Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Tag: government

Why governments fail in building Silicon Valleys
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.

Similar posts:
December 27, 2011
Who the hell do you think you are?
“We have a startup ethos,” proclaimed the manager of a huge organisation funded by the government.

It was the third time this month I’d heard about a “start up ethos” from managers of ventures backed by government or corporate money and it’s interesting that this thinking like a cash hungry startup has become a badge of honour among those who have never really lived or worked that way.

At a time when we’re glorifying twenty something entrepreneurs it’s understandable a middle aged manager of a large, conservative and bureaucratic business might want to grab some of that glamour.

Where does this idea of being a start up take an organisation that is anything but entrepreneurial?

The entrepreneur myth

Right now we’re obsessed with the cult of the entrepreneur; many people are getting rich on selling the idea if liberate yourself from the corporate cubicle and buy your doughnut franchise then in a few years time you’ll be sipping daiquiris with Richard Branson on his private island.

For most of us, the tough reality of a building a new business is we are going to work very hard and the odds are stacked against us succeeding; that’s the risk-reward equation that underpins the free market economy – you take the risks and if you’re successful you reap the rewards.

Many people though don’t have the appetite for taking those risks; they are happy working for a wage, paying off a mortgage and getting a nice safe pension at the end of their career. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Similarly, the majority of business people have no desire to be the next Richard Branson – most are quite happy for their doughtnut franchise, computer repair company or dog walking service to create a decent living and saving for their family. If the business is worth a few bob when they retire that’s a bonus.

Bureaucrats matter

The success or otherwise of a society depends upon the mix of established institutions and the ability of entrepreneurs to realise new ideas, take the balance too far either way and you have either an inflexible or unstable economy.

Bureaucratic managers, their processes and their established procedures have their role in a modern society, as do the risk takers, the business buccaneers and even the snake oil merchants selling dodgy ideas to frustrated corporate employees.

The danger of business delusions

Misunderstanding who, or what, you and your organisation fits into this spectrum is a risk in itself; the manager of a big corporation or government agency who thinks they can pivot a business the way a start up can, is probably risking their own career and by falling for the romance peddled by snake oil merchants they are risking their savings.

Similarly the small business or real entrepreneur that acts like a government department is probably squandering their market advantages by being slow and unresponsive.

In many ways, seeing a manager in a big corporate environment indulging in Walter Mitty like fantasies of running a start up is somewhat touching – the real danger for those bigger organisations is when their leaders start believing they are something they aren’t.

Romantic delusions are never a good asset when managing a business.

Similar posts:
December 10, 2011
So you want a business grant?
“Funding Available from $1000 to $500,000! Get an advantage over your competitors or give your business the Government Funding boost it needs to be more successful!” Is the promise of a website offering to find grants for your business.

Free money from the government sounds good and, as we’ve seen in the various Quantative Erasings and bank bail outs around the world, it sometimes is free.

Rarely though is cash really “free”, usually there’s strings attached and government money is no different.

Why do governments give business grants?

First we should understand why governments make grants, subsidies and loans available to businesses.

Governments have various objectives with their programs; they could be to get unemployed workers back in the workforce, to improve skill levels or to encourage exports. Whatever the motives are, they have clear criteria for giving money away.

One area they don’t give funds for is to “Get an advantage over your competitors” as that website. That’s clearly not the role for governments and they’d be rightly criticised for doing so.

The paperwork storm

Contrary to what some media outlets portray, most public servants take their responsibilities seriously and don’t give out taxpayers’ money unless the application clearly meets their programs’ objectives.

Meeting the objectives is important, because the public servants – and their political masters – are held accountable so they will make sure the business receiving the grant or subsidy has actually done what they have promised to do.

This is where things get tricky for business owners and managers who have received government money. Completing the paperwork to prove you’ve met the objectives will be time consuming.

Drive a cab

Often it would have been more cost effective to drive a cab rather than spend hours filling in government paperwork.

There really is no such thing as free money, there’s always a cost. While sometimes there are good reasons for applying for a government program, free money should never be your objective.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that services offering to find government money for you will usually take a cut of the grant as commission. Also, they won’t help you do the follow up paperwork, that’s your expensive problem.

Similar posts:
November 15, 2011
Do you really want help from the government?
Pity the public servant who stands up in front of a room and asks a bunch of business owners, executives or managers what they want from government.

While there will be plenty of comments about improved procurement, less red tape and reduced fees you can be sure there’ll be plenty of demands that the government ought to subsidise something – anything – that business does.

It’s notable how free enterprise, small government and low taxation loving business people will drop their copies of Atlas Shrugged and barge their way to the feeding trough and the slightest scent of taxpayer money wafting in their direction.

But is government money really good for a business? In many cases it isn’t.

You run a business, not work in a government department

“Who pays the piper, calls the tune.” The whole idea of running a business is that you are the boss, so why do you want to answer to a government department?

If you’re self employed or just opened a startup, one of the main reasons for doing so is because you decided you no longer want to work for the man. A government grant may well open up a whole new world of paperwork that leaves you wondering why you ever left the cubicle.

The dependency culture

One of the dangers of government funding is if you are successful, you’ll find yourself hooked on it. Quickly you become better at filling in funding applications than delivering products your customers want. The Aussie film industry is a good example of this.

Governments are behind the innovation curve

Public servants are not employed to take risks, this is a good thing as it’s our money they are handling.

Because governments are risk adverse they’ll only recognise an industry – or a problem – long after it has become established.

If you find you are on the government’s help list, it might be time to consider an exit from a troubled industry.

Do you really have a business?

Many new business owners expect the government should do something to assist them in their start up phase. This is a common complaint from under capitalised proprietors.

Given the massive subsidises given out to the banks and other big corporations since the start of the great recession, this attitude can almost be excused but we can already see how well that strategy works.

If you really need a subsidy to run your business, then it’s time to consider whether you should be in business at all.

This isn’t to say all government funding is bad; well thought out programs help viable businesses with things like export assistance, skills development and employing young or disabled workers. There are many of these although the process of identifying what a viable business is usually eliminates the newest and smallest enterprises.

What is notable with the successful government programs is they address a specific need, they don’t have onerous paperwork and they are no substitute for a healthy, living cashflow and profit.

Overall though, if you really want government money then take a job with the public service. It’s a lot easier than scrabbling for grants.

Similar posts:
October 14, 2011
Digital art is more than iPod wielding basket weavers
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.

Similar posts:
October 6, 2011