Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

So you call that journalism?

Is it time we drew a line between journalism and entertainment?

On the revelation his expose of Apple’s employment practice contains “significant fabrications”, Mike Daisy reached for the “I am not a journalist and “my work is entertainment” excuses.

This gutless and disingenuous defence is a common one used by those caught distorting facts or outright lying to advance their causes and enrich themselves.

Perhaps the Mike Daisy expose, along with the sad events around the Stop Kony campaign, should make us consider who is a journalist and what journalism is.

Is journalism reporting the facts as we seem them or describing the world around us? If so, does a “journalist” have to work for an established and recognised media outlet?

The modern idea of warrior, professional journalism was born in the 1930s with celebrity journalists like Ernest Hemingway or Evelyn Waugh reporting from Spain or Ethiopia.

In the 1960s we saw this idea become established through the Vietnam war and reached its peak in the early 1970s with the Watergate scandal.

Today, someone who is an actor by trade can be appointed as the technology correspondent by a newspaper and automatically become a credible journalist in their field.

At the same time someone with years of experience in their field — it could be food, travel, technology or anything else — is sneeringly derided as a “citizen journalist” by those who draw a cheque from the established, and dying, media should they decide to self publish.

The sad thing is much of what is published as “journalism” by the established media outlets is entertainment and many of the “facts” reported are self interested propaganda promoting the latest music star or pushing a political agenda.

All too often, those claiming to be credible journalists are being used to give the illusion of of credibility on things that simply aren’t true at all.

We need to re-evaluate what journalism is and how misleading and self-interested reporting distorts debate, markets and the democratic process.

A start would be in ditching the “journalism as entertainment” meme.

Who will be the future Betamaxes?

A modern version of the video tape standard wars is being fought on our phones

This morning Paypal announced its PayPal Here service, a gizmo that turns a smartphone into a credit card reader.

On reading PayPal’s media release in the pre-dawn, pre-coffee light I found myself grumpily muttering “which platforms?” as the announcement kept mentioning “smartphones” without saying whether it was for iPhone, Android or other devices.

It turns out to be both Google Android and Apple iOS. It adds an interesting twist to the Point Of Sale market we’ve looked at recently.

The omission of platforms like Windows Phone raises the question of which platforms are going to go the way of Betamax?

Sony’s Betamax and JVC’s VHS systems were the dominant competitors in the video tape market in the early 1980s. They were totally incompatible with each other and users had to make a choice if they wanted to join one camp or the other when they went to buy a video recorder.

On many measures Betamax was the better product but ultimately failed because VHS offered longer program times and Panasonic’s licensing out of their technology meant there were more cheaper models on the market.

A few days ago Bloomberg Businessweek listed the Betamax device as one of the “technology’s failed promises”

With a superficial comparison, Apple would seem to the Betamax while Google and possibly Microsoft are the VHS’s given their diverse range of manufacturers their systems run on and Apple’s refusal to license out iOS, which was one of the reasons for Sony’s failure.

But it isn’t that simple.

In the smartphone wars, it’s difficult to compare them to VCRs as the video tape companies never controlled content and advertising the way smartphone systems do – although Sony did buy Columbia Studios at the peak of the Japanese economic miracle in 1987.

This control of content is what makes the stakes so high in the smartphone and tablet operating systems war. A developer or business that dedicates their resources to one platform could find themselves stranded if that platform fails or changes their terms of services to the developer’s detriment.

Another assumption is there is only room for one or two smartphone systems; it could turn out the market is quite happy with two, three or a dozen different systems and incompatibilities can be overcome with standards like HTML5.

In a funny way, it could turn out to be Android becomes the Smartphone Betamax due to having too diverse a range of manufacturers.

One of the first questions that jumps out when someone announces a new Android app is “which version?” The range of Android versions on the market is confusing customers and not every app will run on each version.

More importantly for financial apps like PayPal Here and Google Wallet, smartphone updates include critical security patches so many of the older phones that miss out on updates pose a risk to the users.

In the financial world confidence is everything and if customers aren’t confident their money is safe or will be promptly refunded in the event of fraud they won’t use the service.

Whether this uncertainty will eventually deal Google out of the game or present an opportunity for Microsoft and other companies is going to be one of the big questions of the mobile payments market.

Milking the dead cow

How Sensis killed itself and the lessons for Australian business

Many big Australian businesses seem untouchable as they dominate their markets to degree almost unknown in most other developed countries. As the story of Sensis shows, Australia’s big duopolies may not be as strong as they appear.

The last few months have been tough for Sensis; revenues last year fell nearly 25%, the once strong business was folded into the latest incarnation of Telstra Digital Media and now the CEO Bruce Akhurst has departed after seven years.

What could have been a dynamic business is now shriveling away, what went wrong?

Milking the revenue cow

Bruce did a good job of keeping revenue coming in during a period that the then owners, the Federal government, wanted to maximise the book value of Telstra before its sale.

Year upon year Sensis could be relied upon to squeeze more money out of the businesses advertising in it.

Management were focused on extracting revenue from the existing client base rather than responding to the obvious threat from online search.

Expensive distractions

When senior management decided to respond to the online world, they were sucked into unnecessary and expensive distractions; the most notable being the 2005 launch of Sensis Search where the then Telstra CEO – the disastrous Sol Trujillo – famously sneered “Google Schmoogle”.

Three years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, Sensis admitted defeat. By then the small business advertisers who were the life blood of the directory market had woken up to the reality their customers weren’t using the Yellow Pages anymore. Sensis had missed the boat.

Clunky processes

Whenever I spoke to small businesses about Sensis through the 2000s there was the same complaint, “I don’t have time to deal with their sales people, just let me tick a box on a web page or send a fax!”

Purchasing space was difficult for customers, their 1950s Willy Loman sales model should have been automated in the 1990s and never was.

Instead Sensis was locked into a high cost sales model and added friction for advertisers which they shouldn’t need, not only were they expensive but they actually made it difficult for their customers to place orders.

Should Sensis have been sold?

At its peak in 2005, Sensis was valued at between 8 and 10 billion dollars as a stand alone company.

Many, including myself, believe that breaking Sensis away would have been the best result given Telstra were at the time focused on protecting their fixed line copper wire monopoly and the directories business was not getting the management attention or capital investment it needed.

History shows though that we might be wrong.

Commander Communications was spun off from Telstra in 2000 and like Sensis had inherited an almost monopoly position in the small business communications market.

By 2007 Commander was out of business thanks to a combination of incompetence, management greed and an inability to recognise the changing communications marketplace.

The Australian disease

Commander’s biggest problem was it saw its customers as cash cows, just as Sensis did. This exposes a much deeper problem in Australian industry and management culture.

Over the last thirty years Australian government policies have seen duopolies develop in almost every key sector of the economy.

All of these duopolies share the same “customer as a milk cow” philosophy which, along with the rampaging Australian dollar, has dragged Australia into being a high cost economy.

The banking industry, while not a duopoly for the moment, is an even more debilitating example of the cash cow syndrome where small business has been crippled by excessive interest rates and fees – particularly since the 2008 crisis.

Sensis’ demise is systemic of a culture that fixates on extracting maximum revenue from customers; concepts like innovation, R&D or adapting to market trends don’t have a role in this mentality.

Milking cows is a fine business, but sometimes you have to think about the health of the herd.

Overselling technology

Do technologists promise too much?

“We’d like to allow remote band members – say a violinist in the Australian outback – be able to participate in an orchestra as if they were there. We hope the NBN will be able to do this.”

When the band organiser said this at a business roundtable all the technologists, myself included, choked.

There are many things the Australian National Broadband Network will deliver but the ability to teleport a violinist from the outback to downtown Sydney or Melbourne isn’t one of them.

One of the problems with technology is we tend to oversell the immediate effects; as Bill Gates famously said “The impact of all new technologies is overestimated in the short term but under estimated in the long term.”

Because we tend to sell the immediate sizzle, customers are disappointed when our promises don’t eventuate. In the decade it takes to win them back, those initial benefits we didn’t deliver in six months have become commonplace.

This is probably one of the reasons why businesses are reluctant to invest in new technology or online services; they’ve heard the promises before and they don’t trust what they can hear.

In the late 1990s businesses spent tens of thousands – sometimes millions – establishing websites that didn’t work. Those financial scars still hurt when they hear talk, some of them are still paying off those sites. So it’s barely surprising they are reluctant to return to a sector that has now matured.

Perhaps it’s best to underpromise; instead of cloud computer vendors committing themselves to 80% savings and social media experts promising millions of customers from their new viral video, it may be better to be more realistic with the expectations.

Customers have become deaf to wonderful promises, they are expecting us to deliver. Promising the world is no longer a business strategy.

Building a digital economy

How does a state build new industries?

Yesterday the NSW Government hosted the Sydney leg of their Digital Economy Industry Action Plan forum meetings.

The aim of the action plan, one of a series for targeted industries, is to develop “a vision and strategy for the Digital Economy over the next decade in NSW.”

So how do we build a “digital economy industry” in a country that seems to be hell bent on staking everything on China’s continuing demand for coal and iron ore?

Picking winners

One of the things implicit in forums and plans like this is that the government has identified the ‘digital economy’ as a priority for economic development.

To help identify the opportunities the New South Wales plan breaks the sector into various industries;

Digital content and applications
Information services and analytics
Smart networks and intelligent technologies
Autonomous systems
E-research
ICT service innovation
ICT biomedical innovation
ICT safety and security innovation
Locally developed technologies and applications

The underlying assumption is the state has some sort of natural advantage in these areas or the potential to develop into a leader.

If these are the foundations of a region’s digital industries then we have to understand how they were identified as it’s difficult to build an industry if we don’t know what we can do.

The role of government

An important question is the role of government, an unfortunate thing with bureaucrats and politicians is they sometimes over estimate the influence they have on industry and the economy in general.

In NSW the state government’s role is going to be at best marginal, they can establish policies and offer financial incentives but business needs access to essential skills, finance and infrastructure.

Walking the talk

It’s all very well for governments to proclaim they support local businesses but if they prefer to buy from multinationals – even if the big boys are more expensive and have a less than stellar delivery record – then the domestic industry cannot thrive.

To be fair to governments, this reluctance to buy from local suppliers is shared by Australian corporations and on its own is probably one of the biggest obstacles for innovative companies and entrepreneurs to thrive in Australia.

Until this attitude changes among governments and corporations, it’s difficult to see how local businesses can develop and survive.

Open data

For the digital industries, open data is probably the most important aspects. Unfortunately the current generation of Australian public servants, managers and politicians share an almost Stalinist view about access to taxpayer owned information.

Without making public data accessible so entrepreneurs can develop new applications and existing industries can improve productivity, governments are only giving lip service to building a digital economy.

A good example of this is the expressed desire of successive state and Federal governments to build Sydney as a global financial centre.

To do this, free and open investment information is essential yet company and stock exchange data that is assumed to be public information in the United States and much of Europe or Asia is propitiatory and locked away behind paywalls.

Government and corporate obsessions with controlling information makes it unlikely any Australian state or city can be global centre in the digital economy or the banking sector which the NSW government sees as an other priority sector.

Consistent standards

Another area governments can improve is by having open standards across government agencies so, for instance, land information can be properly matched with health data or public transport details.

Right now policies on data and things like social media or content platforms is fragmented making the cost of government and doing business more expensive and convoluted than it should be.

Promote advantages

One of the weaknesses in Australia’s overseas marketing is the nation is portrayed as a bunch of alcohol swilling beach bums cuddling koalas.

Google Maps founder Lars Rasmussen once said Google’s head office reaction when he suggested establishing a development office in Sydney was “what are you doing to do? Sit on Bondi Beach and drink Fosters?”

A missed opportunity in Australia’s disjointed tourism and investment campaigns is ignoring the nation’s diverse ethnic and skills base. We need more emphasis on the multilingual skills of the state’s workers and less on bikini babes.

Capital Problems

Whenever a group like the forums gather, there’s always complaints about Australian business’ access to capital.

Australia’s taxation, finance and social security system favours speculation on the share and property markets rather than long term investments or taking risks on new business ideas.

Three generations of these policies have a created a population who, understandably, see owning property as the safest way to provide for retirement. The banking system has responded to this and is reluctant to lend for anything not secured by real estate assets.

At the same time we’ve allowed the compulsory superannuation system to be dominated by flaccid ticket clippers who are content to charge working Australians outrageous fees for hugging the stock indexes.

Sadly what should have been a source of capital for innovative businesses largely spends its time lobbying governments for more protection and a bigger cut of workers’ incomes.

The access to capital is a serious problem for Australian business and one that can’t be kicked up the road for ever by Liberal or Labor Federal governments but it isn’t something the states can fix.

Not only do the distorted investment priorities of Australian society damage developing industries, it almost certainly guarantees the dream of making Sydney a global financial centre unattainable.

Education

One of the canards that always pops up at industry development forums is that educators aren’t in touch with employers’ needs.

There’s a certain type of business manager or owner who believes the roles of schools, technical colleges and universities is a sausage machine popping out perfectly formed young workers who can pick up a spanner, hair clippers or a copy of Photoshop and start productive work straight after being shown where the tea room is.

Those business owners are deluded.

None of that’s to say educators shouldn’t be adapting to their times as well as being open and transparent but the idea that the role of schools is to equip kids with the skills we need today would see them unprepared for next decade’s economy.

Equally however, Australia’s universities and training colleges have been encouraged to offer third rate courses to overseas students attracted by the prospect of getting permanent residence in the country. That bums on seats model had hurt the quality of the nation’s education sector and the skill levels of graduates.

Attitudes

The most essential part of building any nation’s industry is the attitude of people – if the prevailing view is it’s too hard, or threatens established interests then it won’t happen.

Probably the best advantage New South Wales, and all of Australia have, is a comparatively young, diverse and outward looking population.

The best thing the government can do in trying to build new sectors, be they in the digital economy or anywhere else, is to fix what they can such as procurement, open data or taxation and get out of the way.

A constant dreams of governments is to build the next Silicon Valley, just as it once was to build the next Detroit or Birmingham.

The era of the big engineering works passed, at least in the Western world, and the age of venture capital driven social media platforms will probably be over soon as well.

Aping someone else’s success – while ignoring the historical factors and accidents that created it – seems a guaranteed way to disappointment.

The best part to build a digital economy, or any thriving society, is to encourage the risk takers and the inventors. Bring them together, let them loose and you build the next economic powerhouse.

Does small business need government support?

Can governments provide business assistance?

The New South Wales State Government’s decision to axe their long standing small business programs raises the question of whether small businesses need government support at all.

Last week’s announcement the NSW Government are abandoning their business education programs and replacing them with a previously announced network of local business advisors shows where small business lies in the state’s list of priorities.

Taken at face value, the changes appear to be moving back to the face-to-face business advice model of a decade or so ago that was common before the winding back of small business programs and local enterprise centres by then Federal Liberal and state Labor governments under John Howard and Bob Carr.

On closer examination, it’s a cut to business support and an effective withdrawal of NSW government assistance to small business. The remaining services will be outsourced to the same local business centres that have been starved of funds for over a decade.

A concern with the individual advisors will be how many businesses they can reach, according to the NSW Trade & Investment annual report 2010-11 the axed events had an audience numbering over 5,000. It’s difficult to see how the advisor network will match that and makes one wonder how the more important events couldn’t have been streamed or podcast across the Internet.

Putting aside the pros and cons of this restructure, the bigger question is should small business expect any government support at all?

The record of Australian government support for industry is not good. We only have to look at repeated visits to the trough by what remains of the Australian car making industry, the bipartisan debacle of assistance to the renewal energy sector or the support given by the Keating Labor government to Kodak to see how well schemes have worked out.

Most of Australia’s economic success stories have happened despite, not because of, government’s pouring money into industries. For example, the first five years of the current mining boom was completely missed by the political classes along with the Canberra press gallery and the media economic commentators.

This is where small business steps in – rather than relying on access to the ministerial suite to protect their industries, the little guys and the startups compete on price, service and innovation. Aspects that organisations in protected industries or those dependent on taxpayer largess struggle with.

Indeed many small business owners and entrepreneurs struck out on their own because they felt stifled by bureaucracy. So offering them programs wrapped up in paperwork is counter intuitive.

Where the government can help is with keeping busy business owners up to date with new developments in business, markets and technology which was exactly what the events programs like Small Business September and Micro Business Week did.

It’s difficult to see how the individual business advisors employed by local Business Enterprise Centres will keep up with their clients up with changes regardless of how skilled or well intentioned they are.

All of the changes are justified by the report from the Small Business Commissioner’s listening tour. Apparently she was told businesses didn’t want events like Small Business Septtember

I certainly didn’t hear any complaints at the breakfast fourm I attended at the Northern Beaches, most of the concerns seemed to be from cafe owners arguing about council outdoor seating permits. If the commish wants to get involved with that nest of vipers, I wish her the best of luck.

Overall, small business can’t expect much from government; particularly in the modern corporatist society where Big Government does Big Deal with Big Unions and Big Business while Big Media selectively reports what suits it.

Probably the best thing for small business is stay nimble and avoid being stepped on the Big Dinosaurs as they dance obliviously to the major changes that are happening in the world around us.

Big dinosaurs look after their own, don’t expect them to give you anything except a big shower of dung.

Disclaimer: I’ve been hired by Trade & Investment to host various events on the now axed programs and worked for 19 months at what was then the Department of State and Regional Development. I wish all of those former colleagues who now find their positions abolished the best of luck in finding another role.

Reinventing activism

The ghosts of Graham Greene and Vietnam resonate in the Stop Kony campaign

In the late 1960’s the Biafran War appeared on the front pages of the world’s media partly due to a well co-ordinated advertising campaign using the relatively new broadcast marketing techniques.

During the mid 1980s the Ethopian famine was bought to prominence by Live Aid and Bob Geldof using music videos and live television made possible by huge leaps in broadcasting technology.

Nearly thirty years later we see an African tragedy – this time the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa – again bought to the West’s attention through new media and advances in video technology.

Each time there’s been an outpouring of outrage and determination by those of us in the West to ‘fix’ Africa’s problems. We demand our leaders do something so we march, we donate and these days we retweet or like an online video.

In many ways we’re like Alden Pyle, the idealistic and well meaning anti-hero of Graham Greene’s The Quiet American who believed a ‘third force’ can fix the problems of Vietnam in the 1950s.

At the time Graham Green wrote The Quiet American in the late 1950s, the Eisenhower Administration had several hundred US military advisers in Vietnam, sent by President Truman at the beginning of the decade.

Today, at the time of the Stop Kony campaign in 2012, the Obama Administration has ‘about’ a hundred advisors in Central Africa.

Sometimes we don’t reinvent anything; we just use modern tools to repeat our grandparents’ mistakes.

Channel blues

Cloud computing is changing the IT industry

“We do the pre-sales work then they come along and steal the customers. It’s wrong, just wrong” growled the sales manager of an IT integrator while talking about one of the leading cloud computing services.

The business model of systems integrators is to be a company’s, or home’s, trusted advisor on IT and make money from charging for their services and the profit in selling software and equipment.

In the last few years that model has become tough – the collapsing price of hardware has made the profits on selling systems leaner while the increased life of systems has meant the big lucrative upgrades have become scarcer.

At the same time services have become less lucrative as more participants have entered the market, many using offshored cheap labour to provide remote support. It hasn’t helped that computers have become vastly more reliable, particularly since Microsoft have largely solved Windows’ gaping security holes.

The icing on the cake has been the end of boxed software and corporate licenses. These were extremely profitable for the systems integrator – a big sale of Microsoft Office or Oracle licenses to a government department could see an IT salesperson pay for a holiday home or cover the kids’ school and college fees.

Cloud computing has largely been the driver of all of these factors’ decline and now it is really hurting those integrators and their salesfolk who were used to a very profitable existence.

While that’s good news for computer consumers – and even better news for hapless shareholder and taxpayers who’ve been largely dudded by big IT sales pitches to gullible directors and ministers – it does beg the question of how customers now get advice and support.

Largely cloud based services rely upon customer self service and many of the providers would struggle to include user support in their list of core competencies.

There’s a business model there for systems integrators, but it’s difficult to see how many those used to fat profits in the past can, or will, adapt to the new environment.

An interesting side effect of this change is how it affects companies like Microsoft where their channel partners – largely those big and small systems integrators – are one of the most important distribution networks for their products and probably their best defense against competitors like Google and Apple. That strength is being steadily eroded.

It’s tempting to think that change affects just “old” industries like retail, publishing or car manufacturing; in reality it affects all sectors and sometimes the most modern might be hurt more than the established players.

When the little guy wins

Australian innovator Ric Richardson and Uniloc settle with Microsoft

Australian entrepreneur Ric Richardson has finally won his patent dispute with Microsoft over the use of software protection software.

In a post on his personal blog, Ric declared “it’s over!” and said;

“It’s kind of like having your career anchored on a test you did when you were a kid and someone questioning your score decades after the fact… all you can do is stick to your position and hope the truth rings true.”

After winning a three hundred million dollar award against Microsoft, then an appeal striking down the size of the damages it’s been a hell of journey for Ric and Uniloc.

The silly thing is for Microsoft they largely abandoned this method of validating software after 2003, so they could have settled this a lot earlier. Or just paid the license fees in the first case.

You also can’t avoid the irony of Microsoft being successfully sued over a product design to protect intellectual property.

It’s always good to see the entrepreneur and inventor get up in a world that often seems tilted in favour of the corporations.

Now we can look forward to seeing a lot more innovations out of Ric’s caravan, that flat tyre detector looks really useful.

Reputation’s long tail

Cutting customer support costs in many ways

When you decide customer support is an unnecessary cost, you make a statement that defines your position in the market place. Dell are reaping the consequences of this now.

Micheal Dell, CEO and founder of Dell Computers, hopes to grab some of the tablet computer market from Apple with the release of Microsoft Windows 8.

It’s a big goal – Apple have owned the tablet computer market since launching the iPad.

Dell, along with most of the other PC manufacturers, squandered the decade’s head start they had in tablet computers with poorly designed and overpriced tablet PCs which were based around a clunky version of Microsoft Windows using styluses.

Part of the problem was Windows itself; the operating system was designed for desktop users and to make it work on tablet computers it required a clunky workaround. Being designed for smart phones and tables mean Windows 8 may overcome previous limitations.

But Dell have a problem; they are perceived as a low price, low quality supplier and have a competitor in Apple that has locked in the supply chain for the product.

So Dell will struggle to beat Apple on price while customers believe the Dell system is inferior.

Even more difficult for Dell is their support reputation, a quick look at the comments to the Bloomberg story illustrates the problem.

Of the the sixteen reader comments, admittedly not a scientific sample, three business owners claim they will never buy Dell again after customer support issues.

This is the critical mistake Dell’s management made in the 2000s – in order to cut costs so they could be profitable at lower price points they trashed their support.

Eventually this culminated in the Dell Hell debacle where Jeff Jarvis’ experience summed up the frustrations of thousands of Dell’s disillusioned customers.

Apple on the other hand chose not to go down the rabbit hole of cheap and nasty systems. Today they can offer free, and skilled, support in their genius bars as their fat margins allow them to provide constructive and helpful assistance to their customers.

Now Dell has the reputation for at best indifferent after sales service which means they are locked into competing on price and ever declining margins.

It’s not a good place to be for Dell but that’s what you get for treating your customers like an unnecessary nuisance while fixating on headline prices.

We often talk about the Internet’s long tail; our online reputations could be the longest tail of all.

The allure of free data

It’s user generated, but is it worthwhile.

It looks like a nice business model, you get users to generate your content for you. Many of the new digital media empires like YouTube, Facebook and Foursquare are built upon it.

The Register’s Simon Sharwood looked at the downside of this business model – junk data.

Even the most well intentioned users makes mistakes with thing like addresses and that’s before you get mischief makers or competitors putting in false information.

There’s another aspect too, what one person thinks is relevant may not be to other users or to the people running the service, Simon cites the dozens of “mom’s kitchens” on Foursquare.

For those who’ve added their mom’s house, that’s relevant and maybe even funny to them.

All of this illustrates the downside to the free, User Generated Content (UGC) model; you have to accept what the users give you.

Which means it isn’t free – it has to be collated, processed and the noise has to be filtered out.

At worst, somebody has to make the decision what is relevant and what has to go. This isn’t easy and, as Google found with their Name Wars, can upset a lot of users if it isn’t handled well.

Nothing in life is truly free and with data becoming increasingly important to business it’s worthwhile considering the quality of that free or cheap stuff you get from the net.

Investing in the future

Investment is not a cost

UK supermarket chain Tesco announced it intends to create 20,ooo new job over the next two years through “significant investment in customer service, refreshing existing stores and opening new ones”.

That word – investment – is the key to business growth. Not whining about the internet stealing jobs or begging the government to bail out failed industries and their managements.

Investment is more than just buying a shiny new machine, it’s also research, development, training and educating a business’ management, staff, suppliers and customers.

Too many businesses and governments are locked into the the 1980s mindset that investments, along with things like customer service, are a cost that that has to be driven down.

Driving down costs was profitable for many managers through the 1990s and early 2000s, in fact we could argue this was one of the big drivers of corporate profits and productivity through that period.

While some of those costs were undoubtedly unnecessary and deserved, it’s now clear that many governments and businesses ran down investment as well.

Today we’re seeing the results of that; crumbling infrastructure, skills shortages and businesses that can’t compete in a changing global economy.

What we invest in our businesses – be it time or money is essential to its long term success. Only the biggest companies in the most protected industries can survive for a while without investment.