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?