Given my Twitter addiction I have the opportunity of seeing how different brands engage with their clients in this particular space.  Many brands that I come across do a fairly passable job of the task, but very few get it completely right. Here are my thoughts why they are not getting it right.

A number of brands have “done the social media thing” they have several social media presences.  These include a Twitter account, perhaps several different profiles, representing different brand positioning. They have a FACEBOOK page, a Fan page, several of these for good measure. They employ someone or several people to manage these, because they know that a brand must engage first hand in this arena or face the “unmasking” of the plant.

Fundamentally though many of these brands and the rest entering or contemplating entering this space has not clearly defined what they want to achieve by being here.  They appear to be entering this space more out of a fear of not being there, “because our competitors are there”. They have completely missed the point of Social Media and that is in fact SOCIAL.

Smaller businesses use it as a conduit to potential clients and many reports talk about the various influencers in this field.  There are businesses built entirely on extracting the value out of or maximising your return on the businesses Social Media investment. All of this is relevant and important and the businesses that guide their clients through the process are really critical. Brands attempting to navigate this terrain by themselves do so at extreme peril.

However, the point that I want to make is that of the being Social in your approach. The few brands that get it right engage effectively with their clients / followers.  They take issues and deal with them in an open forum.  They are prepared to take and deal with criticism and positive comments in the same vein. Sure they may boast about the positive ones more than they shout about the negative one’s but talk they do.

If you as a brand desire to be successful in this arena, you need to seek the correct advice before you roll up your sleeves and plunge in.  I do want to though encourage you to plunge in, get as many of you organisation involved, sure control the “official” line, but let the conversation around your brand be robust. This after all a social environment and this requires debate, input and the whole range of emotions.

Delivering content into this medium is simply only one part of the equation. Open, honest and robust discussion is what differentiates the brands that are successful here. Beware of organisations that say things like, we help you exploit the social media space. The key here is the word exploit. If your audience feel that they are been exploited or ignored you face the risk of being crucified. Crucify you they (excuse me we) will do, nothing says this more than a disengaged brand.

Go forth and be Social, embrace these platforms and reap the rewards of unparalleled loyalty and devotion, but be wary of not doing this with the correct strategy and guidance.

I have no objections to strike action. In fact I think that this is an integral part of the culture that we live and strive in. I have posted about the merits and demerits of these actions in the past, and thought, given the current situation that this may be worthy of reviewing again.

As we all know the “workers” withhold their labour (without pay in most instances) in an attempt to extract the maximum increase percentage. The employer knows that they are going to have to contend with this so make contingencies. Usually the contingencies go some way to ensuring that the customers don’t feel the full impact.  You then get news reports that offer both sides of the story, the employer typically saying “only minor absenteeism has been reported” and the converse from the strikers “many of our members have not reported for work”.

The current situation that we find ourselves in is that every one of the striking unions is demanding dramatically higher than inflation wage settlements.  This is a situation that has repeated itself time and again over the past years.

This post though is dedicated to the many millions of people who are unable to strike, unable because their businesses do not allow organisation around union lines. Additionally they live with the constant fear that there jobs are on the line. These people ironically are the one’s that are typically most affected by above inflationary wage settlements.

When any agreement is reached that is above the inflation rate, the result effectively comes straight off the bottom line. In the case of government this is going to be measured in service delivery terms, although it will never officially be acknowledged.  They may also have to raise the tax burden on the economy in order to fund this.

The effect on South Africa as a whole is that employers raise their prices and further drive up the inflationary pressure. This in turns causes those businesses on the edge to tilt and close. This further drives unemployment. Government cannot expect to create jobs when jobs are being lost. You are a fool if you believe that they can.

My view is that government should set an example. No increase above inflation should ever be given. Merit increases for individuals who perform above par should be the only exception. The argument that this will forever keep certain people in poverty is nonsense. When you start your employment anywhere you need to negotiate your starting salary. This salary, for the time you are in this position, should never be increased by more than inflation, because you are still doing the job of work you were employed to do.

Advancement, through your life stage comes from progress. Progress comes from you performing your tasks above expectation, which in turn gives you the opportunity to rise through the ranks. This is how you should progress in business and indeed government.

So in short if you think that striking will improve you life standards your wrong, all that this does is revise the base level. So it is my contention that a wage settlement above inflation in fact is more detrimental to the country as a whole.

Maybe you disagree?

I have the privilege of being in business and really love strategic thought and debate.  One of my highs during my work day, week or month is when we conclude a business transaction with a client. Nothing gives me a greater thrill, from a business point of view, than delivering successfully on a client request.

I truly believe in business and think that when a business links all of its desired outcomes together and delivers successfully that a client truly appreciates it. Those that work with and know me, understand the frustration I feel when things don’t run as planned and a client is disappointed. 

Part of what makes business such a great thing is the competitive element.  I love competing against other businesses and feel absolutely devastated when a proposal that we have put together, is turned down in favour of another proposal.  I am not much fun to be around when we have failed in the execution or missed a trick that another supplier has managed to deliver on.

One of my pet hates though is when the only differentiating point is price.  This typically results in one or both parties just about killing each other to get the order.  They expend equal parts of effort in fighting off the other by “sharpening their pencils”.  The client all the while licking their lips at the prospect of getting a deal concluded at a price that suites them. 

Now, let me quickly add that I am not opposed to the haggle, just that something someone told me recently has made me sit up and look at these interactions a little differently. You see I was told the other day that the Greek word for competition also means “to search for together”.

Clearly the accepted understanding of competition is one just that….we compete against each other in order to see who prevails.  However, approaching business with the other meaning of competition may offer some interesting opportunities and insights.  I have for sometime marvelled at just how cut throat certain industries are.  Clearly adopting strategies that are not sustainable and which may lead to them closing their doors, ultimately.

I have also been challenged as a consumer.  Sure I want to get the best price that I can, but surely I should be opting to get the best overall deal that I can instead.  Perhaps allowing suppliers the room to compete by “searching for together” as opposed to “killing each other over” a deal, I may just walk away better off overall?

So my challenge…..I am going to be looking a little differently at business.  I will be looking at ways in which I can get an excellent overall deal, while allowing active competition, thereby securing my products and/or services but ensuring that the suppliers can still remain in business.  Maybe we all should?

I was given a great view of the reason for the Consumer Protection Act the other day.  The image used to illustrate the point was that of the scales of justice. The illustration went as follows:

When commercial interaction first came about, the scales were balanced and you traded your skill for somebody else’s skill. Both parties walked away from the transaction feeling equally satisfied.  We then introduced currency and the ability for those with skills that were deemed to worth more than yours started to get paid.  This transaction though still had the balance in that both parties walked away felling satisfied.

What happened next was Capitalism 101, people with the skills formed collectives and within those people of dominance took control. Now with all the skill “under one roof” the consumer was left to deal with the terms dictated by the collective. And so the scales began to tip in favour of the collective or people with the skills.

As we all know the collective became corporate entities and we introduced stock markets to share in the wealth of these businesses.  We also did something even more important. We introduced legal requirements, which completely shifted the balance from the consumer in favour of big business. You see these businesses ensured that their rights were protected ahead of the consumer.

I believe that the Consumer Protection Act as well as the other legislation, like POPI (Protection of Private Information) came about as a result of the consumers attempting to take back some control.

The consumer has decided that enough is enough.  Why should they have to beg to get service they deserve.  Why should they be forced into agreements that only benefit or protect the corporate.  Why should business be able to treat the consumer’s confidential information as if it belonged to the corporate.

The new legislation will come into effect soon and corporate South Africa is going to be held to task by their customers.  This does not mean the end to marketing or communication with the consumer, it does though bode well for a redress in the balance of power.  Some may argue that the balance has shifted to the consumer, my belief is that properly embraced the CPA will allow actually empower the corporate alongside the consumer.  This will ultimately lead to a better experience for all.

There has been a huge, justifiable, reaction to the senseless killing of nine children as a result of a taxi driver who disobeyed a railroad crossing set of booms.  As reported he passed the other waiting traffic and tried to negotiate his way through, resulting in the taxi being hit by an oncoming train.

I have been, as many of you probably have, trying to deal with the absolute anger as a result of this tragedy.  Making things worse is the journey home each day in which we see many taxi drivers continuing to break the law. (Driving down the emergency lane, crossing solid white lines and the rest)

Yesterday I saw a taxi driver breaking the rules. He crossed over a solid white line, only to cause several cars to slam on brakes.  I dutifully hooted at him, probably a bit longer than I would normally do.  To my amazement several of the passengers in the vehicle laughed and waved at me.  This is when it struck me.

These passengers have the ability to change the driver’s attitudes.  They need to also take accountability for the driver’s actions and by supporting a driver who breaks the law are they not also in some way complicit?

Now before you say, these were children. I understand that, but this driver has probably ferried hundreds, if not thousands, of passengers in the past.  All this time, he would have broken many of the rules of the road, all the while with passengers on board.

We are a country of strike action, as can be proven by the current ongoing civil servant strike action. Should we not be encouraging the passengers in these taxis to stop their support of the drivers and the taxi bosses. Fundamentally, they would be achieving two things. Firstly, they would be securing their own lives against potentially dangerous acts of the driver and secondly they would help to make the roads safer for all users.

Continuing with the thought to extend the accountability in the industry. I think that urgent legislation should be passed making the taxi bosses complicit in terms of rules being broken.  In the same way any joint and several liability would apply. They should be fined, along with the driver, when the driver breaks the rules. This would create pressure from the bosses on the drivers to follow the rules of the road.

What do you think?