Category: economy

Why governments fail in building Silicon Valleys

Can governments build entrepreneurial hubs?

Don’t Give the Arnon Kohavis Your Money warns Sarah Lacy in her cautionary tale of what happens when an economic messiah comes to town promising to create the next Silicon Valley.

“Hopefully this story finds a way to circulate out to the wider audience of government officials and old money elites who have good intentions of wanting to make their city a beacon for entrepreneurship.” Writes Sarah. “Hopefully it reaches them before they get bamboozled into giving the wrong people money to make it happen.”

Bamboozled Bureaucrats

For 19 months I was one of those government officials and saw those good intentions up close while developing what became the Digital Sydney project, that bamboozlement is real and a lot of money does go to the wrong people.

Sarah’s points are well made, Silicon Valley wasn’t built quickly with its roots based in the 1930s electronic industry and the 1960s developments in semiconductors – all underpinned by massive US defence spending from World War II onwards.

In many ways Silicon Valley was a happy and prosperous accident where various economic, political and technological forces came together without any planning. Neither the Californian or US Governments decreed they would make the region an entrepreneurial hotbed and sent out legions of public servants armed with subsidies and incentives to build a global business centre.

This is the mistake governments – and a lot of entrepreneurs or business leaders – make when they talk about “building the next Silicon Valley”; they assume that tax free zones, incentive schemes and subsidies are going to attract the investors and inventors necessary to build the next entrepreneurial hotspot.

For governments, the results are discouraging; usually ending in failed incubators and accelerator programs all conceived by public servants who, with the best will in the world, don’t have the skills, incentives or decades long timelines to make these schemes work.

New England’s failure

At worst, we end up with the corporate welfare model that sees governments and communities exploited like the tragic story of New London, Connecticut, where the local government spent $160 million and cleared an entire suburb for drug company Pfizer to establish their research headquarters, which they closed a few years later and left a waste dump behind.

While the New London story is one of the worst examples, this sort of corporate welfare is the standard role for most government economic agencies. The department I worked for gave subsidies to supermarket chains to open distribution centres and stores that they were going to build anyway.

One of the notable things with development agencies and the provincial politicians who oversee them is how they are easy victims for the economic messiah – it could be a pharmaceutical giant like in New London, a property developer promising Sydney will become a financial hub or a US venture capital guru flying in and promising Santiago will be the next San Francisco.

The truth is there are no short cuts; building a technology centre like Silicon Valley, a financial hub like London or a manufacturing cluster like Italy’s Leather Triangle take decades, some luck and little intervention by government agencies or outside messiahs.

Silicon Valley and most other successful industry centres are the result of a happy intersection of economics and history. The best governments can do is create the stable financial, tax and legal frameworks that let inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs build new industries.

All government support isn’t bad as well thought out, long term programs that help new businesses and technologies grow being the very effective – we should keep in mind though taht Silicon Valley couldn’t have happened without massive US military and space program spending.

Like a parent with a baby, the best governments can do is create the right environment and hope for the best. Interfering rarely works well.

Lords of the digital manor

How free content and expensive management can’t live together

There is something fundamentally wrong with AOL’s media business states a Business Insider headline.

What is fundamentally wrong is quite basic to anyone who has owned or managed a business – money.

The problems at AOL illustrate the deep flaws in the “digital sharecropper” business model of putting free or cheap content on the web to harvest online advertising.

Lords of the digital manor

Sites like Demand Media and Huffington Post can’t make money from content if too many staff expect to get paid. Chris Anderson illustrated this in a rebuttal to Malcolm Gladwell where he examined the economics of his GeekDad blog and the work of its manager, Ken;

So here’s the calculus:

  • Wired.com makes good money selling ads on GeekDad (it’s very popular with advertisers)
  • Ken gets a nominal retainer, but has also managed to parlay GeekDad into a book deal and a lifelong dream of being a writer
  • The other contributors largely write for free, although if one of their posts becomes insanely popular they’ll get a few bucks. None of them are doing it for the money, but instead for the fun, audience and satisfaction of writing about something they love and getting read by a lot of people.

It’s almost touching to picture the modern day digital serf touching his flat cap and murmuring “thank you m’lud” on receiving a ha’penny from the lord of the digital manor before scampering back to working on becoming a well read, but unpaid writer.

We don’t pay writers

The business model of the Geek Dad blog or the Huffington Post relies upon these unpaid writers donating their work and time –the digital sharecroppers as described by Jeff Attwood.

Low paid or free labour is essential to the success of these site, when the bulk of advertising income goes straight to the proprietors the digital aristocrats – Lord Chris of Wired or Duchess Arianna – can live well.

The business model falls apart when management starts taking a cut of the profits; install a highly paid CEO and management team with their squadrons of Executive Vice Presidents or Group General Managers with the Medici-esque perks and entitlements these folk demand and the profits disappear.

AOL’s problem is it has too many highly paid managers extracting wealth from the company’s cashflow.

This is exactly the same problem print and television media empires have, once the rich rivers of gold allowed them to build up well paid management castes that are now crippling the businesses as revenues can’t support their financial burden.

Paying for digital media’s future

Over time, online media revenues are improving. As Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker pointed out in 2010 that U.S. consumers spend 28 percent of their media time online, yet in 2010 only 13 percent of ad spending goes to the Internet. As advertisers follow consumers, publishing on the web will become more profitable.

The risk for big media organisations is their money will run out before the digital renaissance arrives and when it does, they may have squandered their natural advantages by shedding quality journalists, experienced sub-editors and good editors in an effort to prop up executive bonuses.

AOL’s management problem is part of a much bigger problem across markets and industries, we can call it managerialism – there are too many highly paid managers getting in the way of the writers, engineers, scientists, artists and tradesman who add real value to their organisations.

Strangely, it may be Chris Anderson’s “free” model that kills the managerial culture as enterprises that can’t afford to pay product creators certainly won’t pay an Executive Vice President’s entitlements.

Business is fine

Everything is good in business, until one day it isn’t.

“I don’t need high speed broadband,” snarls the businessman in a country town, “business is fine as it is.”

A hundred years ago this year the iconic Australian horse coach company Cobb & Co went into its first bankruptcy as it declined from being the dominant transport service of rural Australia.

Cobb & Co was founded in 1854 by four young Americans in the Victorian gold rush and grew around the expansion of Australia’s rural farming and mining industries. By 1900 the company had 9,000 horses travelling 31,000km (20,000 miles) every week.

By 1924 Cobb & Co was gone. Displaced by the motor car and restrictive state government rules designed to protect their railways.

Many businesses, including the management of Cobb & Co, thought the motor car was a fad. No doubt many at the time also thought electricity was dangerous and unnecessary.

Business worked fine as it was when stagecoaches carried the mail and bullock carts carted the crops, steam engines were fine to power the farms and businesses while the telegraph was just fine for those times when a three month letter to your customers or creditors in London or New York wasn’t quick enough.

All those businesses went broke. They didn’t go broke fast, it was a slow process until one day owners realised it was all over and then the end came surprisingly quickly.

That’s where many of us our today – cloud computing might be the latest buzzword, social media might be a distraction for coffee addled children of the TV generation and the global market might be just a way to dump cheap goods and services on gullible consumers – but markets and societies are changing, just as they did a hundred years ago.

Sure, your business doesn’t need fast Internet. Business is fine.

Stage coach image courtesy of Velda Christensen at http://www.novapages.com/

The case for faster internet

Is the argument for a national broadband network being lost?

The National Broadband Network (NBN) is a project designed to deliver faster and more reliable broadband to Australia’s regions. While a good idea, it’s not without its critics and a fair degree of controversy.

One of the problems the project has is the inability of NBNCo, the company established to build and run the network, to articulate the benefits and scope of the project.

Last Friday night “John from Condobolin” grilled the Gadget Guy, Peter Blasina, about the project. John’s questions, and Pete’s answers, which can be found at 35 minutes into his program, illustrates the confusion the surrounds NBN and the failure of the project’s supporters to explain the benefits.

So how should proponents of the National Broadband Network – people like me who believe that high speed broadband are the freeways and railways of the 21st Century – respond to questions. Let’s answer John’s questions from last Friday.

Lightning might affect fibre networks

John’s first question was about lightning affecting the NBN, commenting when Pete confirmed electrical storms would affect the network that “it’s no better than the existing service.”

Sadly all infrastructure is affected by weather – a freeway is just as affected by fog as a dirt road, perhaps even more so, but it doesn’t mean you don’t build a highway because of that. The same applies for the NBN.

Interestingly the wireless and satellite alternatives proposed to fibre optic cable are even more susceptible to electrical storms, which perversely makes a better argument for running a fibre optic network.

I don’t need any NBN

“I have got quite good reception in Condobolin and I don’t need any NBN, I can assure you” was John’s next big statement.

That’s nice for John that he’s happy with what he has – the rest of us should be so lucky.

For many of his neighbours and those in the surrounding district, particularly those dealing with remote suppliers and overseas markets, reliable and fast communications are essential.

Now is good enough

A farmer doesn’t need broadband for selling into America, he’s able to do that today, was the crux of John’s next comment after he and Pete had an exchange about rolling broadband out to remote locations.

It’s true that farmers can do a lot with today’s satellite and ADSL connections, then again they were able to ship exports in the days of bullock carts and sailing ships. We could extend that argument against railway lines, roads, containers and bulk carriers.

Once upon a time some guy argued against the wheel. Today’s technology has been good enough has always been the argument of those who don’t see the benefits of new tools; we’re talking about tomorrow’s markets and society, not today’s.

Broadband is all about fibre

“You’re talking about satellite dishes and things like that, not NBN.”

The National Broadband Network isn’t just about fibre; fibre optic cables makes up the network’s core and bulk of connections, but wireless and satellite are essential in order to make sure the entire nation has access to the network.

Unfortunately the nonsense argument that technology improvements in wireless will render fibre optics redundant has been allowed to take hold by self-interested politicians and sections of the media pushing a narrow agenda.

Wireless, satellite, fibre optic and other cable technologies are all part of the mix, the real argument is on the proportions of that combination and the consequences to the government’s budget.

Spotting the clueless

As an aside, the cable versus wireless argument is a good yardstick for measuring the knowledge of anyone joining the NBN debate.

Someone clueless arguing against the project says investment in fibre optic cable is unnecessary as it’s speed and data capacities will be one day superseded by those of Wireless networks.

This betrays a failure to grasp the inherent advantage of having a dedicated cable connection to your property as opposed to sharing a wireless base station with hundreds, if not thousands, of others.

Equally anyone pro-NBN who says that fibre is faster because it travels at the speed of light is equally clueless as wireless, copper wire and even smoke signals also travel at – or close to – the speed of light.

Games and videos

“Is this only to watch videos and DVDs?” was John’s last question.

Well, does Condobolin have a video store? A quick Google search shows it does, along with local and satellite TV stations. So the residents of Condobolin are just keen as the rest of us to watch the tube.

Increasingly our viewing habits are moving online and fast broadband is necessary to deliver that. John may be happy to exclude his town from being able to do that, but my guess is plenty of his neighbours would like to have that option.

What’s more, many of those farmers, processors, trucking companies and other service providers in the Condobolin region will need those video facilities for tele-conferencing with suppliers, customers and training companies.

Building for the future

Video conferencing isn’t the only application for what we consider today to be high speed networks, these are going to change society and business in the same way the motor car changed us in the 20th Century and railways and telegraph in the 19th.

Australia made a mess of the railways and the roads, in both areas we’re still playing catch up. The National Broadband Network is an opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the last hundred years and get the 21st Century right.

Unfortunately, the objectives of building a better nation are being lost in a fog of disinformation, political opportunism and corporate incompetence. We can do better than this.

Mad, bad or dangerous: The One Percenters we need to avoid

There is a certain type of customer business need to be careful of.

“I’m not going pay you, your technician was constantly looking at his watch,” growled the customer when asked why she’d stopped a cheque for some work we’d done for her.

There’s many excuses for not paying your bills but a tradesman trying to keep the client’s bill to a minimum is an excellent dodge.

Over the phone call’s ten minutes, it was clear this lady was going to be a tough customer.

First the job wasn’t done properly, then the charges were too high, she accused us of taking advantage of vulnerable women and finally she was going to complain about us to her union.

It was clear we were in for a fight to get a hundred dollars from her, so I let it go. She went away believing she was right.

The saying “the customer is always right” was coined by US retail pioneer Marshall Field and exported around the world by Harry Selfridge, one of his employees who also founded a business empire.

We can be sure neither of them actually meant that customers are always correct in what they do, just that the key to successful service is the client walking away believing they are right.

Regardless of how well we deliver on our promises, there are always going to be some that aren’t happy. In most cases this is due to misunderstanding, or just a bad day on our part, but sometimes there’s the one percent of customers who are mad, bad or dangerous.

The Mad

Some customers just aren’t quite with us. These people, some of whom have genuine psychological problems, simply aren’t going to be reasonable.

There’s no point in fighting them as that’s only going to make their issues worse and maybe even transfer some of their problems to you.

Fortunately as you become more experienced in business you get better at detecting and avoiding these type of customers although there’s always the odd one who sneaks through.

The Bad

There’s a certain breed of people – and businesses – who don’t pay their bills, seeing their suppliers as banks and an invoice as an interest free loan.

Often these customers are charming and the perfect client before the bill is presented then they string you out for months of years before paying your invoices.

For these people and organisations, who are genuine deadbeats, there’s the fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me philosophy. It’s usually better to write them off rather than sink hours of management time.

The Dangerous

Of all the bad payers, the most dangerous is the game player. To these people, not paying debts is an intellectual challenge which they enjoy and play for fun.

These folk will just as happily mess around the phone company or the tax office as much as the local plumber or newsagent, it’s just a game which they’ll play to their maximum enjoyment and your frustration.

For the big companies, these people can be a benefit as they justify the existing of entire bureaucracies dedicated in getting them to pay; small business though don’t have the time and resources to spend the hours of work over years to extract payment from them.

Thankfully these folk usually stonewall as the first invoice so there’s early warnings you’re dealing with trouble. Resist the urge to play the game with them as they are usually better at it than you.

Regardless of which category these bad debtors fall into, in each case it’s better for your valuable time and sanity to let them believe they are right, write the debt off and move on to helping customers who really matter.

Fortunately these people really are the One Percenters and only representative of a tiny proportion of our customers.

The taste of copping a loss is always painful, but at least we get good stories from the excuses they give. What’s the best reason you’ve heard for a customer trying to dodge a debt?

What business can learn from Groupon

How can businesses use the web to grow like the group buying companies?

Groupon, pioneer of group buying and one the fastest growing companies in history, will have its launch on the stock markets today with an initial public offering (IPO) that’s values the business at thirteen billion dollars, more double the $6bn that Google offered for the three year old company last year.

A recent Business Insider profile of Groupon had some fascinating insights on this unique company and its growth, there’s a number of lessons that most business owners, entrepreneurs and managers can take from this company’s dramatic growth and market leadership regardless of the sector they operate in.

Apply tech to your business

Many people make the mistake that Groupon is tech startup when it’s actually a sales operation.

Groupon’s business model isn’t really new, what they have done is applied various web technologies to the directory and voucher shopping industries and come up with a 21st Century way of doing things.

Bringing together different modern tools like social media, cloud computing, local search and the mobile web makes businesses more flexible and quick to develop new market opportunities.

Prepare for quick changes

Groupon was born out of another business – The Point. As The Point steadily died, Andrew Mason and his mentor Eric Lefkofsky decided to try something different and Groupon was born.

This ability to change focus quickly – often called “pivoting” – is essential in changing markets. In volatile times like today where today’s business conditions can’t be taken for granted we have to be prepared for rapid changes.

Fortunately the cost and time to changes your business focus has dropped dramatically with digital and online tools, which is another reason to embrace tech.

Get a good business mentor

Eric Lefkofsky bought maturity and a perspective to Groupon’s young leadership, having a different and more experienced view of the business helped it develop and grab the opportunity.

An experienced business mentor can be worth their weight in gold.

Back a good idea

In Nicholas Carson’s Business Insider profile he describes Andrew Mason role at Eric Lefkofski’s business before The Point as “an intern, ‘kind of squatting in their offices'”. Lefkofski was prepared to back the geeky kid camping on his premises.

Putting your prejudices and judgements on the shelf to back good ideas, particularly those that don’t cost much to execute, is one way to find where the opportunities lie.

Tell your business story

Regardless of what you think of Groupon’s claims, they tell a very good story which has lead to their amazing growth and the development of the group buying industry.

Being able to tell your story, in your terms, is one of the great advantages the web, local search and social media deliver. There’s no reason why your business shouldn’t be dominating the local market in whatever field you work in.

Regardless of what your business does, it can benefit from applying the online tools that are available to all of us.

We may not be the next Groupon but the web gives us the opportunity to build our business to take advantage of the 21st Century. It’s worthwhile understanding the new tools at our fingertips.

The IT industry’s damaged business models

Can the Information Technology industry deal with a radically changed business environment?

JT Wang, Chairman of personal computer manufacturer Acer believes the release of Windows 8, Microsoft’s next operating system, will see a resurgence of sales for Windows based computers. Market trends suggest those hopes are in vain.

Right now the Personal Computer market can be roughly split into two camps; those happily running Windows XP who have no need to upgrade and those who are delighted with Windows 7 who have no need to upgrade.

Short of their computers breaking down, neither group have any good reasons to change to the new operating system as, unlike Windows 3.1, 95 or XP, there is no new technology breakthrough or advance to warrant making the jump.

To make things worse for the PC manufacturers the rise of cloud computing services extends the life of older Windows XP systems and eliminates the biggest driver of new computer purchases in businesses – the software upgrade.

During the PC era one of the banes of business owners were enforced software upgrades where vendors would release a new version of a program every year or two and withdraw support for the older editions.

Frequently the newer software would require the latest hardware, forcing the business into an expensive and disruptive upgrade of all their IT systems.

Today, software companies following the forced upgrade model are finding customers have viable cloud alternatives which destroys the revenue stream behind those frequent releases.

When a customer moves to a cloud service, they also delay buying new desktop or server hardware which is partly driving the steady increase in the age of business computers.

For computer manufacturers the release of Windows 8 could actually be bad news as customers will probably postpone system upgrades until the first service pack of the new operating system is released.

Even if Windows 8 does deliver increased sales as JT Wang hopes, the trend of steadily falling PC prices as smartphones and tablet computers take market share is inevitable.

The PC industry in both laptops and desktops has been a commodity industry for some years and any hope of establishing premium pricing from tablet computers has been dashed by the iPad’s competitive price points.

Regardless of the hopes of the IT industry’s leaders, both the hardware and software sectors are under a lot of stress. It will be interesting to see who adapts to today’s market.

 

Does revenue solve all problems?

Do profitable businesses have no problems?

According to Eric Schmit, Google’s Executive Chairman, “Revenue solves all problems.” Is that really so?

The truth is it doesn’t. Revenue can solve some problems, while creating others and having plenty of cash coming in may even cover over existing issues that can be ignored while times are good.

Plenty of governments have found themselves unsuck after rich revenues allowed them to ignore problems in their own society, the Dutch Disease – where a country’s income rises rapidly because one industry booms and crowds the others out – is one example of revenue causing problems. Local Chinese governments are currently dealing with problems bought around by their massive income from selling land.

In business, owners and managers sometimes find themselves in trouble because they can’t manage the demand that comes with the revenue a growing enterprise attracts.

Sometimes, the revenue’s fine but there’s no profit. I can earn a lot of money selling bottles of beer for ten cents when everyone else is charging two dollars, but the fact the wholesale price is one dollar means I’m going to grow broke quickly unless I can impress a dumb corporation with my massive customer growth and get them to buy me out.

The group buying model tends to combine two of the above problems – participating businesses struggle with the demand they generate while the discounts they are giving almost certainly guarantees they are not making a profit on the deal.

So revenue doesn’t solve all problems, even the most profitable business – legal or not – has its own unique set of problems.

Life’s easier when your business is profitable, but problems will never go away. Even the good life has problems; deal with it.

The agents of change

It’s tempting to think social media and other web tools are driving change, but much deeper things are changing.

It’s understandable technologists see technology as driving change. Often it’s true – technologies do build or destroy businesses, alter economies and collapse empires.

Sometimes though there’s more to change than a new technology changing the economy and while it’s tempting to credit innovations like the web, social media and cloud computing with many of the changes we’re seeing in the world, we have to consider some other factors at work.

The end of the 40 year credit boom

In the 1960s, the United States started creating credit to pay for the Vietnam war; they never stopped and after the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks the money supply was kept particularly loose.

The worldwide credit boom allowed all of us –Greek hairdressers, Irish home borrowers, Australian electronics salesmen, US bankers and pretty well everyone else in the Western world – to live beyond our means.

In 2008, the start of the Great Recession saw the end of that period and now the economy is deleveraging. Consumers are reluctant to borrow and businesses struggle to find funds to borrow even if they want to.

Any business plans built on the idea of almost unlimited spending growth are doomed. The era of massive consumer spending growth driven by easy credit is over and the days of expecting a plasma TV in every room are gone.

The aging population

An even bigger challenge is that our societies are getting older, the assumption we have an endless supply of cheap labour is being challenged as a global race for talent develops.

The lazy assumption that economic growth can be driven by building houses and infrastructure to meet increased demands will be found wanting as the Western world’s populations fail to grow at the rates required to power the construction industries.

Our societies are maturing and increased economic growth and wealth is going to have to come from clever use of our resources.

Innovations in computers and the Internet – along with other technologies like biotech, clean energy and materials engineering – will help us meet those challenges but they are tools to cope with our transforming societies, not the agents of change themselves.

Had  tools like social media come along in the 1970s or 80s they probably would have been massive drivers for change, just like the motor car and television were earlier in the 20th Century. In the early 21st Century they have been overtaken by history.

Smart businesses, along with clever governments and communities, will use tools like social media, local search and cloud computing with the demographic and economic changes, but we shouldn’t think for a minute the underlying challenges will be business as usual.

A clear, guiding vision

In a bland corporate world, knowing what you stand for is a competitive advantage

Two weeks ago the Melbourne fashion store Gasp caused outrage over their attitude to customers and the business’ owners might have been relieved the story was finally pushed off the news pages by Steve Jobs’ passing.

In a strange way, there’s a similarity between the Gasp stores and Steve Job’s Apple – a vision for their product and low tolerance for those who don’t share their ideals.

Steve Jobs was notorious for dismissing those who didn’t ‘get’ Apple, famously saying “they have no taste” when asked about his biggest competitor Microsoft and stating “we don’t ship junk” when questioned by a journalist about Apple’s perceived premium status.

Regardless of your opinion of Apple’s products, philosophy, labour practices or community relations, there was no doubt where they stood in the marketplace.

A similar thing can be said of the Gasp store, while there’s no question the Gasp folk could have handled their customer relations better, they certainly can’t be accused of not having a clear vision of where their brand sits in the marketplace.

In a world of bland mission statements where corporations and governments seem intent to paint the world a mediocre beige, having a strong statement on what your business stands for is a genuine competitive advantage.

What do you stand for?

Digital art is more than iPod wielding basket weavers

What is the future for the arts in the digital economy?

This is a transcript of the digital arts opening keynote for the Digital Culture Public Sphere conference discussing the Australian government’s cultural strategy.

Thank you Senator Lundy. A little bit more about me, as well as being a writer and broadcaster on change I spent 18 months with the NSW Department of Trade & Investment setting up the Digital Sydney project.

Digital Sydneyis a program designed to raise the profile of Sydney as an international centre of the digital media industry.

One of the problems with Digital Sydney was that it was very inner Sydney centric and this is a perennial question we face as to where does Australian culture, and art, spring from? The first idea I’d like to throw to the room is that ‘digital’ frees us from many narrow geographic boundaries.

When we add the term ‘digital’ we hit another problem, that almost every aspect of our lives – be it in art, business or our personal lives – is being affected in some way by the Internet and digitalisation. In reality all art is becoming ‘digital’ in one way or another.

As broadband becomes more pervasive, particularly as the National Broadband Network is rolled out, we’ll see art and the creative industries become even more digitised.

In many ways we are today at the point in history not too dissimilar to that our great grandparents found themselves a hundred years ago. In 1911, our forebears couldn’t imagine the massive changes the century ahead would bring and we’re in a similar position in the first decades of the digital century.

The first half of the Twentieth Century saw radio start a cultural shift which was accelerated in the second half as television radically changed and redefined our culture. Today the Internet is doing exactly the same in ways none of us quite understand.

Given the massive disruption and technical advances we’re going through we need to be cautious about being too prescriptive as we can’t foresee many of the new technologies that will become normal to us over the next decade.

This provides a challenge for government agencies supporting the arts as the established gatekeepers such as galleries, production studios and regional organisations become less relevant as the means of distribution evolve and become easier to access.

We’re already seeing the traditional model of government support to big producers; be they factories, movie producers or games studios suffering as economic adjustment undermines many of their business model. The old economic development models are becoming irrelevant as history overtakes them.

It may well be that the role of governments over the next decade is to create a framework that allows new mediums, creation tools and distribution channels to develop.

One area we should be careful of when looking at the digital future of the arts is not to follow the UK’s Digital Economy Act where the protection of existing rights holders took precedence over the creative process.

It is important that governments create legislative frameworks that balance the rights of all stakeholders, consumers and new content creators with the objective of encouraging new works and innovations to evolve.

In an Australian context we need to acknowledge and develop our diverse population and the opportunities this presents. Our indigenous and immigrant communities with their artistic and cultural traditions give our national economy advantages that many other countries lack, this is one thing I regret I wasn’t able to push more in my role with the NSW government.

Education is another critical area, this isn’t just in the arts but right across Australian society and industry as new entrants into the workplace are expected to spring forth with the skills making them as productive as experienced workers, this is clearly a flawed idea, particularly when many of the tools business expects students to be skilled in weren’t invented when the students started their studies.

Over the next decade we’ll also have to confront one of the great Twentieth Century conceits; that artists are a separate breed from scientists, Engineers and business people.

Prior to the beginning of the last Century it was accepted a tradesman or inventor could also be an artist and this damaging idea of silos between creative and so called ‘real’ industries, suited only to a brief period of our mass industrial development, will have to forgotten. This will be a challenge to our governments, educators and training providers.

The digital arts are not about iPad wielding basket weavers, they about giving today’s workforce the creative tools and flexible, imaginative thinking to meet the challenges our mature, high cost workforce faces in a world where the economic rules are changing as fast as our technology.

We have a great opportunity at events like today to determine how we as a nation will benefit from the next decade’s new technologies that will change our arts communities and society in general.

The great challenge to policy makers will be dealing with the rapidly changing and evolving world that the digital economy has bought in the arts, in business and in society in general.

Today I’m sure we can bring together ideas on how we, and our governments, can meet these challenges.

Thank you very much Senator Lundy, Minister Crean and Pia Waugh for giving the community an opportunity to contribute to the development of this valuable policy.

Price points

Amazon’s new range of Kindle e-book readers illustrate how important price points are to winning consumer confidence.

It’s no coincidence Amazon’s media release announcing the new range of Kindle e-book readers was headlined introducing the All-New Kindle Family: Four New Kindles, Four Amazing Price Points.

The $79 price for the base model has authors excited, and quite rightly too as this will guarantee sales of the e-readers and spur sales of e-books.

Once a product’s perceived as being affordable by the market, sales take off. The classic is Josiah Wedgwood selling bone china at prices affordable to the 18th Century English working classes. The basic product was similar in all but the decoration to the ornate wares Wedgwood sold to Europe’s royal families and the then new methods of mass production guaranteed a quality product to all customers.

Just over a century later, Henry Ford did a similar thing with the motor car, meeting the price points that made the horseless carriage accessible to the middle classes in early 20th Century United States.

In more recent times we’ve seen similar trends happen; the under $2,000 personal computer in the 1990s, the sub $500 netbook in 2008 and the affordable smart phones of recent years.

We can add broadband Internet and budget airlines as other examples of how demand has exploded when the cost has dropped below a certain price point.

As technology becomes affordable, we use more of it. A point that’s often lost monopolists and established players in industries.

This is the real opportunity Amazon are now offering with the cheap Kindles and we’ll see e-books boom as people are prepared to make a small investment in the devices.

Almost certainly this will open new markets and unforeseen opportunities for entrepreneurs and writers. The resulting pressures on competitors like the Apple iPad and the various Windows or Android tablet devices should increase innovation as well.

In our own businesses we need to ask what those price points are and what is stopping us from meeting them. As other price busters have shown, if you can meet these price points, the riches are there for the taking.