simply marc

We've moved

Marc Wright, Kelly Kass, Daniel Penton, Ruth Pavion and Gerard Brown have now moved to a new blog location inside the simply-communicate site.
Reload your browser to here:
http://www.simply-communicate.com/index.php?q=community/simply-blogging

We do EVERYTHING on our intranet

So says Richard Dennison of BT in this interview with the Crescenzos - (could be Steve/could be Cindy it's hard to tell.)
Worth a look at what 's happening among BT  - the UK's earliest adopters among telcos.
Marc

I've moved

It always annoys me when people move their blogs.  Some do it out of fecklessness, others like Steve Crescenzo got evicted.  But I'm shacking up with my fellow bloggers at simply-blogging.  So please reset your RSS feed to
http://simply-blogging.typepad.com/weblog/
And read not just me but also the debonair Liam FitzPatrick, the incisive Daniel Penton - and of course the incredibly glamorous Kelly Kass - the toast of New York.

Why is there no other life in the Universe?

One of the chunkier presents in the Xmas stocking was Richard Dawkins The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing. One of the extracts he includes in this rewarding anthology is to do with the power of n.  This is a mathematical constant that sets the relationship between gravity in large objects like planets and stars and the power of electrical field in sub-atomic particles that make up all matter including you and me.
The point of n is that it explains why the Universe is so large and the distances so huge between solar systems.  (If n were smaller gravity would make our planet a thousand times smaller and would crush anything but insects with very strong legs; also stars would be forever colliding with each other). 
Which got me to thinking why it is that we have not found life elsewhere?  After all - our planet is the equivalent of just one millionth of a grain of sand in a whole world of sea sand.  With so many other planets in a Universe  why has the n factor not created intelligent life on one of those other grains of sand?
So I have developed a new theory to explain this anomaly. I call it the Champagne Glass Theory. 

Imagine a flute of champagne in which the bubbles are worlds that have evolved life.  There are millions of them.  But now consider the surface of the liquid.  When one bubble rises through the surface tension and bursts - at that exact nanosecond of time - it is the only bubble bursting on the entire surface of the glass. 
I propose that intelligent life has been in the Universe before us and will appear afterwards.  But during the nanosecond that we are around (just a few million years) we are the only bubble currently bursting.
I am probably misrepresenting Martin Rees who describes the 6 numbers that govern our Universe, but it's a theory that works for me.

Thanks to Adam Lein for the photo.

A couple of recommendations

Here are a couple of events worth considering:

CIPR Inside are running a panel with the new David Ferrabee replace Jonathon Scott, former Group Head of Internal Communication at Royal Sun Alliance

on Jan 22nd.  It's at the H&K HQ in Soho Square.  Contact CIPR Inside for a ticket (cost £35).  Among the speakers is the inestimable Richard Dennison from BT - always worth a good listening to.

Louise Beckett is running her brilliant weekend creative breaks in Italy in April, July and October.  Just the thing to revive your creative edge.

Over-egging the pudding

Great article today in the Guardian about brand engagement hype.

Does the 'command and control' label matter anymore?

I met Jim Lukaszewski in New York last June where we were both presenting at the IABC International Conference.  We started a constructive and heated debate about 'command and control'

In the wake of the disastrous leadership that brought us the Credit Crunch James has written to take the asrgument further.  He's worth a read:

"This discussion started because Marc characterized me as a proponent of "command and control." It's a pejorative label. But, let's talk. My question is, does any of this really matter anyway?

Seems to me that the discussion ought to involve how we influence those who do make the decisions rather than fussing to find a better label. Much of my professional life is devoted to helping other have influence.

It's staff discussions of stuff like 'command and control,' or bottom up decision making,' that drives operators nuts anyway.

The process is more important than the label. Among the processes I advocate, for anyone who advises a boss at any level, is the commitment to suggest a number of options from which the 'boss' can develop a solution, or better questions, or the next step.

My focus is on having real influence through the techniques I advocate, then letting go. Who's bus is it any way . . . some pr guy's? or lawyer's, HR's or strategic planner's? I think the driver and owner is the boss. Our job as passengers is to help that boss drive better and accomplish more. Then they also take the credit for it.

I frequently hear the frustration of some advisors because the boss ignores their advice . . . so what? We are paid for our suggestions . . .it's the boss who gets paid for choosing and for solutions.

The larger issue with the current and future generation of managers and upcoming leaders is their business school, then peer and marketplace driven need for relentlessly amoral decision making. Decisions that are totally dependent on measurement, followed by scoring their personal victories by the size of their cash accumulation. (That's really what's under the kilt.)

We now graduate MBA's by the thousands each year, each with visions of bucks, Eros or Zlottes dancing through their heads. Forty percent of last year's Harvard Business School graduates said Wall Street was their preferred post graduation professional designation.

Judging by the current state of the world economy, and the 'leaders' responsible for putting us all in this mess, whatever you feel about the current business decision making models, . . . something about the rottenness and arrogance of business leadership needs to change. Sending increasing numbers of CEOs to prison doesn't seem to be helping.

Most of today's business school business guru's haven't ever met a payroll, fired somebody, gone bankrupt, run a gas station or grocery store, dealt with a truly angry employee, or had a significant business success (except a big book deal). Just check out how a business school gets accredited.

When there is trouble, business people today are taught to blame employees, clumsy customers, dumb public officials, or the media for their failures . . .

And where are we in this discussion? Arguing about command and control. You're going to hate this but  I have often said that most functions in public relations can be done by a competent secretary or staff assistant. If we insist on arguing the small stuff and being absent from the real issues and debates of our time, why should bosses listen to us.

If ever there were a time when we needed something useful and powerful to bubble up, this is it. But, of course, then, maybe we'd need some S.O.B to make it work."

Posted by: Jim Lukaszewski | 

____________________________________

James E. Lukaszewski, ABC, APR, Fellow PRSA
The Lukaszewski Group Inc.
Chairman and President

Should agencies pay their way to the conference lectern?

There's an interesting debate going on at Kevin Keohane's blog about the ethics of selling conference airtime to agencies who sponsor.

Are we at simply being a bit too high-minded when we bar sponsors from presenting at our conferences?  We'd make more money - but would it make for a better conference?

Nicola Horlick captures the radio station

The UK's best-known fund manager Nicola Horlick is in the news today as her investment vehicle is involved in losses due to the Madoff scandal in the States which has swallowed $50bn in a massive financial fraud.  I interviewed her last month for simply-communicate and two things struck me about the way she operates.  The first is that her business is based on extremely detailed analysis: she foresaw the credit crunch and got out of equities a year ago.  And secondly - she knows how to communicate.
So what do we make of the Madoff scandal? On the face of it this was a very unwise investment - and that's how the newspapers and the BBC portrayed it over the weekend. 
So what does Horlick do?  She gets herself the best speaking platform available - the BBC's Today Programme and goes on-air at prime time to set the record straight.  The BBC wanted to hear about how she could have made such a mistake.  But the message she sent out to her investors was that the fund in question has only lost 4% of its value since the exposure to Madoff was only 9% and they have been making some money on the dollar in the meantime.
Incredibly the programme's anchor Evan Davis topped off the interview by agreeing that a 4% loss was pretty good in these times.  That's the kind of endorsement that money can't buy and Horlick must be pretty pleased with the outcome.
All in all it was a case study in how to deal with a crisis.  Grab the radio station, make sure you communicate the message you want to get out and win yourself some credible endorsement on the way.  Now all she needs is Robert Peston to put in a good word to make her Christmas

Paradise found

Arrived on the Bahama island of Eleuthra and moved into The Cove Resort  where we were we upgraded to the Point House (this is the 180 degree view from the room) - possibly because we are the only guests in the resort.  It's the calm before the storm apparently - not a Hurricane but the arrival next weekend of the Xmas refugee crowds from colder climes.  No doubt the credit crunch is having an effect - but I've never stayed anywhere quite so beautiful and so calm.