Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Risk free fallacies

Can we really build a risk free world?

One of the conceits of the late Twentieth Century was that we can engineer risk out of our lives.

Derivatives like Collateral Debt Obligations were thought to overcome financial risks, think contracts would eliminate business risks and wise central banks would massage the economic cycle to banish the risks of economic crises.

In schoolyards, the kids are banned from doing cartwheels and playing ball games – in response to a recent edict prohibiting physical activity at a local school an education department spokesman said the ban was to prevent, and not in response to, playground injuries.

So nothing’s happened to provoke a ban, just someone decided there was risk and the first reaction is to eliminate it rather than manage it.

In a litigious society where a culture of blame has developed this reaction is understandable. If a kid gets hurt in the playground then the parents might blame the teacher and one should be under no illusion that in the NSW state education system, the industrial concerns of teachers will always trump the welfare of students.

So the cartwheels must stop.

The strange thing with our culture of blame is that when something goes seriously wrong, such as the implosion of the banking system due to greed and misunderstanding of risk, no-one is held responsible.

For lawyers, this culture is understandable. After all, their job is to warn clients of legal risks and it’s true that every time we walk down the street or jump in our car we might make a mistake that could see us in court.

But we learn to manage that risk and we accept the odds every time we choose to drive down to the supermarket.

The danger in believing we can eliminate risk is that removing one element of risk often results in unexpected consequences – they are even more unexpected when you don’t understand the risks in the first place. CDOs and the shadow banking system are a good example of this.

Government seek to pass laws eliminating risks and in doing so create new risks, particularly when the Acts they pass are poorly written and badly thought out.

There is always the question of what risk we are addressing – in the modern corporatist political system, the PR risk to a government always takes priority over a real risk to citizens. Passing a law to protect the minister’s backside might make life more risky for others.

As helicopter parents, always hovering over our children and blaming teachers, schools, neighbours and other parents when something goes wrong, we’re creating a whole set of risks we don’t understand.

For politicians, managers and leaders their main responsibility is to manage risk, not pretend it’s been eliminated by the latest memo, law or silly schoolyard ban.

A world of criminal sheep

Are we are all criminally inclined sheep that need to fleeced and controlled?

Notorious unpaid blogger Michael Arrington recently described his battle with a bank over direct debit charges.

To overcome a fraudulent recurring charge on his credit card, Arrington cancelled his account only to find the bank moved the recurring charges to the new card, a ‘service’ designed to avoid fraud and save customers the hassle of re-establishing legitimate direct debits after a new card is issued.

Both of those are noble reasons but the core of this philosophy lies in a contempt for customers which can be summarised in two principles.

A customer is;

A sheep to shorn of any available cash through sneaky fees and shady business practices
A criminal

In the 1980s business school view of the world, customers are criminally inclined sheep who have to be regularly shorn to enhance profits and controlled so they don’t go anywhere else.

Only businesses operating in protected environments can get away with this today and the two obvious sectors are banking and telecommunications.

The telco industry long soiled its nest with consumers with dodgy charges and a contempt for customers which reached a peak (nadir?) with the ring tone scams where kids had their phone credits pillaged by fees they never knew they had signed up for.

While those dodgy charges paid the handsome bonuses of telco executives, it proved to another generation of consumers that these companies see their customers as sheep to fleeced on a regular basis.

Ironically it’s that lack of trust that dooms the telcos in the battle to control the online payment markets – their practices of the 1980s, 90s and early 2000s mean few merchants or consumers will trust them as payment gateways.

One of the strengths banks bring to that market is trust. Like cheques, credit cards succeeded as a payment mechanism because people could trust them.

In screwing customers over direct debit authorisations, the banks are damaging that trust as Arrington says “I really don’t think I’m going to be giving out my credit card so freely in the future.”

That’s a problem for businesses as direct debiting customers have been a good way to ensure cash flow and reduce bad debts but when clients perceive there is a high risk of being ripped off they will stop using them.

Businesses that insist on direct debits will be perceived as potentially dodgy operators who rely on locking customers into unfair contracts rather than providing a decent service for a fair price.

So the banks’ position of legal power works in their short term interest and against them – and the merchants using their services – in the longer term.

While bank and telco executives with safe, government guaranteed market positions will continue to treat customers like criminal sheep it’s something the rest of us can’t get away with.

The winners in the new economy are those who deserve to be trusted by their customers and users, if you’re abusing your market and legal powers then you better hope politicians and judges can protect your management bonuses.

Finding the perfect customer

Combining old techniques with big data technologies and social media monitoring open new opportunities for businesses to learn more about their customers.

With the rise of social media we’ve spoken a lot about customers’ ability to rate businesses and overlooked that companies have been rating their clients for a lot longer. The same technologies that are helping consumers are also assisting companies to find their best prospects.

A business truism is that Pareto’s Rule applies in all organisations – 20% of customers will generate 80% of a company’s profits. Equally a different 20% of clients will create 80% of the hassles. The Holy Grail in customer service is to identify both groups as early as possible in the sales cycle.

Earlier this week The New York Times profiled the new breed of ratings tools known as consumer valuation or buying-power scores. These promise to help businesses find the good customers early.

While rating customers according to their credit worthiness has been common for decades, measuring a client’s likely value to a business hasn’t been so widespread and most companies have relied on the gut feeling of their salespeople or managers. The customer valuation tools change this.

One of the companies the NYT looked at was eBureau, a Minnesota-based company that analyses customers’ likely behaviour. eBureau’s founder Gordy Meyer tells how 30 years ago he worked for Fingerhut, a mailorder catalogue company that used some basic ways of figuring out who would be a good customer.

Some of the indicators Fingerhut used to figure if a client was worthwhile included whether an application form was filled in by pen, if the customer had a working telephone number or if the buyer used their middle initial – apparently the latter indicates someone is a good credit risk.

Many businesses are still using measures like that to decide whether a customer will be a pain or a gain. One reliable signal is those that complain about previous companies they’ve dealt with; it’s a sure-fire indicator they’ll complain about you as well.

What we’re seeing with services like eBureau is the bringing together of Big Data and cloud computing. A generation ago even if we could have collected the data these services collate, there was no way we could process the information to make any sense to our business.

Today we have these services at our fingertips and coupled with lead generators and the insights social media gives us into the likes and dislikes of our customers these tools suddenly become very powerful.

While we’ll never get rid of bad customers – credit rating services didn’t mean the end of bad debts – customer valuation tools are another example of how canny users of technology can get an advantage over their competitors along with saving time in chasing the wrong clients.

Creating a service mindset

How tough is it for a business to change it’s customer service focus?

In the Foreign Correspondent report that inspired yesterday’s post about the start up community angel Investor Raval Navikant said “you don’t need customer service anymore, you have Twitter.”

While it’s refreshing to hear that Twitter is now rightly seen as a customer service channel rather than a marketing tool, it’s worrying that startup businesses still have such a low opinion of supporting their users.

This is the mindset for the web2.0, social and cloud computing communities – that user support can be done though Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), user forums or an anonymous email address that might get read once in a while. It’s the self-help model of helping your users and it’s the biggest weakness of online services.

A worry for these businesses is that big organisations now beginning to remember the importance of customers. What has traditionally been small business’ advantage is being eroded.

At an Australian Computer Society Foundation lunch in Sydney yesterday Testra Corporation’s diector of Products and IT Enablement, Jenny Woods described how her company is moving to a more service centric culture.

While this isn’t simple in a company the size of Telstra, a task made harder by the telco industry’s customer hostility, it’s certainly a process that’s underway.

There’s a long way to go for Telstra. Along with that traditional telco antipathy towards their customers, they are big company with plenty of silos and aligning management KPIs so the temptation isn’t simply to gouge customers for short term profit is a big change.

Changing that ‘soak the customer’ mindset is the biggest challenge in making companies like Telstra service centric and that means management at all levels have to buy into the process.

Without that senior and middle management commitment, customer support will just be seen as the poor relation to other divisions and will be outsourced to the lowest cost provider at the first opportunity.

Part of that change to a service mindset is in trusting your staff. Jenny described how Telstra abandoned scripts for their home Internet customers and told the support agents they could use their initiative – as a result customer satisfaction went up, problems were solved faster and the number of modem returns slumped.

“The people who do the work, know how to do the work” says Jenny and it’s good that Telstra’s management is recognising the skills in their workforce.

Much of that anti-service culture we see in large organisations is because management don’t respect the skills, experience and knowledge of their workers. Instead they’re treated as naughty children who can be slapped into line with a stern memo.

Today’s economy doesn’t favour businesses and managements who think like that, the organisations that will do well this Century those who are flexible, value their staffs’ skills and have managers who see their role as more than micro-managing their silos.

It also means delivering a product you’re proud to support. If you won’t support your products, then your customers will go to a competitor who looks after their clients.

We fell into a trap into thinking customer service didn’t matter during the late Twentieth Century, it was always a myth and now we have to deliver.

Billion Dollar Babes

Is every successful startup worth a ten figure sum?

“It changed everything. It changed the game for a lot of us and you know it made a lot of people feel very anxious and sort of compare their own success.”

Lisa Bettany, the founder of Camera Plus lamented how Facebook’s billion dollar purchase of photo app Instagram purchase changed the start up community on Australian current affairs program Foreign Correspondent.

In the program Foreign Correspondent also spoke to Australian and Italian startup founders looking to make it in Silicon Valley. On being asked what they hoped their business was worth they all had the same answer – a billion dollars.

There’s no doubt Jindou Lee’s Happy Inspector home inspection app or the Timbuktu kids’ story website are great products and should be successful business. But is business success only measured by a billion dollar exit?

In Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon every child is above average, it seems in Silicon Valley every successful business is worth a billion dollars.

Every founder in the current app or web 2.0 craze says “it’s not about the money, it’s about changing the world” yet scratch them and they are all on the lookout for the greater fool buying them out for an improbable sum.

One could say that a billion dollar cheque does change the world of the person cashing the thing although exactly how a iPhone photo app changes the world may escape some of us.

At the same time the Foreign Correspondent story was being aired the founder of Y Combinator – Silicon Valley’s most successful accelerator ‘s founder – warned the heat is now out of the market after Facebook’s market flop.

Paul Graham was elaborating on a letter he wrote three months earlier where he said, “If you haven’t raised money yet, lower your expectations for fundraising.”

If the billion dollar valuations are going out of the startup mentality then it might be better for all of us. It might mean our youngest, best and brightest really are focused more on building things that will change the world rather than buying mega-yachts for themselves and their VC investors.

How much server space do Internet companies need to run their sites?

How much server space do companies like Google, Amazon, YouTube, Hotmail and Facebook need to run their sites?

“How much server space do companies like Google, Amazon, or YouTube, or for that matter Hotmail and Facebook need to run their sites?” is the question I’ve been asked to answer on ABC Radio National Drive this evening.

This isn’t a simple question to answer as the details of data storage are kept secret by most online services.

Figuring out how much data is saved in computer systems is a daunting task in itself and in 2011 scientists estimated there were 295 exabytes stored on the Internet, desktop hard drives, tape backup and other systems in 2007.

An exabyte is the equivalent of 50,000 years worth of DVD video, a typical new computer comes with a terabyte hard drive so one exabyte is the equivalent of a million new computers.

The numbers when looking at this topic are so great that petabytes are probably the best way of measuring data, a thousand of these make up an exabyte. A petabyte is the equivalent to filling up the hard drives of a thousand new computers.

Given cloud computing and data centres have grown exponentially since 2007, it’s possible that number has doubled in the last five years.

In 2009 it was reported Google was planning to have ten million servers and an exabyte of information. It’s almost certain that point has been passed, particularly given the volume of data being uploaded to YouTube which alone has 72 hours worth of video uploaded every minute.

Facebook is struggling with similar growth and it’s reported that the social media service is having to rewrite its database. Last year it was reported Facebook users were uploading six billion photos a month and at the time of the float on the US stock market the company claimed to have over a 100 petabytes of photos and video.

According to one of Microsoft’s blogs, Hotmail has over a billion mailboxes and “hundreds of petabytes of data”.

For Amazon details are harder to find, in June 2012 Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos announced their S3 cloud storage service was now hosting a billion ‘objects’. If we assume the ‘objects’ – which could be anything from a picture to a database running on Amazon’s service – have an average size of a megabyte then that’s a exabyte of storage.

The amount of storage is only one part of the equation, we have to be able to do something with the data we’ve collected so we also have to look at processing power. This comes down to the number of computer chips or CPUs – Central Processing Units – being used to crunch the information.

Probably the most impressive data cruncher of all is the Google search engine that processes phenomenal amounts of data every time somebody does a search on the web. Google have put together an infographic that illustrates how they manage to answer over a billion queries a day in an average time of less than quarter of a second.

Google is reported to own 2% of the world’s servers and they are very secretive about the numbers, estimates based on power usage in 2011 put the number of servers the company uses at around 900,000. Given Google invests about 2.5 billion US dollars a year on new data centres, it’s safe to say they have probably passed the one million mark.

How much electricity all of this equipment uses is a valid question. According to Jonathan Koomey of Stanford University, US data centres use around 2% of the nation’s power supply and globally these facilities use around 1.5%.

The numbers involved in answering the question of how much data is stored by web services are mind boggling and they are growing exponentially. One of the problems with researching a topic like this is how quickly the source data becomes outdated.

It’s easy to overlook the complexity and size of the technologies that run social media, cloud computing or web searches. Asking questions on how these services work is essential to understanding the things we now take for granted.

Selling old rope

Sometimes rebranding an old concept works in the favour of customers.

“Big Data is a fad” announced a speaker at a technology conference. “We’ve had Big Data for years. We used to call it business analytics.”

He’s right. The IT industry is very good at rebadging technology and the term ‘Big Data’ is just the latest of many examples — the best of which is how ‘cloud computing’ which is largely a rebadging of SaaS, Application Service Providers or client-server.

While it’s easy to be cynical about this IT industry habit, there is a valid underlying point to this repainting old rope — that the refurbished old string is cheaper and more useful than what came before it.

The problem for innovators creating accessible, cheaper and faster ways to do things is they risk that their product will be likened to the old, expensive and inaccessible methods. No cloud computing provider wants to be associated with IBM’s expensive client-server products or the flaky Application Service Provider of the dot com era.

Most innovations aren’t revolutionary, they have evolved out of an older way of doing things. So saying “it’s being done before” when seeing an innovative product may be missing the point.

In the case of Big Data the principles aren’t new but we’re collecting more data than ever before and the old tools — even if they could manage with the volume of information— are far more expensive than the new services.

So repainting old rope isn’t always done for purely marketing purposes, sometimes there’s a real benefit to the customers.

Fleeing the group buying market

The air deflates from the group buying bubble

As Apple becomes the highest capitalised stock in US market history, former daily deals site and market darling Groupon continues to sink into misery.

Groupon led the group buying mania of 2011 and its stock market float in November of that year valued the business at 13 billion dollars, ten months later the business has a capitalisation of three billion, wiping out three quarters of its IPO shareholders’ investment.

To make matters worse for the daily deals site the New York Times features a story looking at deal fatigue, where customers tire of the daily emails offering discounted cafe meals or personal training while businesses find the deals just aren’t worth the trouble.

“I pretty much had to take a loan out to cover the loss, or we would have probably had to close,” the Times quotes Dyer Price, owner of Muddy’s Coffehouse in Portland, Oregon. “We will never, ever do it again”

In a straw poll, the Times correspondent visited neighbouring businesses who had similar stories.

The common factor with all the business horror stories surrounding group buying or deal of the day sites is high pressure sales tactics that blind the merchant to the downsides of these offers.

For these services, it’s essential to move through as many deals as possible so salespeople are driven to sign up as many merchants as possible. When you put pressure on sales teams, they tend to behave in ways that aren’t always good for customers.

Most of the customers Groupon attracts – or those of other deal of the day sites – are price sensitive and fussy. Having demanded their deal, most of these customers are not coming back so it may well be that daily deals are the most expensive, disruptive and pointless marketing channel ever invented.

The results of the high pressure tactics are shown in a Venture Beat story which claims Groupon is now threatening to sue unhappy merchants as payments slow and the daily deals struggle to attract customers.

What was always misunderstood during the group buying mania was that Deal Of The Day sites weren’t really technology plays – they were reliant on good sales teams driving deals. The technology being used was incidental to the core business concept.

In this respect, services like Groupon had more in common with the Yellow Pages or multi-level marketing schemes. It was about salespeople delivering orders and taking a percentage off the top. To compare Groupon with Google, Facebook or any tech start up was really missing the point.

This isn’t to say that group buying or deals of the day services don’t have a role in business. For retailers clearing inventory, hotels working around quiet periods or new businesses wanting to get attention in a crowded marketplace, there’s an argument for offering a deal on one of these sites.

For most though it was an expensive and pointless exercise that attracted the picky, price sensitive customers that most business would avoid rather than encourage. That’s the harsh lesson learned by many of the businesses who fell Groupon’s fast talking salesteams.

Is Australia’s blue sky future making way for a red sunset?

Australia’s political and business leaders are not prepared for Chinese risks to the nation’s economy

Australia’s political and business leaders are convinced the nation will ride on the back of a fast growing China for the foreseeable future.

Having climbed off the sheep’s back during the 1980s and moved from being an economy dependent on agricultural exports to a ‘clever country’ exporting high value services and products, in the late 1990s Australia turned its back on building a modern economy and decided to stake the future on a never ending coal and iron ore boom driven by Chinese industrialisation.

Smarter than Bill Gates

Australia’s success in riding China’s coattails allowed the Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens in 2010 to boast how he and the nation’s politicians were smarter than Bill Gates who nine years earlier warned Australia about being over reliant on commodities.

Despite the hubris, there are real risks in the Chinese economy that the blue sky mining school of Australian economic management needs to plan for.

China warnings

The warning to US Presidential candidates on trade with China by Professor Patrick Chovanec of Beijing’s Tsinghua University’s School of Economics and Management is a good starting point.

In his warning Professor Chovanec points out that Chinese growth in recent years has been driven by the construction sector, even if building activity were to stay constant this would shave off half of China’s growth rate. The options for stimulating the economy in manner similar to 2008 have narrowed.

China’s economy is not just slowing, it is entering a serious correction. The investment bubble that has been driving Chinese growth has popped, and there are no quick “stimulus” fixes left. There is the very real possibility of some form of financial crisis in China before year’s end.

China’s stimulus package was the world’s biggest response to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, followed by the South Koreans (another Australian commodities customers) and Australia itself.

While the Chinese commodities boom drove most of Australia’s trade, it was domestic spending driven by the Rudd government’s stimulus package that saved Australia from entering recession.

Squandering a century’s boom

One of the notable things about Australia’s commodity success in the 2000s is just how little a dent the booming coal and iron ore exports put in the trade deficit. Despite record terms of trade, Australians still manage to spend as much on imports as they make on exported goods.

Not that this worries Australia’s leaders who seem to spend all of their time worrying about pandering to a tiny number of marginal seat voters who listen to fear mongering talkback radio hosts which is what has driven the last two weeks’ obsession with a few hundred asylum seekers.

Professor Chovanec points out the Chinese leadership is distracted as well with their struggles over a messy change of Politburo leadership, risking that the policy makers might miss any opportunity they have to engineer a ‘soft’ landing for their economy.

The biggest risk is that of a crisis engineered to distract a discontented population warns Chovanec;

in a worst case scenario, China may be tempted to provoke a conflict in the South China Sea to redirect popular discontent onto an external enemy.

Already such things are happening, as anti-Japanese demonstrations step up around China over an island dispute.

There are no shortage of island disputes in the South China Sea and almost all scenarios involve allies of the United States – the only one feasible dispute that doesn’t is Vietnam and China’s leadership has had their nose blooded in such disputes with their southern neighbour before.

Even if we don’t see military tensions between the US and China, we certainly are going to see trade and political disputes in the next few years as both countries adapt to their places in a changed world.

For Australia’s business and political leaders, it means being prepared for a world more complex than one where a country can get by just lazily skimming a few dollars of easy iron ore exports to China.

We have to hope Australia’s leaders are capable of dealing with the challenges of a much more dynamic and difficult world where huge growth of one friendly trading partner is not assured. The stakes are too high to be distracted by suburban apparatchiks scoring meaningless political points off each other.

Is Small Business Whingeing its way to irrelevance

Are small businesses worrying about the wrong issues?

“Is small business whingeing its way to irrelevance?” first appeared in Smart Company on August 16, 2012.

Last week, TripAdvisor announced the results of a worldwide hospitality survey. One of the things that leapt out of the survey was how large hotel chains are using social media while smaller Australian establishments are languishing.

Following on TripAdvisor’s survey was the release of accounting software company MYOB’s regular index that showed businesses are retreating from the online world with reduced usage rates of social media, eCommerce and online payments.

At an Australian Israel Chamber of Commerce lunch in Sydney on Tuesday, MYOB’s CEO Tim Reed and Google Australia’s Tim Leeder discussed small business and the web with their Getting Australian Business Online program missing its target of 50,000 sign ups since its launch in March last year.

The fact more than half of Australian businesses don’t have a website despite free services from Google, WordPress, Weebly and a host of others indicates a deeper apathy among small businesses towards a whole range of issues.

Earlier this year the New South Wales state government abolished the popular Small Business September program with barely a squeak from the SME sector, with some small business groups actually welcoming what was a dramatic cut to support programs.

Compare this to the Olympic athletes, not only do we see the AOC coming out swinging with demands for more funding but the yachting team are staging an effective campaign to reinstate NSW government programs to support their sport: The total opposite to the small business community.

Small business, on the other hand, rolls over and accepts cuts to programs, poorly thought out regulations and government procurement policies that favour multinationals over local companies which are capable of the job.

When small business is given a chance to have a voice, the community blows it with whingeing. At the NSW Small Business Commissioner’s roadshows earlier this year it was notable how much time was spent whingeing about group buying services, traffic clearways and council permits for coffee tables rather than sensible and achievable wins for the SME sector.

So it wasn’t a surprise that the result of that roadshow was the cutting of useful programs and little effective change.

The best example of this whingeing rather than action is the current campaign to increase the GST threshold and abolish penalty rates.

Instead of focusing on the real problems facing businesses such as high rents, profit gouging from distributors and poorly thought out state and federal regulations imposed by both sides of politics – the small business and retail sectors manage to demonise their staff and customers and increase the suspicions of consumers and workers that they’re being ripped off by big, bad employers.

In reality, the shopkeepers and other small businesses are struggling to adapt to a rapidly changing economy. They are feeling those changes earlier than the rest of the economy because they don’t have the cushions of fat margins, political connections or guaranteed incomes of the corporate, public or political sectors.

Those struggles will give the small business sector an advantage over the bigger and slower groups – having adapted to the changed economy, those smaller businesses will be stronger and fitter than their bigger competitors.

Chris Ridd, of cloud computing accounting service Xero, one of MYOB’s biggest competitors, puts this best.

“Technology is an enabler and can actually help small businesses gain efficiencies, reach new customers and generate new revenue streams. Why turn your back on the one thing that can turn your business around.”

It’s the proactive business people adopting new technologies who are going to thrive over the next decade. Whingeing about TripAdvisor, the GST or dumb government policies isn’t going to save an enterprise that’s become irrelevant.

So make sure your website’s up to date, check what customers are saying about you on social media or review sites and have a look at those cloud computing services that can improve your business’ profitability and efficiency.

The time to do it is now, before your business becomes irrelevant.

Economic cholesterol

How Australia’s property prices are the real reason for the country’s poor productivity.

Australia’s productivity isn’t growing and it’s fashionable among business community to blame Australia’s productivity decline on high labour rates.

While there’s an argument that the cafe worker earning $25 an hour is overpaid – although we don’t hear the same criticism of multimillion dollar packages paid to executives with at best mediocre track records – the argument is far more complex.

In the McKinsey report linked to above, the mis-investment is put down to the recent resource boom, but is this really true?

To really understand why Australia hasn’t performed well, we need to look at why the country is so reluctant to invest in assets that will increase our productivity.

The role of property

Underlying the recent Australian “economic miracle” is the property industry. The country’s domestic building sector is one of the most efficient job generators in the world. Stimulate the Aussie property market and job growth ripples quickly through the economy.

This was one the lessons learned in the 1990s recession – successive governments and bureaucrats have learned the mantra “go early, go hard and go residential” when it comes to cutting interest rates and introducing home building incentives like the first home owners grants.

It was no coincidence that when the Rudd Government was faced by the Global Financial Crisis they launched a wave of initiatives to boost the property industry and shore household wealth. Just as the Howard and Costello governments did in response to the Long Term Capital Bank collapse, Asian economic crisis or the 2001 US recession.

While those stimulus measures have kept Australia out of recession for two decades, the failure to unwind the measures after the economic shock has passed leaves the nation’s property market remains “hyper stimulated” and over valued. That over investment in property has sucked funds away from other areas which affects the competitiveness of Aussie industry.

The great property squeeze

One of the great tragedies of the 1990s was Sydney’s East Circular Quay precinct which could have been one or two of the world’s greatest hotel sites, literally on the steps of the Sydney Opera House.

Instead, high priced apartments were built on the site and Sydney’s tourism and convention industries are crippled by a shortage of top end hotel rooms.

Tourism isn’t the only industry affected by the Australia’s obsession with residential property – across the country service stations, sports clubs and convention centres are being demolished to make way for high rise apartment developments. No economic activity seems to trump property speculation when it comes to attracting Australian investors.

Ideological beliefs

Adding fuel to the property obsession are the ideologies of the 1980s which are still closely held by the nation’s business and political leaders.

Capital gains tax concessions introduced by the Howard government in the late 1990s made property and share speculation far more attractive that invention, innovation or entrepreneurship.

To make matters worse, Australia’s social security policies and taxation laws favour capital gains – any Australian over thirty who has tried to build a business has plenty of mates who did far better out of negatively geared property than those who foolish enough to create new enterprises.

For those older entrepreneurs facing retirement, they are in for a nasty shock if their businesses don’t sell for what they hope. They would have been far better staying in a safe corporate job and buy a few negatively geared investment properties.

Again, this ideological belief that capital gains trumps wage or business income means investment is steered away from productive assets and into residential property that can be held for a capital gain.

The Ticket Clipping Culture

Australia’s failure to invest in productive assets is not just a feature of the household investor, the corporate sector has a lot to answer for as well.

While good in theory, the superannuation system has been a failure in providing a capital pool for new and innovative businesses and productive investments.

The superannuation trustees have largely focused on hugging the index, the ticket clipping funds management culture means that any real investment for productive assets is restricted to funding toll roads where fat management fees and guaranteed commissions mean an easy life for those fund managers.

In a perverse way, the short term appearance of the ticket clipping might mean increased productivity as costs are cut to improve profits. In the medium and long term, the lack of investment in these assets means in the long term these assets too cease to add productive capacity to the economy.

Of course there’s more to infrastructure investment than toll roads and airports with crippling parking charges, but the ticket clipping classes of Australia’s investment community don’t see a quick buck in that.

Increasingly the boards of Australia’s major companies are appointed by those running the superannuation funds and these people have the generational bias away from productive investment. Instead they see slashing IT, training or asset investment as costs to be cut in the quest of boosting bonus delivering profits.

More fundamentally, three decades of consolidation in most of Australia’s industries has seen a generation of Australian executives whose main expertise is that of maximising their market power at the expense of their competitors. Investing in productive capacity is not a major concern for those corporations.

Fixing the problem

Getting Australians – whether mom and dad property speculators or high paid fund managers parking money in the ASX 200 or plonking money in the latest toll road boondoggle – to change attitudes and invest in productive capacity is going to take a generational change.

As long as the attitude persists that property is a safe investment that doubles in real value every ten years then Australians are going to continue to ply cash into apartments and houses.

It is possible that a period of Australian Austerity that suppresses property prices may force that change in investment attitudes. An weak property market is one of the unspoken effects of the spending cuts advocated by many right wing commentators,

The question is whether those commentators, or the political classes who derive their much of their policies from right wing ideologues, view have the stomach for disruption that will come when weaning Australians from the teats of corporate ticket clipping and property speculation.

Driving agendas

Agenda driven journalism helps no-one in the long term

A feature of the new question and answer service Branch are “featured questions” highlighting popular or interesting conversations on the service.

One of those early featured conversations was a question from investor Michael Arrington, “when is it good for founders to leak stuff to the press?”

Strategic leaks have become the staple of most news services, time poor journalists are desperate for scoops and clicks which gives an opportunity for companies and governments to feed information that suits their agenda of the moment.

As the answers in the thread indicate, this style of reportage is very common in the Silicon Valley tech press. The greater fool business model of many web start ups require they get lots of media coverage in order to attract buyers.

That media coverage includes ‘leaking’ stories that one big company – a Google, Microsoft or Facebook – is interested in the business. This always creates credulous headlines on the tech media sites and one of these leaks prompted Arrington’s question.

Strategic leaking isn’t just a tech media phenomenon. Australian politics was paralysed at the beginning of the year when numerous stories that “un-named Labor Party sources” were plotting against the Prime Minister dominated the headlines for weeks. All of these were pointless leaks from various minor politicians try to push their agendas. Often to their long term detriment.

In the sports world the agendas often revolve around contract negotiations – remember this next time you read that a star player may be going to another team, almost certainly that story has been planted by that player’s agent in an attempt to increase his client’s value.

The same thing happens in the business, property and the vacuous entertainment, travel and dining pages.

Agenda driven journalism fails the reader and the writer, it also damages the publication as once readers start asking what the motivation is for a story, then the credibility of that outlet is failing.

Increasingly this is happening to all the mainstream publications.

Resisting the push to agenda driven journalism is tough as editorial resources are stripped from media organisations and as journalists come under more pressure to write stories that drive traffic.

One of the great assets of big media is trust in the masthead. A hundred years ago people took what was written in their city’s newspapers as truth, a few decades ago it was what was on the evening news. If Walter Cronkite or your city’s news anchor said it was true, then that was good enough for most people.

In the race for clicks, that trust has been abused and lost by all but the most dedicated fans. It’s probably the greatest loss of all for the established media giants.

For readers, the web and social media is their friend. They can check with their peers to see if a story stands up and if it doesn’t they can spread this across their networks.

Agenda driven journalism fuelled by pointless leaks helps no-one in the long term and it will probably kill many established mastheads. It’s another opportunity for smart entrepreneurs to disrupt a market that’s failing.