Achim Muellers

Red Flag Acts

Also called 'Locomotive Acts', these pieces of legislation - there where three  in total - were passed in the UK in the late 19th century to control the use of 'mechanically propelled vehicles' on public roads. Mechanically propelled or self propelled vehicles included road locomotives and automobiles.

Amongst other things, the Red Flag Act of 1865 stipulated that 'self propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three: the driver, a stoker and a man with a red flag walking 60 yards (55 m) ahead of each vehicle. The man with a red flag or lantern enforced a walking pace, and warned horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self propelled machine.' (Wikipedia)

Officially the legislation was passed out of concern for the state of the roads and the safety of the public. Needless to say that it was 'supported' by the railway industry and manufacturers of horse-drawn carriages.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

'Red Flag Acts' are alive and well, albeit under different names. Combined with red tape - I wonder whether the identical color is pure coincidence - they are passed to obstruct change and innovation, often 'supported' by obsolete industries. 

Small print does not build trust

The other day, I received an email from Avis, in which they informed me about a new service: For EUR 9,90 one-way, they offered to deliver the rented car everywhere. Everywhere? 

This special offer was printed in bold type and had an * attached to it, i.e. time to look for the small print! And as was to be expected, the small print put the offer into perspective. 'Everywhere' meant within the city limits for selected locations only. 

I'm sure that Avis would argue that the offer is transparent, since all of the facts are included, albeit some in small print. But there is nothing 'great' about offers that don't stand up to close inspection. As a matter of fact, it is bad enough that we have to closely inspect offers from so many brands, not only those from Avis.

Honest, direct and straightforward communication of a value-adding product and/or service will build trust, small print will not! Why is that so difficult to understand for many brands?

Efficiency, an enemy of innovation?

Operative efficiency is of course a must, but once efficiency becomes a strategic imperative, things often turn problematic.

Optimizing existing processes and continuous cost-cutting, often at the expense of jobs - but that is another story - aim to keep your existing product and/or service competitive compared with others offering the same product and/or service. But what about those that offer something 'different'?

It is riskier to optimize the obsolete than it is to innovate. Efficiency didn't save the horse carriage and it won't save the automobile.

No doubt, Joseph Schumpeter would agree.

Your voice matters in more ways than one

Last Sunday, State elections took place in the Saarland, a small German state bordering France. With 61%, the voter turnout was rather low -> 39%, i.e. almost 2 out of 5 having the right to vote, chose not to exert that right.

The CDU (Christian Democratic Union) got 35,2% of the vote and the SPD (Social Democratic Party) got 30,6%. With 65,8% of the vote, they will most probably form a big coalition. Incidentally, both parties had announced before the elections, that they were in favor of a big coalition.

As we all know, this only works, because non-voters are omitted, they literally don't count in the process! If they would, simple mathematics would show us that only 21% of those eligible to vote - regardless of whether they exerted that right or not - chose the CDU, i.e. a whopping 79% did not vote for that party! Similarly, the SPD only got 18%.

A apparent comfortable majority of 65,8% (of the vote) turns into a minority of 39% (of those eligible to vote). 3 out of 5 eligible voters did not give their vote to one of the two parties forming this big coalition!

Party strategists have all kinds of explanations, why this line of reasoning is wrong. I won't argue with them today, because I want to make a different point: If you chose not to vote, you don't count. If you're frustrated, not voting won't change a thing.

Even in democracies, minorities will rule, if majorities choose not to exert their rights and stay quiet. This is true for voters as well as for consumers: Change only happens, once we speak up, organize true majorities and go all the way.

Unfortunately too many of us still choose to shut up!

We are all customers

That's right, each and everyone of us is a customer!

Wikipedia defines a customer as "a recipient of a good, product or service from a seller, vendor or supplier for a monetary or other valuable consideration". One side demands, the other side supplies!

But this view is misleading. In reality, we all trade, i.e. we all demand and supply.

Let's look at a typical commercial transaction like buying bread: 

According to conventional wisdom, the baker is the supplier, who sells bread. You, the customer, buys this product and pay for it with your money. But the baker wants your money just as much as you want his bread. Therefore you are also a supplier, your product being money. The baker, i.e. your customer, buys it and pays for it with bread.

Or look at Facebook: As a supplier, they sell you their services and you pay for it with your personal data. But Facebook is heavily dependent upon your personal data, which they turn into money when trading with third parties, i.e. advertisers. Therefore you are also a supplier, your product being your personal data. Facebook as your customer buys it and pays for it with their services. As a matter of fact, they need your personal data more than you need their services, but that's another story.

Perspectives are important!

Customer-centric behavior would be greatly enhanced, if everybody were to realize and accept this dual role. After all, everybody would benefit.

A silent majority is no majority

It's true in politics and it's true in business. Unfortunately we often choose to forget that, when sitting in our recliners and complaining about the injustice in this world. And the occasional outburst of anger in the Internet won't change the world either.

The truth of the matter is that a determined minority of people will get their way, as long as an undetermined majority of people will let them get away with it.

Politicians will keep on doing their thing, as long as enough people re-elect them. Banks will keep on doing their thing, as long as enough people keep their accounts. Brands will keep on doing their thing, as long as enough people keep on buying their products and/or services. After all, where is their motivation to change? Change only happens, once determined people not only protest, but also work hard to build an active majority.

In other words, change requires determination and leadership. Sheer numbers and a bit of whining won't do.

No to the yes-man

... but that doesn't mean yes to the no-man.

We all know yes-men, corporations are full of them. They're obedient, but not necessarily loyal - there's a big difference. Dictators happily surround themselves with yes-men, modern leaders shouldn't. A CEO once told me 'If I wanted to surround myself with yes-men, I might as well do everything myself'. Bingo! 

On the other hand, we don't need no-men either. People that negate everything and everybody don't add value.

What the modern corporation and every organizational unit needs is the why-man and the why-woman. Independent, lateral thinkers that are not afraid to speak up. They challenge in search of excellence.

The power of the argument beats the power of the position, at least it should.

Youth unemployment and political failure

Yesterday's article 'Youth unemployment crisis sparks Davos leaders into action' in the Guardian caught my attention.

Basically the idea is to commit 22 billion Euro of 'unspent' EU social funds to address the problem of youth unemployment. Whilst I agree that this problem requires immediate attention, I would also argue that the attention comes to late. Unfortunately, as almost always, politics is reacting.

The writing has been on the wall for years and the unemployed youth didn't beam down from Mars!

Most nations have a minister of education, a minister of economics, a minister of labor and thousands of civil servants. There are statistical offices, job agencies, think tanks and God knows what else. All paid for for with our tax money. We entrust politicians and institutions to run our respective countries. That in turn requires vision, professional planning and execution. Prevention is not only better than cure, it's also cheaper!

Peter Drucker once said that 'efficiency is doing things right and effectiveness is doing the right things'. Looks like our elected politicians are neither efficient nor effective!

On trust, distrust ... and the indispensable consequences

In the latest Edelman Trust Barometer 2012 for Germany, a dismal 34% of the respondents trusted business, that is minus 18% compared to last year. Only 21% found CEO's to be trustworthy. Together with financial analysts (22%) and government officials (22%), CEO's are at the bottom of this year's list.

On the other hand, 72% of the respondents found 'someone like myself' to be trustworthy. 41% trust corporate employees, which is interesting when compared with the low rating for CEO's.

These results obviously emphasize the need for employee empowerment as well as customer engagement - Nothing new here.

But I would like to bring up a different matter today: What are the consequences of these ratings? What happens, when people say 'I don't trust ...' and leave it at that? Not much! Only expressing our feelings and not following up with an adequate response won't change things. Talk is cheap!

If we're disappointed by brands, products or services, because they haven't lived up to their promises, we have to boycott them.

If we feel betrayed by politicians, because they haven't lived up to their promises, we have to vote them out of power.

In both cases, we have to inform our friends and peers and convince them to do the same. Is that likely to make an impact? You bet, after all 72% of the respondents find their peers to be trustworthy. And thanks to social media, it's easier than ever to reach a global audience.

Don't just whine, but act decisively. Thanks to today's technology, the tools are at our disposal. We only have ourselves to blame, if we don't use them.

On producers and consumers

Consumer

The nouns 'producer' and 'consumer' are expressions of a two-class materialistic view of the world. 

I personally think that the downgrade of a human being to the status of a 'consumer' is discriminatory. Looking at the adjectives rather than the nouns clarifies my point: The adjective 'productive' has very positive connotations. For example, calling someone 'productive' is usually meant as a compliment. On the other hand, the adjective 'consumptive' often has negative connotations.

Human beings as consumers of all sorts of products and services in the same 'category' as cars that consume fuel? Isn't that a disturbing comparison?

To make things worse, it's interesting to note that fuel-inefficient cars, i.e. cars consuming too much fuel, are punished with a 'gas guzzler' tax. Consumers on the other hand, are encouraged to consume more and more products and services, even if it means getting into debt. As disturbing as that comparison between human beings and cars may be, cars can teach us a valuable lesson: There's nothing wrong with saving, quite the contrary.

We are human beings perfectly capable of deciding which products and services to use. There are plenty of sources of information to help us decide what's right for us. Mindlessly consuming products and services often boils down to satisfying someone else's needs rather than our own. It may give us an illusion of convenience and sometimes even happiness, but only in the short-run. That's not enough for me. How about you?