Governments across Europe are always obsessing about creating their own Silicon Valleys, rivals to California that will catapult their country/city to international tech prominence, create jobs and make them cool by association. As I’ve said before, this is partly because such talk is cheap – bung a few million pounds/euros into some accelerators, set up a co-working space near a university and you can make some tub-thumping speeches about investing in innovation.
Obviously there’s a lot more to creating a new Silicon Valley than that. So I was interested to read a recent EU survey of European ICT Hubs, which ranks activity across the region. It doesn’t just analyse start-up activity, but also factors such as university strength, external links and business growth. While Munich, East London and Paris top the table, (with Cambridge at the top of tier 2), what is interesting is the sheer number of hubs and their relative strengths, despite many being quite close to each other.
There is a European obsession with a single hub to take on Silicon Valley, but as Paul Stasse points out in this piece on Tech.EU, if you zoom out and centre your ‘hub’ on Brussels, a 400km radius will bring in the majority of the EU’s ICT hubs. So consequently you need to go beyond individual cities or regions to move to a larger scale view. After all, Silicon Valley itself is not a single place, but a collection of cities and towns, that spreads from San Francisco through the Santa Clara Valley. So, while the Santa Clara Valley is geographically 30 miles long and 15 miles wide, the actual area of ‘Silicon Valley’ itself is much bigger.
In that case, why can’t Europe create its own Silicon Valley encompassing multiple hubs? Or even Valleys within countries – it is around 60 miles from London to Cambridge, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to build the M11 Valley (though with a catchier name).
The trouble is, California has some pretty big advantages that have helped Silicon Valley grow. While entrepreneurs and programmers flock there from all around the world there’s one business language (English), one legal system and one predominant culture. Being part of the US gives immediate access to over 300 million people in a single market. Europe’s diversity is both a strength and a weakness – you can’t simply up sticks and move your company from, say, France to Belgium, with the same ease as from San Jose to Palo Alto.
In my opinion what is needed are three things:
1 Be more open
I’m as guilty as the next person, but individual hubs need to look outward more, rather than believing that success ends at the ring road. Only by encouraging conversation between hubs and idea sharing will innovation flourish.
2 Make movement easier
You are never going to change cultures, but the EU has a role to play in standardising the playing field when it comes to creating companies, harmonising legal systems and generally helping create a single market. That way entrepreneurs and companies can move more easily and collaborate, without having to duplicate bureaucracy or red tape.
3 Celebrate what we have
It is time to end the obsession with creating the new Silicon Valley. It isn’t going to happen. Instead, celebrate the ability Europe has to build multiple, interlinked hubs that play to our strengths, rather than bemoan our inability to spawn the next Facebook.
Silicon Valley, Europe may not happen but by supporting existing, successful clusters and hubs we can build a technology industry that can drive innovation, growth and jobs.
Ultimately the fate of Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, under siege from US giant Pfizer, will be decided by its shareholders. But that hasn’t stopped the potential takeover from becoming a political football, with MPs, ministers, businesspeople and scientists all providing their views.
Some of them are justified in sharing their opinion – the MP for Cambridge Julian Huppert wants assurances to protect the high value jobs coming to the city from AstraZeneca’s proposed new research campus. University of Cambridge Chancellor, Lord Sainsbury, is concerned about the impact of a takeover on scientific research in the area and beyond.
Others however have fewer grounds for comment, but with a general election next year (and a European poll looming), it is a chance for the main political parties to try and differentiate themselves. It is a delicate balancing act, particularly for the Conservatives. On the one hand, they want to demonstrate their free trade credentials, but on the other they champion investment in scientific research as critical to moving the UK away from being a services-based economy. In many ways it is easier for Labour, as they are able to call for decisive action to stop the takeover, without having to actually implement anything.
Pfizer under attack
On the PR front, Pfizer is facing an onslaught from multiple sides:
- The positive tax implications of buying AstraZeneca and moving its headquarters to the UK have been highlighted as a major attraction of the deal, rather than a desire to invest in research.
- It is also hamstrung by previous behaviour – it shut its research centre in Kent (where Viagra was developed), leading to 1,500 job cuts and has slashed staff numbers following other takeovers. Indeed, the ex-CEO of AstraZeneca has said he has concerns that “they will act like a praying mantis and suck the lifeblood out of their prey.“
- A pledge to keep 20% of R&D jobs in the UK in the event of a takeover has led to worries that posts will be cut in the US.
- Finally, its first quarter revenue fell by 9%, $730m below analyst expectations, as patent protection runs out on key drugs.
The reason for much of this ire is actually retrospective. MPs and the general public are still smarting after the hostile takeover of Cadbury by Kraft, and in particular the broken promises on factory closures given to parliamentary committees by CEO Irene Rosenfeld. There’s a public determination not to be made a fool of again driving a lot of political behaviour.
The Pfizer PR strategy
This means that Pfizer is being cautious and taking the time to get its message across, with CEO Ian Read making trips to the UK (note how his Scottish background is being played up), intense lobbying of the government and assurances being given about jobs in the short-term.
However with less than three weeks until the bid deadline of 26 May, expect the tactics to evolve, depending on what will sway stakeholders. In a way AstraZeneca wants Pfizer to turn nasty, so it can claim protection from the Big Bad American, but I think that its opponent’s PR strategy is too clever to fall for that. It will just chip away, giving what appear to be increasingly concrete reassurances in public on jobs, while lobbying investors and politicians behind the scenes, potentially raising its bid without going overboard.
Will it be enough? Time (and PR) will tell, but I fear that the combination of Pfizer’s stealth approach and the short-term focus of many investors, will take the prize.
The internet has radically changed how we bank, removing the need to physically visit and turning a thousand and one redundant branches into All Bar Ones and Wetherspoons. But the actual mechanics of transferring money around haven’t really changed. Through a combination of regulation and the sheer complexity of the financial world most of us still entrust our money to a bank and use their systems to move it around. There are some notable new entrants, such as PayPal, and smaller banks, like Metro Bank, have been launched, but the majority of transactions still go through the same channels as before. The only change being that we do the work ourselves online rather than queuing up for hours in a draughty branch behind the man from the arcade paying in his weekly takings one penny at a time.
But most people recognise that the banking system doesn’t deliver the flexibility or mobility that technology can underpin. So how do you do banking without the banks? One way would be to make it simple to transfer money from person to person using a web-based platform that the majority of the world is a member of. Step forward Facebook, which has applied to the regulator in Ireland to launch e-money across Europe. This would allow people to transfer money to others on the social network as well as to buy things online. The combination of Facebook’s reach and brand could provide stiff competition to the likes of Western Union. However those worried about privacy may baulk at giving Facebook access to their bank details in any way, shape or form.
A second way is to change the currency altogether and allow payments and transfers through new forms of money, such as Bitcoin. However, the danger of an unregulated market has come back to haunt Bitcoin, with exchanges mysteriously emptied of money and government concern that the currency is used to pay for drugs, arms and sundry Bad Things.
Now the banking industry itself has come up with a third way. Paym, has been created by umbrella body the Payments Council and enables money to be transferred by simply typing in the phone number of the recipient, provided they are also registered on the service. Fast, direct and no need to give out your bank details to other people through insecure channels such as email. However it looks like the banks themselves are unconvinced by the possibility of doing themselves out of a job. 20 million account holders of RBS (and its subsidiaries NatWest, Ulster Bank, Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks), as well as First Direct, won’t be able to use the scheme until later in the year, while Nationwide’s five million customers will have to wait until 2015. RBS says it is prioritising getting its IT systems straight, after several high profile meltdowns, before joining.
With more and more of our money transferred online to friends and relatives who are further and further away from us, we need options that make it easy to transfer money simply, and quickly. But given our previous bad experiences with banks, will it be Facebook that steals a march and becomes the new financial hub for the internet age? Either way, consumers should benefit through genuine choice and hopefully better service, whoever they pick.
The industrial revolution mechanised previously craft-based activities, and since then machines have become more and more involved in creating the world around us. But until a few years ago, this mechanisation didn’t affect those of us in the creative industries – after all, our imagination and skills couldn’t be replicated by a machine.
The internet has changed all of that. In some cases it has allowed computers to take on tasks that were previously only done by humans, by applying artificial intelligence and machine learning and breaking them into discrete tasks. You can now get computer-written journalism, which use algorithms to bring together data and organise it into a rudimentary article. In the US, stories about minor earthquake reports are now routinely created and published, based on information supplied by the US Geological Survey. It isn’t much of a stretch to see short sports reports written based on player data and profiles, avoiding the need to send a reporter out to lower league matches.
However the biggest threat or opportunity to the creative industries is that the internet and digital technology has broken down the barriers around previously specialist occupations. Take photography. In the past only professional photographers could afford the equipment needed to create (and manually develop) arresting images. Now, similar levels of performance are available in a smartphone, and PhotoShop can do the rest. News stories frequently use amateur shots from bystanders who happened to be in the right place at the right time, adding extra depth to articles. Design and PR are both equally affected. Anyone can set up as a web designer or copywriter, without necessarily needing to undergo lengthy training.
In many ways this is a good thing – the internet has democratised creative industries that were previously off limits to most of us and enables more people to share their thoughts, feelings and ideas. It uncovers real talents who never previously would have been spotted, whether that is musicians on YouTube or specialist bloggers with a passion for their subject. But what it also does is amateurise previously professional occupations. How can a portrait photographer compete on cost with a bloke and an iPhone? Again, a copywriter on eLance charges much less than a professional. And the overall effect is that there is more stuff out there (words, pictures, videos of cute cats), but quality is far more hit or miss.
Before people start complaining, as someone that makes a living through PR and copywriting I obviously do have a vested interest here. But that doesn’t mean I don’t welcome more competition and the chance for more people to be creative. Far from it. However businesses need to understand that you get what you pay for – in the same way that fixing your car yourself is inherently riskier than going to a garage (unless you are a mechanic), working with amateurs opens you up to potential issues. Do they have insurance if something goes wrong, do they understand copyright, are they using legal images on your new website? There are 101 questions that you need to be sure of, before handing over your money. And it can be pretty obvious when a website has been put together by the managing director’s teenage son or daughter. Businesses therefore need to strike a balance between democratisation and working with amateurs if they are to stand out in an increasingly crowded global market.
Since the rise of the internet, there have been plenty of people predicting the steady decline of mainstream journalism. As people consume more content online they are unwilling to pay either to buy newspapers or to access firewalled content, except for specialist titles such as the Financial Times or The Economist. The result? A huge drop in the number of journalists employed in the newspaper industry – in the US numbers have dropped from over 55,000 in 1990 to under 40,000 today.
However, we are actually consuming as much, if not more, news than ever before. Much of this is in different forms, such as via social media or through news videos. The latest Pew Research Centre State of the News Media report found that a third of Americans now watch news videos online, rising to half in the 18-29 demographic. There’s also been an explosion in the number of digital news firms, creating 5,000 US jobs.
What’s interesting is that these companies are evolving fast. Rather than simply competing with traditional news sources by rehashing stories (or putting out controversial click bait headlines in the case of sites like BuzzFeed), they are investing in original content. Star journalists are being poached from top newspapers, lured by the opportunity to write longer articles without daily deadlines and with greater editorial freedom. Part of this growth is financial – launching a credible digital news site is relatively cheap, around $5m in the US for example.
And the Pew report finds that consumers are getting more involved in the news. 7% of Americans have posted their own news video to a social network or established media outlet and half of social media users share or comment on articles.
The difficulty for traditional publications is two fold – they are still running a print newspaper which has huge fixed costs, while consumers are much less loyal. They’ll click on a link on social media, irrespective of (or not even knowing) its source and then, once they’ve read it, leave the site without necessarily checking out other stories. In the UK the picture is skewed by the credibility and power of the BBC, which has successfully embraced the digital world, helped by its guaranteed funding through the licence fee.
So, what can newspapers do to evolve and change? From what I can see they have five options:
1 Put up a paywall
Given that people spend money on newspapers, why shouldn’t they pay for online content? Hence the rise in paywalls. However with a fickle readership, getting people to commit requires content that they truly can’t get anywhere else, which in turn necessitates investment in journalism, or extras such as Premiership goals in the case of The Sun. It works when the content is original enough or the subscription deal is compelling. On the downside paywalled content is a lot more difficult to share socially, so the overall reach of the title drops as well.
2 Make a go of advertising
Sounds easy – write good stories and advertising will flood in, both in print and online. In theory yes, but we’re back to the fickle readership and the increased competition for advertising pounds. Only those publications that really differentiate themselves (such as the Daily Mail and The Guardian) have grown their online audience enough to deliver a strong advertising revenue. In the print world, the Evening Standard has been able to transition from a paid for to free model, but it has been helped by having an owner with deep pockets.
3 Find a sugar daddy
With newspapers suddenly cheap, there’s been a rush of billionaires investing in them, either as a vanity project, something more sinister or simply because they can turn them around. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, bought the Washington Post, the Boston Globe is now owned by Liverpool FC owner John Henry and Warren Buffett has purchased a whole stable of titles. Even the aforementioned Evening Standard is owned by billionaire Evgeny Lebedev.
4 Become a brand
If you can build a strong reputation for content, you may be able to transform yourself into a global brand. That’s the aim of The Guardian, which has made its name around the world by breaking stories such as Edward Snowden’s revelations. At a more local level it explains the rush of local newspaper groups into local TV, enabling them to share resources and cross-promote.
5 Get someone to write it for you – for nothing
Blog-based sites such as Mashable and the Huffington Post started out without much in the way of original content, but built themselves on contributed blogs. They’ve now expanded to create many more of their own stories, but the model – attracting interesting, informed bloggers looking for the oxygen of publicity – still works equally well on other sites. Both sides benefit, so provided the content is good it adds to a site’s appeal.
Most newspapers have looked at all five of these ideas (some all at the same time), but with varying degrees of success. However, as the Pew report shows, journalism can flourish in the digital age – it just may not be appearing in traditional media outlets.
How do you persuade people to buy your product or service, particularly when there is an increasing number of demands on their time and wallets?
I’ve always been fascinated about how an understanding of human psychology can help marketers to change people’s behaviour. Whether it is nudging people to choose the ‘right’ option or appealing to the herd mind, there is a lot that marketers can learn from the social sciences.
One theorem that can help improve marketing is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Originally proposed by Abraham Maslow in 1943 it essentially ranks the varying needs of humans, from the basic to the most complex. The key point is that it is only when one level of requirements are met will humans then move onto the next one.
So at the bottom are physiological needs – breathing, food, water, sleep, excretion. Without these humans simply cannot function. So, if you are selling basic products, appeal to this need, but if what you offer is more complex or higher value, look further up the hierarchy.
Next is safety (security of body, employment, family, resources, health, property). We’ve all seen marketing/advertising campaigns that play to these needs, normally by warning of the dangers that a particular product or service guards against. Insurance is the perfect example.
The third layer of the hierarchy is love and belonging, covering friendship, family and sexual intimacy. This is where sex sells, and also products that deliver a sense of being part of a group. Remember the scene every week in Cheers, where Norm comes in and everyone greets him by name? That’s key to this layer. However too many brands attempt to generate a sense of belonging, but make it too corporate and intrusive, such as Starbucks’ attempt to call customers by their first name when they were buying their latte.
Above belonging is the esteem level (confidence, self-esteem, respect of others, achievement). All humans have a need to feel respected, and clever marketers exploit this by offering products that (they claim) will increase your confidence and earn the esteem of others. Buy our car/mobile phone/bank account and your world will be transformed.
So, what’s at the top of the pyramid? All the previous levels were seen by Maslow as deficiency needs and have to be not just met, but mastered, before humans can move onto self-actualisation. This is much more complex and varies from person to person, but is essentially about achieving your full potential. To do this they need accept themselves, happy in their judgement and have an efficient perception of reality.
On the face of it self-actualisers should be immune to marketing, as they can see through attempts to manipulate their thoughts or feelings. However those on the path to self-actualisation can be targeted with images that show successful people and intimate that they can only be achieved by buying particular products. Think American Express Black credit cards or most celebrity adverts – drink Nespresso and you can be George Clooney!
I’m not saying that the hierarchy of needs is the sole way of planning marketing campaigns or boosting sales. But understanding which level your product best appeals to is a good way of focusing your efforts and going beyond features to look at what the customer is looking for. And that can only lead to better targeted products that consumers actually want, after all.