« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »
Great quote from Roy Masters in the smh on Sunday following the Sydney Swans victory in the AFL Grand Final, and the reaction of all the Sydney-siders who jump on whatever bandwagon is trundling along the best:
"In sporting terms, Sydney is the city of the one-night stand; Melbourne the home of the painfully durable marriage."
Couldn't have put it better myself.
"Small business is a complex caper made all the more complex by clients who don't pay."
Yep sure is. So what to do when when of your customers doesn't pay. In the olden days you might think about using a Debt Collection service, or maybe sending a member of Hell's Angels around (who is usually the neighbour of a cousin of a friend), but not anymore. Now we can use the web to try and shame them into action.
It is an idea that stems from consumer-gripe sites like notgoodenough.org as well as countless blogs and discussion boards (try googling "company x" sucks) that let people vent their spleen over such things like crappy service or faulty products (remember hunterholdensucks.com?).
How the successful these on-line campaigns are at damaging the reputations of a company is difficult to judge. Sometimes all hell breaks loose; just ask the Kryponite bike lock folks. Sometimes they are just screaming rants. And how much notice do we take of negative feedback once we have decided to buy something anyway?
So it will be interesting to see whether Wisegirls is affected by Brett DeHoedt's (Media Mega Star and owner of Melbourne PR Company Hootville Communications) campaign to get them to cough up the $5857 dollars they owe him. He has a page titled "People who owe Hootville Money" where he lists clients who owe him for his services. A Shame File.
It's a great idea, classic Cluetrain stuff. Brett is using the Internet to get people talking about Wisegirls. And the news is bad. But why will it work for Brett?
Check out his site.. It's not like some on-line corporate glossy brochure shtick, it is a real site, run by real people using a real human voice. It is less formal, less professional (you know what I mean Brett!) and less anonymous that many PR company sites (it is almost as cool as Huh Corp's). It is written for us, not him. And that is why this will really hurt Wisegirls, it is real.
People will believe Brett.
Plus, non paying shonks like Danielle Paruit deserve to be shamed (And not just because their website is just like every other travel website; ie a bland on-line brochure).
I'd get a bank cheque written tomorrow Danielle...
*UPDATE 28/09:*
Here is an email Danielle fired off to Brett:
Dear Brett,
"I note that you have updated your site in relation to me and Wisegirls and removed the text that was clearly abusive, including the threat of stalking me. I suspect that my fax to your solicitor dated 22 September might have had something to do with it.
I also note your invitation ( as from 23 Sep) for my comments - also a new initiative. I don't believe that this type of forum is neither appropriate nor professional for any dispute resolutions. As you know I have written to your solicitor, and am now waiting from information from you, to progress this matter.
I would appreciate the entire and unedited contents of this email being posted on your website.
Regards, Danielle"
Hmm, as Brett noted there is a paradox in Danielle's wants: Stop using the internet to air all this stuff, but make sure you publish what I have to say, in it's unedited entirety. Whatever.
You can follow the saga via the link above. It promises to get better, if Brett's parting words; "(It's) time to ramp up the campaign" are anything to go by.
As petrol prices continue to hover around unprecedented prices her ein Australia (around $1.30), it was only a matter of time before the "Don't Buy Petrol Day" email landed in my inbox. I am sure you've seen it, and if you are like me just tossed it in your recycle bin. The author of the email reckons that if we protest against high fuel prices by not buying petrol for a whole day we will cause great harm to the mammoth big oil companies, to the tune of billions of dollars apparently. The email even got some support from an insert in yesterdays Herald Sun.
I suppose a bit of activism is fine, but these types of things are just dumb. While the oil giants definitely like to make big fat profits, the current oil situation has more to it than simple profiteering.
In Australia we pay a more than 30% per 'gallon' of
petrol than in the US, and most of what we pay is actually government taxes
and even the petrol station owner gets a skinny slice of any fuel
"profits". So it would seem as though this protest is misdirected at best. But further to that, here is a (no doubt) partial list of totally idiotic mistakes in these emails (this one is US based) that Freakonomist Steve Levitt prepared:
1) If nobody buys petrol on any give day, but everybody drives the same amount, then it just means that we either had to buy more petrol in anticipation of not buying any on that day, or that we will buy more a few days later. So even if you believed this would take a $4.6 billion dollar bite out of the oil companies that day, consumers would hand it right back over. If this was "No Starbucks coffee day" it might have some chance of mattering, because people buy and drink Starbucks coffee the same day, so a foregone cup of coffee today may never be consumed. But this is not true of petrol, especially if no one is being asked to reduce petrol consumption. All you will get is longer lines at the pump the day after.
2) A one day total boycott of gas would not reduce oil company bottom lines by anything like $4.6 billion, even if it was accompanied by a one day moratorium on all petrol use. Americans consume about 9 million barrels of gas a day. There are about 42 gallons in a barrel, so that equals 378 million gallons of petrol sold a day in United States, or about one gallon per person. Toss in another 10% for Canada. At $3 a gallon, that is about $1.2 billion in revenues. Profit as a share of revenues in this industry is probably 5% or less, so the bottom line impact is a max of $60 million...about 1/100th of the stated number. And from point (1) above, even this is a gross exaggeration of the true impact.
3) One day of no purchasing of petrol would certainly not cause the oil industry to choke on their stockpiles. Petrol inventories in the US are typically about 200 million barrels, but right now they are on the low side -- a big part of the reason why gas prices are high. 9 million extra barrels would create no problems whatsoever for stockpiles.
Great Analysis.
So, for those of you who think such an idea will work, dream on.
I am starting to like Malcolm Turnbull. Well sort of anyway. No doubting that he is an aggressive and arrogant bloke who's extreme wealth (he is a BRW Rich Lister)makes sure his feet never touch the same earth that you and I walk on. But this arrogance also means that he is not scared to go out on a limb and put forward his ideas.
Last week we had his 274 Tax Reform Ideas. Which got up a few people, including Federal Treasurer Peter Costello
And this weeks "Idea of the Week" is to give all citizens a permanent email address - that could
look something like firstname.surname.dateofbirth@australia.org.au and would allow the
government, banks and super funds to keep in contact with people forever . It could initially
be voluntary and aimed at younger, techno-savvy Australians, and would make it easier for the government to communicate with the public, while at the same time slashing the government's mail-out costs.
"Basically governments have enormous difficulties in communicating," Turnbull told Crikey "You talk about the cost of communicating with the public with ministers and they just roll their eyes," he said, although he wouldn't offer up an estimate of how much money his scheme could save the government.
So How serious is Turnbull about the idea? "I'm not suggesting that it's going to
be government policy next week, or even next year, but it is an interesting idea," Turnbull said. "I think that the novelty of the concept is that it's unique and it's permanent."
An interesting idea. Sure is. But, like his Tax Ideas, this one is being quickly ridiculed. According to Irene Graham, Executive Director of internet group Electronic Frontiers Australia, a scheme like Turnbull's could open up sensitive information like bank account info, superannuation and employment stats to anyone that wanted to know.
"Ridiculous, that's the only word to describe it," Graham told Crikey.
On the face of it, this does seem a like a good, if not impractical idea. Being assigned a permanent email address does not mean people will read mail. Especially once it becomes full of government spam. And let's not kid ourselves, The Government will need to send paper correspondence either to ensure the person receives it, or just cause they want to. Much in the same way we all still send letters to people. Not to mention that fact the not everbody has an email address or access to a computer.
But despite all of that, isn't is kinda refreshing to see someone from one of our mainstream political parties putting some different idea's out and about. And we need to remember that he isn't putting this forwards as some kind of policy idea, it is just an idea.
Just like his tax ideas, it is different, and deserves a bit of discussion and debate.
Compare this type of response to that in the US. It is from John Pratt in the comments section of Margo Kingston's Webdiary:
"As a survivor of Cyclone Tracy I couldn't help but compare the botched evacuation of New Orleans to that of Darwin. The evacuation of Darwin happened over the Christmas period; it was a credit to the Australian armed forces, emergency services and the Whitlam government, their rapid response and expertise saved many lives.
At 10.20 PM on the 25 of December 1974 {only 14 hours after the devastating winds of Tracy had stopped.} Major General Stretton arrived to take command. In the first two days 10,000 people had been evacuated in the following days a further 25,000 were evacuated. It was an orderly evacuation; the sick injured and elderly first, followed by the women and children. The airport was cleared of debris and made operational. One of the first planes to arrive carried 184 police to help the overwhelmed local police. Medical teams arrived, clean up teams arrived. On the 26 December, 48 hours after the cyclone, seven naval ships left Sydney, loaded with supplies and sailors recalled from leave.
On the ground in Darwin stores opened their doors, food and drink was given to anyone who needed… no need to loot it was given away! People were the first priority not property.
The survivors pulled together, pooled resources and helped to protect the weak."
Quite a contrast.
(via Crikey)
I found this post over at Oligopoly watch interesting for reasons different to Steve (the author):
"In business writing, the problem of how to write about a company's actions and intentions leads to shortcut expressions that don't represent the truth. Let me illustrate with a number of random quotes off the Web, often from business magazines or business sections of newspapers:
- "The company wanted to cross sell products across business unit product lines"
- "What it all comes down to is that Microsoft intends to dominate every market that it contacts."
- "Apple doesn't want music consumers to have freedom of portability."
- "At the simplest level, he says, it is because GE wants to be known as a good company,"
- "Cargill would like to control the trade in food and to make larger profits by buying cheaply from farmers."
- "Looking at this acquisition on the surface, IBM has
always wanted a piece of the retail market."- "Known for its thriftiness, Disney hates being made to look like a typical money-burning Hollywood studio."
In all of these quotes, companies are presented as having wills of their own. It's a shorthand, of course, pointing at the management at companies cited. We all understand that, or do we?
I don't think we do understand it, and I think that it goes further than just being shorthand. And I reckon that is just the way big companies like it.
It is common to give companies personal traits, particularly big companies. As consumers we hate it because it gives the people in the business something to hide behind, and the managers hiding behind it love it for the same reason.
But if we talk about the company rather than a person, or people, it lowers the chances we have of actually talking to someone real about anything of importance. Or being pissed off by someone real, or even being delighted by someone real.
It's a bit like being told "It's Telstra's policy to do x." You can't actually speak to someone who owns the policy, it just belongs to "Telstra". Or "We can't do that." Who's the "we", exactly? The "we" is of course the company, who isn't really anyone. At least anyone who is generally willing to put their hand up.
"Holden wants to reduce costs, so it is sacking 1500 staff." No it isn't. Someone, somewhere at Holden who made the decison to cut costs by sacking people is. But because we don't always know who that person is, he/she is largely shielded from some of the backlash. And I bet that is the way they like it.
Wake up. We want to deal with people. We want to have conversations with real people. Why won't they let us? What are they hiding from?
Change is good
