The recent election brought home just how much power this network has and, quite rightly, the coalition government has recognised that it isn’t something only useful for the election but in the longer term.   It makes perfect sense to use the heightened engagement in politics from the election to retain involvement from a wider audience.  This view is also directly in line with the greater vision of Facebook – it was created as an entity in its own right, far more than just another site because it enables interaction in a more powerful way than any other.

This is because Facebook isn’t just another website or technology, it is a social utility and should be used as such.  No other channel or media offers this direct, real-time dialogue by which the public can be engaged and understood.  Facebook is more than a network of people, it is a tool to reach out to them, share information and gain understanding which can’t be replicated by other tools available but is invaluable to the political sphere.

Of course, it’s not infallible.  The very nature of Facebook means you can’t censor it and you have to take the rough with the smooth.  But that’s just what makes it such a valuable tool for politicians who need to work more transparently than ever to clean up their profile following the scandals of recent months.  The truth is, a political Facebook campaign isn’t a disingenuous attempt at being cool, it is something that any representative body can’t afford not to engage in in modern times.

By
Richard Perry
Chief Operating Officer
GyroHSR

Twitter: richjperry
Linkedin: uk.linkedin.com/in/richardjohnperry

We were exceptionally fortunate to secure The Right Honourable The Lord Heseltine as keynote speaker. Lord Heseltine was captivating and spoke at length about the differences and similarities between politics and business. He also gave his personal observations on the economic outlook and what this meant for marketers.

His speech, plus other impressive speakers from businesses like Kyoceta Mita, Pearson, Fujitsu and David Brown, can be viewed at www.brandordemand.com, where you can also weigh in with your own opinions.

I think it’s fair to say that the question of Brand v Demand is something of a false dichotomy, and it was interesting to see some quite strong opinions as to the merits of each. When put to the vote, I think unsurprisingly the consensus was that brand expenditure was more worthy, yet a passing look at market expenditure would suggest otherwise. There seems to be some dissonance between marketers’ espoused views and their own actions.

I’d also add that brand spend isn’t as vulgar or extravagant as some might assume, and while it’s not easy to measure, it can be done. Debates like this will continue until marketing can drag itself up the business food chain: some of the most successful businesses in the world are run by marketers.

As you’ll see, there is no easy answer to the Brand v Demand question, but it made for a fascinating and exciting day. Look out for other similar events in future.

Danny Turnbull
Managing Director, European B-to-B practice leader
GyroHSR North

As I looked on this room of senior-level marketing executives from some of the world’s largest companies, it dawned on me: Governments don’t end recessions. Economists don’t sort it out. Politicians don’t get things moving. Engineers don’t invent our way out. Marketers and advertisers have ended every recession, and they’ll end this one.

Recessions are like a long backup on the highway. You’re driving along at a good clip; then the traffic comes to a standstill. In the big ones you can see cars lined up for miles ahead of you. As the traffic starts to pick up, you eventually move up to the source of the backup and you see that it’s not really the accident that’s slowed things down. It’s all the rubberneckers who have to get a look at what happened. That is, until one driver with intention comes to the head of the line and doesn’t care what happened because he has somewhere he needs to be. He blows on by, and then so does everyone else. And before you know it, you’re at 70 mph again, unless you’re like me, in which case (oops, better not go there)…

The same thing happens in recessions. An event, sometimes catastrophic, interrupts the free flow of exchange. Folks slow down to figure out what happened. They get scared by what they see. But then some marketer says, “I gotta get goin’,” and soon everyone else has picked up the pace. Indeed you look up and say, “Hey, that was my competitor who just raced ahead.” Hit the gas.

In the last few decades the mantra of business education has been risk management and risk mitigation. The job of marketers is risk provocation and risk advocacy. With the possible exception of sales, there is really no other unit in the modern corporation that serves as a reservoir of hope, courage, faith and optimism.

The noise has been loud in 2009. The shrapnel has been flying. The wreckage has been horrific. But it’s time for marketers to lift their heads from their foxholes and propose, recommend, initiate, venture and risk. If you’re going to go down, go down in flames. Some enlightened enterprise is always going to value the heat and light you represent.

The real and only economic stimulus program begins when the marketer gets moving, again.

Rick Segal
Chief Executive, North America
Global Practice Leader, B-to-B Marketing

So how would you feel if you had to start paying for access to online newspapers? You probably wouldn’t care; I certainly wouldn’t, but it seems as if, in these ever increasing hard economic times, it is certainly the route that most newspaper companies are heading, as a way to recoup their falling revenues from advertisers who are abandoning them in their droves, along with the purchasers of their newspapers.

I can understand why people would pay for financial information etc., but why would we bother to pay for general news stories, which form the bulk of the copy, when we’ve got used to having instant access to information via mobiles as well as our computers? With the onslaught of Twitter and other social networking sites, the world can know about events from people who are there, long before the news networks get their people on location. For example, news of Michael Jackson’s death appeared on both, hours before the story was covered by official news sources.

In my opinion, the newspapers need to think ‘outside the box’ in the same way that glossy magazines did a few years ago. The relatively ‘cheap treat’ for a woman of buying a magazine that she can pick up and read wherever she wants (which now also come in different sizes, so you can even choose one that even fits in your handbag!) will always exist; but when a monthly magazine has long lead times, the website offers the perfect channel for covering all sorts of stories that would otherwise be ignored as old news by the time the next issue was going to the printers.

The successful launch of the UK Vogue site some years ago allowed different editorial content to be created, so that fashionistas could have a daily fix of fashion news which complemented their monthly magazine read. It ensured that the catwalk shows could be covered instantly, with image and video coverage of not just the clothes, but interviews with the designers and coverage of who was attending which shows and with whom – all compulsive information for people in and lovers of the fashion industry!

But the secret to their success was providing something new and different that readers couldn’t easily get from other sources. With a dedicated team with their fingers on the pulse, they could provide all the inside track on their site, but free of charge. Although online newspapers can potentially do the same thing, why on earth would we ever be persuaded to pay for news that we can get from lots of other sources? Beats me…

Jill Thater
Client Services Director
Bluhalo Ltd

An outcome of all our attempts to achieve a safe society is that we in fact often get the very opposite results to those we intended.

Being an adult is fun but tough and it hurts both physically and emotionally. Still, we hide this fact from our kids. And since we forbid our kids to, say, ride a bike without a helmet, cross the road without parents, hold a knife, walk through the park, talk to strangers, watch TV for more than 30 minutes etc, we also trick them into constantly feeling safe. We lull them into the belief that nothing hurts, and that nothing is tough or bad out there. Is this really good for them?

The same people are saying that, as a result, we are now in danger of having an entire generation to never become adults. Today these youngsters are coming to the psychiatric emergency wards for stress symptoms way before they even start to work. Why is that? How can you be that stressed when you are young and without real responsibilities? How come this never happened before? For instance – the medical term of being “stressed out” is that you have to work for many years (think it was 10) every day and long hours and with no rest whatsoever. And as said – we still get youngsters claiming they are stressed out before they have even worked one single day in their life.

The reason is simple; we have not prepared them for real life. For life as adults. We over-protect them on their way to becoming adults and once they begin to realize that it’s a tough world we all live in, and that it does hurt a lot…they simply cannot cope with the mental pressure.

So, what has all of this to do with today’s topic? Well, we all read the stories in the news about the current global financial situation, with many companies needing to cut back. In Sweden, now is the time to take market share – especially since some of our laws will make things even more difficult than they already are for these struggling companies.

And there is one law that is a great example of the many stupid rules that attempt to protect us, but actually result in the opposite. In my mind at least, this is very much related to the above.

You decide: In Sweden if a company is experiencing a shortage of work and needs to reduce its size, we have a law that protects the staff with seniority over qualification/skill/expertise. SENIORITY OVER EXPERTISE. Yes, you heard it right. Good for the senior people at least you might think. But I say it´s a very unfortunate law for everyone. Including the very same senior people the law tries to protect. Here is how I see it in a very simplified and shortened version: When companies are being forced to get rid of the young, vibrant, hungry and often more skilled people (and ones that you just hand picked with great care) as opposed to the ones that have been at the company the longest, you take away the edge of your company. And if you are a high performance service organization – you take away the edge of the very product you are selling, as well as getting rid of the part you have most recently invested in building up. By doing so, you obviously lose quality and alongside losing quality, it is inevitable that you will lose revenue and eventually the all-important clients. Once you begin to lose clients, you are in a very unfortunate downward spiral… And so it begins again. You have to fire some more people, starting again with the people last in…

This means that even the senior staff that initially thought they were safe will eventually have to go. And with them, potentially the entire company!

The worst part of this is that the ‘market value’ of the senior people is often lower than that of the less experienced. This is due to the fact that Sweden has made them slower, less hungry, less competitive, more comfortable and safe. And in business that is never a good thing. In business we always have to outperform the others, we always have to outsmart our competitors and even our colleagues, we have to run, be proactive and not reactive, break barriers, coming up with the smartest solutions… I think you get my point by now.

I will not run my life or my company based on safety alone. Just being safe is boring, by being safe you will never expand, safety alone will not take you anywhere, being safe will not break any barriers, safe ideas are rarely the winning ideas, safe is not a feeling that will drive a company. Or an industry. And definitely not a society.

As said above, now IS the time to take market shares. The best talents are now available, the clients are looking for stable organizations and the downward spiral has started for those in trouble.

Life is fun and tough. Not safe.

Claës af Buren
Chief Executive
GyroHSR Scandinavia