Uncategorized

It’s a lazy shorthand for saying, “people I’m better than.”

Godwin’s law states that the longer an online conversation goes on the probability of some comparing someone to the Nazis approaches 1. For Twitter, you can be fairly sure that the for any illiberal tweet that trends, a pejorative Daily Mail comment will feature in the first five replies.

This denigration of Daily Mail readers stems from what we might politely call the paper’s strong views. It also feeds off the idea that we are a divided nation. But this latter view is wrong.

As 2019’s Ofcom News Consumption Survey shows, very few people consume just one type of media. At a platform level, there’s huge crossover.

Indeed, as the below chart shows, the average person consumes 6.7 different sources of news from across different platforms. Minority Ethnic respondents used the highest number of sources at 8.2.

Interestingly, ABC1s (the more educated and skilled socioeconomic group) used 7.5 sources of news. The latest figures I could find, said that around two-thirds (65%) of the Mail’s readership was ABC1s. So the majority of Mail readers get their news from multiple sources. They’re not Mail readers, they are more interesting than that.

When we look at what the Mail’s readers think of it; a third (34%) don’t believe it’s accurate, 3 in 10 (29%) don’t believe it’s high quality, and half (48%) don’t believe it’s impartial.

And that’s for the print edition, when you go to the online edition (which has a much larger readership) three in five (61%) do not believe it’s accurate. Two in five (39%) online Mail readers say it helps them make up their mind.

So, in summary, Mail readers do not single source their news, they don’t believe what it says en masse, and they don’t necessarily adopt its opinions.

None of this should be taken as an argument that the Mail isn’t negative or that it doesn’t exert an influence over Britain’s national conversation. Of course, at times, it is and it does. However, its readers are not a uniform group. People should stop belittling them.

My 2020 audiobook round up proved popular, so I thought I’d provide a monthly update of what I’m listening to. If you’ve got suggestions for books I should look up, give me a shout over on Twitter.

Month in numbers

Books completed	Hours	Minutes
3	41	59

How Brands Grow: What Marketers don’t Know, Byron Sharp

Sharp’s language is certainly, err, sharp. He gets straight to his point: that a lot of marketing truths are merely received wisdom. He then goes on to expound his immutable laws of marketing. I’m a natural sceptic (I try not to be but it always comes out in the end) and yet, at the end of this book, I find myself in agreement with much of Sharp’s analysis. I draw a line at accepting there are laws of marketing beyond trading standards.

I do, however, accept that much of the current received wisdom is wrong, that for inexplicable reasons it persists, and that clever marketers will reassess these things and really look at the data.

Sharp’s not a believer in tight segments but he is big on using data and evidence to prove his point. This is all good stuff. In particular, his analysis of efficiency and loyalty are worth engaging with. The take down of loyalty programmes is particularly good and convincing.

Now, some books don’t suit audio, this is particularly so for those that constantly refer to charts. This book seems to reference something you’re supposed to look up in the accompanying PDF every 10 minutes or so. Guess what, I’m zooming by Basingstoke at 70mph, I can’t really look away. It wouldn’t be sensible.

Additionally, the narration is in a monotone, hard-to-place, American accent. It sucked the nuance and rhythm out of the writing. Nonetheless, I persevered. To really get to grips with the ideas, I think I might buy a hard copy.

White King: Charles I, Traitor, Murderer, Martyr, Leanda de Lisle

I follow Leanda de Lisle on Twitter and once read a tweet about Charles I being seen as a martyr in parts of Ireland. I’d done the Tudors and Stuarts at school (like everyone else) and I’m a regular visitor to Hampton Court, but I’d never heard this. So I bought the book and am very glad I did.

It puts the whole English civil war period into context. It shows Charles I in a light I’d never seen him in. He wasn’t all personal vanity and heavy spending. A man of some character, principle and sharpness of mind. At the same time, he is in parts hugely naive, overly trusting and seems to lurch by overcompensating for mistake by making another at the opposite extreme.

The splits within the parliamentarians were also quite interesting. With the King’s safety seemingly assured until very late in the day.

The use of propaganda, particularly through songs, is a reminder of how much our current issues around truth are nothing new.

There is probably a Brexit analogy to be wrested from this tale of a country split, but it would be cheap and superficial so I won’t waste my time.

Overall, thoroughly enjoyable and educational to boot.

The Spy and the Traitor, Ben MacIntyre

I’m not really one for spy thrillers. Love them as movies, not so much as books. This was recommended by someone who reads widely and voraciously. It is very good.

The true story of a KGB officer who defects to MI6. He’s affected by, and plays a critical role in some truly historic moments. He’s discovered, captured, interrogated and ultimately… Well, I won’t ruin it for you.

The narration is a little self-satisfied. The tone very much makes British spies sound like the heirs of Blackadder’s Lord Flasheart. But that doesn’t really take away from what is a truly gripping tale.

Definitely worth a listen.

How products and services are priced is an area that’s seen a huge amount of creativity over the years, and that creativity shows no sign of abating. In this variation on a theme, instead of having a go at producing fresh creative, I’m going to try to list as many pricing structures as I can to hammer home just how creative you can be with something as simple as the cost of a product.

99p

This is the classic. How to make something feel like it costs less than it really does? It’s less than a pound, but not materially so. The business gives away a fraction, the customer’s brain makes more of it than it really should.

Bogof

When I was 16 I worked in the local branch of Boots. I spent a lot time assembling and stocking up red cardboard stands that stood at the end of aisles offering a free additional bottle of shampoo to anyone who purchased one. It’s two for the price of one. It’s a volume play. It lets you drop the price in exchange for shifting more stock. Bogofs featured alongside the higher volume, lower subsidy three-for-two.

Add-ons

Fly to Spain for £10! You want to choose your seat? That’ll be a fiver. And board early? Little bit more please. Luggage?! You’d like to take luggage? It’s going to cost you. Let’s call it an even £80. Each way. This is clever but it is deeply, deeply frustrating.

Here companies are doing two things. Firstly, they’re tempting people with a low price and then, once a customer is committed, they incrementally increasing the price. Secondly, they’re spreading cost. Customers who are willing to abstain from every perk get an exceptional, discounted deal. Those who want or need the additional services that are offered, are paying a premium.

Tiered pricing

If add-ons lump things on as you go, tiers sell you luxury incrementally. It’s the difference between flying economy, or premium economy, business, club, first, etc.

Tiered pricing typically offers certain perks at a certain price with the middle options usually carrying the chunkiest margins. It’s not just airlines that use it. Tiers are incredibly popular. iPhones are tiered between the entry level, the standard, the Pro, etc. So are wines in restaurants: the house red is cheap and no one’s ordering the expensive claret, but the mid-priced riojas sell all day long with healthy margins.

Free introductory period

Give away a month’s free subscription (after you’ve collected the credit card details, obvs) and then sit back as the monthly fees roll in. Apple aggressively used this technique when it launched Apple TV+ and Apple Music, indeed they gave as much as three months free or more. This pricing structure works in industries where monthly fees are low and usage is habit-forming.

Discounts

It’s worth noting that, really, all clever pricing structures are a discount of one form or another. The classic, straight-to-the-point discount is good for driving demand because people like a bargain. Obviously, it actually has to be a discount for reasons of ethics, decency and trading standards.

Cashback

Spend a little, get a fraction back. Spend a ton, get a fraction back. Keep spending and after a while you’ll get some cash or a voucher.

Referral bonus

Like the bogof this is a volume play, but this time selling one item a piece to multiple people rather than multiple things to one person. Uber relied heavily on this tactic to grow – giving people credits to use for future rides every time a friend used the service for the first time using an individual’s unique code. This is a combination of discounting and endorsement from a trusted third party. It is very powerful.

Points

Like cashback but points schemes bring two additional benefits. The first is relative opacity; some rewards purchased with points are worth more than others. You’d need a spreadsheet and a surfeit of boredom in your life to accurately assess the value of rewards. The second benefit is exclusivity. Points are issued to members and members are different from non-members. In this scenario ‘different’ means ‘better’.

Business leaders and Kermit don’t have a lot in common, but they’ll likely utter the same refrain, “It’s not easy being green.”

That’s because acting on climate change is full of uncertainty. But acting to combat climate change is something businesses must do. The underlying reason for the lack of confidence is that while public opinion is settled on the issue, it is not settled on the solutions.

Last year, an Ipsos Mori poll found that 85% of British adults are concerned about climate change. So, there’s is no denying that the vast majority of people accept that climate change is happening. However, perceptions of how the issue manifests itself and how to tackle it do not have similarly emphatic agreement.

Bags of strife

Five years ago, in an early move against single use plastic, the 5p charge for plastic bags was introduced. It saw dramatic reductions in the use of plastic bags, sales of which plummeted by 90% over the next three or four years. But late in 2019 campaigners began calling for a complete ban or higher prices for bags for life because of a worrying increase in sales figures. It was estimated that an average of 54 bags per household were sold. So, just five years in, supermarkets are again under pressure from campaigners to do more.

As campaigners have identified, the problem is convenience. Absentmindedly forgetting to carry a bag with you carries little pain if spending 5p or 10p fixes the problem. So here, people, who we know are concerned about climate change, fall back on bad habits for convenience. People don’t do the environmentally right thing because it is inconvenient. Businesses do not have that luxury.

Do the right thing? What is the right thing?

The difficulty for businesses is that the right thing to do is not clear. There are obvious things like installing motion sensing lights in offices, removing disposable plastic cups and cutlery, etc. At the other end of the scale, grand commitments are also relatively easy. Executives who commit to being carbon neutral or even carbon negative in 10 years’ time, can do so comfortable in the knowledge that they probably won’t be around.

It’s the material and medium term actions that are problematic. For example, if you’re a food producer that relies on a particular raw ingredient, how do you act on climate? Do you substitute out that core ingredient? If you do, you’ll potentially wipe out the communities that grow that product. Not good.

Alternatively, could you work with that community to grow its produce in a more sustainable way? That’s better, but how are your food miles looking? And is your crop production sustainable because you use new plant varieties that are more drought and pest resistant? Sounds like you might be locking that community into purchasing expensive seeds in perpetuity. And what about protecting biodiversity? I could go on. The point is that there is no simple, ticks-all-the-boxes solution.

It’s the same across most sectors. Solutions to unsustainable business practices are imperfect and create their own issues.

It’s not necessarily good for business

Going green is not necessarily good for business. Sure there are surveys that say customers will pay more for goods from companies that are environmentally friendly. And if you believe those surveys, I’ve got some bad news for you: people often say one thing and do another. Shocking, I know.

Usually at this point case studies citing Patagonia and Unilever are thrust forward. Patagonia, great brand, great work, genuinely focused on sustainability. But… high prices, premium products, niche clientele, difficult to scale. Unilever, corporate stakeholder darling, great story to tell. But… short on growth, divesting business units and only just avoided a takeover a year or so ago.

Marks & Spencer is the counter case study. It went full tilt at sustainability in a real way with its Plan A programme. Shwopping, recycled uniforms, supply chain reviews. It went the whole hog. Since it launched that plan in 2007 its share price is down by about 70%. Going green doesn’t negate the need for good products, strategy and management.

None of this analysis excuses businesses from their responsibilities. It aims only to highlight the complexity of the situation. The challenge is easily defined but the solutions are not clear cut. Businesses must act nonetheless. It’s not easy being green.

Twitter has a mixed reputation at the moment. It’s a loud, shouty place. The opinions expressed are increasingly extreme and even the mildest utterance contains something that offends someone. Its lingua franca is hyperbole. And it’s exhausting. No surprise that it’s led to some people to withdraw from the network.

I know some people have stepped away entirely and others have eased off. For me, the antidote has been to go deeper. I’ve rediscovered Twitter. Good Twitter. Useful Twitter. Here’s what works for me.

Getting back to community

Communities of interest are the backbone of the internet and Twitter’s chock full of them.

Poetry Twitter is full of amazing creative minds expressing ideas and emotions in ways you’d never thought possible. They’re warm, they’re friendly and it’s amazing to watch so many of them move from sharing poems, to having submissions published and some even having collections commissioned.

History Twitter is full of experts having fascinating conversations and sharing their deep expertise. It’s like having an accurate, self-curating version of Wikipedia. I’ve purchased books following their recommendations, I’ve learnt a ton just sitting back and following their conversations.

Lastly, how could I not mention PR Twitter. It doesn’t always agree, but it’s a pretty civilised bunch. I’ve made friends, had laughs and learnt so much.

Ignore the bellowing

Twitter isn’t the real world. For that matter, neither are current affairs TV shows or newspaper columns. It’s mostly just a small subset of the country manufacturing clicks and comments to inch out a little more publicity or one more commission. It might feel like everyone’s arguing but they’re really not. Most people aren’t even engaged. It’s a handful of loud mouths. You need to keep that perspective. So every time there’s a flare up, I ignore it. If it pops into my feed, I let it pass through. Don’t get sucked in.

Being civil and kind

Everyone has a different view of what’s acceptable, but I think most would agree that name calling is childish at best and wholly unacceptable. As a rule, whether it’s a politician I vehemently disagree with or a company I’m frustrated with, if I must engage I do so politely. You’re not going to make online discourse better if you’re part of the problem.

Recognising my expertise is limited

I’m curious by nature. I like to learn new things. Understand ideas. And generally pick liberally from a range of topics. I try to approach every topic with a novice’s mindset.

For example, I’d bet that I’ve read more Indian poetry than the vast majority of people in the UK, but when I talk to experts on Twitter, who obviously know so much more than me, I recognise that I’m a novice compared to them and am happy to be so. I’m learning.

Even in areas in which I’m an expert, like digital marketing, there are people who have deeper experience in certain areas and different approaches. I learn so much by reading what they think and asking how they came to that view. It’s an endless source of CPD.

Most of this boils down to getting back to learning and sharing, which is why I joined Twitter in the first place. I’m glad to say I’ve managed to get back to that.