entrepreneurs | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Trapped in orbit – the founder’s dilemma

Walking away from a business is not always a simple task as Bill Gates is finding

Earlier this week Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen celebrated his Seattle Hawks winning the Super Bowl while his former business partner, Bill Gates, still struggles to escape the clutches of the software giant they founded forty years ago.

After a long drawn out process, software giant Microsoft has finally chosen its replacement for CEO Steve Ballmer however founder Bill Gates finds himself firmly trapped in the company’s orbit.

Hoodie wearing Satya Nadella‘s ascension to Microsoft CEO was probably the poorest held secret in the tech industry having been openly reported for several weeks.

Nadella has a massive task ahead of him as the industry that’s been so lucrative for Microsoft over the past thirty years evolves to deal with the post-PC era.

How Nadella manages Microsoft’s transition will define his business career and tenure at the top job, it will also determine the company’s position in a marketplace where PCs running Windows are no longer relevant.

The biggest news from Microsoft’s announcement though was that Bill Gates will step down as Chairman of the Board and take a new position as ‘founder and technology advisor’.

Microsoft also announced that Bill Gates, previously Chairman of the Board of Directors, will assume a new role on the Board as Founder and Technology Advisor, and will devote more time to the company, supporting Nadella in shaping technology and product direction. John Thompson, lead independent director for the Board of Directors, will assume the role of Chairman of the Board of Directors and remain an independent director on the Board.

Despite leaving the CEO role over a decade ago, Gates finds himself back in a hands on role at the company.

The value of Bill Gates

It’s questionable what value Gates is going to add in the role of ‘Technology Advisor’ as Microsoft’s markets are very different to those the company was founded in and came to dominate in the 1980s and 90s.

For Nadella, it’s not exactly a vote of confidence from the board in appointing the company’s founder to hover over his shoulder offering helpful advice.

On a personal level this must be disappointing for the founder and former CEO as well in that his mind is on far greater topics such as eliminating malaria through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Trapped by Microsoft’s gravity

Gates’ situation though is a classic example of a business founder who’s never been able to get out of the orbit of their business. Despite their best efforts, they keep being dragged back to give a helping hand.

At least though Gates has at least been able to step away to some degree, many baby boomers with smaller businesses are going to be locked into their companies as GenX or Y entrepreneurs don’t have the funds to pay what the proprietors need to retire.

Those boomer entrepreneurs are going to work in their businesses until either they or their venture is put to rest.

Bill Gates’ dilemma though shows how tough it is for business founders to escape the gravitational pull of their creations, even when it’s as big a business as Microsoft.

Paul Allen showed how to step away from a business and is enjoying life, Bill Gates’ story though is much more typical for business founders trapped in the enterprises they built.

On looking foolish

Looking foolish is one of the biggest risks when taking chances in business. It’s something every innovator and entrepreneur has to consider.

Venture Capital investor Mark Suster explains why he doesn’t mind looking foolish with his choice of investors on his blog today.

One of the toughest things in life is taking the risk of looking foolish in front of your peers yet that’s what the real high risk inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs do with their ventures.

Light bulbs and the telephone looked ridiculous to many at the time they were invented and no doubt the inventor of the wheel or the Neanderthal who came up with the idea of cooking meat in a fire both probably received a far bit of scorn when they told the others in their tribe about their idea.

While Suster is talking about ‘moonshot investments’, even the most modest venture is going to attract scorn.

There would be few people who decided to buy a doughnut franchise, establish a cafe or set up a lawn mowing service who weren’t told by some of their relatives, friends or colleagues that they are doing the wrong thing and they should stick to their safe job in their cosy cubicle.

Should someone want to change the way doughnuts are made or lawns mowed, then they can expect even more naysayers laughing at them.

In this current craze about ‘entrepreneurship’ it’s easy to overlook the real costs and risks of running any sort of business. Looking foolish is another of those risks.

Having a thick hide is another useful attribute when you’re investing, running a business or changing an industry.

Defaulting to transparency

Messaging startup Buffer seeks to be open in every aspect of business, will this help the startup grow?

Social media scheduling startup Buffer takes transparency seriously, will it help the business?

Many fine words have been written about openness, sharing and collaboration in recent years but few organisations really practice what’s been preached. An exception to this is social media service Buffer that takes openness to extreme levels.

Buffer keeps few secrets with the company sharing its monthly operating figures, internal emails and even its formula for calculating salaries.

The company’s CEO Joel Gascoigne believes this helps build trust in his startup, saying in his blog:

There are many reasons we default to transparency at Buffer, and perhaps the most important is that I genuinely believe it is the most effective way to build trust. This means trust amongst our team but also trust from users, customers, potential future customers and the wider public who encounter us in any way.

Building trust is one of the most important tasks of any business owner or manager; whether it’s with customers, staff, suppliers or investors and startups have a bigger task than most. So Joel is onto something with this approach although one wonders how long the philosophy will last as the company grows.

One thing that stands out in Buffer’s figures is how little Joel and his staff earn; while $158,000 is a good wage it isn’t the massive income that those who glamourize startups pretend founders earn.

Joel’s experiment with Buffer is an interesting experiment and it will be fascinating to see how long the company continues the philosophy of extreme transparency and how many others follow the example.

While it might not be necessary to be as open as Joel Gascoigne and Buffer, the idea of defaulting to transparency is one that many organisations – particularly governments – would benefit from adopting.

Demand Media’s closed window of opportunity

Demand media’s downfall offers some hopeful lessons for those who want to see better quality content on the web.

A few years ago content farm Demand Media was being hailed in some quarters as the future of the media industry.

Today its stock is languishing, revenues are falling and any thought that the cheap, low quality writing that Demand Media delivered will be the future of media is laughable.

Variety magazine recently published a feature describing the of the fall of Demand Media with a focus on how Google’s changes to its search engine algorithm undermined the content farm’s busines model. Variety’s story is an interesting case study on not relying on another company for your business plan and extends the hope that low quality writing is not the future of online media.

Dodgy business

Demand media evolved from the eHow and eNom businesses, both of which relied on dubious – if not downright dishonest – online practices.

eNom was particularly irritating, basically just registering domain names around popular search terms that led to pages full of advertising that delivered nothing of value to someone searching the web for information on a topic.

It was very profitable for a while though, as Variety reports;

Early on, Demand used eNom’s 1 million generic domain names (such as “3dblurayplayers.com”) to serve up relevant ads to people searching for specific topics. These “domain parking” pages were immensely profitable, generating north of $100,000 per day, according to a former Demand exec who requested anonymity. “That’s $35 million-$40 million per year without doing any work,” the exec said.

The eHow business wasn’t any better, relying on low quality, cheap articles that only worked because they were stuffed full of the keywords that Google would base their search results on.

On January 26 2011 Demand Media went public and the criticism of both the newly listed company and Google became intense.

This story from Business Insider – which ha featured some gushing and dreadful analysis of Demand Media previously – illustrated the problem the company had of being overwhelming dependent on Google, although the writer believed Google were making too much money from content farms to really act against them.

Google’s problem with the content farms was real, the quality of search results was falling and users were finding their pages were full of low value rubbish rather than authoritative sources which opened the search giant’s core business to disruption from Microsoft’s Bing and other search engines. Something had to be done.

Jason Calacanis, whose Mahalo was a competitor to Demand Media, flagged the risks to content farms in a presentation early in February 2011, “the one rule of working with Google is don’t make them look stupid. If you make ‘The Google’ look stupid, they’ll f- you up.” He said. “eHow makes Google look stupid.”

Eventually Google decided they were sick of looking stupid and changed their algorithms and the rules for getting a page one search result suddenly changed.

Demand Media’s business was doomed from the moment Google made that change, as Variety reports;

By April 2011, third-party measurement services were reporting that the Google changes had reduced traffic to Demand sites by as much as 40%. Demand issued a statement that the reports “significantly overstated the negative impact” of the change, but the stock took a dive — plummeting 38% over two weeks — from which it has not recovered.

As Demand Media was affected, so too was the entire Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) industry where thousands of consultants found their strategies of placing low quality pages and link rich website comments now damaged their clients’ businesses.

For web surfers, Google’s change was good news as suddenly search results were relevant again.

Demand Media was, in essence, a transition business that prospered during a brief windows of opportunity that quickly closed along with the company’s prospects.

That window of opportunity was also dependent on someone else’s business strategy, which is always a dangerous position to be in.

Demand Media’s lesson is that while there are opportunities to be had in markets that are being disrupted by new technologies, there’s no guarantees those opportunities will last. What works in SEO, digital media or social marketing today may not work tomorrow.

It’s also a hopeful lesson that websites regurgitating low quality content is only a transition phase in the development of online media and that providing good, original writing and video is the best long term strategy for survival on the net.

Should that lesson be true, then it’s good news for both writers and readers.

Tuxedos and cocktail dresses — the real cost of being an entrepreneur

Correcting the myths about startups is the mission of venture capital investor Mark Suster

venture capital investor and blogger Mark Suster said at the Dreamforce 2013 conference yesterday.

Suster’s mission is based upon having seen the process of building business up close having been involved in two successful startups and trade sales before joining Salesforce as head of product development then branching out to the investor side of the business.

There’s also a personal reason for Suster wanting to tell the truth about starting your own venture, “the reason I’m on a personal mission to explain this is because a friend committed suicide.”

“His company had raised four million dollars but, by his standards, it wasn’t succeeding.”

Suster’s story resonates with anyone who has founded a business — it’s not something everyone is suited to and it’s a tough, demanding lifestyle.

Tuxedos and cocktail dresses

Part of the problem is public perceptions, Suster describes a conflict between “public persona and cognitive dissonance”; while an individual startup is struggling with their own flaws and failings, it appears that everyone else is doing well from their carefully crafted and placed publicity stories.

“Everyone else’s PR is their tuxedos and cocktail dresses,” Suster points out. “You on the other hand are seeing yourself naked in the mirror every morning.”

On being a marriage councilor

It’s often said that a business partnership is like a marriage and Suster finds much of his work as a venture capital investor involves counseling founders over their relationship.

“Sometimes one has to go,” Suster says. “It doesn’t matter what your preference is — and we all have our favourites — but the business cannot survive with the two of them.”

When two founders split, there is also the problem of equity, should both have equal shares then it becomes difficult to split the business; “should one partner leaves, it’s often easier to shut down the company and start again.”

Buy in your skills

A similar problem happens when there’s more than one partner and Suster cautions it’s better to employ people with the skills you need rather than offer equity in a new business.

“Having too many founders is the greatest dilution you’ll ever face,” Suster warns and his advice is to hire the skills required by the business rather than give away equity in your business.

Another benefit of hiring people is having a good team on the payroll is the validation good investors are looking for. “Having a good team proves you’re able to hire good people which is the most important skill an entrepreneur needs,” Suster explains.

Ultimately, Mark Suster sees the journey of building a business as a decade long process, the billion dollar startups are the exception rather than the rule.

The biggest advice Suster has is to understand your goals, “if you don’t define what success is, you’ll never achieve it.”

Building a business is tough, and not everybody is suited to doing it. Mark Suster’s advice isn’t just appropriate for technology startups, it’s also valid for anyone starting any type of business.

The myth of celebrating failure

Embracing failure isn’t all it is cracked up to be

“We should celebrate failure!” One of my friends said over a beer. “If so, I have a lot to celebrate but don’t have a lot of money to dot it with.

Like many business mantras ‘celebrating failure’ is nice to say until you’ve actually experienced it.

Failure tastes pretty bitter and it isn’t pleasant when you encounter it. For some, it could kill their careers.

When you hear business gurus and snake oil merchants expounding the mantra of embracing failure it’s worth considering survivor bias when you hear the case studies

It’s also worth looking at the state of their suit and how desperately they are selling their box set of inspirational DVDx or books.

Keeping sane in business

How can business owners and startup founders reduce stress and depression?

Last night some of Australia’s best small and medium businesses were celebrated at the 2013 Telstra Business Awards. There were lots of happy winners, particularly Tasmania’s Bruny Island Cheese Company who won the overall prize.

Speaking at the business awards, previous winner Jason Wyatt of Sydney’s Bike Exchange mentioned some the “stumbles on the way” and keynote speaker Mark Bouris described some of those ups and downs.

“Accept the downside and dream of the rewards on the upside” advised Bouris.

Sometimes though those upsides are hard to find, behind the glamour and glitz of having a successful enterprise the toll on proprietors’ mental health can be tough and this month’s Inc magazine looked at the psychological downside of running your own business.

Running your own business – whether it’s a plumbing service, cheese company or a tech start up – is hard work and risky with not everybody suited to the often demanding lifestyle.

If you aren’t suited to running a business, or you’re unprepared, then those mental health costs can be high.

My own experience is instructive, in fact it’s a case study of what not do as a business founder covering everything from being undercapitalised to choosing bad business partners.

Find good business partners

Running a business alone is a mistake, partly because few have the full range of skills required to successful run an enterprise and mainly for the fact being a sole trader or boss is a lonely, isolated experience.

A business partnership though is like a marriage and it’s just as important to choose those co-founders as carefully as you would a spouse.

Good business partners have the skills that complement yours – if you’re good at sales or the technical side of the business then you’ll probably need someone good at the administrative or accounts side. Business is a team effort.

What’s very important is that all the partners in the business respect each others’ strengths and understand their own weaknesses. This makes a powerful team.

Probably the most therapeutic thing about having trusted business partners is that you have a sympathetic sounding board. At the very least you kick back on a Friday afternoon and have a bitch about your customers, staff and the government. That in itself is very important in keeping sane.

Watch the money

One of the biggest problems in business, and one I’ve encountered many times, is that many people don’t understand the difference between cash flow and profit. They see the money in the bank and they spend it.

If your business partner has blown the company’s working capital on a flash car and an overseas ski trip for the family, you can bet the clients, staff and creditors won’t be expecting them to clean up the financial mess.

Should you find yourself in that situation with your partners, get out of the business early before it wrecks your relationships and sanity.

Have sufficient capital

Stories abound of the successful business that was founded in a garage by a couple of penniless college grads and bootstrapped from nothing but they are the exception, not the rule.

While it is possible to bootstrap a successful business – I did it with PC Rescue – it’s a tough, hard road and having insufficient capital exponentially increases the chance of failure. Get some money from family, friends or fools.

Don’t hold out though for the million dollar capital raising though, the Silicon Valley investment model is only suitable for a tiny subset of business and it is possible to be over capitalised as we saw in the dot com boom of the early 2000s.

Stressing about money is one of the greatest problems for business owners and founders, having a little bit of capital makes commercial life a lot more enjoyable.

Watch your business plan

It’s fashionable to say business plans are useless – that is bunk. A business plan gives you some idea of how you expect to spend your money and where the revenue will come from. It’s a good reality check.

However, the 19th Century German general Helmuth von Moltke said “no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy” and it’s true that even the best business plan won’t survive first contact with the customer.

That’s fine because tweaking your business plan in the early days will give you more understanding and control over your business. More control means less stress.

Pivot when necessary

Some of the world’s most successful businesses were started as something completely different, Microsoft being one of the best examples. When it turns out the market doesn’t like your original idea but there’s a similar but different opportunity, grab it.

Executing a business pivot can be time consuming and stressful, but it’s far better for your finances and mental health than riding a failed business plan into oblivion. If you’re the type that enjoys building businesses, then you’ll probably find a business pivot is fun.

Take a holiday

I cannot emphasise this enough. In PC Rescue I went ten years without a holiday. It was a stupid mistake and both my family and my own health suffered for this.

Create limits

Micheal McQueen points out that Baby Boomers are poor at creating limits to their worklives, for many it’s a matter of pride in working punishing long hours. In small or startup businesses there’s no shortage of opportunities to work twenty-two hour days.

The difference with working 90 hour weeks for the law firm or bank is that managers have a nice salary, sick leave and workers compensation. As a proprietor you don’t and in doing so you’re putting undue on yourself, your business partners and your family by working too hard.

Delegate

One key to success is finding good employees – this is something I totally suck at. While I’ve had the privilege of hiring a few good people, I’m spectacular at finding duds.

Being able to delegate is one of the key skills to business survival, it allows you leave work at a decent hour, take that holiday and – most importantly – get time to think strategically. If the owners, founders or managers can’t delegate then the business potential is limited and the risk of burn out is far higher.

Sack the troublemakers

Something that always bemuses me is how small business owners constantly moan about staff. While it’s true one dud staff member can cause untold damage to a business, bad customers are far, far worse.

Pareto’s law – otherwise known as the 80/20 rule – comes into play here. 80% of your troubles will come from 20% of your customers and rarely will the slow playing, demanding troublemakers be your most profitable clients.

If you’re in business long enough you’ll eventually encounter the psychopaths who actually enjoy stringing out invoices or creating commercial disputes. It’s your duty to your own sanity to get these people out of your life as quickly as possible.

So sack them, write off their debts and get them out of your business. Your time on this earth is too short to be dealing with bad payers, the crazies or the one percenters who get their kicks from screwing other people around.

Watch the warning signs

“Five years in tech support will turn you into an axe murdered, I did twelve” is a joke I often make.

There’s a strong element of truth in that line though as IT support in particular is a stressful, thankless trade and running a business in that sector exposes you to a lot of negativity.

While I genuinely enjoy customer service, tech support and running a business I hadn’t realised just how that negativity and stress was affecting me.

It was only when I noticed the signs of stress in a couple of my good contractors that I started researching depression in the IT industry and did the Beyond Blue K-10 anxiety and depression checklist. The results weren’t pretty.

The exit from PC Rescue and IT support in general started shortly afterwards.

In retrospect I’d stopped enjoying the business and dealing with customers about five years earlier and that should have been the warning sign to get out.

“Love what you’re doing” was Jason Wyatt’s advice at the Telstra Business Awards and he’s absolutely right – the moment you stop loving your business is when it’s time to start looking for something else.

Surviving in business by executing a pivot

One of the key skills in running a business is knowing when to change direction.

One of the key skills in running a business is knowing when to change direction, to ‘pivot’ in the language of Silicon Valley.

Yesterday I had the privilege of interviewing Jonathan Barouch, founder of social analysis company Local Measure about the service’s pivot from Roamz.

I’ll be writing that interview up in more detail in a few days, but Jonathon’s observations about pivoting businesses reflected my own business experiences.

PC Rescue was born out of a pivot and its ultimate demise was due to the failure of the company’s management, and my own, to move decisively when it was clear the business wasn’t working as planned.

The founding of PC Rescue happened out of a virtual assistant service my wife an I set up in 1995. We’d been victims of the curiously insular attitude of Australian managers towards employing expats and starting our own business seemed to be the right option.

So Office Magic was born.

Office Magic was a good business, but in talking to clients it became quickly apparent there was a bigger need for computer training and repairs. Most small businesses were struggling to find reliable techs to help them out with their IT services.

So Office Magic pivoted into PC Rescue.

For the next ten years PC Rescue was a profitable business, the problem I had was the classic small business proprietor’s dilemma – I couldn’t get the right people.

The staff and contractors I had were good computer techs but I couldn’t find one with the skills or motivation to take over the day to day supervisor role so I could work on growing the business. I was stuck in the trap described by Michael Gerber in his book the e-myth.

Originally, PC Rescue’s business plan had been a five year strategy — two years validating, two years executing and one year exiting. The exit I particularly liked was creating a computer support franchise operation.

This didn’t happen because the company lacked the human capital required; my wife and I lacked the management resources to move PC Rescue to the next stage.

When this became apparent we should have pivoted the business. We didn’t because I was too busy with the day to day stresses of keeping customers and staff happy.

Eventually we achieved an exit of sorts, ten years later than intended and not in a satisfactory way. The business remained under capitalised and the new partners turned out not to have the expertise or drive required to grow the operation.

Which make Jonathan’s pivot of Roamz so much more interesting. He listened to customers, looked at the direction of the industry and realised where the company’s strengths lay.

Rather that doubling down on a model which was struggling, he took the business in a new direction.

Having that flexibility is probably one of the greatest assets for small and startup businesses as larger corporations struggle with executing massive changes.

As markets evolve and the rate of economic change accelerates, having the skills and mindset to execute successful pivots could be the difference between survival and failure for many big and small businesses.

Venture capital’s false jackpot

Thinking that raising capital is a jackpot prize misses the point of a much bigger business journey.

When a business run by a 22 year old raises 25 million dollars it certainly gets attention and Crinkle’s successful seed funding has provoked plenty of commentary.

Particularly notable are stories like the gush piece from the New Yorker magazine calling the fund raising “a $25 million jackpot.” Reading those, those, you’d think Crinkle’s Lucas Duplan had won the lottery.

The truth is, getting a fat cheque from investors is only the beginning of the business journey; the real work starts when you have a board and shareholders to answer to.

Where the real jackpot lies is in selling the business to a greater fool and the story of Bebo founder Michael Birch is a good example.

Bebo was bought by AOL, probably the greatest greater idiot buyer of all, in 2008 for $850 million. Five yearrs later Birch has bought it back for one million and promises to ‘reinvent” the social media service.

While Birch didn’t get all the $850 million AOL spent on Bebo, he and his investors did hit the jackpot. Whether Lucas Duplan and the backers of Crinkle do is for history to tell us.

Image courtesy of sgman through sxc.hu

When Venture Capital meets its own disruption

Falling barriers to entry are disrupting Venture Capital investors as much as incumbent managers.

Tech industry veteran Paul Graham always offers challenging thoughts about the Silicon Valley business environment on his Y Combinator blog.

Last month’s post looks at investment trends and how the venture capital industry itself is being disrupted as startups become cheaper to fund. He also touches on a profound change in the modern business environment.

Graham’s point is Venture Capital firms are finding their equity stakes eroding as it becomes easier and cheaper for founders to fund their business, as a result VC terms are steadily becoming less demanding.

An interesting observation from Graham is how the attitude of graduates towards starting up businesses has changed.

When I graduated from college in 1986, there were essentially two options: get a job or go to grad school. Now there’s a third: start your own company. That’s a big change. In principle it was possible to start your own company in 1986 too, but it didn’t seem like a real possibility. It seemed possible to start a consulting company, or a niche product company, but it didn’t seem possible to start a company that would become big.

That isn’t true – people like Michael Dell, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were creating companies that were already successes by 1986 – the difference was that startup companies in the 1980s were founded by college dropouts, not graduates of Cornell or Harvard.

In the current dot com mania, it’s now acceptable for graduates of mainstream universities to look at starting up business. For this we can probably thank Sergey Brin and Larry Page for showing how graduates can create a massive success with Google.

One wonders though how long this will last, for many of the twenty and early thirty somethings taking a punt on some start ups the option of going back to work for a consulting firm is always there. Get in your late 30s or early 40s and suddenly options start running out if you haven’t hit that big home run and found a greater fool.

There’s also the risk that the current startup mania will run out of steam, right now it’s sexy but stories like 25 million dollar investments in businesses that are barely past their concept phase do indicate the current dot com boom is approaching its peak, if it isn’t there already.

Where Graham is spot on though is that the 19th and 20th Century methods of industrial organisation are evolving into something else as technology breaks down silos and conglomerates. This is something that current executives, and those at university hoping to be the next generation of managers, should keep in mind.

Australia’s small business crisis

A survey on Australian family owned businesses raises some disturbing questions about the nation’s economy.

The 2013 MGI Australian Family and Private Business Survey is a disturbing document describing a sector that’s aging, pessimistic and struggling with change. It bodes poorly for what should be the powerhouse of the nation’s economy.

Having been conducted over nineteen years, the MGI survey is a very good snapshot of how the sector has evolved over the last two decades and it’s notable how owners are older and not optimistic about their prospects of selling their businesses.

Another key aspect is the changed focus of Australian family businesses; in 2003 forty percent were in manufacturing, this year its half that which probably tracks the decline of the nation’s manufacturing industries.

Most striking though is the aging of the small business community with one in three proprietors being in the 60 to 69 year old bracket, up from one in five just 3 years ago.

That the average age of Australian small business owners is increasing shouldn’t be surprising given the nation’s increasing obsession with property. As home prices become more expensive, it becomes more difficult for younger people to pay off their mortgages or risk their equity on building a business.

Probably the most heart breaking comment from the report is that over half of Australia’s small business owners don’t see an immediate prospect of retiring and nearly two thirds don’t see any chance of an early exit.

58% of family business owner-managers see themselves working in the business beyond 65 years of age, with 65% indicating that their businesses are NOT exit or succession ready.

Part of the reason most Australian family businesses aren’t succession ready is that Generation X and Y buyers crippled by big mortgages simply can’t afford to pay what the older Baby Boomer and Lucky Generation proprietors need to retire upon.

It’s hard not to think that the grand 1980s corporatist vision of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating – that most Australians will work for one of two big corporations while being members of one of two big trade unions – has largely come true.

For Australia though this is not a good thing as the wealth of those corporations, along with that of the nation’s households, is largely tied into the domestic property market.

A discussion on the Macrobusiness website about New Zealand’s property obsession has a graph which illustrates both the Kiwi and Australian economies’ dependence upon house prices.

Those financial assets in the second graph include the value of businesses, and that statistic staying largely flat while housing wealth has gone up fifty percent over the last fifteen years illustrates how dependent the Aussie economy has become upon property speculation.

Property speculation can be fun, particularly when you’re watching people bash down walls on the latest reality TV home improvement show, but it isn’t the basis for a strong economy.

That Australia’s small business sector is aging and increasingly shifting to low value adding service industries is something that should be discussed more as the nation considers what its global role will be in the 21st Century.

Does closed government hurt business and the economy?

Does a culture of government secrecy make it hard for innovators and entrepreneurs to flourish?

Earlier this week I interviewed Vivek Kundra, the former US Chief Information Officer and now Salesforce executive, on innovation, technology and government with some of the Australian business perspectives run as a story in Business Spectator.

Something that stood out for me from the interview were Vivek’s views on the effects of governments making both innovations and information freely available.

“Two policy decisions that transformed the future of civilisation – GPS opening and human genome project through the Bermuda Principles.”

While it’s probably too early to draw conclusions on how the opening of the human genome data will change business, it’s certainly true the Global Positioning System has allowed whole new industries to evolve and it’s an important lesson on making technology available to the masses.

The Global Positioning System was, like the internet, a US military technology developed during the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

After Korean Airlines flight 007 was shot down by Soviet fighters in 1983, President Reagan approved civilian use of the GPS – then named Navstar – to prevent similar tragedies.

Such a decision was controversial, this was military technology being given over to the general population which could be used by enemy forces as well as airlines and truck drivers.

No doubt if the GPS technology was developed in the UK or Australia, there would have been demands to monetize the service. It almost certainly would have been sold off to a merchant bank that would have charged for the service and stunted its adoption.

By making GPS freely available, the US gained a competitive advantage which maintains the nation’s technological and economic lead over the rest of the world.

This openness isn’t just an advantage for technology companies. While US governments are no means perfect, the relatively open nature of local, state and Federal administrations is an advantage for the United States economy and society. As Vivek says,

Making data available provides three concrete functions; it allows citizens to fight corruption, it allows you to build the next billion dollar companies and it transforms government functions by breaking down silos.

When the default position of government is to classify everything as secret or ‘commercial-in-confidence’, there’s little chance of an entrepreneurial culture growing in that society – instead you have a business culture that favours connected insiders who can trade off their privileged contacts within government.

A culture of closed government reflects the business culture of a society and the reluctance of both the private and public sectors to openly share knowledge is why countries like Britain and Australia will struggle to emulate the United States.