shannonsays.com

Don't Buy Petrol Days

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.

Malcolm Turnbull's Idea of the Week

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 [email protected] 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.

What would happen if Katrina hit Australia?

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)

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?

Brendan Nelson's Values

Our Education Minister Brendan Nelson wants to see some "essentially Australian" values introduced into our schools – "understanding, tolerance, inclusion and responsibility, care, compassion, reaching out to others, doing your best, pursuing and protecting the common good, treating all people fairly, enterprise, respectfulness, fidelity, comradeship and endurance." And if people don't want to "accept and embrace" those values, he says, "they ought to clear off."

What to make of this.... Cameron thinks that Nelson is "way out of line"

"That isn't what this country is about. That isn't what democracy is about. The minute that you have one group of people forcing their values or beliefs on another group of people, you don't have a democracy any more - you have a form of fascism."

I don't completely disagree.

But I do reckon that people living here should "accept" our values in the sense of obeying by the laws that embody them – we demand that of all Australians.  Now that doesn't mean that they have to agree with them. Any Australian is entitled to object to any of our values, our laws or our institutions, and they even have the right to try to change them, provided they do so within the confines of the law.

However, forcing our "values"on people, whether they are immigrants or not, would be a futile exercise at best, and potentially dangerous and divisive at worst.  Particularly when Nelson's and his values smell more like something out of the 1950's than contemporary Australia.  But I don't find anything wrong or offensive in asking immigrants to gain a wider understanding of Australian Culture and history.

Putting that argument aside, it's interesting that value debate has entered the Australian political arena.  We are used to it happening in the United States, where their whole political system and decision making is centered around sphere of values, but it never really happens like that in Australia.  Mark Latham tried to focus on values during last years Federal Election (remember the "Ladder of Opportunity") but was steamrolled John Howard's economic agenda.

I wonder what our values would have been if Latham had been elected?

A Thought Over Coffee... With A Lawyer

One of my favorite "blogs of the minute" is Jason Duncans "A Thought Over Coffee":

"Follow me through my journey towards opening Cafe Evoke. From my final semester at Belmont University in Nashville, TN to opening day in Bozeman, MT I will share my expirences with writing the business plan, doing the research, and opening the cafe."

In amongst the commentary on the fun and games that are taking place as he attempts to establish his new cafe (Evoke), Jason offers lots of great quotes, lessons and other cool links.  Today he pointed me to this article on Jeffrey Hughes:

Thirsty for justice? Jeffrey Hughes' two Legal Grind cafes in the Los Angeles area offer "Coffee and Counsel" to those who may not otherwise seek legal advice. Through his innovative venture, Hughes has worked hard to both provide a valuable service to his community and change the public perception of attorneys.

It's Starbucks meets LA Law, and it's great stuff:

Over a dozen lawyers work out of Legal Grind on various days, generally between 3 and 6 p.m. For example, on the first and third Monday of every month, attorney Michael Goldstein offers a $25 "Coffee and Counsel" session on employment rights, worker's compensation, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, personal injury and civil/business disputes between 5 and 6 p.m. Another lawyer simultaneously offers advice on landlord/tenant disputes, auto accidents, restraining orders and small claims.

During the day, before the various experts come in, people can use the document preparation service, pop in to get something notarized or drink coffee while browsing the self-help books on the shelves, including "Your Divorce Advisor."

Coffee.  His point of difference is as simple as coffee, good coffee of course:

"We don't want to serve bad espresso, because then people will think we'll screw up their divorce"

It's a great story and is another example of what can happen when you really think about what your customers would really like from you, and it is almost an example of how Chris Carfi's "Transaction to Community" model works.

I don't know that you can ever feel like you are part of a lawyer's community, but at Legal Grind it is about as good as it is going to get.

The Melbourne Demons: No more bad luck

It is nearing the end of the season for the teams in the Australian Football League, and despite looking shaky a few weeks ago, my mob- the Melbourne Demons- look like they just might scrape into the finals series following two come from behind victories.

I was at the MCG watching last nights game, and it was bloody exciting.  A really remarkable and stirring victory for the men in red and blue.  Just goes to show what you can do if you never give up and stick to a plan.

After round 12 (the halfway point of the year) we had won 9 games and lost only three, and were sitting comfortably in second place on the ladder.  We then managed to lose the next 7 games in a row, and tumbled down the ladder to 11th.

How does that happen?  How does a team that is capable of winning 9 out of 12 games then lose 7 in a row?  Of course the media commentators, supporters and other loungeroom experts (like me) offer up plenty of opinions and reasons, but who really knows.  According to Freakonmics author Steven Levitt, it might be nothing more than bad luck:

"It seems like, when a team loses several games in a row, it is so extreme that it can't reasonably be the result of randomness. Clearly coaches, sports writers and most fans believe that to be true. How often have you heard of a coach holding a closed-door meeting to try to turn a team around? But if you look at it statistically, you expect big losing streaks to occur, simply by randomness, about as often as they do."

He uses the example of the Kansas City Royals, and in typical Levitt fashion explores what the chances are of a Major League team having a long loosing streak, and even links it to his Ipod Shuffle (really!).  He concludes that a big losing streak will occur once every decade or so:

"So, one doesn't need to resort to explanations like "lack of concentration," being "snakebit," or "demoralized" to explain why teams lose so many games in a row, just that they are a bad team getting some bad luck."

I won't say that Melbourne is a bad team, but maybe we were just having some bad luck!  Hopefully we are due for some good luck.

Why do we treat Emails differently to Phone Conversations

Occasionally staring at the amount of stuff in my email inbox and archives I wonder the same thing:

"Why not read an email and then instantly delete it? Why do we save emails? Why do we archive them in folders for safe keeping? We don’t save phone calls. We have a conversation on the phone and then we hang up. If we need to take notes for whatever reason we do, but 99% of phone calls are completely ephemeral. And if we forget something, or we need it again, we just make another call.

Is email really any different? Are we all keeping emails around just because we can? Do we really need to have this stuff on hand so we can go back 14 months from now and dig something up? If we need to dig something up why don’t we just ask the people who we were talking to originally?"

(from Signal vs Noise via Strategize).

My rule for my inbox (either email or physical, old fashioned- dump-it-in-Shannon's-tray type inbox) is pretty simple.  Action it as quickly as possible get it out of there, and get on with your day.  I do the same with notes that I take over the phone.  I either action it straight away, or stick in in my inbox to be action later that day. 

Of course it doesn't always work like that.  I occasionally keep some emails, but that is a bit like keeping that old bit of junk in your garage, "just in case you need it."  Most times you never need it again, and if you do, it needs to be updated anyway. 

I guess keeping emails can be like security blanket- it's easier to sleep at night if you know you have kept everything, just in case.  If I do that, it's usually about a week later that I look at it wonder why the hell I kept it, and hit delete.  All it does is delay the decision making.

As for archives, I can't be bothered with archiving stuff.  If it is important, I print it and file it it physically.  At least then I don't waste time going through old emails trawling for stuff that I can probably go back to the source and find out more quickly.

The Ashes: Why England can't win

"There are some forces in the universe so immutable that it takes something extraordinary to change them. Chief among these is the one that impels Australian captains not to lose the Ashes, something that had begun to look increasingly likely until Ricky Ponting arguably played the captain's innings of the 21st century at Old Trafford to save his team from defeat."

That was Derek Pringle response to the dramatic draw in the Third Ashes' Test.

He has a point.  It seems that Australia simply cannot lose the Ashes, and the Third Test draw in Old Trafford just goes to prove it.  The exciting match might have ended in a draw, but it was clearly a victory for the embattled Aussies and was a soul-destroying loss for England.  They threw absolutely everything at us, right up until the very last ball of the match, but couldn't knock us off.

Sure they got a skin of-their-teeth victory in Birmingham, but the scorecard did them no justice.  They comprehensively belted the Aussies in all areas of the game in that match, and still only scrapped through.  Think of that match as the minor aberration that proves the law- "England cannot win Ashes series."

The Global Syndication of Hootville

At last my favourite ex-3AK radio host is podcasting his weekly radio shows.  Yes indeed, the world domination of Brett de Hoedt, the Mayor of Hootville, and one time Page Three Boy, has begun:

"Hootville is a one-hour, free-range talkfest. The show mixes politics and religion but rarely mentions sport. There's a fair swag of pop culture, corporate thinking and the odd Rant on Demand and poem."

I'm not much for the poetry, but the rest is pretty cool.   Brett is an intelligent, witty and- these days- fully clothed presenter, who dishes up a lively 57 minutes or so of radio each week.

Here's the feed: http://www.hootville.com.au/Hootville.xml