoken an electorate.

A campaign that, yes or no, has got people interested in the political agenda of their own country.

A campaign that has galvanised the highest ever voter registration levels the United Kingdom has ever seen.

So, with 97% of the country registered to have their say the outcome, whatever it may be, cannot be in question.

It will be the will of the people.

I have a friend who now lives in Australia who is quietly confident that there is a "silent majority" who will turn out to vote No on Thursday.

I'm intrigued by this perception of what is happening in my country. I am right here, right now, to quote Fat Boy Slim, and either this silent majority are very, very quiet, or they are a figment of the imagination.

There's a point in every marketing campaign that we push past the Innovators and Early Adopters and reach the Early Majority. When we get there, we can comfortably say we have captured 50% of the market for our product.

But beyond that is the Late Majority and the Laggards. The Late Majority will take a market position to somewhere in the region of between 50% and 74%.

I'd argue that, beyond the launch of a new iPhone, I've never seen a marketplace so eagerly embracing something as I have for that of the Yes vote in the last 4 weeks. This movement would put the Yes campaign comfortably into the Late Majority and recent polls are firmly hinting at the Yes campaign being in that position.

In 5 days we'll know if market forces are really at work here, or if there really is a silent majority.

Only Scotland knows.

Why Most Marketing (and Business) Plans Fail

It's a challenge in our industry not to come across a business owner without a poor experience of working with a marketing consultant. All too often I've heard the woeful story that suggests someone "came in", worked up a plan, and then left the building.

And, with that blazing gauntlet laid down on the table, my job is to overcome the sins of my predecessors with some amazing business turnaround idea that will redeem the marketing profession as a whole.

However regrettable (and common) this situation is, it genuinely doesn't surprise me. And, in defence of my fellow marketing professionals, it's not really their fault. (No, it really isn't).

Only a year or so into my working life as a marketing consultant, it struck me that some of the businesses, many of whom had acquired some sort of government grant funding for the pleasure of obtaining a marketing plan, were paying for something that was rarely going to see the light of day.

Why? They simply didn't have the funds to invest in their ongoing marketing.

So here's the truth: the main reason that most marketing (and business) plans fail is that they are never actually implemented.

Sounds obvious? Possibly.

Let's see if this rings a bell: Business decides it wants to grow, asks (usually a government agency) for help, is told they need a plan and said plan can attract funding. Business employs marketing consultant to create a plan, reviews plan, says it's great, sticks it on a shelf. Marketing consultant trots off into the sunset feeling pleased with self. Months go by, business becomes frustrated that the "plan" did not work. What a waste of time, energy and money. Business does not grow.

Sound familiar? I bet it does.

When Volpa started "giving away" its intellectual property of the marketing plan right at the very start of the relationship with the client, it was perceived as unusual. But it was very much because of a genuine desire to make a difference for the businesses that we work for. In essence we give away what other marketing consultants charge thousands for. But we do it because, as a business, we'd rather be working on what actually works for a business, not what might.  

Our obsession with planning up front sometimes takes new clients by surprise. And when we steer them back to the plan (entrepreneurs love to go off piste, it's a fact), they wonder why the plan shouldn't just "change". Flex, yes. Change, no. Not if you are going to stay on track to achieving your business objectives. Changing the plan usually means "making it up" and we're not great fans of that as a business strategy.

The old adage "fail to plan, plan to fail" only goes so far. I'd add "Fail to do, doomed to fail".

I've seen grand plans and simple ones. But the ones that really succeed, that really make the difference, are simply the plans that actually get implemented.

In fact successful marketing of a business is not actually rocket science. You can be swung by the immense creativity of some agencies (and let's face it, who doesn't want to be creative), or the grand idea that takes forever to create, but unless you actually do something, it's simply not going to happen.

Although, even if you do have a great plan, and you are actively "doing" marketing, be careful not to get caught up in the detail. It can be tempting (and relentless) to constantly feel you need to come up with new all the time, but sometimes repeating yourself works too. Sometimes people don't always get the message the first time. Or the second. So tell, tell and tell again.

In summary, if you want your marketing efforts to work, keep it simple, keep it do-able, and keep it up.

When No Means Yes

I try to steer away from politics, but every so often something political will catch my eye and, from a communications perspective, I feel it might be worth wading into the foray. 

As many of my regular readers will know, I'm based in Scotland and this year my country faces a significant decision on whether it should, or should not, be an independent nation. 

The political debates have been raging for months, and are expected to heat up as we career towards Decision-Day in September 2014. 

The communications campaign is critical for both sides of the debate. But here's where, for me at least, it recently got very interesting. 

Putting aside my own political thoughts on the matter, the two sides have very clearly defined communication objectives:

The Yes Campaign is painting a portrait of hope, opportunity, possibility and passion. Underpinning these concepts, ideas and strategies is a lot of uncertainty and a lack of guarantee. 

The No Campaign is painting a portrait of maintaining the status quo, the fear of the great unknown independence would bring, the loss of certainty, and the security of unity. Underpinning these concepts, ideas, and strategies is knowing that the status quo will (and can continue to) prevail. 

However, from what I can see as a professional communicator, the No Campaign has already lost the battle. 

Faced with a growing lean towards "Yes", they've taken to amplifying their message and not urgently reviewing it. From afar speeches have been made. Phone a friend, says David Cameron. The pound is ours, says George Osbourne. All the big brand businesses are leaving, say all the big brand businesses. 

But even a recent trade union vote on whether or not to back any specific political goal, clearly identified that the "market" has shifted. Turns out no-one supported backing the No campaign, they were either for Yes or somewhere in the middle. 

The Yes Campaign, for all its uncertainty, has always been able to maintain strong concepts of hope, opportunity, possibility and passion. It's message is constant, unwavering and, recently, laudable in the face of adversity. 

So has the time come for No to re-evaluate their communications? Arguably, that time has come and gone. They've positioned themselves into a corner of selling us "same old, same old" and changing tack now may come off as a cynical ploy. And, let's face it, it really wouldn't be more than just that. 

For such an important political decision, and with some of the most clever communications strategists behind the campaign, it's actually distinctly surprising that they didn't see this coming from the outset. In fact, the No Campaign has done more for the Yes Campaign, than the Yes Campaign have done for the Yes Campaign. It's probably one of the biggest unintentional communication backfires in modern political history, but time will ultimately tell on that one. 

The Yes Campaign, by contrast, are to be congratulated on what has been an exceptionally well thought out strategy. 

They knew from the outset this was going to be as much an emotional vote as a logical one. But instead of treating the Scots like a bunch of imbeciles, unable to make logical decisions, they've made the respectful assumption that we'll suss out what many already know: when you set your mind on something, you can achieve anything. 

And so they've set out their stall in an ambitious manner. Scotland can be independent, they say. Look at what we have done. Look at what we can do. Look at what we could be. And, perhaps most importantly, look at what's holding us back. 

They know we've got the brains. Heck, Scots have invented some of the most widely used modern gadgets -  it ain't for the lack of brains that we're not ruling the world of technology. They know we've got the mettle. They know we just need the opportunity to make it happen. 

And slowly, but surely, their campaign has chipped away at the premise of the No Campaign. Because No can't fight back without first admitting that they have, actually, held us back. That they have treated us differently. That they intend to continue treating us differently. 

So what does No have to do if they are going to pull this back? Well, for a start, they'd better hurry. A good many people have watched the childish squabbling, quietly taken notes and have now firmly made up their mind to vote Yes. And that's what they are, arrogantly, not quite grasping. The market has changed. So the strategy needs to move with it. 

They are no longer communicating on the basis of why people should not leave, they have to start communicating on the basis of why people should stay. Strong, visionary reasons. Sell us a future we want, not a status quo we don't. And as for all this negativity? Bin it. At worst it's demeaning, at best it's boring.

And I say this as someone who stood firmly at the ouset of the campaign as a No vote. Over time, as I considered the possibilities, I moved to maybe. Maybe Yes, Maybe No. Now? Well, I'm comfortable with my decision to vote Yes. 

As a small business owner in Scotland, and an employer, I've had to take my fair share of risks over the years. But one thing is absolutely certain: without hope, you have nothing. And without opportunity, you will get nowhere. And without possibility, there is no progress. And without passion, there's no impact. Everything else? Well, I reckon we can tackle that as we go along, don't you?

The Importance of Being (Not too) Earnest

This may come as a bit of a surprise but I only check my personal emails once a week. 

Yes, in this crazy, joined up, interconnected world we live in, it is actually still possible to resist the urge to ignore incoming communications - for a considerable period of time. I also only open my snail mail post once or twice a week too (although there's much, much less of that). 

This gives me a fairly interesting perspective on the marketing tactics of some companies. In one batch of weekly emails I can have as many as five promotional emails from a some organisations, with varying deals and offers, each one better than the last. I don't open them all. In fact the more there are, the less I open. 

In the snail mail pile, it's the same. One persistent offender is a leading online butcher and it would not be unusual for me to have 2 separate pieces of direct mail plus several emails from this organisation over the course of an average week. 

There's only so many times a girl can buy steak.....

Now I'm the first to appreciate that frequency of contact in marketing is an essential ingredient for success, but there is such a thing a too much frequency. Too much contact. Too much invasion into the "top of my mind". 

In fact it feels as if some of these companies communicate with me more often than my family. That they believe they should be party to my daily life. 

Are they desperate for sales? The quality of their marketing would suggest not. But their communication patterns suggest otherwise. 

So far I've held back from cutting them off completely by justifying to myself the convenience of having yummy steak delivered straight to my door, and the possibility that unsubscribing may send them into an even blinder panic of over-marketing to get me back. Like the gym, who now communicate with me more often now that I am no longer a member, than they did when I was. 

Interestingly we recently took the less is more approach and recommended to one of our clients that they do a little bit less on social, and a little bit less frequent email marketing and, guess what, their online sales have gone up, conversion rates are growing and attrition is falling. Result!

Perhaps we're just too busy to absorb it all. Of course it's great to develop relationships with your customers, but please try to remember they are customers, not your best mate or your spouse. 

There's an importance in not being too earnest....... don't you think?

When a Promise Becomes a Threat

We are now several months into Tesco's latest marketing campaign, The Tesco Price Promise. 

And the anecdotal results I can see on social media are very interesting. 

On the face of it, this should be a successful campaign. What's not to like, at the heart of a recession, about promising your customers that, if you (accidentally) overcharge them, they'll get that overcharge off their very next shop? What's not to enjoy about your loyalty being rewarded and a financial incentive to return?

But there's a downside. If you continually overcharge your customers, and give them a piece of paper to prove that you are doing it. Every week. Then it's only a matter of time before the customer sits up and thinks "Hey, wait a minute here...."

And the flip side? Well, if you are saving money, it's only a matter of time before you get a little peeved that everyone's getting money off vouchers except you.....

This latest price promotion could spell disaster for the market leader. Already CNBC is predicting Tesco's fall from power, and rival supermarket chains are stepping up their marketing messages to compete with the price promise juggernaut head on. Sainsbury's is even challenging Tesco through official channels that their "comparisons" are not even real comparisons, and you have to agree: it's hard to compare the Fair Trade coffee to the ground coffee that was unethically extracted from its suppliers at rock bottom prices....

Social media is further fueling the spread of this disgruntlement, with irritated shoppers posting up pictures of their receipts, demonstrating just how much cheaper it would have been for them to do their grocery shop elsewhere. 

This doesn't really affect our household. We switched our weekly grocery shop to the so called "premium" supermarket Marks & Spencer a few years ago. At an average saving of £40 on the weekly shop, the two grand annual saving is worth the stick we get from our friends for pretending to be posh. Quite frankly, I'd rather be "pretend posh" than poor. 

A few recent trips to Tesco, to just get a few things, have resulted in numerous money off coupons, and our astonishment that just a couple of carrier bags of "bits and bobs" can come to such a high amount. 

I simply pity the poor families who shop there weekly, on limited budgets, and see their hard earned wages going straight to Tesco's bottom line.

So what should Tesco do now? 

Well, the sensible option would be to cut its prices. 

It might eat into some of the £1.4 billion pre-tax profits it has made in the last six months, but it's likely to lose less customers in the long term. 

Since the start of the recession, shopping habits have changed immensely. Discount shopping is no longer stigmatised, coupons are considered valuable commodities but, despite these changes,  long term shopping habits remain a constant. 

And once a customer has shifted their main supermarket, it is doubly difficult to lure them back. 

As a marketer, I can promise them that. 

Who Owns Your Firm’s Social Relationships and Why Should you Care?

We've never had a guest blogger before, but I felt that this content was so pertinent to so many small businesses who use LinkedIn as part of their marketing efforts that it was well worth passing on. So our thanks go to Alan Matthew at Miller Hendry Solicitors who has given us permission to reproduce his original article in full:

When it comes to social networks, there has been a tendency for professionals to dismiss the more personal social platform of Facebook, and dive straight into the more professional platform of LinkedIn.

A recent case, however, that keeping things purely “professional” has inadvertently blurred the lines for businesses when it comes to who owns the relationships and contact data cultivated on the world’s number one social network for business professionals.

LinkedIn may have replaced the old fashioned address book and database for keeping up with business contacts, but while many companies encourage employees to use the online social networking site to keep in touch with customers, few have realised the downside of such relationships when an employee moves on.

Company-held data, such as a customer database, clearly belongs to the company and can be easily protected against misuse, however in the LinkedIn era the boundaries are increasingly unclear, with many employees making personal contacts in the course of conducting their professional business. 

A recent case in the High Court tackled this thorny issue, and employers now have a clear route to tackle any misuse of contacts. “The LinkedIn Injunction”, as it is colloquially being referred to, has made it clear that employers may be able to act to secure contacts cultivated on behalf of the company in circumstances where they can show a legitimate proprietary interest in an employee’s LinkedIn profile. 

In those circumstances the company needs to be able to show that the loss or misuse of an employee’s profile may give rise to “irreparable harm that cannot be compensated” by any financial payment.

In the case of Whitmar Publications Limited v. Gamage and Others, publishing company Whitmar was granted a restraining injunction against three former employees who had set up in competition, alleging they did so whilst still employed.  Whitmar also alleged that contact information had been collected from members of LinkedIn groups that were maintained by Whitmar. 

The Court agreed that the LinkedIn groups involved constituted legitimate company property as one of the employees involved was responsible for maintaining these as part of their employment duties and using Whitmar’s computers, with a clear aim of promoting Whitmar’s business. 

It also accepted that the former employees had used contact information from the LinkedIn groups to send out promotional material about their new company. 

Granting the injunction to restrain the use of Whitmar’s confidential information, the ex-employees were also required to return confidential information and open up their computer systems for forensic inspection. 

So what action do you need to take? Here’s our top five tips in how to ensure your social media policies are kept up to date following this recent judgement: 

1. Assume that any LinkedIn account opened using an agreed company email address may subsequently belong to the company. LinkedIn accounts opened with a personal email will remain personal. Ensure this is clear to all employees.
2. All content on the profile, such as photographs and individual profile descriptions of an employee’s current role, should be cleared by the company prior to publication.
3. All job descriptions should clearly state that cultivating connections via LinkedIn is a part of business development for the company.
4. Employment contracts and social media policies need to specify that any LinkedIn activity by an employee, being conducted using LinkedIn on the employer’s behalf contribute to a database of proprietary trade information.
5. Employers need to be clear that compensation is being given for engaging in these business development activities as they take place during working hours.

And, finally, consider a more holistic approach to your social media activity. In light of this judgement, perhaps Twitter and Facebook have clearer personal and professional boundaries than once thought. 

Tales of the Unexpected

I recently lost my Gran.

After a long illness, at the age of 87 she finally succumbed to a rare brain tumor and passed away on the 1st August.

For two weeks now I have been adjusting to the loss. And to the rather strange feeling that, although we'd been expecting her death, it was still all too sudden. That I really wasn't prepared.

My Mum, however, who had been my Gran's carer for almost five years, had taken a different approach. Super organised, and mega-prepared, she handled everything with ease and grace. She knew it was coming. And in a bid to make the unavoidable easier, she'd prepared lists and taken action in advance. She'd even pre-paid the funeral!

Dealing with the unexpected is part of the day to day for any business owner. Change is the one constant you can expect in business. But even though it's expected, it can still have a catastrophic impact.

The key is to plan for what you know will happen so you can better deal with it when the time comes.

Know you're about to lose a client contract at the end of the year which will impact on cashflow and profitability? Then don't just sit there and wait for it to happen - start planning now: how will you get new customers to replace the lost revenues, speak to your bank and arrange an overdraft facility to smooth any short term cash flow difficulties.

Know that demand for a service or product is declining at a rapid rate? Then plan on how you are going to replace it. What's increasing in demand? Can you enhance the product to slow or reverse the decline?

My Gran was rarely fazed by any challenge. In her latter years she coped with complete loss of her sight without giving up her independence. In fact, just 4 weeks before her death she was toddling about her house, quite the thing. When my Grandfather died suddenly 30 years ago, she took over the running of his business: a butcher's shop.

But first she sat down with accountants and advisors and formed a plan of how it could be done.

She didn't even make her famous pancakes without following the recipe (a recipe which I've now fallen heir to - and the secret ingredient, which is NOT written down!).

The message is clear: want to survive life's ups and downs? Then you need a plan. No matter how small. It'll make all the difference.

This blog post is dedicated to my Gran:
Patricia Gavin Rattray, 1926 - 2013 RIP
PS: Nanny, I've got the message :-)

Change of Plan: Why Social Media Managers Need to be Flexible

For those businesses who are extremely active on social media platforms, pre-programming content is an absolute must, but there continues to be a disconnect between how some organisations treat social media communications, in comparison to other media, and it's a disconnect I will never fully understand. 

Take our local council, for example, who announced (via social media) at 4.30pm on Friday afternoon that an outdoor art event, due to take place on Saturday, had been cancelled. Just 16 hours later, they issued a reminder to the public not to forget about the art event on Saturday. Clearly a pre-programmed communication. 

They met with a barrage of confusion by followers of their facebook page, they then failed to respond to any of them or remove the inaccurate post. It's likely that no-one monitors social media at the weekend or, worse, no-one thinks social media's important enough to manage. 

There are far too numerous examples of this kind of thing happening. Businesses who tweeted promotional content while frantic families took to twitter to communicate with loved ones during the Boston Marathon bombings. Pre-planned tweets that encourage people to take walks in the countryside when storm force gales are circling the area.

How hard is it to know what you have planned? Seriously. 

So here's a few tips for those businesses who are not quite getting it. Pre-programming content is fine as long as you follow these four golden rules:

1. Be Aware. Know what content you have planned. We have records or every single tweet and facebook posts for every single client, we know what's going out and when - just like if we were broadcasting a TV advert..... it's the same difference. Comms professionals wouldn't sign off a TV or press advertising schedule without knowing the content, social media should be treated exactly the same. 
2. Monitor. Keep an eye on your social media - AT ALL TIMES - have more than one administrator on facebook, have mechanisms in place to alert you if (all of a sudden) there's a surge of activity on your account. 
3. Respond. Can't say this firmly enough. It's a two way dialogue on social media. TWO-way. Talk to your followers. It's OK to make a mistake - just apologise quickly, sincerely and move on. 
4. React. If circumstances change, pull the content. Sometimes it's just inappropriate to be going in with the hard sell. We removed all pre-planned content from social media for a client in the wake of the Boston Marathon Bombings out of respect for their community. Our actions may have gone unnoticed, but it felt like the right thing to do.

Dial 1 for the Sales Prevention Team

Apparently Dell have experienced an "unprecedented slump in sales". 

After attempting to purchase from them this week, I'm not terribly surprised. 

One would think that in this digital age, purchasing a PC would be as simple as buying sausages. In fact, you'd think that buying sausages would be the more difficult transaction. But, let me tell you, a recent purchase from Scottish online butcher Donald Russell fared significantly better than my attempts to purchase a computer from Dell. 

This week it took me around 56 hours, one internet transaction, 5 email exchanges and 6 phone calls to buy 2 PCs. It should have taken me about a minute. 

So what went wrong?

Well, with products carefully selected, my online order and payment details were submitted. Within seconds (and, I have to admit, it was so fast it was impressive) I had a call from my bank to verify two (not one) transactions from Dell. One for around £1000, the other for around 60p..... They (quite rightly) thought this was suspicious. 

I verified the transactions which added up to the full amount of the order, but my bank said I would need to contact Dell to request them to process payment. And then the fun began. 

Call 1: Describe situation, reassured that everything was fine, this happens every day (really?) and that payment would be processed within next 24 hours.

Wait........ 24 hours.........

Nothing. 

Call 2: Describe situation. Again. Get cut off. 

Call 3: Call back. Describe situation. Again. Get told that every single person who can help me in this multi-national company that employs tens of thousands of people are out to lunch. Yes, seriously. Could I call back later? It was 1pm. Requested, politely but firmly, that they call me back at 2pm once they'd finished eating. I was, after all, only trying to give them my money. 

Wait ......... No call .........

Call 4: Decided to take a different approach and asked to be put through to sales to purchase a computer. Success! Secured new order, payment put through, original internet order cancelled. All done. 

Or so I thought. 

Call 5: About 1 hour later......Panic call from Dell. I've submitted 2 identical orders!! What should they do?

Call 6: 10 minutes after the first call .....Second panic call from Dell. They are not sure which order to process....could I please call them back. 

Email from Dell: Stick an X in the box to tell us which order to process. 

I could tell you where I was tempted to stick my X, but it would be rude. So I won't. 

A seemingly simple purchase had turned into a saga of incompetency, incredulity (how can the entire multi-national company all be off at lunch at the same time??) and exasperation. 

Donald Russell, the butcher, managed to take my online order seamlessly in under one minute. It was delivered to me within 48 hours. Magic. Simple. 

So ask yourself, are you running a sales prevention business or are you trying to deliver. Because Dell certainly aren't. And that might easily explain their "unprecedented slump in sales". 

Get Out (And Don't Come Back)

City centres are in crisis. They are not what they used to be.

Or, actually, they are what they used to be.

It's those pesky consumers who've changed.

I recently heard news that an out of town retail park (very close to my home) will be getting a new Marks & Spencer Food Hall and Boots, both of which will be open in just a few months time.

As someone who does their weekly shop at M&S I was, naturally, delighted. No need for me to go into town every week now. This will ultimately save me time. And further change my shopping habits. Forever.

Good news is worth spreading, so I've told others. It has been met with delight and, in some cases, ecstatic glee.

"Thank God for that. I won't ever need to go into town!" they've exclaimed.

Surprised by the veracity of their response to this, seemingly everyday, news (I mean, we're being told that retail is dying, it's the end of retail as we know it, and it is, after all, just another shop) I've dug a little deeper.

Turns out there are two factors that feature in their gleeful reasoning of why this "out of town" retail model works best for them:

1. Convenience
2. Parking

How simple. How interesting.

Have our city centres become inconvenient? Yes, I suppose you could say that. It takes ages to get into town and, once you get there, traffic lights, traffic delays, one way systems and pedestrianized areas hamper progress at every stage.

And how's parking? Well, aside from an additional expense, it's not easy. Even more than that, it can be downright stressful. Queues to get into car parks, queues to get out, people nicking spaces right out from under you, paying up front, tickets running out when you're in the middle of having a coffee, having to carry coins to pay (to be fair, not in every city, but in Perth, where I live, you'll find it challenging to park if you don't carry a trusty bundle of 10 pence pieces with you everywhere you go). It all adds up to one big mega hassle.

And who needs hassle, right?

So bin Mary Portas' "save the high street" report, and forget twiddling around the edges, if local councils really want to save the high street, they need to start looking at making it easier to get in and out of the city centre, and where to (conveniently) put all the vehicles when they are there. Heck, now here's a radical thought, they could even make parking free......

Because, you see, the problem is not that consumers aren't spending money (they are), it's just they are spending them in places they can get to easily and get parked for free.

The city centre is not it.

You can get it on the Internet

Save our High Street! High Street in Crisis! Shop Local!

These are all headlines and calls to actions we've seen in recent years.

As the recession has bitten, more and more High Street retailers have gone to the wall. Some quietly shutting their doors, others exits marked by the national media and a mourning customer base, many of whom blame them for hefty prices and failing to innovate. 

So, being the good little consumer I am, I have started to really heed these calls to action. 

I don't want all those fabby little independent shops to disappear. 

I've started to shop locally more often. 

And the results have, I admit, been slightly patchy and, in some cases, downright disappointing. 

Just a couple of weeks ago I ran out of my regular hair styling product for a well known professional brand. You can't buy in Tesco, or Boots, this brand is only stocked in professional salons. But with over 120 hair salons to choose from in Perth, I should be spoilt for choice, right?

Not so. After visiting several, it turns out only one salon stocks this brand. 

After going (out of my way) to go to this salon, their display of 2-3 products in this retail line did not fill me with hope. 

After enquiring, I was (helpfully) told I could "get it on the internet". 

So I did. And it was delivered to me within 48 hours. 

So come on High Street, here's my call to action for you: Get Real and Wise Up. 

Consumers KNOW they can get it on the internet. 

If they walk into your store, it's because they have made the effort to buy local. And please don't think it's not an effort to support you. From the comfort of my armchair I can order my product and, if I like, stay there for the 48 hours until it's delivered. To shop with you I have to get up off my armchair, get into my car, drive into town, park, pay for the parking, walk to your store and, regrettably, cover up my irritation when (having made all that extra effort) your response is that I can get it on the internet. How foolish am I?

But the truth is I will always be able to get the products I want on the internet. But you, on the other hand, will not be able to find your jobs on the internet if you continue to keep up that approach. 

When is a Service not worth £1.80?

£1.80

It's the price of a coffee. A Sunday newspaper. If you're lucky, a cake. 

A lot of value can go into £1.80. A lot of pleasure can be derived from £1.80.

In many respects it's a trivial amount. It's not going to pay your mortgage. It's not going to fuel your car. 

But it might brighten your day, widen your knowledge and understanding of international affairs, or perk you up after work. 

So when would a service not be worth £1.80?

How about when you book tickets to the local cinema online, only to have to queue for 15 minutes to pick them up when you arrive, making you late for the film, disgruntled and frustrated that you planned ahead?

How about when you point out the folly of this, clearly ridiculous, process to the staff and are met with the response that booking online enabled me to get the seats I wanted? 

Yes. I truly love sitting right at the back, where the lights never go out so it spoils the full enjoyment of the film. They were the only two seats left in the luxury section. There were, however, plenty of cheap seats available on the night. So his counter argument about securing a seat was, quite frankly, moot. 

So too was his argument about buying online minimises the queue for the staff. 

Ummmmm. Having just queued for 15 minutes, I beg to differ. 

So the next time you create a service that commands an additional fee, give some thought as to whether you are also adding in additional value. 

Expectations are attached to everything you sell. 

Even if it is just for £1.80. 

Next time, I'll just stand in the queue. I'll be no worse off. 

Crime and Punishment

I was always told that one of the advantages of studying an undergraduate arts degree at a Scottish university was the sheer breadth of education you can achieve. So I'm glad to say that, during my undergraduate years, I took some intellectual detours from the Shakespeare and Chaucer courses that normally comprise a degree in English Literature to expand my horizons and delve into the depths of several off topic subjects including (unsuccessfully) studying Spanish, (very successfully) completing two years of an accounts degree and (more interestingly) a brief spell studying criminal law. 

So, while not quite rivaling Perry Mason in my depth of knowledge, I do have a fairly good grasp of what constitutes criminal behaviour. 

Which brings me to the recent case of Lord McAlpine versus the Member Population of Twitter (or at least some of them). 

Debates have been raging all week, online, on air and offline. Some people seem to think this is a matter for the freedom of speech zealots. Lord McAlpine has been quite clear: he's been falsely accused of criminal activity, his reputation and character sullied, and he intends to pursue all the individuals who have participated in this gang defamation of his, otherwise exemplary, good character. 

What many Twitter users seem to be struggling to grasp is that they are (wittingly or unwittingly) guilty of committing a crime. 

Twitter, as a medium, is a broadcasting platform. You don't choose your followers, they choose you. The only control you have, as the owner of a Twitter account, is whether or not to broadcast and you have ultimate editorial responsibility for the content of that which you do choose to broadcast. 

This means that, in law, you have exactly the same responsibilities as the (recently much maligned) BBC when it comes to broadcasting and spreading rumour, conjecture and speculation. 

The fact that, on this sorry occasion, the BBC was actually the source and catalyst for the rumour, conjecture and speculation just goes to show how much trust the British public have in their national broadcaster. That they have already settled matters with Lord McAlpine, swiftly and without resistance, says much for their sense of responsibility and corporate citizenship and is to be commended. 

As for the thousands of other "perpetrators" who are (hopefully) now looking at their preferred broadcasting platform with a new sense of awe and responsibility, they can only hope that Lord McAlpine will be merciful in his pursuit of justice. 

But the lesson must be learned: freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and if you act irresponsibly, whether it's in print, online or in person, you must and will pay the price. That price may even be with your own freedom, if it's deemed to be a serious enough crime. 

This is not cyber-bullying. We're not in the playground now. This is serious stuff. And it's long overdue in being brought to the surface for discussion. It's regrettable that its victim is a frail 70 year old man, who has had to bear the brunt of such terrible accusations in order for it to be brought into the national consciousness. Imagine if it was your Grandfather. How would you feel then?

For all the law abiding citizens of Twitter who are wondering whether their preferred social media platform is now a fast track passport to an already crowded prison system, as in life, a wee bit of common sense goes a long way:  if you would not be prepared to put the content of your tweet in full page advert in a national newspaper, step away from the keyboard and go and make yourself a cup of tea instead. 

Remembering

Human beings are used to being humbled.

Corporations not so much so.

And so it was, just a few minutes before the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, an installation team arrived at my door from the doomed British retailer Comet to install my new tumble dryer.

A tumble dryer which I ordered online literally 4 hours before I heard on Twitter that the retailer was due to go into administration.

A tumble dryer which I thought I might never get.

A tumble dryer which I thought I might never get installed, even on the off chance I did eventually get it delivered.

A tumble dryer which, in the scheme of things, is of little consequence when 6500 people are facing certain redundancy just 5 weeks before Christmas.

These two men, who fully expect to be out of a job forever at some unknown point next week, stood in my kitchen at 11am and faithfully observed a 2 minute silence in remembrance of the fallen.

I hope, at their eleventh hour, that someone will also remember them.

Get In, Get Rich, Get Out

Groupon's Share Price Performance Over Last 9 Months

The entrepreneurial mantras are crisp and clear.

Cash is King.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Sometimes the name of the game in business is to get in, get rich and get out.

Some entrepreneurs need to realise that they are not always building a long term, sustainable business. That their brainchild is simply a product of its times. And it has a short shelf life. A bit like cheese.

But knowing when to get out is what separates the successful serial entrepreneurs from their counterpart failures.

That's why I will always have the greatest respect for Julie Meyer who sold the two year old First Tuesday global technology investment network for a cool $33million. It wasn't worth that just 12 months later but, as an entrepreneur, she did her job and made the best deal. No doubt.

That's why I worry for Groupon's founder Andrew Mason. He may have missed his moment. Google offered him $6billion for the global network of daily deal sites a couple of years ago. A good deal by any standards.

Perhaps Andrew believed his deal had been discounted? Either way, it was rejected and now his company is worth less than a third of that price.

How ironic, then, is it that Andrew delivered a lecture at Stanford University in 2010 where he gave students 6 tips on how to get super rich.

Among his top tips are:

"You’re building a tool, not a piece of art. Don’t get blinded by vision."

and  "Quit now. Sometimes you have to let an idea go."
Maybe time he listened to his own advice?

Before it's too late.

Pink Pens and PR

Marketing gaffes are, regrettably, ten a penny. 

For every marketer who's had a ground breaking, money making idea, there are many, many more who've taken their ideas to market and, quite simply, tanked. 

So it really shouldn't come as a surprise when a giant in the world of commerce also gets it wrong. The only difference is the sheer scale of their mistake. 

And so it has come to pass that BIC have come under fire for the launch of their range of pens "for girls". 

Pastel pink and prettily pointed, these deliciously girly biros have caused a storm on Amazon, with women across the world using their modern keyboard skills to brandish satirical commentary at the brand for their patronising attempt to create an arbitrary target market for pastel pens. 

Their commentary, fuelled by social media activity, has spread the word across the world leaving the company looking archaic and out of touch by not responding, nor having the social media avenues to enable them to do so. Imagine not having a Twitter account. Tsk. 

The pen may be mightier than the sword but social media is just so much better. 

Their radio silence on the subject has attracted criticism from public relations professionals who feel that BIC could have fought back with some biting wit which would have made light of the situation and enabled them to triumph against this adversity. 

That said, I wouldn't be advising the client to respond "tongue in cheek" when the premise of the criticism is that brand has simply behaved in a most blatantly sexist manner. But then, I'm a girl.

A female writer and strategist at Advertising Age suggests that the company shouldn't make "stupid products" - but I'd argue there's nothing inherently wrong with the pen, it's the marketing that's totally wrong. In every sense of the word. Perhaps the advice should really be "Don't use marketing to patronise your customers"?

Customers now have a voice. A powerful voice. It's called social media. Word of mouth has never been so important. Ever. And marketers need to bear that in mind with every campaign they run. It's no longer enough to test the product, we need to test the gut reaction too. Pink pens for girls? Sure, it's been done before. We've just never had to spell it out for them......

Produce pastel pens, by all means, just don't label them for girls. We're more than capable of picking the pink pen all by ourselves, we don't need sexist, patronising packaging to help. 

BIC either needs to say they are sorry quickly or launch an equivalent range of pens in fake camouflage or with dinosaurs all over them labelled "For Him" to level the playing field. 

But I bet they wouldn't ever consider doing anything that silly......

The Trick is to Keep Breathing

This month and year is special for me. It's August 2012. 

It's exactly 10 years since I had that eureka moment. 10 whole years since the onset of an entrepreneurial seizure. 10 years since I stormed into Business Gateway, promptly telling them that their best advice may be that it takes months of research before you can start a business, but that I had precisely two weeks so if they wouldn't mind pointing me to the shortcuts, I'd be most grateful. 

10 Years. 

It's quite something. 85% of small businesses fail in their first year. Less than 50% of the businesses that remain survive the next 10 years. 

So what's the secret to surviving in business? Is there even a secret?

I've spent a bit of time reflecting this month, as you can imagine and I've come to the conclusion that, when it comes to running a business, it's best summed up by the slightly tatty bit of paper I have blu-tacked to my desk. On it a Chinese proverb:

"To open a business is easy, to keep it open is an art."

It's true. 

Every day I get up and paint my world. Every day the landscape changes. 

Some days the paint is thicker than others. Sometimes it's more colourful. Other days, like any artist, I lack inspiration. And, on really great days, I create masterpieces. 

It's up. It's down. It's often round in circles, two steps back, one step forward. 

But the one thing I can honestly say about my job: It's never, ever dull.

I used to struggle with the pace of change. To waste energy panicking about future challenges (that I didn't yet have). Figuring I could avoid them or resolve them before they became a reality. 

Now I know that's there's very little point in wasting that energy. The challenges will come daily, whether I plan for them or not. 

For those just starting out on this journey, and for those just a little way down the road, I'd like to pass on this little piece of wisdom for success in business, borrowed partly from the iconic Scottish writer Janice Galloway, with practical assistance in the art by long time personal mentor  Rebecca Bonnington:

The trick is to keep breathing.

When every day brings its own (often unpredictable) challenges, sometimes you just need to stand back, take and deep breath. 

In and out. Running a business is an absorbing job, but if you're going to take on the world, battling with daily (sometimes apparently insurmountable) challenges, breathing slowly will help you focus. Will keep you calm, centred and effective. 

Rebecca once made me breathe in and out ten times, counting to 10 with each exhalation. On my first attempt I managed to get to 3 without getting distracted. 

Ten years later: It's a perfect 10. 

Poison Apple or Seed of Innovation?

Less than 24 hours have passed since the US courts issued a verdict in the epic Apple vs Samsung intellectual property battle. 

"Make your own phones" was the closing plea of Apple's legal team to the Samsung side. And the jury, it seems, agreed with them. 

Pundits around the world are already ganging up on the decision, citing how bad the ruling will be for marketplace competition, not least for Samsung who've been ordered to pay Apple around $1billion dollars in compensation. Let's not even mention that fact that Samsung now faces having its entire core product line banished from existence altogether, in America at least. 

This court case has opened up some serious questions about capitalism and how or what is deemed acceptable behaviour in the pursuit of profit. Copying, it would seem, is not. 

But isn't copying the natural way of the capitalist world? Aren't High Street fashions just watered down, plagiarised versions of their catwalk counterparts? Aren't own brand supermarket cornflakes just a less fancily packaged version of their branded competitors? And don't most cafes and restaurants serve pretty much the same food and drink, albeit served up in slightly different dishes and cups?

In fact, when it comes to "innovation" I'd estimate that the vast majority of organisations would be hard pushed to claim that 100% of their product or service line is entirely of their own exclusive thinking. In fact most of them would be struggling to claim that even 10% of their product or service line is unique. 

One of the core principles of developing an effective business strategy is looking at the competitive market place. Call it PEST, SWOT, whatever you like, but it's impossible to compete unless you seriously (and thoroughly) look at what the competition are doing. And, naturally, part of your strategic response will be to replicate, develop or simply copy and offer it to your customers too. 

Are we really prepared to believe that the executives and technicians at Apple are so special that they've never looked at what the competition are doing? Ever?

But that's exactly what this decision would have us believe. Apple are the absolute exception to this rule. And they are, indeed, exceptional. Their products are utterly innovative. There's no denying that. 

But not based on anything else, ever? Really?

Samsung's products also have their own ingenuity. Exceptional in their own way. Have they borrowed some of Apple's groundbreaking technology? Undoubtedly. One of the key documents in the case cited how Samsung had concluded that to compete in the smartphone marketplace, being more like the Apple iPhone would be a must. 

And here's where the legal argument diverges from the commercial. 

In the pursuit of profit, Apple is deservedly the winner. They invested the time, developed the technology, legally protected their ideas and deserve to profit (much more handsomely than they already do) from their innovations and their subsequent commercialisation. 

Strategically, they've played it by the book. Knowledge and technology was their asset, and they've protected it and defended it to the hilt. 

I think, therefore I am. Descartes couldn't have said it better himself. 

But when it comes to thinking, and in this case, pursuing or developing knowledge, Samsung have taken the seed of Apple's innovation and have advanced it further still, enhancing the experience, and winning the consumer confidence in their product line. Let's not forget that Samsung smartphones outsold Apple iPhones this year, 40million to 32million making them 25% more popular. 

Their starting point was Apple, their end point was (arguably) better. 

And surely that's what competition's about, after all? If not, why are we bothering with capitalism at all? And what are we really defending?