shannonsays.com

Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go

I dunno if it is the end of daylight savings, the fact that it is getting colder in the mornings, or maybe just because I have been feeling crap (thanks TG) for the last few days, but I haven't been launching out of bed in the morning like I usually do, and have found myself pressing the snooze button at least twice before rolling out from beneath the doona.

Maybe I need an alarm clock, that, I dunno, rolls off the bedside table and hides from me so that I have to get up out of bed to shut it up.  No, really!

Clocky is, quite simply, for people who have trouble waking up. When the alarm clock goes off and the snooze button is pressed, Clocky will roll off the bedside table and wheel away, bumping mindlessly into objects on the floor until it eventually finds a spot to rest. Minutes later, when the alarm sounds again, the sleeper must get up out of bed and search for Clocky. This ensures that the person is fully awake before turning it off. Small wheels that are concealed by Clocky's shag enable it to move and reposition itself, and an internal processor helps it find a new hiding spot every day.

Sure it's a crap name, and might look like a bit of ugly roadkill sitting on your bedside table (particularly after you've had to hunt it down at 5am), but is this not the neatest, if not most devious, alarm clock ever?

More on the Water Thing

OK, so I got a bit upset about Victoria's permanent water restrictions....

But a piece by Andrew Leigh (Imagining Australia) in the SMH last week got me thinking about the whole manage supply or demand thing when it comes to water:

There is only one reason for such restrictions: the price of water is too low. Plenty of other goods in society are both important and scarce.

Almost every household consumes bread, milk and electricity daily, but without government restrictions on when and how they can be used. The trick with bread, milk and electricity is that the people who supply them charge a price that reflects the cost of production.

Presumably because it fears political backlash, governments prefer to set a price for water that is too low, and then employs a plethora of regulations to keep consumption down.

A better approach would be to raise the price of water, and let individuals choose precisely how they want to save on consumption.

Now that makes sense.  And so simple, so obvious.

Think about it.  If they manage to set the right price for water, it  will force us- consumers- to decide how best to conserve water, let us decide us when we want to use water as well as how we choose to use it, and as Andrew points out, it could also create incentives for suppliers to find new ways of increasing the amount of water available.

In the long run, it just might be the best way to manage Australia's scarce water resources, particularly since there is no rush to develop new supply solutions.

Who's to blame for Australia's "Skill Crisis"

Lots of people are discussing Australia's skills "crisis", capacity constraints, the blockages to economic growth caused by the lack of a skilled workforce and the need to boost productivity.  But who's to blame for all of this?

I was talking to someone on Thursday who thought the answer was pretty clear; "the Howard Government."   He is not alone, lots of people are  blaming the Government (sub req) and a lack of foresight:

"Since at least 1999, Australian governments, state and Commonwealth, have been aware of widespread shortages in key areas. Between 1993 and 2002 there was an overall 16 per cent decline in the training rate in the metals, building, construction, vehicle and electrical areas compared with the previous decade. This means that our national training effort has not been sufficient to replace and maintain the level of skilled workers in these vital sectors of the national economy."

This is fair enough too, PM Howard must shoulder some of the blame, and his lame defence on the ABC's Insiders doesn't help matters;

"We do have some skills shortages - I identified that, the Government identified that months ago," he said.

"It is not as if this has crept up on us and it is only something we have become aware of in the last few weeks.

"We were on the case of skill shortages months ago."

Months ago?  Oh, that's good then.  At least he is on top of it!

Of course that is ridiculous; he sounds a bit like an innocent bystander who is completely surprised by what has happened; a rabbit stunned by headlights.  It is fair to ask how come we have only just realised that we are running out of a skilled workforce?

But is it entirely the Governments fault?

For the past fourteen years we have been living in rays of fin economic sunshine; we have consistently produced budget surpluses on both state and federal levels, to the point where our Governments are flush with cash.  But what have they spent it on?  Not much.  Certainly not any major skills-encouraging infrastructure projects that's for sure.  We have demanded that our Governments produce surpluses.  It's almost as if we are happy for them to keep our money in the bank rather than spending it.  Why?  Why, when debt has been so cheap have we been so scared to go into deficit?  Too scared to borrow to build roads, dams or undertake any other major project that encourages people to learn new skills?

Because we'd vote out a Government that did to us, that's why.

I also think that Australia's corporate leaders should tread carefully when it comes to pointing the finger at the Government, because they aren't entirely guilt free in all of this either.

Listed Australian companies have just produced their biggest profit margins since the heady days of the late 1980's; but none of them seem to understand that sustainable earnings means investing on a range of activities (like training and R&D) that take a while to kick into the bottom line.  I read recently that fewer that 25% of Australian companies provide training that leads to qualifications. 

Take BHP Billiton for example.  They would rather spend $9billion to take over WMC and it's "ready to go" Olympic Dam mine, rather than spend even half of that employing some people and doing some of it's own exploration.  That isn't the Government's fault.  Nor is the fact that WMC seems to think that increasing its apprentice numbers from 35 last year to 45 this year makes it a good corporate citizen.  For a mining giant the size of WMC  (which will make in excess of $1billion this year) to only employ 45 apprentices is pathetic.

So whilst the Government needs to do its bit the re-equip our workforce with in demand skills, Big Business and Big Bosses with even Bigger salaries need to do their bit as well.

Da Vinci invincible

Read into this what you will, but this mornings Herald Sun reports that Sales for The Da Vinci Code rose ahead of Easter, despite Vatican condemnation.

The bestselling novel, which claims- amongst other things- that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene, had a 65% sales lift in the lead-up to the annivesary of the crucifixion.

Religion is definately "in"....

Enjoying These...

New Blogs I have been enjoying during the last few weeks:

• All Marketers Are Liars; a new blog published by Seth Godin to accompany his new book (of the same name).  He talks about all the "lies" that are going on around us.
• Bootstrapper Notes; "Reality TV meets Blogging" a blow by blow tale of Burke Jones' budding new ecommece business.
• Fight The Bull; From the authors of Why Business People Speak Like Idiots.

Leadfoot Lightfoot: WANTED in the US

According to Crikey ,it seems that Australia's gun-toting wild frontiersman of the West, Ross Lightfoot, is conquering new frontiers: our international man of intrigue is being adopted as the latest right-wing poster boy by conservative American bloggers.

It all started with a lurid front page splashes last week featuring an absurd photo of Australian Senator Ross Lightfoot posing in Iraq with a couple of Kurdish soldiers and brandishing an AK-47 assult rifle.  Lightfoot had foolishly gloated to a newpaper reporter that he used the tax-payer funded trip to make a secret exchange of $25000 (which he smuggled in by stashing in is his coat lining) from Australian company Woodside Petroleum.  The cash was to be used to build a Kurdish Hospital.  Ever the international diplomat....

Not surprisingly, as soon as details of his "boys own adventure" was out, Senator Lightfoot quickly u-turned.  He denied the claims made agaisnt him and said he knew nothing of the cash exchange...

Lightfoot is known as a bit of weirdo, and has long been a source of embarresment for conservatives here in Australia, and most of us simply wish that this crazy cowboy would just go away.  Far away.  Maybe he would find some fans amongst the straw-chewin', Fox News-watchin', bourbon sippin', God fearin' right-wing fanatics in the deep South USA?

Blogger Clayton Cramer wants seems to be throwing out the welcome mat, asking: "Why Don't We Have Senators Like This?" Now that's high praise for the man whose cash-carrying, gun-wielding – ahem - “diplomacy” brought him headlines from Turkey to Townsville last week.

"Australian Senator Ross Lightfoot is in a bit of trouble for running around Iraq with an AK-47 and smuggling cash to the Kurds," Cramer reports. "Lightfoot represents Western Australia, which is the Australian equivalent of Texas, but it's still nice to see that the cowboy spirit is alive and well even in boring places like Canberra."

You can also find these comments on a blog by someone called WC Varones -- who describes himself as "a radical libertarian vegetarian" -- "Can you picture Ted Kennedy running around Iraq with an AK-47?" asks the radical vegetable. "OK, maybe sitting at a bar in the Green Zone with an AK-47? Nah, still doesn't work." Check it all out here.

"Power-Pathic" Managers

Am I the only one who finds it odd that people conduct research that produces the most obvious of conclusions?  Take this from today's Age:

"One in 10 Australian managers are deceitful, cold-hearted manipulators bent on attaining power for its own sake, new research shows.

Devoid of empathy, they are reckless and leave in their wake a trail of wrecked careers, corporate destruction, distress and a legacy of fear.

A psychotherapist with the consultancy Banks Management Group, Glyn Brokensha, has coined the term "power-pathic" to describe such managers, to differentiate them from criminal psychopaths.

Dr Brokensha said power-paths thrive in businesses with autocratic management cultures. In such environments power-paths, who are typically articulate, charming and confident, can quickly curry favour with their peers and superiors, while causing misery for the staff who report to them.

"You'll get senior management say, 'So-and-so is really good, he has cleared out all the dead wood, all the non-performers', and then find three years later that the dead wood has not been cleared out, he has cleared out anybody who knew what he was, anyone who opposed him," he said.

"He is actually a glib non-performer himself."

Dr Brokensha said power-paths typically introduced meaningless reforms and endless reviews to cover up for the fact that they achieve very little.

"They have no real goals, and what goals they do have are for themselves, not the institution they work for," he said.

Dr Brokensha said it was vital that companies win the regard and trust of their junior employees if they were to quickly detect power-pathic managers and prevent expensive and long-term damage. "Ask the little people in organisations and the people in service roles. Look for the tell-tale pattern of a massive gulf between the good person you think the power-path is and the reality provided by employee feedback."

Dr Brokensha said his estimate of the number of power-paths was based on thousands of interviews he had done over 25 years."

Thanks Dr Bokensha.  And no shit.  I could have told you that one in ten managers behaves in such wicked extremes and not wasted 25 years trying to work it out.

But I think it is worth remembering that managers by definition will always be- in some way or another- a "power-path", and that is how they become managers in the first place.  You (generally) need to be strong-willed, charming, confident and decisive to be a manager, to set your agenda and to set out about making it a reality.  And it is no surprise that some take this behaviour to autocratic monster extremes.  And as a result a poor managerss.  Just like it would be no surprise that some drift off into a laisse-faire party style, and are equally poor as managers.

At least you attempted to avoid confusing bad managers with criminal psychopaths.

The "Walmart-isation" of Australian Supermarkets

uYesterday I talked about Chris Corrigans arrival of an airline dupololist, and no doubt he'll make a stack of cash out of controlling most of Australia's transport systems (now that he controls the Virgin Blue airline).  But, in other "duopoly news"; Australia's two biggest retailers (Coles Myer and Woolworths) are on the verge of a huge profit bonanza.  Coles Myer announced it's half yearly profit last Thursday, and at $403.8million, it is nearly twice what it was in 2001.  And Woolworths will probably do even better than that.

Cleaning up like this has been achieved through some clever productivity gains as well as increased volume through lower prices.  Of course, all of this is great for consumers, terrific for keeping inflation and interest rates down, but it ain't that grand for many smaller food suppliers and manufacturers.

The Aussie giants have learned much from US Monolith Walmart in the art of putting the squeeze on their suppliers.  Almost to the point of suffocation.  And sometimes beyond that.  Many suppliers in Australia are learning that they must either play by the new rules, or risk having to pull the shutters down forever.  Of course, on the flip side, their are opportunities abound for those companies that can and do fall into line.

Further adding to their woes is Coles Supermarkets new 3-tiered Housebrand strategy, which is expected to contribute up to 30% of turnover by 2007.  This means that the No 4 brand by market share will become a sitting duck, and No 3 might even find itself in strife.  The producers of these brands will have few choices; they can move into supplying the housebrands and succumb to the whims of the big chains, or launch massively expensive marketing campaigns to eek back some market share.  Either way it will hurt short term profits, and potentially longer terms ones as well.

But if they can prove to be reliable, and low cost, smaller food manufacturers can use the housebrands to get in on all the action.  Up until now they would have found it almost impossible to get shelf-space.

Just more Big getting Bigger by swallowing up all the small fish.

Gotcha! Chris Corrigans airline duoploly becomes reality

Chris Corrigan has beaten Sir Richard Branson to seize control of Aussie Airline Virgin Blue, after a hostile $1.1billion  on Friday tipped the holding of his company Patrick Corp to 50.26%

So what does that mean?

Basically it means that Corrigan is now in a cosy airline duopoly with Qantas; so two things are certain; 1, airfares will go up and, 2, services to some "unprofitable" routes will be canned.  Corrigan has already signaled that he is not a fan of price wars with rival Jetstar, and he wants to stop the cost-cutting and concentrate on flying the most profitable routes. 

And if Virgin opts out of it's price war with Qantas, it won't be long till (the Qantas owned) Jetstar starts lifting its prices too.

So, he  can get now get busy rebuilding the glory days of Qantas vs. Ansett....Remember?   When it cost $300 to fly to Sydney rather than $100.  And airline proprietors were making big fat profits...

But more than that, the takeover also means that his company, Patrick Corp, have an unparalleled transport empire encompassing land, sea and and now air (see an earlier post here).  So if businesses want to transport goods around Australia, Corrigan will get to clip the ticket at least once.

One the face of it his strategy is sound enough-a "wharf to door" distribution strategy; but do we want a monopolist in charge of the whole shebang?  Or, as I said in February, does it matter to the small Australian marketplace that is dominated by monopolists, duopolists and oligopolists if another industry is yanked away from a competitive marketplace?

And what does this mean for Richard Branson?  Dunno yet.  He might sell his remaining 25% into Patricks existing takeover bid (which he described as too low), or he might jump into bed with Paul Stoddarts Ozjet (thanks Greg!).  Or he might just piss off all together.  Here's hoping.

Innovation through Acquisition (2)

Engineer2Entreprenuer has a post talking about the trend towards Lazy Big Co. buying innovation from Fast-Smart Little Co, and offers this idea:

"Something that could help those big sterile companies is to support incubators so people with ideas can get together and try to make something new. They would take on the role of angel investors or VCs but they could also or instead provide office space in underused building and some of their salvage equipment that still works, old desks, chairs and the like."

Will never happen though....makes far too much sense.  Fancy making something new when you can just acquire a company that has something new and bolt it on (and then sit back and watch it fail).