I shan’t say too much about what will in the future be regarded as a famous interview, I think it’s better that you see the interview written up in graphic form and form your own judgements…
A wonderful piece from The Daily Reckoning, about former U.S. President Warren G. Harding. Our current leaders could learn a thing or two from him. My favourite passage:
Warren Harding may never have been the brightest bulb on the White House porch, but intuitively he understood that proper macro-economic policies were more the product of virtue than of genius. Debt led to trouble; thats all he needed to know.
Keynes came along a few years later. Keynes was a genius; everybody said so. And he had an answer for everything. Nature? Government could do better. Debt? Dont worry about it, he said. Why not just let capitalism sort itself out? Without government intervention, it will only get worse, said Keynes.
…does that not sound exactly like our own Kevin Rudd – who, being a complete control freak, thinks he can solve every problem through his own over inflated sense of genius? RuddBank, RuddTel, $300 billion dollar pink batt and portable classroom spending spree, now he thinks he can improve the architecture and planning of our own homes! Read on…
But Harding had already proved him wrong. Harding did the very opposite of what Keynes recommended. Instead of increasing government spending, he reduced it. He cut the budget almost in half. He slashed taxes too…and cut the national debt by a third.
Japan at the time struggled with the same downturn. But it had no Harding at the helm. Instead, its masters prefigured Keynes, trying to stay the correction using price controls and other interventions. The result was a long-drawn-out affair that lasted until 1927 and ended in a bank crisis. In America, meanwhile, by 1922 unemployment was back down to 6.7%. By 1923 it was down further – to 2.4%.
This lesson was entirely lost on the worlds economists. When the next crisis hit a decade later, they turned to Keynes. Of course, it turned out to be a moral world after all. They got what they deserved.
Read more here: Harding the Last American President to Deal Honestly With a Major Financial Crisis.
Just when we thought the ridiculous and draconian internet censorship laws created by the Rudd Government were enough, now there’s a suggestion that iPhone and gaming apps will require Federal Government classification.
This shows a complete lack of understanding and a ridiculous over-stretch of Government power – Rudd’s Nanny State seemingly knows no bounds. Such a move would cost jobs, curb freedom, limit access to iPhone apps from around the world, curb innovation, curb competition and make creators and developers lives a living misery.
FREEDOM: Economics, Politics and Business, FUTURE: Digital Media, Marketing, Insights and Trends
Just a few hours ago, Telstra shut down it’s high profile corporate “propaganda” blog, nowwearetalking.com.au.
According to their former Communications Tsar, “Fabulous Phil” Burgess, Telstra started the Now We Are Talking Blog for the following reasons:
When the site started, it was largely interactive, with feedback, opportunities for consumer comments, voting and user generated comment – the screengrab below is the site from 2005:
It then started to become a lightening rod for disaffected and angry Telstra customers, whose negative feedback overwhelmed the site. In response, Telstra began to shut down these functions, leaving the site largely one way. While this might have pleased the board of Telstra, it angered social media geeks, the media, and many punters.
Nevertheless, Tesltra felt that the site still had effective elements, in encouraging a pro-Telstra perspective in battles against the Howard Government / ACCC (over wholesale pricing), Optus (major competitor) and most recently, the Rudd Government’s various plans (operational separation and the NBN), screengrab is the site from 2007:
The departures of Communications guru Phil Burgess, CEO Sol Trujillo and Chairman Donald Mcgauchie means that Telstra has lost the will to fight the fight front-on, preferring a softly, softly approach of conciliation and partnership. Hence one of the main tools used in the battle, the NowWeAreTalking.com.au blog, is no longer.
Just moments ago, as flagged in today’s The Age article, this email came through:
Dear Subscriber,
Since we established nowwearetalking almost four years ago, much has changed in the online landscape. In Telstra’s world, it is also a different climate now compared to when the site was launched in December 2005. After a review of where we were headed with our online communications and how best to engage with important stakeholders like you, we have decided to close our nowwearetalking website and develop a new, more engaging, interactive site under the main telstra.com umbrella.
In the process, we will make some changes to the content and the way we interact online with people who have an interest in all things Telstra. Be assured that the new site, which is under development, will provide ample opportunities to engage in genuine online conversations.
The new site will be dedicated to allowing us to talk with you, but more importantly – to listen to your views, opinions and ideas.
In the meantime, we have set up a temporary home where we can receive your comments/input and share our perspectives on the new site moving forward. You are invited to visit www.telstrablogfeedback.com.au and tell us what you think.
Thanks so much for your interest and support over the years.We look forward to welcoming you to our new website when it goes live in the coming months, and will keep in contact with any news and updates on the way.
So – what lessons can be learnt from the mistakes / activities of Telstra’s Now We Are Talking “social media” site?
First, that any such advocacy sites have to be open to comment. Comments were highly moderated / censored, with responses often taking days before they were approved. As the years went by, the ability to vote, respond or comment lessened. Not good if it’s about “talking”.
Second, focus on adding value, not adding argument. NWAT was too aggressive. The last few years of the site were almost a satire in terms of aggressive opinion.
Third, Telstra is… quite a hated firm by many. Seen as a monopoly firm, there is much pent up frustration with “the Big T”, and the perception that they milked their monopoly as the once sole telecommunications provider to Australia. It is quite possible that a site of such style might not have been appropriate for Telstra.
Fourth, online forums were not used appropriately. The strategy was driven by the American management of Telstra, who believed that blogs were (as they are in America), a very popular means of communicating socially. In Australia, we know that discussion boards / forums are by far the more popular means of conversation – most appropriately in this case one of the largest, most popular forums in Australia, Whirlpool, which ironically, was started in response to a lack of online discussion about Telstra’s services. Telstra didn’t use forums, but used a type of message board service, that distinctly lacked a conversational style – it took days for a public message to go up, and days for responses to appear. A sample of the guidelines:
Moderators will ensure that postings are relevant and may take any steps they think appropriate to ensure that content meet the site’s Discussion Guidelines, described below. All postings will be reviewed by a moderator and are generally published on the site within 1-2 working days.
Fifth, the most successful communities aren’t driven by opinion, but questions. There was little in terms of Telstra opening up to questions from the public, and adding value with answers. It was all top down.
Sixth, there was an enormous investment in the site. Such sites shouldn’t be costly, but should be effective. In terms of a Return on Investment outcome, the return can be decent, if the investment is small.
Finally, that it was too much about Telstra the brand, Telstra the company, rather than Telstra the provider of services. The site did very little to help people understand about product rollouts, explaining services, how to’s and providing answers to the many questions people have about Telstra, thereby providing genuine transparency and understanding.
So – there endeth Now We Are Talking; as a former senior communications manager at Telstra said to me today:
It will be an interesting artifact in the social media history vaults… It had so much potential but for the wrong company
I would be extremely disappointed in Australia’s communicators if the closure of Now We Are Talking was to be used as a convenient excuse for not pursuing an online engagement strategy for their own firm. Australian communicators are conservative enough without being able to point at the NWAT closure and say “if it didn’t work for them, it won’t work for us”.
The ultimate lesson is that social media is an effective tool for managing corporate reputations, if done properly. All organisations have to engage with their stakeholders – and social media is an incredibly powerful way to engage, if done transparently, openly, authentically and most importantly, by adding value to the conversation, rather than simply using social media as a means to bash the Government and the competition.
FREEDOM: Economics, Politics and Business, FUTURE: Digital Media, Marketing, Insights and Trends
I was talking to a friend of mine’s little girl, and she said she wanted to be Prime Minister some day.
Both of her parents, who vote Labor, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were Prime Minister of Australia what would be the first thing you’d do?”
She replied, “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”
“Wow – what a worthy goal.” I told her, “But you don’t have to wait until you’re Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull up the weeds, sweep my patio, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to Coles where a homeless chap hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house.”
She thought that over for a few seconds (because she’s only six) and while her Mum glared at me, the little girl looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless man come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”
I replied, “Welcome to the Liberal Party.”
Her parents still aren’t talking to me.
A very alarming article in the Sydney Morning Herald about how the Henry Review into taxation reform is looking at finding ways in which the Government can take your superannuation.
In summary, the Rudd Government wants money to fund their poorly devised, mad plans for Australia. The easiest way to get it is to mine the pool of trillions of superannuation dollars, currently being freely invested in commercial activities. Rudd and Swan see this mountain of cash and think – “If only we could get our grubby mitts on it”.
The plan being touted now is that lower income people (with smaller super balances) would “volunteer” their superannuation to Kevin Rudd, who would guarantee an annuity stream once they are retired. It’s being sold in by the Government as a way to help the poor with a safe, solid investment in Government, rather than the grab for cash that it is. It’s the thin edge of the wedge – where to from here? Every Australian sacrifices 1% of their super for “National Infrastructure” or a grandly named “Nation Building Fund”? Sounds wonderful and noble, but it’s simply theft.
Alarm bells have been ringing long and hard via the good people at The Daily Reckoning / Money Morning, who see it this way:
…the Henry Review of the Australian tax system is in full flight. It’s like feeding time at the zoo. Only the animals are fighting over the dollars in your wallet – or purse.
So why has the media not made a huge issue of this? Why hasn’t the Opposition been getting headlines over the impending theft of superannuation in order to fund Rudd’s grandiose plans for “infrastructure plans” such as RuddTel, RuddBank and other Whitlamesque schemes? Money Morning explains:
Earlier this year we predicted the government would begin an organized campaign to either ‘encourage’ you or force you to hand over your superannuation balance to them.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream press is still asleep at the wheel on this issue. But again, that’s not surprising seeing as any reporting of the Henry Tax Review will be handled by the ‘Canberra correspondents.’
The correspondents who live or die by their government contacts in Canberra. Is there really any chance they’ll point the finger and say, “Hang on, the government is stealing your money!”?
Fat chance.
I’m reminded of Ronald Reagan’s famous quote about do-gooder Governments – Governments like Rudd’s that want to control you, and sell their actions within the framework of “doing what’s best for you because we know better”. Said Reagan:
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help!”
Uncle Rupert has decided that News Corp will charge for all news websites. This is a massive turnaround and a revolutionary decision by News Corp.
In a nutshell, I think it’s a good strategic ploy. As a decision in isolation – I think it will bomb miserably. However, if it’s an elaborate ploy to get Google to pay some sort of re-posting licence or some other means of getting search engines to contribute to revenues of content creators such as News Corp, then sure, it’s a good move. Murdoch is a shmart cookie, who will have thought well ahead on this one.
Interesting times!
FREEDOM: Economics, Politics and Business, FUTURE: Digital Media, Marketing, Insights and Trends
A Minnesota woman has been fined $USD2.4m for being a music download “pirate”. The level of her activity was that she downloaded 24 songs illegaly. The link to the article is here.
My initial reaction: WTF?
My considered reaction: most record companies are pretty much f*cking useless. I know, I used to work for some of the biggest record companies in the world. Some of them are good – a few. But most, instead of building fan bases, instead of nurturing communities, instead of building excitement in their products, their artists and their creativity, they crush their fans, they fight over ever decreasing and ever more irrelvant means to generate revenues.
Nearly SIX years ago, I wrote this piece “Dinosaurs of the recorded music industry must evolve or die” in which I made an impassioned plea for record companies to evolve their business models. I wrote the following things:
…digital networks are displacing traditional methods of production, distribution, and retail sales, allowing the customer direct access to music. Downloading enables direct market access for any artist, record label or potential supplier. It removes the barrier of expensive overheads contained in the traditional model. The biggest of these is, of course, the middleman: the record distribution company.
Not much has changed. Record companies still think people care about them – that there’ll be a captive market for every release – and their job isn’t to cultivate that market, but to stop them accessing music without paying for it. It’s so 1970s.
FREEDOM: Economics, Politics and Business, FUN: Music, Culture and Entertainment, FUTURE: Digital Media, Marketing, Insights and Trends
@confrantzeskos Twitter Feed
Recent Comments