Category: business advice

  • Australian Hubris in the Asian Century

    Australian Hubris in the Asian Century

    This post is one of the series of articles on the Australia in the Asian Century report.

    The release of the Australia in the Asian Century discussion paper today raises the question of where the country sees itself and where it is going. It lets us down on many levels.

    While there’s a lot more to discuss in the paper, which I’ll do over the next few days, there’s a few issues that come to mind on first reading.

    The reliance on mining

    A constant  in the discussion about Australia’s future is the continued mining boom. This was the underlying theme of Monday’s Mid-Year Economic Outlook and is also the case in the Asian Century paper. Here’s chart 4.4.2 from the document which shows the forecast makeup of Australia’s exports.

    Today mining exports are shown as being just over 50% of Australia’s trade with Asia and have mineral income growing to well over 60% of trade by 2025.

    What is frightening about this is the belief across Australia’s political and business leaders that the mining boom is here to stay and will continue to keep growing.

    Little risk analysis

    Also notable about the report is how little acknowledgement of risk there is in the document. Most of the risks are dismissed in six paragraphs in Chapter 4.4

    Geopolitical risk does get its own chapter, but even there most of the challenges are glossed over. Eventually most of the risks are dismissed with this line.

    None of these developments of themselves make major power conflict likely—in some important ways they will probably act as a constraint. All the major powers recognise how interdependent their economic interests are.

    This is reminiscent of the line used in the late 1980s – “no two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war against each other.” A glib nonsense which ceased to be true when NATO attacked Serbia in an effort to stop the massacres of the Yugoslavian disintegration.

    Trivialising the big risks

    Had anyone predicted in 1986 that within five years, there would be a bloody civil war in Yugoslavia, the Eastern Bloc collapse and the Russian Empire’s eagle replace the hammer and sickle on the Kremlin they would have been dismissed as fools.

    Yet that is exactly what happened.

    The risk of instability within the People’s Republic of China isn’t mentioned or even the effects of what a collapse of North Korea would mean to South Korea – another key Australian mineral market – both of which would have massive effects on Australia’s export markets over the next decade.

    While I’m certainly not forecasting the collapse of either the DPRK or the Communist Party of China in the near future, these are massive risks to any plan which purports to look at the next decade. Ignoring them or trivialising them does not help the paper’s credibility.

    Australian hubris

    Most notable in the white paper is the tone of Australian Exceptionalism through the commentary. In the Prime Minister’s speech she said “we are the nation that stared down the economic crisis.”

    Calling massive stimulus packages, reinflating the property market and guaranteeing bank liabilities is hardly ‘staring down’. Australia’s avoiding going to into recession after the 2008 crisis was due to the “go early, go hard” philosophy of pumping money into the economy which was learned by Australia’s bureaucrats in the 1990s recession.

    That policy worked to stave off recessions during the Asian currency crisis of 1998, the Long Term Credit Bank collapse and the post September 11 uncertainty. It worked on massive scale during the post-Lehmann Brothers collapse.

    Crediting Australia with some sort of miracle economy is hubris on a grand scale and hardly the basis for developing a sensible plan to guide us through the next decade.

    What is Australia’s competitive advantage?

    Essential to understanding where the nation can prosper from the rise of Asian economies is where our current strengths lie. Apart from empty phrases on “skilled workforces” and “new opportunities will emerge in manufacturing” there’s no explanation of exactly where Australia can profit from these.

    In fact most of the case studies refer to Australian companies outsourcing or Asian trading patterns that really don’t need any skilled or valued added contribution at all, a case in point is the story of ‘Hitesh’, one of India’s rising middle class.

    Hitesh, 31, is a stockbroker in a firm that he opened with his friend several years ago. He brings in an annual income of US$5,280, placing his family squarely in the middle of Ahmedabad’s middle class.

    Nowhere does the case study explain exactly what Australia can offer him – the air conditioners and cars certainly won’t be made or designed in Australia and his daughters’ educations in 2025 might well come through the internet from MIT or the London School of Economics instead of them flying to Melbourne to drive taxis and do barista courses in the hope of getting Australian permanent residency.

    In fact if anything, it’s difficult to see why an Asian company would choose to do business with an Australian stockbroker when they earn thirty to a hundred times more than Hitesh.

    1980s thinking

    Much of what is in the white paper is what we’ve heard before in the 1980s – back then it was Yuske in Nagoya who was going to buy our wine and come to the Gold Coast for holidays.

    There’s nothing in the projections we haven’t heard before, except today we’ve squandered two decades of opportunity by ramping up our property markets and building an unsustainable middle class welfare state.

    Sometime in the 1990s – possibly around the time of John Howard’s election – Australia turned inwards and insular. We had the opportunity  to position Australia as a credible mid-level power in the region but we chose instead to renovate our kitchens.

    That opportunity has been lost and repeating the mantras of the 1980s with the words ‘China’ and ‘Chinese’ substituted for ‘Japan’ and ‘Japanese’ won’t cut it.

    Australia in the Asian Century was an opportunity to show some vision and stake a claim on sharing some of the 21st Century’s riches. Instead the writers chose to give us platitudes underpinned by the certainties of a never ending economic boom.

    Similar posts:

  • Heroes of Capitalism

    Heroes of Capitalism

    The few times I watch television these days is either when the footy’s on or the rare occasions that I surface from my interweb connected man cave and stumble into a room where someone has a TV running.

    And so it was tonight when I happened to wander out to witness a terrible airport “reality” show – this one being an unoriginal, third rate Australian effort where Tiger Airlines shows how it stuffs around and humiliates its passengers. In Australia, Channel Seven considers this to be prime-time TV “entertainment”.

    What was striking about the show was how Tiger Airlines’ check in staff humiliated a pensioner and her young son who hadn’t printed out their boarding passes.

    The “fee” for not carrying out a basic task which reasonable people would expect would be part of an airline’s service is $25 a head at Tiger Airlines – one could ask what the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s position is on excessive fees being used to pad airlines’, or banks’, profits but that would be asking too much of Canberra’s worlds best practice doughnut munchers.

    As result the poor lady was expected to front up with another $50 – money she didn’t have. So Tiger Airlines’ check in staff wouldn’t let her board and Channel Seven’s camera crew gleefully filmed her desperate tears and shocked son.

    Eventually a bystander took pity on her and gave her $60. At least someone in the terminal had some decency and compassion, qualities neither the Tiger Airlines staff or Channel Seven camera crew have in the tiniest way.

    No doubt somewhere in an anonymous glass tower some arsehole has a job as a manager at Tiger Airlines and has a KPI that includes how many poor mothers they can reduce to tears.

    When the arsehole Tiger Airlines manager gets its annual bonus for making the required number of victims passengers weep, it no doubt goes to lunch with the Channel Seven executives – another bunch of arseholes – to slap each others’ backs and tell themselves what great heroes of capitalism they are.

    The question that bugs me is when did it become acceptable to humiliate your customers? No doubt Tiger Airlines think it’s good publicity and Channel Seven think it is good entertainment.

    We live in interesting times when our business leaders think it isn’t good enough just to take customers’ money but that it’s also necessary to humiliate them as the managements of both Channel Seven and Tiger Airlines seem to be rewarded for doing.

    Fortunately in these corporatist days we still can vote with our wallets and turn off the muck we find offensive – that’s why decent people shouldn’t choose to fly Tiger Airlines or watch Channel Seven.

    Similar posts:

  • Open Table and free mobile restaurant sites

    Open Table and free mobile restaurant sites

    One of the big challenges facing restaurants is how customers are moving to the mobile web, diners are using their smartphones to find establishments and expect to make bookings directly.

    To help their customers deal with this move to smartphones, restaurant booking service Open Table is offering a free mobile website for their clients so establishments can have sites that are usable on smaller screens.

    Whether this is worthwhile depends upon whether the restaurant is already using Open Table, the monthly fees are quite high at $200 per month plus a relatively low $1 commission per cover so it certainly isn’t worth subscribing to their service just to get a mobile optimised website.

    For restaurants already using their service it’s best to check if your existing website already has a mobile feature as having two online addresses is only going to confuse customers.

    Businesses using WordPress based sites just need to install a plug like WordPress Touch which detects when a smaller screen is viewing your site to change.

    Open Table itself is somewhat of an internet old timer having been founded in 1998, making it one of the Tech Wreck survivors, and listed on the NASDAQ market eleven years later.

    That a company like Open Table is recognising a mobile web presence is essential for hospitality businesses should be a further warning to restaurants, cafes and hotels that they need to take smartphones seriously.

    Just as thirty years ago it was essential to have a Yellow Pages listing, today you’re missing out on customers if they can’t find you on their phones.

    Regardless of whether you’re using Open Table or any other service, you need to have some form of mobile site working for you.

    Similar posts:

  • Amazon and the Soviet customer service model

    Amazon and the Soviet customer service model

    We all value our collections of CDs, books and photos, but what happens when we completely lose the digital equivalents?

    The story of Linn, a Norwegian lady who had her account terminated by Amazon, demonstrates the dangers of being locked into one Internet company’s empire. Get cut off and you lose everything related to them.

    A little understood part of the cloud computing and app world is that you, the customer or user – which isn’t necessarily the same thing – don’t really own anything. The money you spend on ebooks, mobile apps or web storage are for licenses to use the services, not the products themselves.

    Should the supplier decide they no longer want to provide you with their service, then you lose your account and everything with it.

    This is what happened to Linn when Amazon’s algorithm decided her account was in some way breaching their terms and conditions.

    We have found your account is directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies. As such, your Amazon.co.uk account has been closed and any open orders have been cancelled.

    Per our Conditions of Use which state in part: Amazon.co.uk and its affiliates reserve the right to refuse service, terminate accounts, remove or edit content, or cancel orders at their sole discretion.

    “At their sole discretion” is the key point here. This is a standard term in most online contracts and reflects the legal realities of the physical world where a shopping mall manager or bar owner can ask you to leave their property without having to tell you why.

    When you use a virtual service, which includes e-books and cloud computing software, you are on someone’s virtual property and they can ask you to leave any time they feel.

    Of course those rights are subject to any contract you might have with that e-book seller, cloud computing service or shopping centre but you have to be in a position to enforce them – not an easy task when you’re in Norway and their lawyers are in Connecticut.

    Even if you want to enforce the agreement you believe these services have entered into, the grossly biased contracts attempt to put all obligations on users or customers while freeing the vendor of the distraction of being responsible for anything.

    The real problem though is the lack of notice and fairness – this blog’s previously looked at how PayPal, Facebook and Google will shut down business sites without any warning or due process.

    It’s one thing to get thrown out of a shopping mall but it’s another matter when your car and week’s groceries are still in there.

    Even more worrying in Linn’s case is how ebooks and music purchased with Digital Rights Management (DRM) controls can be erased by companies like Amazon. Which is like walking home from the shopping mall you’ve been banned from to find the manager has called by to confiscate the toaster and TV you bought last week.

    What’s particularly notable in all of these stories though is the Soviet customer service model, the Amazon”Executive Customer Relations” representative Linn dealt with refused to tell her what she’d done wrong or what rules she broke.

    The only thing “Michael Murphy” would tell her was she was effectively banned for being linked to a blocked account and stated;

    “Please know that any attempt to open a new account will meet with the same action.”

    No notice, no appeal, no rights. The computer says no and the bureaucrat cannot help you further.

    Trust lies at the core of all business and this is even more true when buying services like e-books and cloud computing products. If you can’t trust a vendor to provide a service, or to act openly and honest with you when a problem occurs, then it’s unlikely you’ll use that service.

    A lack of trust is what web 2.0 companies like Amazon and eBay risk with hostile, Soviet style customer service. This is the weak point of the entire online business model.

    For individuals and businesses it’s important to understand that those e-book, cloud storage or social media services may appear to be a bargain, but there are risks lurking in the fine print.

    The new Soviets might be doing well at the moment, but their days are numbered just as the USSR’s were.

    Similar posts:

  • Free content’s shaky foundations

    Free content’s shaky foundations

    Musician’s rights advocate David Lowrie has a takedown on his Trichordist of Pandora’s campaign to change the US music royalty payment system through the Internet Radio Fairness Act.

    Pandora and other online streaming services claim the current arrangement is unfair and puts them at a disadvantage to terrestrial AM and FM radio stations. Artists and record labels claim this is just a way to cut rights payments.

    David suggests that Pandora’s founders either lied about the sustainability of their business at the time of their IPO last year or are just being plain greedy.

    Regardless of what is true, or whether David is overstating the case against the IRFA, a truth remains that many Internet business models are unsustainable and Pandora’s may be one of them.

    Most unsustainable of all are those who rely on free content.

    Eventually the market works to filter out those who won’t pay for content – the good writers and artists move onto something more profitable, like driving buses or serving hamburgers, or they figure out they may as well control their own works rather than let some Internet company profit from their talents and labor.

    The website or service offering nothing in return for the contributor’s hard work eventually ends up distributing garbage – Demand Media or Ask are examples of this.

    In a marketplace where crap is everywhere, just pumping out more crap is not a way to make money.

    Those looking at investing in businesses which rely on free content need to remember this, if no-one values the product then you have no business.

    Sadly too many internet entrepreneurs, and corporate managers, believe the road to their wealth is through not paying artists, musicians or writers. They are the modern robber barons.

    Similar posts: