Category: business advice

  • Fairfax of the Future

    Fairfax of the Future

    The embattled board of Fairfax has announced major changes to the way they publish their newspapers. Is it too little, too late for this iconic media organisation?

    As the board of Fairfax struggles with poor performance and angry demands from prominent shareholders, the company has announced a change of focus and a reduction in their printing capacity.

    In a presentation given by the Chief Executive Greg Hywood, the company’s management goes through the scope and logic of their changes which are mainly around their distribution networks.

    Rethinking print

    The clearest message from the presentation is that readers have moved online with over three-quarters of readers now accessing the Age and Sydney Morning Herald digitally.

    While there are still substantial print revenues in their metro division, around $500 million dollars a year right now, it’s clear Fairfax has to reduce printing and distribution costs.

    Cutting the Chullora and Tullamarine printing plants makes sense given Fairfax has regional capacity just outside both Melbourne and Sydney.

    Shrinking the SMH and Age to a “compact” size – tabloid being the word that dare not speak its name – will get shrieks of outrage from those wedded to the broadsheet concept, but really doesn’t make much difference to the online readership that represent the future.

    Digital first

    Fairfax’s “digital first” strategy where online publication take precedence over the print editions will be detailed in a few weeks, this tis a change that should have happened years ago.

    Despite the wringing of ink stained hands by journalists who grew up in the era of hot metal printing presses, the news industry has been digital for over a quarter century. In fact the two printing plants now being closed were the digital successors to the old presses on Sydney’s Broadway and Melbourne’s Spencer Street.

    That Fairfax’s management is only realising newspapers are just another distribution medium illustrates how late they are to understanding the changes which have happened in the last twenty years.

    Using terms like “Digital First” only indicates an obsession with distribution methods rather than the product itself.

    Content above all

    Fairfax’s product is the news content which is still a valuable commodity – almost everything driving the Australian news cycle comes out of the metropolitan print media.

    What appears in the Sydney Morning Herald, Age, Daily Telegraph or Herald Sun drives most of the day’s radio, television and social media coverage in their cities. It shouldn’t be under estimated how powerful both publications are and it is why Gina Rinehart wants a stake in Fairfax.

    That value could see paywalls work for Fairfax, but content has to be worth paying for if readers are going to reluctantly open their wallets.

    A product worth paying for?

    Having a product worth paying for is where the real challenge lies for Fairfax.

    Right now much of the content sucks – there’s too much syndication which can be sourced elsewhere, for instance most of the technology section has article that appeared two days earlier on Techmeme or Mashable.

    In domestic sections like politics and property the bulk of the “journalism” is repeating other peoples’ agendas rather than reporting facts or driving debate. Much of what Fairfax’s Canberra correspondents report are anonymous briefings from “party figures” while the property section regurgitates the latest spin from real estate agents and property developers.

    Over in travel and food, those sections now largely consist of barely rehashed media releases and it’s no accident readers are fleeing those sections to more relevant, and honest, food and travel blogs.

    All of these sections have to be revamped if Fairfax is to survive. This will need new editors and probably wholesale staff changes.

    A relevant future

    The future for Fairfax is being relevant to the communities it serves. Already newspapers are irrelevant and increasingly 1970s style journalism is being ignored.

    Late last week the Prime Minister met with a group a bloggers in an attempt to soften her image with key women’s groups.

    Despite the sneering of the Fairfax Canberra correspondents, that meeting at Kirribilli House illustrates how media is changing – to politicians, readers and advertisers the old newspapers and their journalists are no longer relevant.

    Hopefully Fairfax’s board can ensure the company stays relevant and survives – the Australian media sector is dominated by too few voices as it is and losing one of the biggest players would be a disaster.

    Similar posts:

  • Transparent falsehoods

    Transparent falsehoods

    Transparency, openness, innovation and entrepreneurialism are all popular buzzwords, but do organisations really value these attributes?

    At a cloud computing conference this week I sat in on an innovation presentation. Almost everyone in the room was wearing a dark suit.

    Despite their dress, most of those folk desperately wanted to be ‘innovative’ and almost all of them worked in organisations that would really benefit with a dash of genuine creative thinking.

    I thought of that conference when reading of the attempted shutting down of a primary school student’s food blog by her local education authority.

    The saga of the Never Seconds food blog illustrated the classic responses of managers when faced with something they can’t control – shut it down on whatever grounds you can find.

    In the case of Never Seconds it was because the food service staff feared they would lose their jobs. Bless the council for caring so much about their staff.

    As always in these situations, it was an opportunity missed to promote the school district and improve the services they provide.

    Never Seconds is also a great place where other school students shared their school lunches. It is a great idea to promote healthy eating for kids.

    Thankfully the Argyll and Bute Council relented on their ban and the Never Seconds blog is back for lunch.

    Educators around the world talk about promoting children’s curiosity and creativity yet when a child expresses them in a way that threatens staff or bureaucrat power, they are quickly slapped down.

    The same happens in the workplace, most organisations will treat truly innovative and original thinkers like the naughty children they probably were.

    For too many organisations – businesses, political parties and even schools – words like innovation, creativity, openness and transparency are just empty buzzwords.

    Similar posts:

  • Beating Buzzword Bingo

    Beating Buzzword Bingo

    One of the curses of modern business is the buzzword, a perfectly good word that is ruined by constant use.

    The IT industry is particularly prone to buzzwords as people try to distil complex concepts into easy to understand terms – cloud computing is a good example of this.

    More malign in the tech sector, and many other industries, are clueless managers and salespeople who try to baffle superiors, clients and staff with buzzwords to cover their total ignorance of what their business actually does.

    For the canny supplier or contractor, the buzzword addled customer is a great sales opportunity as the customer’s managers are always grateful to buy a product tagged with some complex sounding terms that they can impress other with.

    The security software vendors are very good at this as are management consultants who’ve literally written books stuffed full buzzwords guaranteeing them millions of billable hours.

    One of the current favourite buzzwords is IPv6, the Internet standard replacing the current protocol that has run out of numbers. Saying you’re IPv6 compliant even when your business is more affected by cabbage prices in Shanghai is good to impress a few people who should know better.

    Probably the greatest buzzword of the last decade was innovation. Every company, every new product and even government departments had to be “innovative” or lose credibility on the information superhighway.

    Eventually though terms fall out of favour and innovation is one of those whose time has passed – those still dropping it into conversations today are usually 1990s MBA graduates who’ve dozed through the last five years of their professional development courses.

    Watching out for those outdated buzzwords is useful not just as a sucker indicator for smart salespeople but also for job hunters.

    For instance, when a company or recruiter constantly uses the word “innovation” in their job descriptions, you can be sure the organisation is one the least innovative on the planet, except possibly in the way management have structured their KPIs and option packages.

    Generally the use of buzzwords in job descriptions or “mission statements” (another 1990s MBA fad) is inversely proportional to how applicable those terms are in the organisation.

    For instance an organisation that claims it wants employees who are “self-motivated, curious and are selfless enough to seek what’s best for the company first,” is almost certainly run by control freaks practicing CYA management who mercilessly punish anyone under them foolish enough to take the initiative or ask questions.

    Overall, buzzwords are a force for good as they let savvy employees identify those workplaces and managers that are best avoided. For those of us running businesses, it could mean opportunity or danger depending on what we’re selling to these organisations.

    The greatest thing with buzzwords though is they are constantly evolving, meaning I get the opportunity to rewrite this column again in two years time by just changing a few words.

    Innovation is already passé and “cloud” is peaking. What are next buzzwords we should watch for and enjoy?

    Similar posts:

  • Taxing the Internet laggards

    Taxing the Internet laggards

    Online retailer Ruslan Kogan is never short of a good stunt to promote his business. His latest, a tax on users of Internet Explorer 7 has given him worldwide attention.

    Ruslan touches on a real problem for web designers, e-commerce shopkeepers and the online community in general – that Microsoft’s older versions of their Internet Explorer web browsers don’t conform with standards.

    This means IE6 and 7 don’t display pages the way other browsers do meaning designers have to spend extra time catering for the people who won’t move to new versions.

    For those who insist on using the older versions of Internet Explorer, they are also taking a risk as these products are far less secure than the newer editions.

    It’s in everybody’s interests to have the latest browsers and security patches, so both Windows and Mac users should be making sure they have the latest updates on their computers.

    Even with the latest updates, it’s worthwhile using a different web browser to the one that comes with the system. That’s why Opera, Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome are the better options for web browsers.

    Ruslan Kogan’s right in forcing users to move onto modern software, it’s a media stunt that might do some good.

    Similar posts:

  • Can Sydney become a smart city?

    Can Sydney become a smart city?

    How does a city become smart? That seems to be the question of the moment as countries and cities around the world try to figure out how to catch a little bit of Silicon Valley’s magic.

    As part of the 2012 City Talks series, the City of Sydney hosted a discussion on how the city can become a smart city;

    Sydney is bursting with talented, creative and forward-thinking people. How can we harness the energy of government, education, businesses, media, and creative thinkers to create space for innovation?

    While it’s questionable that a “creative space for innovation” is a worthy objective – albeit laden with buzzwords – it’s certainly true that Sydney, along with other Australian cities, has the components to be a entrepreneurial centre, the question is how does the city harness the various talents across the different sector.

    Working to advantages

    Rather than aping Silicon Valley, New York or Ireland all cities should be exploiting their natural advantages. Fast Company Magazine recently looked at how Oklahoma City has advantages over its bigger cousins in New York and California.

    For Sydney, and Melbourne, those strengths include an educated, multi-cultural workforce with first world legal systems in a similar time zone to the world’s major growth markets.

    One of the tragedies in Australia’s marketing over the last twenty five years has been the failure to mention the ethnic diversity of the nation. This is huge competitive advantage that is barely being discussed.

    What can governments do?

    At the Sydney City Talks event, Lord Mayor Clover Moore said that creating a smart city requires “the same incentive to be given to innovators and creatives as is given to property investors and mining companies.”

    That change requires state and Federal governments to change laws and businesses, particularly banks, to pick up on those price and policy signals.

    Education too needs reform although this needs real consultation or we’ll end falling for short term fads or copying the damaging anti-teacher jihad that has infected the US.

    A welcome change for many Australian innovators would be changes in government procurement policies as currently all levels of government prefer to deal with the local offices of large multinationals. As the Queensland Health Department debacle shows, these organisations are often less competent than local providers.

    Making those changes though will require major reforms to policies and laws, something that neither major Australian political party at any level has the courage or vision to do.

    That the NSW Digital Action Plan is now in its thirty-first draft speaks volumes about the inertia among the city’s, state’s and country’s political and business leaders.

    Ditch the Silicon

    Probably the first failure of imagination is the “silicon” tag – US entrepreneur Brad Feld skewers this nicely in his blog post on The Tragedy Of Calling Things Silicon.

    Sydney has already has a group called “Silicon Beach” which has spread out to Melbourne and the Gold Coast and it’s interesting that both Google Australia’s CEO and Engineering head want to co-opt the name.

    On of the suggestions was “Silicon Banana” a tag which brings to mind the phrase “kill me now please?” to anyone already uncomfortable with the ‘Silicon’ label.

    The “Silicon Banana” idea comes from the curved shape of Sydney’s ‘digital heartland’ which curves from Darling Island to the west of the city and curves around the edge of the city centre through Surry Hills across to the film and television facilities at Fox Studios.

    Describing Sydney’s centre of innovation as lying within the ‘banana’ illustrates the lack of thinking outside the current app and web mania. It also neglects the bulk of Sydney, particularly those parts of the Western Suburbs where languages such as Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Arabic or Hindi are spoken.

    Once again we neglect those assets because they aren’t white, Anglo or living in the prettier parts of the city.

    Does it have to be Sydney?

    We should keep in mind that the Silicon Valleys of the past haven’t been the biggest cities – Silicon Valley itself is barely a city and San Francisco is not one of the US’ biggest cities.

    It’s quite possible that an Australian centre of innovation could be any one of dozens of smaller towns such as Geelong, Wagga or Cairns.

    The problem in Australia is, once again, property prices. Compared to the US or Europe, housing and office rents aren’t substantially cheaper outside the big cities unless you’re prepared to move to seriously blighted parts of the country.

    Spinning the wheels

    Probably the most disappointing thing of the ‘smart city’ discussion is just how bogged down we’ve become – there was little in the City Talk that wasn’t being spoken about five, or even ten, years ago. Things have not moved on.

    Creating a smart city isn’t about picking winners among industries, suburbs or groups. To really be smart we have to give the opportunities for clever people to succeed.

    Simply jumping onto today’s technology fad or mindlessly aping Silicon Valley is to squander our advantages and not learn from the mistakes of others.

    The real worry though is just how little progress is being made in seizing today’s opportunities. It doesn’t bode well for tomorrow’s.

    Similar posts: