Category Archives: Blogologue

Want Money For Nothing?

Then take a lesson from these faggots* at the CBSC (Canadian Broadcast Standards Council) and censor classic songs from radio airplay because some prick*2 complained about the use of a word which has taken on an additional meaning in modern times.

For those of you who don’t follow global news, I’m referring to the recent decision by the CBSC to censor Dire Straits‘ classic Money for Nothing because one person in the backwoods of Newfoundland (amidst the Rocks and Trees) complained because it used the word “faggot”, which, in England, even today, is still used to refer to a bundle (of twigs, iron, or chopped meat), a junior who performs duties for a senior, and a guy (who may or may not be homosexual) who is just creepy. In the Dire Straits classic, while it is obviously being used in a derogatory manner to describe someone who has reached a station of life that he obviously does not deserve in the eyes of the song’s protagonist, it’s obvious that the contempt from which the comment springs from the song’s protagonist is non-sexual in nature and the definition (of the many that have been applied to the word since its inception almost 800 years ago) is more along the lines of “a guy who is a creep*3“. As such, there is no grounds for complaint and no grounds for censorship.

As far as I’m concerned, this decision is just disgusting. Not only was the song written well before the creation of the CBSC, but it was written before the creation of the CAB (Canadian Association of Broadcasters), which was the precursor organization. In my view, this should make the song ineligible for censorship. And even if it wasn’t, whatever happened to literary license and this thing called free speech?

While we’re at it, should we rewrite Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” which is an American classic that won the Pulitzer Prize in the year of its publication (1960) for its rather realistic portrayal of what life was like in the 1930’s in Alabama small towns? After all, from a modern perspective, the language in that book is much more offensive than Dire Straits’ use of the word “faggot” in Money for Nothing. Consider this line from Chapter 9: “My folks said your daddy was a disgrace an’ that nigger oughta hang from the water-tank!” Said with intent, it might even cross the line into hate speech, but that wasn’t the intent of the author who wanted people to understand what life was like in the 1930s.

In the same light, when Mark Knopfler use the word faggot, he was attempting to describe how hard-working labourers saw music stars at the beginning of the MTV generation. You played a few riffs, sang a few songs, and made a million dollars. They broke their backs and barely paid the bills.

Let’s not forget that a song is a story, and stories are not hate speech. They are artistic forms of communication meant to broaden our understanding of the world around us and the people in it. And if you don’t understand that, then a faggot*4 has more smarts than you do.

Have a nice day.
(And support Halifax’s own Q104 in their protest! F*ck you*5 CBSC. I hope you get one million complaints.)
Share This on Linked In

* where this blog is using the classic, now obsolete, meaning of the word faggot which was once used to refer to a “man hired into military service simply to fill out the ranks at muster” because I can’t believe they were hired on suitability for the job at this point

*2 where this blog is using the slang definition of the word which means “an obnoxious or contemptible person” because only a truly contemptuous person would complain about the use of a word completely out of context and insist that free speech be censored when no slur was made or intended

*3 note that the slang definition of creep is “an obnoxious person” and not “pervert” as some people seem to think it is these days

*4 in this case, the blog is using the other classic meaning of the word faggot, which is “a bundle of twigs”

*5 and I mean that in the most common utilization of the phrase in modern times

Think!

Atlantic Business recently ran an awesome article that got my attention on the first word and reeled me in with the first sentence. Entitled “Think!”, the author starts off by noting that he

worries [that] we seem to have forgotten or dismissed the value of careful and considered thought. Common sense seems to be in very short supply. Examples of this are everywhere. We send an email, one which is important (at least to the sender) and we expect a reply virtually instantly. Indeed, if one is not forthcoming within 15 minutes we begin to wonder if the recipient has died.

But more importantly, you have to:

think about this: assume that the question being asked is important. We must therefore want a careful and considered response, a response which has had the complete attention of the recipient. Is it reasonable to assume this could possibly have occurred within 15 minutes?

I have to agree. There’s no way you can construct a deep and thoughtful response to an important question in 15 minutes. Even if you have been thinking about the question for days, it still won’t be possible to create a well crafted response in a few minutes — especially if something else is on your mind. But yet, if the call isn’t returned promptly, you fear that the caller is unable to focus on anything else.

Similarly, it seems that if a journalist, or blogger, doesn’t cover a “breaking” story the minute it happens, he feels that he’ll miss the boat. It used to be a company would make a big announcement and the next day it would be a headline. Now, the release goes up on the website, and 5 minutes later there are half a dozen stories about the latest funding round, merger, or acquisition followed by additional thoughts a few hours later — all based on the release or some cookie cutter responses from PR people in an advance call.

How much “analysis” can one truly come up with in in a few minutes? What can you possibly say that goes beyond a seat-of-the-pants reaction or a gut feeling? If you’re a true expert in the space, then the chances that your seat-of-the-pants reaction or gut feeling will be accurate will be (much) greater than 50%, but it’s still just a gut feeling. True analysis takes time and thought. And even if it doesn’t change your viewpoint, I know I’d much rather read a viewpoint knowing that deep thought (over a sufficient time period) was put it into rather than an impromptu piece where there’s a chance that the author might change his mind in a day or two. If most of don’t have the time to read a story on the same announcement twice, we definitely don’t have the time to be confused — and that’s what will happen if we read a differing opinion from the same source a few days apart.

And while I really couldn’t put it in a word before, that, in a nutshell, is why SI doesn’t cover “breaking announcements” as they happen. Not only is an average press release packed full of PR BS, and not only does it generally not contain enough information to truly analyze what the announcement means from a product/service perspective (which is what this blog really cares about and why the Editor insists on demos as a goal of SI is to help you in your quest to be a better Supply Management professional), but there’s no way you’re going to get a decent analysis and a reasonable opinion on a press release with insufficient information in a few minutes (or even a few hours).

You can be sure that if something’s important, SI will cover it when we’ve gotten to the heart of the matter. But we’re not going to ask “how fast” just because some PR person decides its time for the media to run with a story. The Editor wants deep thought put into what he takes the time to read, and it would be unfair to expect that you would be satisfied with anything less.

Share This on Linked In

Who’s Going to Upset the Market in 2011?

The best predictor of a paradigm shift’s success long-term is how upset it makes people.
Stephen Wolfram, Interview with Christopher Meyer

I just realized something. A whole year has gone by and there has been nothing upsetting in the space. It’s been (well) over a year since I’ve seen anything that made me say “this is going to change things”. Sure, a lot of platforms have gotten better this year. For example, a number of e-Procurement and Supplier Relationship Management platforms have improved greatly in term of features, usability, or both, but there’s nothing fundamentally new on the market. And while a couple of platforms have embraced mobile computing, the functionality offered is minimal and not much beyond the information that can be sent in e-mail alerts (or approvals).

I shouldn’t be surprised, because many companies cranked back on R&D, or put it on hold, when the recession hit full swing. As a result, many companies haven’t been doing much R&D. However, some companies were smart enough to realize that a recession is an opportunity to be great, and kept going full steam ahead, but when you look at what they did, they just improved upon what they had. I really haven’t seen any new ideas in almost two years. As a result, there’s not much for me to be excited about, or much for the market to get upset about.

Now that the recovery, albeit a jobless one, is in full swing, hopefully things will turn around. But we also have to contend with the reality that some companies released great products and platforms in 2008/2009 that still haven’t reached their potential because many companies just stopped buying. In fact, in a few cases, at the current rate of market adoption, these companies are still about five years ahead. While I know a few of them will keep improving and keep innovating, what incentive do they have to release something entirely new if the market still hasn’t understood and adopted the powerful solutions they still have? One area where this is the case is decision optimization. Many companies still have not even tried this technology, even though it’s one of only two technologies repeatedly found to deliver double-digit percentage returns (with the other being spend analysis). And many companies who have are still not using it at its full potential. This is probably why, of the six true providers of strategic-sourcing decision optimization, only three appear to be moving forward with the technology, and, in my view, only two appear to be making real progress. What’s the incentive to move forward if the market won’t keep up with you?

But if 2011 doesn’t bring some new offerings that upset the market, I fear that the market will start to languish. And considering only half of CPOs have a seat at the table, we can’t afford this. So who’s going to upset the market in 2011?

Share This on Linked In

Should You Provoke Your Customers?

A recent Harvard Business Review article states that “in a downturn, (you should) provoke your customers”. I have to say that even after reading the article to understand where they are coming from, this scares me a bit. It’s one thing to provoke a sleeping bunny, but what if you provoke a sleeping bear? While the first might spring into action, the latter might take a chunk (of business) out of you (by deciding that you’re too pushy to do business with and simply ban you from future opportunities).

While a smart seller will help their customers see their competitive challenges in a new light, they’ll do it in a manner that illuminates the opportunity and inspires the customer to take cost saving actions, not in a way that provokes the customer into an unpredictable frenzy that could cause the customer to make a quick decision that isn’t necessarily right for them. And while it’s true that this could result in a short term gain, in the form of a sale, for a seller, it could also lead to a long term liability if the customer isn’t willing to follow through in the operational execution required to make the solution a success. If the solution ends up tanking, either because the customer failed to redesign their processes and execute accordingly or because the solution wasn’t right for them, and does nothing but cost the customer time and money, the customer could get irate, go public, and start a fiasco that will lead to long term revenue loss.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d prefer a level-headed customer who saw the advantages, that were clearly laid out in the new competitive landscape the solution created, the solution had to offer to one that was provoked into buying the solution. I just see too many opportunities where “provoking” a customer could go wrong. What do you think?

Are Your Best Practices Really Best Practices?

Best practices are important because, as per Wikipedia, they can deliver desired outcomes with fewer problems and without unforeseen complications and do so more productively and at lower costs. Many organizations claim to employ them, and chances are that your organization falls into this group. But do you really employ best practices?

Calling a procedure a best practice does not make it a best practice. And even if it was a best practice five years ago, that doesn’t mean that it’s a best practice today … even if it’s the best practice you know of. As Carlos Alvarenga points out in “When Is a Best Practice Not a Best Practice?”, “best practices” is often a misleading term used by some consultants and software vendors, a term misappropriated to refer to what are in fact just “rules” of daily operation.

As Carlos notes, by the time a “best practice” gets incorporated into a piece of software or a PowerPoint presentation at a big consultancy, it is usually no longer “best” but simply “good”. Most companies that devise truly innovative practices try very hard to keep them trade secrets for as long as possible. Chances are, by the time they are proclaiming the greatness of their best practices to the rest of the world, they’ve already moved on to a new suite of best practices, or improved the effectiveness well beyond the pasturized pablum they are milking for all the attention they can get from the media.

Furthermore, a best practice is not a best practice if your organization cannot, or will not, adopt it and implement it to its full extent. (For example, monitoring a supply chain visibility daily for unexpected demand fluctuations and actively taking action on that information, which would be a demand-driven best practice, are two completely different things.) A best practice is the best possible solution that your organization will implement, follow methodically, and try to improve on a regular basis.

Constant evaluation, and improvement, is key. New technologies, methodologies, and organizational structures crop up all the time … and you never know when one or more of these new innovations might provide the foundation for a two times productivity improvement, and a four times ROI, in one of your best practices. If you haven’t reviewed a best-practice methodology in a year or two, it’s time to review it now … with an open mind. You never know what opportunities you might find.