shannonsays.com

People Who Owe Hootville Money

"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.

The Company & I

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?

Cluetrain anyone?

Is Your Boss a Psychopath?

It's Monday, so it seems appropriate to take the test and find out if your boss really is a psychopath...

Whatever the result, he/she couldn't be as bad as this lot.  But if they are, help is at hand.

New Research on "The Jerk at Work"

It is a universal dilemma. What to do with the "jerk" at work, the person who is so disliked by their colleagues that no-one wants to work with them?"

Well, the answer according to an article in The Economist (sub req) is to "tolerate them if they are at least half-competent – on the grounds that competent jerks can be trained to be otherwise, while much-loved bunglers cannot."

The jerk at work has become an issue because the latest issue of the Harvard Business Review publishes new research by Tiziana Casciaro and Miguel Sousa Lobo, academics at Harvard Business School and the Fuqua School of Business, that shows work partners "tend to be chosen not for ability but for likability." This is the HBR's summary:

Drawing from their study encompassing 10,000 work relationships in five organisations, the authors have classified work partners into four archetypes: the competent jerk, who knows a lot but is unpleasant; the lovable fool, who doesn't know much but is a delight; the lovable star, who's both smart and likable; and the incompetent jerk, who...well, that's self-explanatory. Of course, everybody wants to work with the lovable star, and nobody wants to work with the incompetent jerk. More interesting is that people prefer the lovable fool over the competent jerk. That has big implications for every organisation, as both of these types often represent missed opportunities. Lovable fools can bridge gaps between diverse groups that might not otherwise interact. But their networking skills are often developed at the expense of job performance, which can make these employees underappreciated and vulnerable to downsizing. To get the most out of them, managers need to protect them and put them in positions that don't waste their bridge-building talents. As for the competent jerks, many can be socialised through coaching or by being made accountable for bad behaviour.

The Debate About Drought Relief

Drought is a fact of life in Australia.  But what to do about farmers who are caught up in it all?  Do we help them out, like we always do,via tax payer funded relief packages, do we shrug our shoulders and say "tough" or should we look at doing something else, like trying to work out how the hell we are going to live with this new reality rather than simply hoping for rain?

Unfortunately for us, debate is too hard, so our Governments will just throw some more money at the farmers so that they can service their mounting debts.  That ought to shut them up for a while.

But it is getting a bit ridiculous now.  I mean, how much of a relief is too much? And should we keep giving it anyway?

Well, here's one view:

"Farmers. Fellas. If a little milk bar operator, dry cleaner, plumber, printer, chippy, lawyer, dentist, doctor, engineer, butcher or any other small business goes under there is no government handout available. Those business people are required to stand or fall on the strength of their own planning, operation, diligence, risk assessment, market observation, personal and business insurance protection positions. End of story. Question is, why the hell should we all, as tax payers, keep bailing you out? You know the risks, you enjoy the returns. If you have a business problem, sort it out yourself. Yes, we know the weather can't be controlled. Tell that to the local electrician who cannot get Telstra or some other large service provider to do their job and misses out on a Yellow Pages ad, or whose telephone business lifeline goes down. Nobody steps in to pick them up. At least you have the Farm Deposit scheme – not available to any other taxpayer – where you can defer tax paid on income into those years which are good. Lucky you.

With all the government (read taxpayer) support, technical services, science, management schools, courses, urging, droughts, market responses and media coverage, why haven't you learnt?"

Harsh words. But I sort of agree with the sentiment.  Why should we continually be asked to prop farmers up with handouts?  Why do they deserve more of a leg-up than other businesses?  Of course a very simplistic line of argument that hardly adds much to the whole debate.

Which is why John Williams' article (apparently he is the former boss of the CSIRO's land and water division), in The Age yesterday.

Williams criticised government drought policy yesterday – but also added

“Australians had forgotten the variability of the nation's climate and started farming land that previous generations would not have farmed. Unsustainable areas included parts of the Mallee across Victoria, NSW and South Australia; SA's Eyre Peninsula; and some parts of western NSW and central Queensland.”

It's a healthy debate to have, and a necessary one.  I dunno what the answers are, but I don't think continual, haphazard subsidies and handouts are they way to go.  All that shows is that we have no real plan for dealing with the effects of the extreme fluctuations of our climate.  Which is pretty piss poor really.

We can't drought proof this place, but we should be able to work out a better way of dealing with a future that will be hotter and drier than the past.

Virgin Blue: Snookered

So Virgin Blue has been judged to be the "Best Low Cost Airline"  whizzing around the worlds' skies, hey?  Better than Ryanair, Southwest and Easyjet.  Obviously Virgin Blue's staff are are much better looking than anyone elses.

Ironically though, the news comes as Virgin is trying to shed the low-cost moniker and portray itself as a value-based or "new world" carrier in an attempt to boost its appeal to high-yield, business like travellers.

Like most pundits, Brett Godfrey (Virgin Blue boss) and the Virgin Blue mob underestimated the impact of the Jetstar (Qantas' low frills offshoot) launch and despite what they might like to believe, this new airline has succeeding in nicking a fair whack of Virgin Blue's passengers as well as downgrading the perception of what "low cost" is all about.  And despite it's problems, Jetstar is successful and making money.

And now Virgin Blue is stuck.  The gravy-train years of post-Ansett and the simpler challenge of attacking the higher-cost, full-service Qantas are over. The launch of Jetstar has locked Virgin Blue firmly into the middle ground, and has given the Qantas group the ability to match Virgin Blue in price-sensitive segments, as well as continuing its dominance in the premium business segment.

And now they have the impending arrival of business carrier Ozjet, which will further cement Virgin Blue into the middle ground.  But the problem seems to be that Virgin Blue doesn't want to accept the middle ground, and as a result are now looking a bit confused.

"Are we a low cost airline (the best in the world, even)? or are we an airline that can cater for business travellers as well?"

The truth is, they don't appear to know.  And how do you continue to promote the image of Virgin as a value airline while pushing it as an upmarket carrier that appeals to the business market?  It is difficult to do without completely confusing the market and risk in isolating both ends of the spectrum.

The things that business folks expect like frequent flier programs, lounges, more flexible fares, priority boarding, fancy meals and other "frilly" offerings cost bucks.  And Virgin Blue doesn't have much bucks to spare if this weeks profit warning is anything to go by.  No doubt they'll figure out how to do it though.  But at what cost?

Further adding to Virgin Blue's dilemma is this weeks announcement from Jetstar of the sale of a million seats at $29, including taxes and charges, to celebrate the anniversary of their first flights on May 25 last year.

If they don't want to lose more passengers, Virgin Blue will have to respond.  Again reaffirming them as a low cost carrier.

The reality is that Qantas's Geoff Dixon has Godfrey and Virgin snookered between Jetstar and  Qantas.  And there appears no way out.  Why not just stay there?  Why not try to dominate the middle ground?

The business graveyard is full of businesses that were successful in one segment, but the persued growth in another segment, only to fail in winning new business whilst isolating the loyal customers they once had.  It's a risky game.

Where are all the Australian Entrepreneurs?

An excellent question is posed by Stephen Mayne in the weeks Reader, about why Australian has so few successful young companies:

"Australia is a relatively young country, so why is it that so many of our biggest and best companies are so old?  A quick look at the top 20 Australian public companies reveals lots of old incumbent players like Coles Myer, the Big Four Banks, Telstra, BHP, AMP and Foster's- all of which have been around for decades- and hardly any new ones."

That is a very true observation; Australia doesn't have any new corporate champions coming through. 

I reckon that we (Australians, our Governments and other regulators) have made it too hard for all of our budding entrepreneurs to shake off the bad smell left behind by the rouges of the 1980's like Alan Bond, Christopher Skase and Jack Elliott.    We don't like corporate risk takers in this country any more.  We are adverse to risk, and don't have a culture that readily accepts that failure is all part of the game, part of trying, part of learning.

And of course we have turned chopping down "tall poppies" into a national sport.  A sport at which we (shamefully) excel.

In the US if you go broke having "a go" you don't seem to cope the same level of condemnation as you do here in Australia.  They have a far greater tolerance for things like bankruptcy and business failure.So is it any wonder that the US has produced billionaires from booming companies like Yahoo, Google, Dell and eBay.  And we have... well, not much.  Except for a few infrastructure companies with Government contracts, Child Care centres that rely on Government subsidies and airlines and telco's that make bucks because they operate in cosy little duopolies.

Add to that the barriers for entry into many of our growth areas are too high, and the level of Government support and encouragement for our genuinely innovative risk takers and innovators is too low. 

You are better off just getting a nice, secure job with one of the big, old, unoriginal companies.

Kyrptonite- Still battling against Bic Pens

Remember the Kryptonite bike lock people and the saga with the Bic pen?

Johnnie Moore points to this update at Community Guy here.

Doing the Always

This from Seth Godin:

Figure what the always is. Then do something else.

Toothpaste always comes in a squeezable tube.
Business travelers always use a travel agent.
Politicians always have their staff screen their calls.

Figure out what the always is, then do exactly the opposite. Do the never.

Nice.  Simple.  Clever.  As usual from Seth.

Branson in Stabbing

A couple of weeks ago I wondered what the irrepressable Dickie Branson might get up to now that his Aussie Airline Virgin Blue is firmly under the control of Chris Corrigan and his Patrick Corp.  And there have been all sorts of conspiracy theories flying around about Corrigan's plans for Virgin Blue and Richard Branson's plans for Australia.  What will he do next?

And it all started to become clear last week; Branson plans to launch an Australian-owned airline to challenge Qantas on the highly lucrative Sydney to LA Route.  So what you say?  Big deal, it's about time someone took on Qantas' dominance.

Hmm maybe, but like with most things Branson does, nothing is ever "plain and simple."  Let's look at a few things here.

Singapore Airlines, more than any other, have been busting thier gut trying to get in on the Sydney-LA action for some time, but have been halted by our Governments stubborn unwillingness to give the rights to a carrier that has less than 51% Australian ownership. 

So in strolls Branson, stating that his airline will be majority owned by Australians, and as such the Australian Government should give his new airline the rights over Singapore Airlines.

But this is where is gets interesting.  Singapore Airlines just happen to be a shareholder (49%) in another of Bransons airlines, Virgin Pacific.

Of course such a public shirt-front ruffled some feathers with Branson's "partners" at Singapore Airlines, and are understandably absolutely furious with this announcement and assertion.

I know that Branson can be a little bit odd at times, but I don't understand why he would want to pick a fight with an important, and until now cooperative business partner?  Wouldn't it be simpler to declare that Virgin Blue is now controlled by Australian interests through Patrick Corp and should therefore be allowed to compete with Qantas on the Australian flights to LA?

But no, Dickie comes out at announces that he is going to stomp over the top of Singapore to get his airline off the ground.  Given their long and hard lobbying for the rights to the Pacific route, you would think that Branson would be supportive of his business partners efforts.

But with Branson, it always pays to "think again"