Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Tag: economy

Taking care of our own
“The council ought to do something” growled a friend who’d been stuck in a peak hour traffic jam.

That innocuous comment illustrates the fundamental challenge facing the developed world’s politicians – that we expect our governments to fix every problem we encounter.

In the case of the local traffic jam, the cars creating gridlock are parents driving their children to two nearby large private schools.

Despite the problem being caused by the choices of individuals – those decisions to send their kids to those schools and to drive them there – our modern mindset is “the government aught to do something” rather than suggesting people should be making other choices.

Socialising the costs of our private decisions is one of the core beliefs of the 1980s mindset.

Eventually though the money had to run out as we started to expect governments to solve every problem.

We’re seeing the effects of this in the United States where local governments are now having pull up black top roads, close schools and renege on retirement funds as those costs become too great.

As a society we have to accept there are limits to what governments can do for us.

Increasingly as the world economy deleverages, tax revenues fall and the truth that a benign government can’t fulfill our every need starts to dawn on the populace, we’ll realise that expecting politicians and public servants to save us is a vain hope as they simply don’t have the resources.

Bruce Springsteen puts this well in his song “We Take Care Of Our Own.”

The truth today is the cargo cult mentality of waiting for governments or cashed up foreigners to come and save us is over.

We’re going to have to rely more on our own businesses, families and communities to support us in times of need.

The existing institutions of the corporate welfare state are beginning to collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.

Joe Hockey knows this, but as a paid-up agent of the establishment he doesn’t dare nominate the massive cuts to middle class welfare and big business subsidies that are necessary to reform those institutions.

Waiting for the council to fix the local roundabout is nice but it doesn’t address the bigger problems.

It’s up to us to build the new institutions around our local communities and families. This is not a bad thing.

Similar posts:
April 19, 2012
Is small business too pessimistic?
The MYOB March 2012 Business Monitor report is a disturbing document; not only does it show how low confidence is among Australian business owners, it also portrays a group that are making sacrifices for an uncertain future. Is this what small business has come to?

One of the most disturbing aspects of the survey is how long company founders go without a break. With one third reporting they had not taken holidays since starting their business, this statistic is constant regardless of how long the operation has been going.

As somebody who went a decade without taking a holiday, I have a lot of sympathy for business owners in that situation.

What really jumps out is the pessimism of business owners – a quarter don’t expect the economy to improve for at least two years and only 39% expect their revenues to rise.

That business owners would be so negative about the future is disturbing; they should be the most optimistic.

It’s also interesting that more than half are disappointed with levels of support from the government, does anyone expect different?

Quite frankly, if you want money or support from the government then get a job with the public service. I tried that for a few months and there’s plenty of pessimistic people there.

That small business owners are becoming as disillusioned as public servants is a concern for our economy and society. Hopefully it’s not a permanent condition.

Similar posts:
April 17, 2012
What if Bill Gates had been born in Australia?
Microsoft founder Bill Gates is today one of the world’s biggest philanthropists having built his business from an obscure traffic management software company to what was at one stage the world’s biggest technology corporation.

But what if he’d been born in Sutherland, New South Wales rather than Seattle, Washington? How different would things have been for an Australian Bill Gates?

The first thing is he would have been encouraged to study law; just like his dad. In the 1970s lawyers had far more status and career prospects than software developers in Australia.

Causing more concern for his parents and career counselor would have been his determination to run his own business. It’s far safer to get a safe job, buy a house then start buying investment properties to fund your retirement.

The Funding Drought

If Bill still persisted with his ideas, he’d have hit a funding problem. No bank wouldn’t be interested in lending and his other alternatives would restricted.

In the Australia of the 1970s and 80s they’d be few alternatives for a business like Micro Soft. Even today, getting funding from angel groups and venture capital funds depend upon luck and connections rather than viable business ideas.

Bill Gates’ big break came when IBM knocked on his door to solve their problem of finding a personal computer operating system; the likelihood of any Australian company seeking help from a small operator – let alone one run by a a couple of twenty somethings – is so unlikely even today it’s difficult to comprehend that happening.

Eventually an antipodean Bill Gates would have probably admitted defeat, wound up his business and gone to work for dad’s law firm.

Invest in property, young man

Over time a smart, hard working young lawyer like Bill would have done well and today he’d be the partner of a big law firm with a dozen investment properties – although some of the coastal holiday properties wouldn’t be going well.

While some things have changed in the last thirty years – funding is a little easier to find in the current angel and venture capital mania – most Australians couldn’t think about following in Bill Gates’ path.

Part of the reason is conservatism but a much more important reason are our taxation and social security systems.

Favoring property speculators over entrepreneurs

Under our government policies an inventor, innovator or entrepreneur is penalised for taking risks. The ATO starts with the assumption all small or new businesses are tax dodges while ASIC is a thinly disguised small business tax agency and assets tests punish anyone with the temerity to consider building an business rather than buying investment properties.

At the same time a wage earner is allowed to offset losses made in property or shares against their income taxes, something that those building the businesses or inventing the tools of the future are expressly forbidden from doing.

Coupled with exemptions on taxing the capital gains on homes, Australian households – and society – is vastly over invested in property.

Making matters worse, the ramping up of property prices over the last thirty years has allowed generations of Australians to believe that property is risk free and doubles in value every decade.

That perception is reinforced by banks reluctant to lend to anyone who doesn’t have real estate equity to secure their loans.

So we have a society that favours property speculation over invention and innovation.

Every year in the run up to Federal budget time tax reform becomes an issue, the real effects of negative gearing and other subsidies for housing speculation – the distortion of our economy and societies investment attitudes – are never discussed.

In Australia there are thousands of smart young kids today who could be the Bill Gates’ of the 21st Century.

The question is do we want to encourage them to lead their generation or steer them towards a safe job and an investment property just like grandpa?

Similar posts:
April 9, 2012
Common interests
KFC is booming in the world’s emerging markets. From Shanghai, China to Accra, Ghana, crowds are lining up to eat and the fast food chain is opening new outlets across the world.

Yet in KFC’s home market, the United States, the chain is shutting outlets and infuriating franchisees.

A Bloomberg BusinessWeek profile looks at the success of Yum! foods, KFC’s parent company, and the contradiction of overseas success while their domestic business fades.

One thing is absolutely clear, Yum Food’s vainglorious Chief Executive David Novak and his board have made a clear decision to focus on expanding the core business of deep fried chicken in emerging markets while making little effort to adapt to changes in their domestic operations.

At least Yum are keeping their US based KFC operations, many of their other brands are being sold off as the company responds to changes US tastes and economic circumstances.

For the US KFC franchisees, this is a difficult process as their interests are not the same as those of Yum’s management.

At the heart of every business agreement are people acting in their own interests. The most successful partnerships are those where everybody’s interests are recognised and respected.

In their US operations, the big question is how long Yum can neglect their US franchisees and markets without affecting their international operations.

For Yum’s international operations it’s going to be fascinating to see how the partnerships and joint ventures underpinning their expansion in emerging market evolve.

Yum will probably find in some of these markets that their local partners don’t share their interests. Then they may find themselves in the same position of their US franchisees.

Similar posts:
April 2, 2012
Overselling technology
“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.

Similar posts:
March 14, 2012