Gallo blog

A blog about change, corporate comms, transformations and other stuff…

HR vs Comms advice, and pork belly dumplings

Dinner at Cicada, Clerkenwell
Last night’s dinner at the Cicada restaurant in Clerkenwell was with my-favourite-HR-Consultant-and-friend. We got talking about executive salaries and how big organisations are managing the issue (namely, the public outrage that has been growing for years now).

The ‘HR-Advisor’ at the table spoke confidently about different reward strategies, new innovations in setting executive pay, etc. Real world solutions for their clients – in other words. The Comms Advisor is instead fairly committed to proper (albeit selective) stakeholder engagement as part of the salary-setting process, especially when dealing with controversial issues (how much execs get paid, now is a bona fide hot potato for many high profile companies). There still is a complete lack of consultation that takes place on the issue of executive pay (be it with internal executives and staff, and externally with unions, shareholders and influential stakeholders).

The conversation basically froze, and we stopped and looked at each other across a solitary uneaten pork-belly dumpling that lay on the table. Two questions:
- are we talking about completely different issues?
- who is going to eat that last dumpling?

Given the discussion centred around perceived-excesses I guiltlessly consumed the last dumpling on my friend’s urging. As to the former question, clearly we both thought we had a “solution” for clients – but our approaches were vastly different.

I nonetheless ‘enjoy’ the differences. Our clients tend to be functionally-specific – hence solutions/advice tends to be also.

Where we did agree was that even the best technical solution to set top exec’s pay, may not be enough to satisfy the chorus of criticism coming from various sections of society. Companies tend to avoid consultation with influential stakeholders (be they internal or external) on this topic for fear of opening a pandora’s box. Yet, without even the most basic level of consultation (say, with at least the large shareholders, to start with) we both agreed that this problem will not go away any time soon.

Filed under: Uncategorized , ,

David Foster Wallace did not foresee Twitter – but was ‘on-the-money’ with other predictions

Escher's Crystal Ball
I have reached page 500 of Infinite Jest – the book I am re-reading with others around the globe as part of Infinite Summer (a sort of online bookclub, in memory of the writer). Written in 1992, the book is set in the not-too-distant-future (much of the action takes place in what is now 2008/2009). So we are now in a position to judge the quality of Wallace’s vision of the future. As a comms guy interested in new technology and what it means for society and business – Infinite Jest touches on various trends.

So, half-way into it, how does it fare up? Here are some of the ones I picked up on.

Sponsorized time – for the characters of the novel, time has been sponsored by corporations from the year 2001. The idea that Americans would abandon the Gregorian calendar and accept total rebranding (Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment, for eg) is as delightful as it is absurd. The device works on many levels. I.J.’s characters accept sponsorized time as some sort of bland fact. This is not far from today’s reality whereby words on Google are sponsored, major stadiums are renamed (Emerates Stadium, ANZ stadium, etc) not to mention how our time on the internet today involves advertising and subsidy on many subtle levels. DFW paints a picture of consumerism and branding, carried out to the extreme.

TP Viewers / Cartridges – OK, this doesn’t really stick. Today we download and upload, we “interface” (my marketing-speak is deliberate here) with online content. Where Wallace succeeds however is depicting a world of young adults obsessed with devices that deliver content. The cartridge model wreaks of “1992″ where the likes of Sony produced viewers and content-carrying formats (Beta/VHS, CD, DVD). Wallace’s near-future is fairly accurate, especially when looking at today’s device-centric culture with iPhones and communication in general.

DFW did not predict Twitter – he refers to ‘tweeting’ a couple of times, but I draw the line here. The young ETA students are not living in a virtual world even though many are fixated with entertainment content. They play bizarre strategic geo-political role playing games like Eschaton, they interact with one another, they play tennis, or belong to separatist secret societies, AA clinics, etc. Looks like fairly rich real-world friendships and relationships to me.

Youth depression / dependency-issues - The author himself commented on the very American nature of themes covered by the novel. Where a generation of young people, with middle-class luxuries and lifestyles, are still hounded by a particular sort of sadness, isolation and sometimes depression. Reading the stats in UK, Australia and Europe, this is now an increasingly global phenomena.

Terrorism as part of our daily lives - in the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment, characters in novel live within the repartitioned borders of the USA and Canada (O.N.A.N) [partly resulting from Consumption/Waste issues between the two nations]. The terrorists in the novel happen to be Quebec separatist extremists. The two key characters (Steeply and Marathe) provide a philosophical, and parallel view to goings on of the novel. When I first read the novel in 1997, the idea of living with terrorists ‘in our midst’ (especially wheelchair terrorists in drag) was the stuff of high comedy. It’s still funny, but the events of the last 10 years in many parts of the world forces one to review what this part of the book is about.

- – -

Wallace was not a futurist or crystal ball gazer. Although he might have accepted science fiction writer Gibson’s take on the things to come, that “the future is already here, it is just not evenly distributed yet” (excuse the paraphrasing).

I suspect many fellow readers and fans would be even irritated by the notion that the novel is being judged on its predictive capabilities. This is maximalist fiction after all. Yet Wallace was a keen observer. Narrative powers aside, he could spot a trend a mile away, and run with it (for a thousand pages as it turns out).

from I.S. - half way mark

Filed under: Uncategorized ,

A great business plan?

Hmmm, tricky

That ‘circulations of many newspapers have dropped off a cliff’ is hardly news. Yet yesterday it seems that Rupert Murdoch’s announcement to charge for online news is being treated as ‘news’ (at least by mainstream online and offline newspapers).

The story however, is not really getting much traction in the communities online (where it should be impacting those evil non-newspaper reading folk). I would would like hear more from the journalists on this topic – it is after all their future he is talking about.

Murdoch explains that good journalism costs a lot to produce. Yet with ‘daily news sources’ I think one reason people are resorting to social media and alternative sources is that good journalistic reporting is simply not guaranteed (you’d think that a mainstream newspaper like the Telegraph would provide greater insights on this NewsCorp development and report more than ‘just the facts’).

I tend support the Vivian Schiller view (chief exec of the US National Public Radio) that charging for news online is a “mass delusion”. If I want detailed in depth analysis of global or national affairs I read The Economist, The News Statesman, The Spectator, the New Yorker even.

The advent of Twitter combined with excellent quality journalists keeping blogs (for example NY Times Paul Krugman’s blog, amongst a million others) means many of us have learnt to rely less and less on online newspapers – especially for the latest news.

Today, we source news from so many media platforms in a timely fashion, often encountering news at the same time as the average journalists. We used to pay journalists for the privilege of knowing what they knew. That model is now broken.

NewsCorp might be right: high quality journalistic analysis is something many would pay for. But that is very different to paying for the so-called “daily news” [which is the daily bread of an online newspaper].

The ‘Murdoch plan’ indirectly raises the bar for online newspapers – to consistently produce truly insightful analysis. Online news that I pay for from 2010 needs to come from incredibly talented journalists – much of the time. Will it work? Murdoch is a clever man – so perhaps he knows something that we don’t about training and recruitment in his industry. Somehow I sense his comments have more to do with frustration, than the heralding of great business plan.

Filed under: Uncategorized

London based corporate comms consultant

Corporate communication & transformation consultant - experience in issues management & major change.

Based in London, UK.

Tweets