Politics and the Average Canadian: A Fatal Attraction

If hockey is the national sport of Canada, then surely grousing about the state of political affairs comes a close second. The image of growing old in Florida, wearing high-waisted pants and complaining about politics must surely be linked to the number of Snow Birds, because Canadians love to hate their politicians.  We have an electorate culture that leans heavily on voting a party OUT of government rather than selecting the party that most closely aligns with our moral and fiscal values. If the Canadian electorate were the jilted lover we would end every encounter with a cute bunny in a pot of boiling water. Given our passion for the subject one would believe that Canadians vote in rabid fashion - literally queueing out the door of every voting station in the land. 

Yet following the analogy of the jilted lover, we act betrayed while knowing full well we are just as much to blame for the state of affairs in our relationship as the politicians themselves. The fact is the last two Canadian Federal elections were met with the flaccid response of a Viagra starved lover. As a population we were responsible for the third and absolute lowest voter turn-out since the birth of the nation! 

From this we can deduce that as a group we love to complain - as much as we love to do as little as possible to rectify the situation. We are the disgruntled employee holding the red stapler and mumbling about burning the office down while leaving the people at the levers of control safe from the slings and arrows.

Imagine yourself as a Canadian Federal politician. You need to contest your position once every four years, and if you are successful for two successive terms you are guaranteeing yourself one of the most handsome severance packages in the land. The qualifications to become a candidate are scant aside from requiring a good amount of financial backing. Retail job openings have more stringent qualifications. But then consider your employer - the average Canadian citizen. Given the citizenry's penchant for passive aggressive complaining, you may hear from a slight percentage of your constituents over your four year term.  Those who do contact you will most will more than likely wish to garner favour from having supported you during the election. Still it would be safe to assume single-digit percentages in this regard. 

Every four years you simply need to convince the majority of registered voters in your district to vote for you. Averaging the last two voter turnout results this means that a candidate needs somewhere near 31% of their district's Voters. If a candidate belongs to a major party they can easily count on party-line voter support of at least half that number, so now we are talking about requiring a platform that speaks to 15% of the population, regardless the amount of complaining from the general public. 

Aren't Canadians more deserving than platforms that only speak to less than quarter of the population? Do politicians who spend our money on a daily basis deserve carte blanche with this nation's credit rating? Canadians are wearing the costume of the jilted lover too well because we act like our relationship isn't within our control. We speak about our political climate not as a future, but as a foregone conclusion.

The time has come for Canadians to stop using the media as our private investigator, telling us how our trusted partner has been cheating on us with every corporate partner around and spending our money like its going out of fashion. Voting is not an activity for nights when there is nothing on TV. Much like any successful relationship it requires hard work, consideration and a dose of self-examination. We can be our own Tony Robbins if we want, but one thing is certain - if we simply like to complain then you can rest assured the fate of our nation will indeed be a fait accompli.

A Duty to Report?

Allow me to preface this post by saying I am an ardent believer in the power of newspapers. These are unique times for the medium and I believe to guarantee its future success (as a product and economically) challenging questions must be asked, and this is one of them.

Ask any newspaper reader what content they consider worthy of their attention and as sure as the sun sets you will recieve a myriad of responses based on their individual interests. Merriam-Webster defines the term 'Newsworthy' as "interesting enough to the general public to warrant  reporting".  While it could be said that almost any subject, story or issue may be considered newsworthy by any one sector of the population, allow me to forward the argument that this very dictionary-definition could form the basis of the epitaph of the newspaper industry.

Seminal moments have played out in the pages of newspapers (and most recently on their equivalent websites). From Watergate to Apartheid to Nigerian yellow cake, the dogged determination of news print journalism has shed light on many of the key events in modern political and social history.

In fact newspapers have done such an incredible job of playing the vital role of the 'check' in the system of 'checks and balances' that the general public expects to find the most exceptional brand of investigative journalism within the pages of newspapers (or their online equivalent). A study by the Newspaper Association of America in 2012 revealed that 74% of all internet users surveyed rely on local newspaper media as the key source of news and information. With this in mind it is easy to consider the importance that the newspaper industry places on journalistic integrity and providing information that is considered free from any interference.

Now what if the subject considered as newsworthy is a Harris Media survey result published in 2010 that showed that 55% of Americans polled believe that traditional media would no longer exist within the next decade?  Or that a Pew Research poll showed that since the year 2000 the percentage of Americans reading the newspaper had dropped by just over half to 23%.

This is the struggle where a newspapers duty to report directly impacts their ability to sustain marketability. In no other industry will you find the biggest players trumpeting their own ills in the same fashion as print media. Yet in September of 2011 the New York Times created a large infographic specifically designed to illustrate how many newspapers were in financial trouble that year.

Ask yourself this - would any major automobile manufacturer hold a sale and call it the "We Need to Move These Cars Because the Last Major Recall Killed Us" event? It would be a veritable marketing nightmare. Yet print media does this, and why? In editorial terms financial reporting is newsworthy. So the question then becomes -  While editorial content is the cornerstone to a truly credible news organization, would that credibility be damaged if said organization didn't report the sadness of its own state of affairs?

The Medium is More Than One Message - Innovation as Revenue

In 1964 Marshal McLuhan made famous the term "The medium is the message" when describing the relationship between the medium delivering the message, and the message itself. When discussing innovation and revenue generation, I believe the medium used to encourage innovation within a company ultimately becomes part of the message of encouragement. To extrapolate further the statement "Innovation is revenue generation" would also be true.

When a business focuses almost solely on short term revenue generation (e.g. a lack of clear strategic goals beyond a one to two year horizon) I contend that the long term life span of the organization is placed in jeopardy. Instead business leaders should place an equally strong emphasis (if not leaning more) on building a corporate laboratory environment that encourages long term, disruptive creativity.

For the purpose of definiton innovation can take the form of new ideas for products or services, including revenue diversification based on new economic partnerships and acquisitions. On a more subtle level innovation may also include progressive business process and workflow reengineering that produces new revenue by reenergizing old renevue generators.

As described in the former, innovation is macro in scope including large scale changes in an organization's philosophies and/or overall strategy. In its latter representation, innovation creates a more effective, focused organization. This secondary form can also create an environment more conducive to encouraging innovations born from internal players, as more efficient processes can uncover previously misused bandwidth.

This marriage of efficiency and creativity can flourish when an organization createhealthy environment that welcomes, documents, reviews and adopts ideas created from within. When business leaders show a genuine interest and belief that the best ideas are waiting to be discovered by their charges, management and employees will respond in kind with genuine interest in finding, if you will, a better mousetrap.  Thus an organization must be prepared to follow a road map that includes a robust internal process for inviting and evaluating ideas and suggestions from officers, employees and even outside sources.

The genesis of this path begins with open communication. Every level of a hierarchy must understand the importance of sharing information across all corporate levels and borders. When every player understands the short and long term rules of engagement, creative thought can become more focused in its energies. An employee who has been given a clear understanding of their employer's goals will be the best filter of their own ideas, and whether they merit submission.

With submissions it is key for an organization to not place an over reliance on standard forms of business communication, such as email - nor something as dated as a physical submission box. Emails are too easily lost in the shuffle of daily office routines, while the submission box is too public, discounting the power of embarrassment for employees as well as the ease in which pieces of paper can become just as lost as an email - and just as quickly.

Instead the submission process should reside within its own enterprise level application. This application should employ a set of categories to assist employees in targeting the right audience (that will coincidentally also provide an audit trail of review and approvals).  The application will also allow all submissions to be held in a central proprietary database - a key advantage when considering the ROI on creating such an application.

Overseeing this application will be a group of Subject Matter Experts that must include individuals from both management and general employee levels as a matter of ensuring a full spectrum of skills and knowledge. The group will then review submissions in the database, and the application will provide the committee the ability to provide direct feedback while also allowing approval and escalation of those submissions deemed worthy of further review.

An additional function of this application will involve providing the ability for the SME committee to defer review of submissions until a later date. This may take place for submissions that upon a cursory review do not align with current market conditions or business timelines (e.g. A harried fourth quarter) but do merit another opportunity to appear before the committee. These deferred items could then have flags set at the database level that would automatically reintroduce the submission and a pre-determined interval. An additional benefit to the organization is that all submissions will be recorded as company property in a formal structure that can be drawn upon even decades later. 

McLuhan's term regarding the power of medium maintains a lasting legacy that will continue to expand in scope as technology engrains itself deeper into the woodwork of our daily lives. For business leaders, to follow this evolution by creating a medium for innovation drives the message to employees that innovation is indeed revenue generation. This approach will serve notice to the market and competitors that your organization is working in earnest towards guaranteeing its long term health and value as a player, and as an investment opportunity.

Apple, Samsung & the Model T - A Lesson in Sharing

On the face of it, one would give little thought to how much the evolution of the mobile device may end up mirroring the evolution of the automobile. After all, the two products differ in their complexity and their manufacturing considerations to such an extent one might wonder where they could relate at all. Yet mobile device makers would do well to take note of one key area where automotive manufacturers have learned vital lessons - the importance of sharing.

Car shopping may not be the most enjoyable consumer experience, but one thing is guaranteed - No matter the number of dealerships and brands you peruse, the vast majority share the same set of standard and optional features. By and large equipment such as intermittent wipers, heated seats and ABS are offered by every brand. Even if there is a feature only offered by a single brand, you will not find yourself in a position of asking a Ford salesperson if you can purchase keyless entry and having the salesperson respond, "I'm sorry but Chrysler holds the patent, and they aren't keen on sharing".

On the other hand today's tech headlines usually involve one or two stories concerning patent battles between smart phone producers, especially the two biggest - Apple and Samsung. From physical product shape to OS features, the court battles are fierce and involve hundreds of millions of dollars. So unlike the aforementioned scenario with car shopping, finding a mobile device that has all the features you desire is unlikely because the brands essentially (and purposely) prevent your ideal device from existing.

So how did automobile manufacturers find this marketplace zen? Surely their desire to better their competitors is as fierce as any other business. So was there an epiphany moment over a bottle of scotch in a oak paneled office somewhere in Detroit? Not exactly - but not too far from reality either. The truth is that car makers learned a lesson that today's tech companies should heed - that sharing is preferable to spending endless years in court.

According to sources including the book The Automobile Age (James J. Fink) and Monopoly on Wheels (William Greenleaf and David L. Lewis), a patent battle that loomed over the use of the gasoline engine for over 8 years in the early 20th century triggered the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce to create a cross-manufacturer patent sharing agreement in 1914 where even non-member companies such as Ford agreed to share their patents (at that time Ford had 92 patents) without expectation of royalties. In fact, the agreement has been renewed at five year intervals since 1935.

As the automotive industry has continued to evolve with hybrid and electric vehicle innovations playing a critical role, this agreement could be seen as holding even greater importance today than at any other time in the history of the industry, and yet the renewals happens apace. Consider that the brake force redistribution technology that is commonly used by different manufacturers in their hybrid models was originally patented by Toyota in 1994.

This patent sharing agreement not only holds historical significance for the mobile technology industry in how they can reinvent relationships with each other, it also clearly demonstrates that a healthy, competitive market can still exist after patent sharing becomes the norm. Most importantly, the companies who are stakeholders in the agreement do not lose face, market share, or their ability to woo buyers to their brands.

Ultimately mobile technology leaders may do best by employing a little backward thinking in order to move forward.

Too Many Packages Or Too Much Packaging This Holiday Season?

As a parent there are few holiday moments more aggravating than the calm after the gift exchange storm when children clamour to get a hold of the bobbles and trinkets behind all the glossy packaging that, until recently, had been hidden under wraps.

With every twist-tie undone, every plastic clip snipped off and strip of tape sliced a body can begin to wonder if the toy industry's loss prevention strategies have evolved for the better.  After all, much like with home burglaries - no matter how good the security system may be, if a thief is truly intent on taking your valuables the security system is a mere inconvenience.

Let us not forget other industries that tend to provide exquisitely designed (yet readily thrown away) packing material for MP3 players, smart phones and other such items where the customer's only real concern is the 'cool' factor of the product within. Yes, I will readily admit I have been in awe of a certain fruit-inspired company's packaging, but you could still count on two hands the number of extra seconds I spent admiring it before focusing my attention on the piece of hardware inside.

After the flurry of activity this holiday season when one gazes upon the pile of plastic, cardboard and paper strewn across the floor - it becomes easy to quantify the immediate loss that all of the excess packaging creates.  For the business producing the consumable, the energy and time spent designing & producing the packaging is cost completely unrelated to the product and ultimately valued (or deplored) by the customer for mere moments.

For the retailer, every inch of extra space occupied by excess packaging is square footage that could be used to house more product, more efficiently - or space that could be reduced from their store front footprint. Odd sized or oversized packages can become the elephant in the room that no one wishes to address even though it's an obvious eyesore to all.

In shipping cost, every ounce of excess represents further waste of energy, fuel and labour - another area prime for reduction, whether in lighter packaging, less packaging - or reusable packaging.  Then comes the related environmental cost - one so easily forgotten after you have deposited the waste in a recycle bin or garbage can. Each one of those bins introduces another process that foists shipping, energy and labour costs onto municipalities that will be passed on to residential and commercial tax payers alike in the shape of tax hikes and user fees.

So with the rapid and dramatic swings of the global economy causing almost every industry (and government for that matter) to rethink and retool in almost every way - isn't it time we address the waste we all create, and the waste it all creates? By evolving the idea of packaging, industries will produce less waste, use fewer resources and consume less energy.  The net result is companies can save millions in lower costs attributed to bringing their product to market, while engaging consumers in marketing that drives the message - Buy from companies that are truly doing more with less.