Who do you trust? Perhaps unsurprisingly given the political turmoil in 2016, the answer is ‘no-one at all.’ That’s the headline finding of the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, which found that trust in politicians, media, business and ‘the system’ has dropped precipitately over the last year. Less than a quarter (24%) of those surveyed in the UK trust the media, and just 26% trust the government. Figures continue to drop – comparing data from the end of 2016 and beginning of 2017 shows that trust levels fell a further 11%.
What is most worrying is that while trust in politicians is at rock bottom, the majority of people believe outspoken, spontaneous ‘straight-talkers’ over diplomatic communicators. This echoes Oxford-educated Michael Gove’s boast during the EU referendum that the British public “have had enough of experts”. 53% of people believe the system has failed them and that the odds are stacked against them. They blame immigration, technological change and changing values and simply don’t trust existing politicians and organisations to sort them out.
As someone who studied history it is easy to draw parallels with the 1930s. The immediate impact of the Wall Street Crash was bad enough, but the failure of things to return to normal over time led to disillusionment and the rise of radicalism and racism. Existing liberal institutions thought they could control these forces, hence trying to do deals with the likes of the Nazis. Instead, it had the opposite effect, making them appear stronger than they actually were and encouraging a rise in support.
What is especially concerning is that things could be about to get much worse in 2017. We already have the prospect of Donald Trump in the White House, and the triggering of Article 50 to launch a hard Brexit. But elections are also due in France, Germany and the Netherlands (and potentially Italy), where extremist and anti-establishment parties are expected to do well with disenchanted electorates.
The impact of two of the main factors driving the breakdown in trust (immigration and technological change) are going to accelerate, further weakening support for the status quo. It is a vicious circle – isolationism and suspicion reinforce themselves, allied to the fact that many of us now get our news through social media networks that reflect our own background and views, rather than leaving us open to ideas that are different.
What can be done to change this? And, can it be changed at all? The first step is to wake up to the seriousness of the issue. Just as politicians and the public seemed to sleepwalk into the rise of the far right in the 1930s, there is a danger that the same thing will happen again. Politicians need to take a stand and outline exactly what the benefits of the current system are, taking steps to be positive about what it delivers to people. This is what the Remain campaign singularly failed to do during the EU Referendum vote.
Secondly, equip people to deal with change. Automation and artificial intelligence are hollowing out the workforce, but they are also creating new jobs. It is up to government, working with business and trade unions, to put in place the training to help reskill people on an ongoing basis. The old system of early education needs to be complemented by lifelong learning with access for all.
Thirdly, the media must take a stand against extremism and those that are wantonly making up ‘facts’. They need to call out deliberate lies from politicians, even if that makes their job harder. And companies like Facebook need to be considered part of the media, and redouble their efforts to stamp out fake news on their networks, given that this is where a large (and increasing) percentage of the population get their information.
The breakdown in trust that the world is currently suffering from cannot be easily remedied. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth trying. Public relations professionals should be playing their part, but it will take a sustained effort from all the groups named in the Edelman report (business, politicians, government, the media and NGOs) to change perceptions and rebuild trust.
Home automation is the next battleground for technology. Following on the heels of Amazon’s launch of its Echo and Echo Dot devices, which feature its voice-controlled personal assistant Alexa, Google has unveiled its plans for a range of hardware to control the smart home. The Google Home speaker features a virtual assistant, excitingly called Google Assistant, that lets you give commands and then either provides information or controls your smart devices. For example, you can stream music, control the temperature and turn the lights up/down/off, as with the Echo. And Amazon and Google are not alone, with Apple announcing its HomeKit standard which will allow users to control devices through their iPhone via either apps or Siri.
When it comes to mass adoption, it is early days in the home automation market, and each one of the major players will need to overcome four big obstacles:
1 Do we need it?
Smart home kit has yet to really take off, with many consumers not willing to pay extra for internet-enabled light bulbs or thermostats. While Google Assistant and Amazon’s Alexa can do more than control your home, with the ability to find information, check the weather/traffic, book an Uber taxi etc., you don’t really need a separate device for this. You have one – your smartphone. So what each player has to do is find ways of encouraging people to adopt it, developers to create apps that use its functions, and manufacturers to incorporate it into their own hardware. Given that we’re talking about white goods such as fridges which are replaced infrequently and are normally price-sensitive purchases, this last point is going to take some time. As an early adopter I’m going to give Alexa a go, but I can’t see a compelling reason for mainstream consumers to buy an Echo or Home, until the ecosystem around them are more mature.
2 Is it clever enough?
As an existing Siri user I know that for a smart assistant it can be pretty dumb. It doesn’t really know enough about me to provide helpful answers and most attempts at ‘conversation’ end with switching it off and trying a Google search instead. Amazon and Google promise that their assistants will be much cleverer and will learn about you in order to provide a personalised experience that understands your context, location and previous behaviour. The jury is still out on whether it can be intelligent enough to replace human interaction for basic tasks.
3 Is it private?
The self-learning promise of Assistant and Alexa also has a darker side. Essentially, you are putting an internet-enabled microphone in the heart of your home, where it can listen and learn about you, before sharing that information with Google and Amazon. While both have privacy safeguards, the less you let it share, the less useful it will be. Many people will be concerned about where their data is going, and how it will be used – particularly given the amount of information Google and Amazon already possess about us all.
4 Are we going to be trapped in silos?
For me the main issue behind each of these platforms, is that essentially they are silos. You can’t play any music stored on iTunes on either of them for example, but have to either rely on Amazon Music, Google Play Music or Spotify. Even in an age of technology giants, very few of us rely on just one platform – we tend to use bits of each and value the fact that we can pick and choose where we get email, buy products or listen to music from. By their very nature, rivals are not going to push their competitors’ services, and no-one wants to have to buy multiple hardware to cover all their bases. What is needed is some form of interchange between all platforms, a kind of one ring to rule them all – but I can’t see that happening soon.
As with any innovation there’s a lot of hype around virtual assistants, and the hardware that they control. What is needed is some equally smart marketing that overcomes the objections listed above and really focuses on the benefits – otherwise mainstream consumers are likely to simply keep their dumb homes as they are.
I’m probably one of the few people in the country with some sympathy for Sam Allardyce. Once the Daily Telegraph ran a story on how he’d advised undercover reporters pretending to be businessmen on how to get around player transfer rules, his days looked numbered in the job. Add in the allegation that he accepted a £400,000 deal to represent the businessmen to Far Eastern investors and his fate was sealed. Rule bending and big payments never look good in headlines.
Allardyce has definitely committed a serious error of judgement, in talking about getting round third party player ownership rules, criticising his predecessor Roy Hodgson and his assistant Gary Neville, and complaining that FA president the Duke of Cambridge didn’t attend meetings.
However, I put a lot of blame for the situation on his employers, the Football Association. Given the high profile nature of the role, he was bound to be targeted by reporters in one way or another – did he not have training or warnings about how he should behave in such situations? Imagine he was a senior manager at a company – standards of ethics, what he could and couldn’t discuss and his general behaviour would have been drummed into him. Remember that despite his status, the England manager isn’t a CEO and he has a boss in the FA chief executive Martin Glenn. There should be organisation wide policies that were drummed into him, yet none of the press coverage mentions them. As World War Two posters proclaimed, “Loose lips sink ships”, and Allardyce’s job has been sunk after just 67 days in charge.
There is also much that any business (or anyone in the public eye) can learn from Allardyce’s misadventures:
1.Nothing is off the record
Any conversation, even private ones, can be made public. In the days of smartphones and tiny microphones anything can be recorded and used against you – as the Queen found out when she was overhead complaining about Chinese officials at a garden party.
2. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is
Always look a gift horse in the mouth. While Allardyce said he would have to run the £400,000 payment past the FA before accepting the deal, business people appearing out of nowhere with large sums of money should have rung alarm bells, even in the world of football. The fact that he took his agent and accountant to the meeting shows how seriously he was taking things – it would have been better to have cleared it with his bosses first.
3. Beware the friendly journalist
Most of us are hardwired to want to be accepted and get on with people, and a big part of any interview or meeting is building rapport between everyone involved. So when a journalist or anyone else asks a question or raises a subject people are normally happy to jump in with an answer that either makes them look good or agrees with the general conversation. Hence why pretty much all sting operations get their victims to ditch the dirt on their colleagues or ex-colleagues. It is simply human nature to be helpful, but you need to be on your guard at all times.
4. Make sure everyone knows the rules
As I say, the FA must have strict rules on what members of staff can and can’t do, particularly when it comes to deals that personally benefit themselves. Make sure everyone knows them inside out, with proper training sessions rather than simply burying them in a contract or a staff handbook. Keep them front of mind and ensure that people realise how important they are.
Sam Allardyce won’t be the last celebrity to be caught in a sting operation, but his fate should be a warning for anyone in the public eye about how they should and shouldn’t behave. And, most of all, it should be a wake-up call for employers to set policies and train people so that they don’t end up in the same boat.
For anyone like myself who was around during the dotcom boom, it is hard not to feel that you are suffering from déjà vu. Many of the exotic ideas and concepts that spectacularly flopped at the time have been reborn and are now thriving. Take ecommerce. Clothes retailer Boo.com was one of the biggest disasters of the period, burning through $135 million of venture capital in just 18 months, while online currency beenz aimed to provide a way of collecting virtual money that could be spent at participating merchants.
Offline, we were continuously promised/threatened with smart bins that would scan the barcodes of product packaging as we threw it away, and automatically order more of the same. And goods might arrive from a virtual supermarket, run as a separate business from your local Tesco or Sainsbury’s. You could pay for low value goods and services with a Mondex card instead of cash (though initially only if you lived in the trial town of Swindon). The first Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) were launched, providing computing power in the palm of your hand. We’d already laughed out of the court the ridiculous concept of electric cars, as typified by the Sinclair C5.
Fast forward to now, and versions of all of these failed ventures are thriving. There are any number of highly graphical, video based clothes retailers, while you can take your pick of online currencies from Bitcoin to Ethereum. We’re still threatened with smart appliances that can re-order groceries (fridges being the latest culprit), but Amazon’s Dash buttons are a neater and simpler way of getting more washing powder delivered that put the consumer in control. And Dash bypasses the supermarket itself, with goods dispatched direct from Amazon. I can pay for small items by tapping my debit card on a card reader – even in my local village shop. More and more cars are hybrids, if not fully electric, while handheld computing power comes from our smartphones.
What has driven this change? First off, the dotcom boom was over 15 years ago, so there’s been a lot of progress in tech. We have faster internet speeds (one of the reasons for Boo’s demise was its graphics were too large for most dial-up modems to download), better battery life for digital devices and vehicles (iPhones excepted), hardware and sensors are much smaller and more powerful, and network technologies such as Bluetooth and ZigBee are omnipresent.
However, at the same time, the real change has been in the general public. Using technology has become part of everyone’s daily lives, and those that are not online are the exception, rather than the rule. It is a classic example of the move from early adopters to the majority, as set out in Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm. And it has happened bit by bit, with false starts and cul de sacs on the way.
So what does this mean for marketers? It really brings home the importance of knowing your audience and targeting your product accordingly. Don’t expect raw tech to be instantly adopted by the majority, but build up to it, gain consumer trust (perhaps by embedding your new tech in something that already exists), and prepare to fail first time round. And the other lesson is to look at today’s big failures, and be prepared to resurrect them when the market has changed in the future……
It’s probably fair to say that there was a lot of trepidation about how the Rio Olympics would turn out. Russian doping, the Zika virus, political turmoil in Brazil and worries about the venues being ready on time, and up to standard, all dominated the news in the run up to the games. At a country level, Team GB’s medal count was expected to fall compared to London 2012, while time differences meant that less of the action would be taking place when it could be easily viewed by the British public.
Instead, rather than being a disaster, the games came through. There were obvious issues in terms of infrastructure, but nothing major, and while attendance was poor at a lot of sports it seems there was a real buzz by the end of the event. Team GB not only hit its stated medal target, but exceeded its London 2012 total, with medals in a huge range of sports. In football, the host nation got revenge for its World Cup drubbing by Germany, winning gold in a penalty shootout. The decision of the IAAF to ban Russian athletes helped more countries than ever before to win medals, and while there were police raids linked to ticket touting, in general the IOC bureaucrats either behaved (or weren’t caught red-handed). So who were the PR winners and losers of Rio 2016?
1. Ryan Lochte
The prize for worst public relations (and behaviour), undoubtedly goes to US swimming superstar Ryan Lochte. After a drunken night out he, along with some of his team mates, claimed they’d been robbed at gunpoint by Brazilian policemen, feeding the world’s fears about crime and corruption in Rio. Luckily for the games, the real story was captured on CCTV. Rather than being robbed, the swimmers had smashed up a local petrol station toilet, causing security guards to pull guns on them until they paid for the damage. Once the truth came out the press were able to delight in headlines such as Liar, Liar, Speedo’s on Fire – and sponsors (including Speedo) quickly dropped Lochte from their campaigns.
2. Usain Bolt
Such is the pulling power of Usain Bolt that his presence and success helped define the games. From dancing a samba at a pre-race press conference to entering the arena with dry ice swirling, he is a consummate showman, as well as the fastest man in the world. And he does it with a smile on his face, helping fans and the general public to empathise with his performances. Given the recent history of drug taking in sprint events, his performances have essentially rehabilitated the sport.
3. Team GB
As I said, everyone was expecting a drop in the medal total for Britain after London, something that Team GB administrators kept repeating at every opportunity. This meant that the country’s success was even more unexpected, particularly when some early medal shots (such as Lizzie Armitstead in the cycling) didn’t come through.
However, it did create a bit of a dilemma for many people. We’re meant to be plucky British underdogs, but thanks to the skills of the athletes and coaches, and lottery funding, we now dominate in many sports. No wonder that many broadcasters seemed unsure how to play the triumphalism – the BBC’s end of games roundup was a mixture of awe and confusion.
What impressed me was both the range of sports where Team GB won medals and the attitudes of the athletes. Sports participation actually went down after London 2012, and clearly there was a concerted effort to try and address this. Pretty much after every medal athletes encouraged people to get involved, try things out and visit their local sailing/swimming/gymnastics etc. club. Let’s hope the message resonates and that grassroots sport gets a boost.
Like a lot of people, I didn’t believe that golf merited a place in the Olympics – or, if it did, it should be something more exciting, such as Crazy Golf. With many of the sport’s stars pulling out, citing the Zika virus as an excuse, the tournament looked like it was going to be a high profile disaster. Yet the sport shone through and the stars that had championed the event gave us a thrilling event, with Justin Rose winning at the death. Thanks to that, golf may well have saved its place at future Olympics.
5. British Airways
Painting post boxes gold in the home towns of Olympic champions was the PR masterstroke of London 2012. Given the time difference this sort of marketing was more difficult in Rio, but British Airways managed to pull it off, with a gold nosed plane (renamed victoRIOus) carrying many of the athletes back to the UK. Cue lots of shots of gold medal winners on the flight deck, and selfies shared on social media, probably helped by the 77 additional bottles of champagne the plane was carrying. Even the fact that a large number of medal winners, such as Bradley Wiggins, Andy Murray, Laura Trott and Justin Rose had already left Rio, didn’t detract from the triumph.
Like a lot of people I was initially shocked by the recent £24 billion takeover of ARM by Softbank of Japan. Not only was it the biggest acquisition ever of a European IT company, but it was also widely seen as the jewel in the crown of the Cambridge/UK tech scene.
A few years ago Cambridge had three stock market listed companies worth over a billion pounds each – ARM, Autonomy and Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR). All have now been acquired, with varying degrees of success – HP, Autonomy’s purchaser is still suing the previous management about alleged overstating of accounts.
At the same time a large number of the next tier of Cambridge companies, such as Jagex, cr360 and Domino Printing Sciences, have also been bought, leaving many people wondering where the next tech superstar will come from. This is particularly true as an increasing number of earlier stage businesses in exciting markets have been acquired by tech giants – Internet of Things startup Neul was bought by Huawei, Evi by Amazon and Phonetic Arts by Google. And that’s just the acquisitions that were announced. I’m sure that in many cases promising technology has been snapped up without making it into the press, as the deal size has been relatively small.
So, as someone involved in the Cambridge tech scene, should we be worried? Is Silicon Fen going to turn into an offshoot of Silicon Valley – a bit like the tech towns around Heathrow, but with a bit more IP? Thinking about it more rationally, there are two main reasons for the flurry of acquisitions, particularly of smaller businesses.
1 Cambridge’s reputation
All of these acquisitions are actually recognition of the strength of the Cambridge tech sector. Big companies are attracted to the area because of the talent and innovation on show, and are increasingly willing to take a punt on earlier stage businesses to get in first and lay their hands on new technology and IP. They’ve realised that not every acquisition will work, but that the wins should outweigh the losses. So, Cambridge’s PR has worked in attracting the largest tech companies to the area.
2 Changing mix of companies
Traditionally, a lot of Cambridge startups were built on biotech, science and engineering, either from the University or the innovative consultancies that differentiate the city from many other clusters. As Cambridge grows, a greater number of companies are software-based, which means that developing their technology is faster than when trying to commercialise a product from an interesting piece of lab research. Therefore, they are likely to have a steeper growth curve, and potentially a shorter lifespan as they reach maturity (and acquisition) quicker.
A further reason for optimism is given by the new Cambridge Cluster Map, which lists the nearly 22,000 businesses based within 20 miles of the city centre. With a turnover of £33 billion, the map demonstrates the range of companies and the strength of the local economy. A third of this turnover is made up of knowledge-intensive businesses, employing nearly 60,000 people. That’s a lot of innovation, whoever ultimately owns the companies concerned.
Looking back, I think commentators will see that the ARM acquisition is part of a change in Cambridge as it matures and becomes a recognised part of the global tech sector. The economy will continue to grow, but more of the capital will come from outside the city. While this means we will have fewer ARMs and CSRs, and more outposts of Amazon, Apple and Google, it won’t stop growth and innovation, which means the Cambridge Phenomenon is likely to go from strength to strength.