I perceive a dark future for people earning a living through creativity, but others do not agree. The two extreme views I have met can be summarised as: just try harder; and so what?
Just try harder suggests that changes in distribution patterns present new opportunities for creative selling, whereas I argue that the changes shift the balance of income disproportionately to the distributors, especially in an age when anyone can produce a photograph or a piece of music or an article - small payments that are now made for most creative output now encourages people to give their work away for free or nearly-free in the hope of Getting Noticed, after which, it is hoped, other people will do their marketing in the expectation of large sales.
The so what? argument is a different kind of threat. Great creative output available in the market for next to nothing - that's great for consumers! I do not think it is sustainable. For sure, there will no longer be any premium paid for the ordinary - the competition in photo libraries ensures that anyone searching for a picture of a dripping tap is not going to have to pay very much - but people learning and perfecting their arts need that income to sustain themselves.
Maybe this is it, then. We are reverting to the mean for the arts: they are a luxury, to be funded on the whims of Kings and Corporations.
And behind it all is the real fear: that this is a sign that the Systems Thinkers are really taking over everywhere and the future for the individual is bleak.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Sunday, 10 February 2008
Funny thing, truth
So how did the Universe begin?, I am rarely asked. What is the truth of the matter?
And I would reply that matter is the simple aggregation of composite energy in three dimensions of space and one of time; that everything began with energy in a pure, undifferentiated form that was so pure that it needed neither dimensions of time nor space; that such purity could not exist so that it cooled and slowed and created dimensions; and, in that diminution, the energy became stretched and split over different dimensions of space and time; and that the cooling soup of energy in our bubble of dimensions collided and collated to form basic proto-leptons and quasi-quarks that recombined and were charged and so on and so on; and that our dimensions intercept the planes of other energy from the creation but that this energy is on only two dimensions of space and two of time; and that there are other interactions; and that quarks formed in different parts of the universe at different times will be different; and that most of the energy from the creation is in the other dimensions; and that there is a lot more but I lost your attention long ago.
And the point is? For us to regard something as true, we must regard that truth as having some utility. So it will be years before anyone realises that this definition of physics is useful. And, in the field of corporate communications, the necessity of effective communications is often regarded with the same raised eyebrow as someone explaining their theory on the origin of the Universe.
And I would reply that matter is the simple aggregation of composite energy in three dimensions of space and one of time; that everything began with energy in a pure, undifferentiated form that was so pure that it needed neither dimensions of time nor space; that such purity could not exist so that it cooled and slowed and created dimensions; and, in that diminution, the energy became stretched and split over different dimensions of space and time; and that the cooling soup of energy in our bubble of dimensions collided and collated to form basic proto-leptons and quasi-quarks that recombined and were charged and so on and so on; and that our dimensions intercept the planes of other energy from the creation but that this energy is on only two dimensions of space and two of time; and that there are other interactions; and that quarks formed in different parts of the universe at different times will be different; and that most of the energy from the creation is in the other dimensions; and that there is a lot more but I lost your attention long ago.
And the point is? For us to regard something as true, we must regard that truth as having some utility. So it will be years before anyone realises that this definition of physics is useful. And, in the field of corporate communications, the necessity of effective communications is often regarded with the same raised eyebrow as someone explaining their theory on the origin of the Universe.
Sunday, 13 January 2008
Communication at a distance
How do you trust communication at a distance? How do you ensure co-operation when the other party can cancel all future interaction? It has never been easier to walk away from obligations, to fail to return phone calls, to communicate only through anonymous email addresses and then not communicate at all. So what do you do when the other party does not fulfill their part of the agreement? Perhaps the blog becomes the social conscience of us all, with search engines noting the names of miscreants and liars ... except that this, too, becomes open to abuse, with individual reputations easily targeted by people eager to cause mischief for financial gain or childish expressions of ego.
The new model of social interaction is opening up new opportunities for bad behaviours.
The new model of social interaction is opening up new opportunities for bad behaviours.
Saturday, 27 October 2007
Other people's point of view
Everyone claims that they can see things from other people's point of view - and then become frustrated that other people do not believe the same things as them. Recent sociological changes are increasing the rate of fluidity in society: the traditional conformity ensured by location, family, class and profession is undermined by moving people around geographically, increasing the number of jobs that people have and the kind of work they do, increasing the range of people that everyone meets.
This acceleration could lead, on the one hand, to a greater appreciation of diversity. However, what seems to be happening is that this diversity means that everyone can find someone who supports their point of view, no matter how shallow or local. The traditional interactions that are forced on society by family ties, by church, by community and so on are gone so that there is greater freedom to create a personal identity and less pressure to ensure that this identity has merit. One result of this is that other people's point of view becomes more threatening, as if there is a small voice inside that wonders on the validity of how we see ourselves, how we have created our own point of view.
This acceleration could lead, on the one hand, to a greater appreciation of diversity. However, what seems to be happening is that this diversity means that everyone can find someone who supports their point of view, no matter how shallow or local. The traditional interactions that are forced on society by family ties, by church, by community and so on are gone so that there is greater freedom to create a personal identity and less pressure to ensure that this identity has merit. One result of this is that other people's point of view becomes more threatening, as if there is a small voice inside that wonders on the validity of how we see ourselves, how we have created our own point of view.
Tuesday, 11 September 2007
Why is bad service so easy to find?
When I am working with a company on service issues, I am often asked to provide examples of organisations that are doing it well. This shouldn't be so difficult! Yet it always seems easier to recount disappointments and outrages than the really surprising successes.
On one level, good service is like a friendly, wise Uncle, knowing better than you what you want and providing it with an amiable flourish, expecting no thanks, simply happy to make you happy. And most of us have that family experience, of parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts and so on - people who can look after us and surprise us with their care and attention. That is the environment that is at the heart of the human condition: we are, after all, family creatures, and modern economic necessity has severely disrupted people's experience of being surrounded by a caring clan. But I digress.
Modern business talks of care, but caring for people demands an individual response, not a process. Processes are pigeon-holes and the process-driven people are focused on finding a box to put the customer in, not what the customer wants. Any customer service environment that is driven by process must limit the chances of providing good service - there will always be people who do not fit the boxes.
Not to mention the limitations of the process, created by a business model and the drive for financial success. I was reminded of this recently when I placed an order for some photographic equipment with Jacobs Digital Photo, an online retailer. One of the items I ordered was displayed as not in stock, but would be available in ten days. I placed my order and waited.
And forgot, until I noticed the full amount on my credit card statement, some forty days later. So what, according to an un-named customer service person at Jacobs, was my problem? They said it wasn't in stock. It was their practice to take payment on order. I would get my stuff. Whenever.
My observations that their site was misleading (it still says available in ten days) and that they should not take payment for goods they could not supply were ignored. The process rules.
On one level, good service is like a friendly, wise Uncle, knowing better than you what you want and providing it with an amiable flourish, expecting no thanks, simply happy to make you happy. And most of us have that family experience, of parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts and so on - people who can look after us and surprise us with their care and attention. That is the environment that is at the heart of the human condition: we are, after all, family creatures, and modern economic necessity has severely disrupted people's experience of being surrounded by a caring clan. But I digress.
Modern business talks of care, but caring for people demands an individual response, not a process. Processes are pigeon-holes and the process-driven people are focused on finding a box to put the customer in, not what the customer wants. Any customer service environment that is driven by process must limit the chances of providing good service - there will always be people who do not fit the boxes.
Not to mention the limitations of the process, created by a business model and the drive for financial success. I was reminded of this recently when I placed an order for some photographic equipment with Jacobs Digital Photo, an online retailer. One of the items I ordered was displayed as not in stock, but would be available in ten days. I placed my order and waited.
And forgot, until I noticed the full amount on my credit card statement, some forty days later. So what, according to an un-named customer service person at Jacobs, was my problem? They said it wasn't in stock. It was their practice to take payment on order. I would get my stuff. Whenever.
My observations that their site was misleading (it still says available in ten days) and that they should not take payment for goods they could not supply were ignored. The process rules.
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
The devil is in the implementation
Strategy. Without strategy, there is individual reaction and ambiguity; with strategy, there are clearer definitions of what the business is achieving and all tactics flow from it.
Right. That happens. Must do. Somewhere.
Strategy is difficult enough to create because of two key problems. First, people are not exactly sure what a strategy looks like, how much details it includes and how it relates to other management statements of vision, mission, corporate responsibility, job appraisals, disciplinary procedures, health and safety statements ...
Second, management responsible for creating strategy want to get on, so settle for ambiguity in language. This is not an intention and is seldom recognised: it is simply that words are used that everyone can agree constitute a strategy, without exposing the differences as to what those words mean in practice.
Now, if that's difficult, the implementation of strategy often proves to be impossible. Any attempt at implementation immediately hits a number of barriers, the most obvious of which is that the ambiguities of language are exposed. Often, different parts of the business, charged with implementing the strategy, interpret the new direction as either being consistent with the old one, so that nothing is changed in practice at all, or as addressing a long-held want or enmity that changes the relationship with the rest of the business - but was not intended by central management.
Without communications understanding, the unrolling of strategy is frequently followed by an unravelling of the business, which is never blamed on the originators of the strategy!
Nietzsche wrote his unique style, it seems to me, because he wanted to convey his message without ambiguity, so writing in theoretical and aphoristic/illustrative modes, covering different angles to light his subject as fully as possible. And then you get people like Gilles Deleuze who find ambiguity in Nietzsche and manage to destroy all the original messages.
You can never avoid ambiguity. So the problem for strategy is not simply to state it; it is to reiterate, rephrase and reinforce its essence as language changes its meaning in the face of circumstances and resistence.
Right. That happens. Must do. Somewhere.
Strategy is difficult enough to create because of two key problems. First, people are not exactly sure what a strategy looks like, how much details it includes and how it relates to other management statements of vision, mission, corporate responsibility, job appraisals, disciplinary procedures, health and safety statements ...
Second, management responsible for creating strategy want to get on, so settle for ambiguity in language. This is not an intention and is seldom recognised: it is simply that words are used that everyone can agree constitute a strategy, without exposing the differences as to what those words mean in practice.
Now, if that's difficult, the implementation of strategy often proves to be impossible. Any attempt at implementation immediately hits a number of barriers, the most obvious of which is that the ambiguities of language are exposed. Often, different parts of the business, charged with implementing the strategy, interpret the new direction as either being consistent with the old one, so that nothing is changed in practice at all, or as addressing a long-held want or enmity that changes the relationship with the rest of the business - but was not intended by central management.
Without communications understanding, the unrolling of strategy is frequently followed by an unravelling of the business, which is never blamed on the originators of the strategy!
Nietzsche wrote his unique style, it seems to me, because he wanted to convey his message without ambiguity, so writing in theoretical and aphoristic/illustrative modes, covering different angles to light his subject as fully as possible. And then you get people like Gilles Deleuze who find ambiguity in Nietzsche and manage to destroy all the original messages.
You can never avoid ambiguity. So the problem for strategy is not simply to state it; it is to reiterate, rephrase and reinforce its essence as language changes its meaning in the face of circumstances and resistence.
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Communicating with customers
Modern customer service needs to balance remoteness with empathy. Wouldn't it be easier, organisations thought, if we simply recruited people who were good at relationships and systems, so they could form a bond with the customer while ticking off the boxes that we use to measure them? So much easier than trying to train and manage the diverse range of people we employ currently!
Ah, but then the ugly head of profiling reveals its second face. Profiling works if you know exactly what you are looking for and can frame questions that discover those qualities. Sadly, profiling is never done with complete knowledge of future needs, nor is it proof against people projecting a version of themselves that they are unable to deliver in the workplace.
So now there are organisations with perfectly defined procedures and a staff totally aligned behind the key behaviours ... and then there comes the realisation that the procedures do not anticipate all eventualities, nor are the staff able to deal with the diversity of customers that they come across. What is more dangerous is that any office community that is formed around common behavioural traits is less likely to notice or appreciate different traits in customers: the common and championed values are constantly reinforced and customer behaviour is translated into those values, so any failure to provide a service is seen as a shortfall, not a wrong direction. Do all customers want a friendly and flexible service? Or do some want to exercise a measure of control; do some want to see timetables and nothing else; do some not really care as long as its done? It all needs more flexibility in the system and more individual accountability from the service providers.
The process of individualisation is a cultural thing. As Gellner wrote, it is not a birthright, but a cultural construct needing constant reinvestment. Perhaps the education of youth is not providing all that is necessary, in which case the human resources departments of organisations become an essential part of life-long learning - not in the search for accreditation or the acquisition of new skills, but in the gradual exposure to dealing with diversity that explores the potential in all of us to be more human.
Ah, but then the ugly head of profiling reveals its second face. Profiling works if you know exactly what you are looking for and can frame questions that discover those qualities. Sadly, profiling is never done with complete knowledge of future needs, nor is it proof against people projecting a version of themselves that they are unable to deliver in the workplace.
So now there are organisations with perfectly defined procedures and a staff totally aligned behind the key behaviours ... and then there comes the realisation that the procedures do not anticipate all eventualities, nor are the staff able to deal with the diversity of customers that they come across. What is more dangerous is that any office community that is formed around common behavioural traits is less likely to notice or appreciate different traits in customers: the common and championed values are constantly reinforced and customer behaviour is translated into those values, so any failure to provide a service is seen as a shortfall, not a wrong direction. Do all customers want a friendly and flexible service? Or do some want to exercise a measure of control; do some want to see timetables and nothing else; do some not really care as long as its done? It all needs more flexibility in the system and more individual accountability from the service providers.
The process of individualisation is a cultural thing. As Gellner wrote, it is not a birthright, but a cultural construct needing constant reinvestment. Perhaps the education of youth is not providing all that is necessary, in which case the human resources departments of organisations become an essential part of life-long learning - not in the search for accreditation or the acquisition of new skills, but in the gradual exposure to dealing with diversity that explores the potential in all of us to be more human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)