Google will frustrate attempts to charge for news

We publishers had a very entertaining morning at Trentham Racecourse on Melbourne Cup Day Tuesday, organized by our printer, Format Print, and one of the presenters mentioned that if News Corp. wanted to begin charging for content, it would likely succeed.
   The argument that might is right is appealing, and certainly it would be an interesting experiment on the part of the Murdoch Press. The main argument is that News Corp. has unique content, and there would be people willing to pay for it.
   I wonder.
   This is not the same-old blog post about people not willing to pay for online content—that has been beaten to death—but whether brand loyalty to websites is anywhere nearly as strong as the Murdoch Press anticipates.
   In my experience, brand loyalty on the web has dropped as the number of sites has increased, especially blogs. Many blogs have not been designed with brands in mind, because they are personal in nature. And not everyone has successfully marketed themselves as personal brands.
   One has to ask: how do netizens find news? It’s a very different process to print, where there are titles that one trusts and goes toward—the sort of world which Mr Murdoch comes from.
   For me, it’s Google News. Whatever the search engine aggregates, I’ll likely go for—and whomever makes it to the top of the list on the topic I want to read about gets my click.
   I am not convinced that that’s going to be a Murdoch Press publication every time.
   And what if it is? Google News tells us when a site requires a subscription, so chances are, I’m going to go to the next one.
   I also doubt if anyone has a monopoly on content any more as news has become more commodified over the last 15–20 years.
   If I want news on a particular person, (s)he would either be a search result in Google News or in a newsfeed reader.
   Since moving to a near-daily format at Lucire earlier this year, we’ve had fairly varying days visitor-wise depending on what news stories have made it on to the site. Viewer analyses tell us that many visitors are infrequent and, still, in some cases, first-timers. (The features are steadier and they attract a lot of the regular viewers.)
   More people are finding us again via search engines but, this time, it is Google News that is making up more of that share.
   We might have our loyalists—every title does—but for the daily news, the stuff that News Corp. is trying to shift, loyalty is a rare commodity.

Honouring 9-11

[Cross-posted at Lucire] I don’t think we could let September 11, 2009 pass without marking what had happened in the United States eight years ago. As with this year, the day fell during New York Fashion Week, and as the publisher I had a few things to contend with.
   I had returned to Wellington from Manhattan only weeks before, and was woken on the morning of the 12th to learn what had happened. (One has to bear in mind that for most Kiwis, the tragedies of 9-11, thanks to time zones, took place on September 12, 2001, New Zealand standard time.) One of our correspondents, Edward Hodges, had watched the morning television and called me before 6 a.m. to inform me of the attacks.
   Maybe it was a case of grace under pressure, because I remember being very methodical on what I had to do. First, find out that everyone in the company was all right—both at Jack Yan & Associates and Lucire. Secondly, issue a press statement if it was needed. Thirdly, attend the opening of the Wellington Fashion Festival, beginning that morning at Kirkcaldie & Stain’s. (I still have the parking stub (left), kept not because it was issued on September 12, but that it was left in a suit pocket.)
   It was a rushed visit to Kirk’s—a show-my-face one—before I headed back to the office to keep an eye on things. While I received word that the Fashion Week team was fine, I had one friend who used to get off at the WTC subway stop around the time of the first jet striking the Towers. It was only when I got back to the office when I managed to get through and ascertain that he was alive and well.
   No one was in a mood to celebrate the rest of the Festival. I had received emails from friends in Manhattan, as they took digital photographs of people jumping to their deaths and the Towers burning. It was macabre, but then, they were probably in the same state of shock as I was. We kept Lucire updated the whole day—before blogs became commonplace—and the home page went from our trade mark red to a black background.
   I recently talked to Cushla Reed, who runs Minx Shoes, about the day. She had to show one of the first evening collections of the night, and we sat there mostly stunned. While New York suspended its Fashion Week, Wellingtonians tried to carry on with their show. I also spoke recently with jewellery designer Mandi Kingsbury, whom I met that evening. She remembers ‘9-11’ well, and indeed had a flight booked for the following day. We speculated on how safe it would be to travel, and I recall I was less confident than I am now, when I tell people, ‘The safest time to fly would have been September 12, 2001.’ I didn’t feel that on the day.
   In fact, I am not sure how I felt.
   Eight years on, where are we now? Maybe more cynical, less certain of the bright promise of the millennium parties. I am not sure if we are any wiser, or internationally aware, compared to where we were before that day. Wars have been waged in the name of 9-11, but they have not brought greater harmony to the world. And I doubt if that is how the victims—not just those killed that day in the attacks, but people who lost their lives in the subsequent wars—would like us to honour their memories.
   Leaving aside the question of the right or wrong of the War on Terror, we need to ask ourselves: what is the best way to honour those who fell?
   It’s not in monuments.
   It’s certainly not in expressing hate.
   I believe it’s about restoring unity.
   There was unity aboard United flight 93. There was unity among all peace-loving nations in the wake of the terror attacks. And humankind tends toward that unity, no matter what divisions some entrenched interests would like to create between people of this world.
   Go anywhere in the world and you’re far more likely to find an outstretched hand of friendship than a mugger.
   Yet we forget those face-to-face lessons. We see the pettiest squabbles delivered in blog comments. We sit comfortably lecturing others on why they are wrong. On the internet, we see leftists sealing themselves off from rightists; rightists sealing themselves off from leftists; and no one ever seems to want to understand the other side as a few minor parties engineer campaigns of hate. Isolation and polarization seem to be the order of the day, whether one is arguing about war, health care, or international politics.
   Our squabbles and our division are exactly what the terrorists want to see from us.
   We only scared them for a brief time when we, as a planet, showed we were behind the victims of 9-11. I don’t think we are worrying them as much now.
   Yet, we have more tools to create unity, and more technology to offer that hand of friendship between nations, than we have ever had at any time in human history.
   Why aren’t more of us using these tools to create alliances, friendships and understandings?
   Or, more to the point, using these tools to honour those who have died on and since September 11, 2001?
   Have we really been tricked by a tiny minority, a minority that wants to engender hate, to forget that we are capable of coming together on the future of our planet?
   If we are really to honour the fallen of 9-11, then it’s in extending our hands out again, maybe to a total stranger, maybe to someone of an entirely different culture, and saying a simple word: ‘Hello.’
   And let the conversation begin.

Branding New Zealand

I had a very productive time in Christchurch, especially at The Future of Fashion II conference organized by Fashion Industry New Zealand (FINZ). It was also wonderful to connect to the folks at CPIT there.
   One question that arose after my presentation (which can be found in written form on this site) was that of the New Zealand national image. One attendee felt that marketing using the clean, green idea and the All Blacks was ‘last century’, and I happened to agree with her. (Go back about a decade or so and you’ll find a few pieces by yours truly along similar lines.)
   If branding is about differentiation, then what is so different about clean and green when Israel, Sweden, Canada and Ireland use similar ideas in their nation branding? When it comes to ‘100% Pure’, the campaign used for destination marketing in New Zealand, how truly representative is it of our country when we spend relatively little, as a percentage of GDP, on the environment?
   Isn’t New Zealand actually about innovation, independence and isolation (in the best sense)?
   When we go abroad, we seem to enjoy showing how different we are, the innovative ideas that we have as a nation, the sheer courage we have in trying new things—I gave the example of the first America’s Cup that New Zealand competed in—and how, on the opposite side of the world to the rich nations, we are great lateral thinkers. We are already doing this, so there’s little need for an internal marketing campaign. We just need to push this message out globally, and benefit those Kiwi innovators doing great things around the world.
   Right or wrong? Your feedback is welcome, as I believe we can define our nation more smartly than we currently do. We can also make that brand more representative of all New Zealanders, going beyond primary products and sport.

Recommended business and marketing books for 2009 (so far)

For those who missed it, my friend and colleague Nicholas Ind has come out with a new book, The Organic Organisation. If you’ve ever read any of Nicholas’s work in the past, you’ll know he is one of the most lucid thinkers and authors in the branding world. And he can back up every one of his assertions with real research.
   The Organic Organisation is based on his Ph.D. research, and while the word brand isn’t used in a big way, the themes are very clear. From the introduction, The Organic Organisation’s core idea is that organizations exist to provide fulfilment. It’s an idea that I happen to believe in, but this book goes far further. By being organic, where the individual and organization are working together, people can discover their purpose. It also explores ‘the ontology of organisations’, where the traditional relationship where the person is considered untrustworthy, is ultimately damaging to the organization as well as the potential for creativity and fulfilment.
   It is a must-buy, and is out at Amazon UK.
   Nicholas isn’t the only Medinge director with a new book. Patrick Harris’s The Truth about Creativity is being released shortly. This new book explores a related idea: that creativity is ‘key to finding new solutions and developing dynamic solutions.’ This can be harnessed to benefit the organization.
   Patrick’s credentials are also very impressive: he oversaw the activities of the Orange strategic think-tank before going out on his own at Thoughtengine, which deals with strategy and solid, futures’ based work. His book will be out at Amazon UK this month.
   Finally, if I may give one more push for my friend Stefan Engeseth’s latest book, which I had the honour of working on. Called The Fall of PR and the Rise of Advertising, the title is a cheeky take on (though not a full disagreement of) Al Ries’s earlier work. (In the foreword, you discover that he got Ries’s permission to use this title.) Stefan argues that half a decade on from Ries, PR’s effectiveness has somewhat become limited, and he uses the same techniques he employed in his earlier Detective Marketing and One books to reveal novel things companies can employ in the new media landscape. You have the option of downloading an electronic version for free or buying it via Amazon.com.
   As to my writing work, you’ll have to hold on. I have a small contribution to a title in India this year, which I will blog about in due course.

Telecom hires robots, operators fired?

This is roughly how a conversation with the Telecom New Zealand 123 operator, with a Russian name, went last Thursday evening.

—I’m Jack, and there are no phone books in this booth at Johnston Street, Wellington.
—Call 018.
—But it would be handy to have these books, right?
—Call 018.
—You’re not very helpful, are you?

(Silence)

—Oh well, goodbye then.

(Silence)

   I would have expected, ‘Thank you for letting us know, but we don’t put phone books in there any more,’ or ‘We’ll take note of your call, thank you.’
   So the difference between a 123 operator and a robot is what? It must be pretty cheap to mount a tape recording where the only thing said is, ‘Call 018. Call 018. Call 018.’ Who even needs a robot?
   I know Russians say goodbye, too, when prompted. It’s not as though this was a cultural challenge even to an operator with a bug up his ass.
   I’m none the wiser. Phone books served a greater purpose than just being a directory of numbers. They helped us figure out addresses in case we had remembered wrongly, for instance. Someone hasn’t thought this through.
   And, in some cases, they are more reliable than human beings who can make mistakes.
   I’m not going to call 018 as the Telecom signage in the phone booth says this costs me—when I believe phone books, which the company provides free to most of us (that is, when it delivers them, and my neighbours have a few things to say about their non-appearance this year), have always offered that information for nought.
   I also do not know how the billing would work on the 018 service. I call using a Telstra calling card sometimes, so how would Telecom know what account to charge?
   Perhaps someone from Telecom would care to enlighten me about the absence of phone books and courtesy on the 123 service—and just what we are supposed to do when we need to double-check an address or number.

There can be only one

We weren’t thrilled today to have discovered, through long-time Medinge member and Global Brand Strategy author Sicco van Gelder, that the Hong Kong Institute of Marketing awarded, last November, awards with the name of Brand with a Conscience.
   Sounds familiar, right?
   But let me say now that it has zero connection to the Medinge Group’s Brands with a Conscience, being awarded in Paris for the sixth time shortly.
   It’s rather annoying for us, after building up BWAC for six years, that HKIM would call its award by the same name.
   And here’s why we don’t think this was just a coincidence, the use of four words in the English language.
   If you read their press materials, ‘Organized by HKIM, the Brand-with-a-Conscience Award aims to recognize organizations which contribute to the betterment of the society by humanity and ethics. It encourages industries to develop their brand with conscience that helps establish a fair and ethical society.’
   We have said for many years that Brands with a Conscience ‘contribute to the betterment of the society by sustainable, socially responsible and humanistic behaviour.’
   Specifically, ‘The Brands with a Conscience list is shaped around criteria including evidence of the human implications of the brand and considering the question of whether the brand takes risks in line with its beliefs. Evaluations are made based on reputation, self-representation, history, direct experience, contacts with individuals within the organizations, media and analysts and an assessment of the expressed values of sustainability.’
   If you go back through the years of media coverage I am pretty sure you would find the real BWAC explained in the exact wording that HKIM has used.
   Not only has it been regularly covered in the international marketing media for a good part of a decade, BWAC—the real one, our one—has attracted enquiries from organizations wanting to be nominated worldwide. There is no way that companies even here in New Zealand have heard of it and a marketing institute in Hong Kong has not.
   My memory of Hong Kong English is that there was a move from the traditional -ize endings on words (as used by the Oxford dictionaries) to the 20th-century ‘chiefly British’ -ise (it looks French to me, personally); Medinge, meanwhile, has not, due to my intervention and insistence on Hart’s Rules. It’s interesting to note that even the spelling convention is identical.
   Finally, the heart symbol adopted by HKIM in November is not unlike the new BWAC visual branding developed by UffindellWest far earlier in 2008 (and publicized accordingly)—which also has a heart, but in our traditional green.
   We don’t object to HKIM presenting an award based around sustainability and ethics, but we do object to the same name being used, which causes confusion and undermines over six years’ work on the part of Medinge.
   We grew the awards in Paris from an unknown event to one that is coveted. They had humble beginnings before they became the formal event we now have. There’s even an award named for our late colleague, Colin Morley, which makes us even more protective of the BWAC scheme and its integrity.
   Now we see the Institute do a shortcut. Even the way the event is held looks like it’s straight out of the Medinge playbook.
   And it’s also very ironical that an award supposedly for ethics has been arrived at in what appears to be an unethical way.
   We do expect a casual Google search. I have made a web search, even in the AltaVista days, one of the first ports of call for creating any new name or venture.
   Call us suspicious, but it is the opinion of certain Medinge directors and members that a Google search gave HKIM the name, idea and wording, and possibly even the logo.
   HKIM should, given its position, have been far more diligent.
   The Google index has been tainted by this attack on our intellectual property, as the HKIM awards are now appearing. It undermines those real BWAC winners who have gone through our strict process over the last six years.
   The sad thing is that if HKIM actually did what was right, and enquired with us to see whether it could do its own version of BWAC after finding ours online, we might have said yes, having set some criteria.
   Today I drafted a letter to the chairman of HKIM, Dr Chong Yan Chong, to advise him of this conflict and of our grave concern over what we saw as a less than ethical appropriation of our efforts.
   As this is the marketing institute in my home town, I really hope there’s some reasonable explanation, maybe even some naïveté or long-shot hope that they would not be found.

Medinge announces 2009 Brands with a Conscience

I’m very happy to announce that the Medinge Group has officially made public its list for Brands with a Conscience for 2009. Being on the voting committee, I have to say it was one of the toughest decision processes ever. We had more nominees than before and the committee received more votes than ever before. The press release is below, and it has just made the Medinge website a few moments ago.

International think-tank announces 2009 Brands with a Conscience awards

Stockholm, Seal Beach, Calif. and Wellington, January 1 (JY&A Media) The Medinge Group (www.medinge.org), an international think-tank on branding and business, today releases its sixth annual Brands with a Conscience list. In the Group’s opinion, these diverse organizations show that it is possible for brands to succeed as they contribute to the betterment of society by sustainable, socially responsible and humanistic behaviour.
   The international collective of brand practitioners meets annually in August at a secluded location outside Stockholm, Sweden, and collaborate on the list, judging nominees on principles of humanity and ethics, rather than financial worth. The Brands with a Conscience list is shaped around criteria including evidence of the human implications of the brand and considering whether the brand takes risks in line with its beliefs. Evaluations are made based on reputation, self-representation, history, direct experience, contacts with individuals within the organizations, media and analysts and an assessment of the expressed values of sustainability.
   Two years ago the group added a unique category commendation, the Colin Morley Award, recognizing exceptional achievement by an NGO. Mr Morley, a member of the Medinge Group, died in the London Underground bombings on July 7, 2005. The award commemorates his visionary work in humanistic branding.
   For 2009, the group has singled out the following organizations as Brands with a Conscience:

Chhatra Sagar—an eco-resort in Rajasthan (India)
Ekomarine—environmentally responsible paint (Sweden)
Kiva—microfinance lending (USA)
One—enlightened bottled water (UK)
Ragbag—Fair-Traded fashion accessories from recyclable materials (the Netherlands)
TOMS shoes—developing nations’ shoe distribution (USA)

2009 Colin Morley Award
   The third Colin Morley Award for a non-governmental organization is given to the American actor and philanthropist Paul Newman in posthumous recognition for an exemplary life of truth-telling and generosity.

   Announcing the 2009 Brands with a Conscience, Stanley Moss, CEO of the Medinge Group and chairman of the initiative, remarked, ‘This year’s Brands with a Conscience winners are all superior brands who exemplify environmentally responsible conduct and community involvement. Three of these winners have a direct interest in water-related issues. And Medinge’s selection of Paul Newman for the Colin Morley NGO award acknowledges a hero whose humanistic beliefs accompanied authentic, compassionate action.’
   Thomas Gad, Director and Chairman of the Medinge Group commented, ‘The 2009 Brands with a Conscience awards show a sensational variety, and not only geographically; we have award winners from all corners of the world, in a variety of business categories. Everything from eco-resorts, environmentally responsible boat paint, microfinance lending, enlightened bottled water, fair-traded fashion accessories from recyclable materials and shoe distribution for developing nations. Once again, for 2009 we honour a person with our Colin Morley NGO award: Paul Newman—a legend not only as an brilliant actor, but also as a business and a brand doing good for the world.’
   Ian Ryder, a director of the group added, ‘Every year we seem to say that the quality of entrants to the BWAC Awards increases, but the truth is that this year was absolutely outstanding. In every category, from all corners of the globe, each and every one of the finalists would have made worthy winners. All of which says that those who won came from a very select group, and they embody all that is best in our tough test of brand sustainability and conscience.’
   ‘Each of the Brands with a Conscience winners display awareness, responsibility and action. Sustainability here is not limited to a temporary green perspective, but is celebrated as a life-long dedication to future generations,’ said Patrick Harris, a Medinge director. ‘One Water is a wonderful example of a humanitarian focus, founded on an elegant concept. It is a complete solution, harnessing a commercial opportunity to serve communities in need, utilizing the natural energy of children. Pure genius.’
   ‘This year’s nominees have been the most amazing yet,’ agreed Jack Yan, Director. ‘We received more nominees than ever, and competition was incredibly strong. The bar was set very high, and it was one of the most difficult decision-making process I have been through since the Awards’ inception. There was greater advocacy among the Medinge Group’s members this year, showing what passions these brands generated. In the end, our winners are organizations that admirably forward the Group’s agenda in humanistic branding.’
   The 2009 Brands with a Conscience awards will be presented at a private ceremony held at the Management Institute of Paris on February 5, 2009.

The winners in detail
Chhatra Sagar
http://www.chhatrasagar.com/ABOUT.HTM
   Chhatra Sagar is an eco-friendly tent camp in Rajasthan, India, a lifetime project by direct descendants of the Maharajah of Jodhpur. Established in 2001, this small resort overlooks 365 protected acres, where over 200 varieties of wildlife have returned to the habitat. The sustainability quotient is optimal—all locally sourced food, furnished by indigenous craft, employs 30 local families, sponsors teachers, provides medicine, classroom furniture and brings specialized educators who address subjects ranging from family planning to recycling to soil conservation. The family’s personal involvement and constant presence reinforce the commitment.

Ekomarine
http://ekomarine.se/en.html
   For boating-intensive parts of the world like USA, Australia, UK and Scandinavia, the foul painting of boat hulls is a serious and not-ecological business. Sweden-based Ekomarine’s researchers created the Neptune Formula, a naturally-based vegetable-protein alternative, with the added benefit of improving performance by reducing hull friction.

Kiva
http://www.kiva.org
   Kiva is microfinance with a peer-to-peer platform. Lends modest amounts direct to developing world entrepreneurs. A brilliant combination of technology and humanity, which connects people through lending for the alleviation of poverty. Kiva is the world’s first person-to-person micro-lending website, rallies 10,000 bloggers to promote good causes, and upturned the innovation of Zopa’s direct lending model, applying it to philanthropy. A branded giving process in an economic and powerful way, never preachy and never sentimental.

One Water
http://www.onedifference.org/uk/water/
   One sells bottled water in the UK and gives away 100 per cent of all of its profits to water projects in Africa. Profits are used to install PlayPumps, effectively, children’s roundabouts that, when played on, pump water to a storage cistern. Active since May 2005, One water is aligned with the Millennium Development Goals of getting clean water to 1 billion people who do not have access to it and helping the 2 billion people who die each year from water-related diseases.

rag-bag
http://www.ragbag.eu
   rag-bag produces fashionable and colourful bags and wallets made entirely from waste plastics (bags, sheets, etc.) collected by rag pickers from garbage tips in India, Cameroon and Brazil. They are paid a fair price for these waste products and they are trained to manufacture the products. The bags are sold online and in fashionable and fair trade outlets in Australia, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. Rag pickers earn a better income and learn valuable skills, while waste is reused to create new, valuable and practical products. rag-bag sets a high example for social, economic and environmental sustainability.

TOMS Shoes
http://www.tomsshoes.com
   For each pair of shoes you buy from this LA-based company, TOMS will donate a pair to needy children in developing nations. Once a year the company does a hands-on ‘shoe drop’ into communities, and customers participate. The shoes are comfy like slippers, and customers effectively vote with their feet. The website is very transparent, and the thousands of shoes distributed are a more direct good deed than throwing money at a cause.

Paul Newman (Colin Morley Award)
http://www.newmansown.com
   Paul Newman set up a company in 1982 to make marinades, sauces and dressings from natural ingredients. All the profits and royalties reverted to Newman, who, from the business’s inception, gave away every cent to charitable causes. In particular the money supports Hole in the Wall Camps, which bring together children with serious and terminal illnesses for a free summer-camp experience. Paul Newman disdained fame, opposed the star–celebrity system, and gave over $250 million to these causes in his own lifetime (in per capita terms the most generous individual on earth). Newman’s life’s work reminds us that an individual can act unselfishly and humanistically, according to his own values and make a real contribution to a better world.

Images
Images for this release may be downloaded from <http://jyanet.com/090101pr0.htm>.

2009 Medinge Brands with a Conscience Committee
Thomas Gad
Sicco van Gelder
Ava Maria Hakim
Patrick Harris
Pierre d’Huy
Nicholas Ind
Tim Kitchin
Sergei Mitrofanov
Stanley Moss, chairman
Johnnie Moore
Luke Nicholson
Simon Nicholls
Simon Paterson
Anette Rosencreutz
Ian Ryder
Erika Uffindell
Jack Yan

About the Medinge Group
Founded in 2002, the Medinge Group first published a brand manifesto of eight statements encapsulating a vision of healthy brands for the future. In 2003, the group authored a collection of essays entitled Beyond Branding, which explored the ways in which brands could add value within alternative business and social models. In 2004, the group established the annual Brands with a Conscience list to recognize organizations who epitomize humanistic behaviour; in 2006, Medinge added a special category of recognition named in honour of its late colleague Colin Morley, which acknowledges excellence by an NGO, in keeping with Colin’s humanistic vision. The Medinge Group maintains an online, automated speakers’ and experts’ bureau accessible through its web site, www.medinge.org. In 2007 Medinge launched an online resource, The Journal of the Medinge Group, a digital anthology of papers and articles written by Medinge members.

   I also note that this year, Medinge will have a round table session on branding and the recession at the Sorbonne, which I think ties in well with some of my own messages that I presented to the Proton Business School last week.
   For those wondering, the Rackspace techs have sorted out our email issues and everything on the server seems to be back on track for a nice start to 2009. Happy ’09 to everyone.

Lucire expands to cover web video with InTheSeen tie-up

[Cross-posted] Lucire, New Zealand’s internationally published fashion magazine, has formed an alliance with InTheSeen (intheseen.co.nz), which will provide original online video programming for the title at lucire.tv. This means that Lucire will enter 2009 covering print, web, mobile and online video media.
   InTheSeen will provide custom, original programming for Lucire, initially in its New Zealand home market.
   ‘This will bring to the web video market what Lucire has so far done on the web and in print,’ says Lucire publisher Jack Yan. ‘This means original, in-depth and entertaining content in very appealing and visually exciting segments.’
   ‘We’re delighted to establish an alliance with Lucire,’ says InTheSeen presenter–producer Samantha Hannah. ‘It allows us to bring our fashion programming to a wider audience.’
   InTheSeen editor Steve Leon says, ‘InTheSeen will bring strong, original programming to this venture, while Lucire brings a 12-year-old reputation in the fashion media. Each party has a great deal to contribute.
   ‘We envisage pooling our resources not just on content but on advertising and other business opportunities,’ he says.
   Mr Leon had already produced and directed two segments for Lucire TV earlier in 2008 through his Springtv company, which is charged with creating programming for InTheSeen.
   ‘We had always envisaged that the Lucire brand would encompass more media. With our foreign editions, mobile service and online video, we’re looking forward to a grander 2009,’ says Mr Yan.
   Lucire, which began as a dot-com in 1997, has been featuring online video segments for some time at lucire.tv, but had not entered into a formal arrangement with any production company.
   In 2000, Lucire attempted to enter the online video market with Lucire Live, filming at New York Fashion Week that September. The technology, says Mr Yan, had not caught up with Lucire’s demands. Lucire TV was established in 2002 but was again too early, he says.
   Earlier in 2008, Lucire announced a mobile service as well as a print edition in Thailand.

Twenty-one

It just dawned on me that Monday marks my 21st anniversary in business. There is a press announcement going out tomorrow, strangely not about that—but it is funny that it is going out on our 21st birthday. It’s been a good 21 years, with a few hiccups but not serious enough to harm us. The high points would be scoring the first font licensing deal; starting Lucire in 1997; and being recognized to contribute to the Medinge Group. Along the way I have met many good souls, too numerous to mention, but those who spring to mind right now include Stefan Engeseth, Stanley Moss, Chris Macrae, Paddianne and Don Neely, Camille Sanson, Ian Ryder, Demian Rosenblatt, Elyse Glickman, Christine Arden, Panos Papadopoulos, Hugh Derham, Don Roberts, Mike Parker, Alice Goulter, Andrew Cross, Johnnie Moore, Brian Willson, Edward Hodges, Simon Green, Nicky and Simon Casey, Christine Inwood, David Sanders, Bruce Newman, Brenda Newman, Jean-François Porchez, Bruno Maag, Stephen Ciuccoli, David Lemon, Clive Bruton, Sandy McLendon, Peter Singer, John Jones, Zuzana Licko and Rudy VanderLans, Nigel Dunn, Tim Kitchin, Ian Baillie, Nicholas Ind, Amanda van Kuppevelt, Sicco van Gelder, Merci Robles, Jure Stojan, Valerie Harper, Bill Shepherd, Erik Spiekermann, Rosie Kropp, Ali Sabbagh, Thomas Gad and Anette Rosencreutz, Tanya Sooksombatisatian, Miguel Kirjon, Tamsin Cooper, David Cooper, Emily Cooper, Ana Hickmann, Douglas Rimington, Valentin Lapusca, Mirella Lapusca, Paolo Zampolli, Sarah Garlick, Laura Ming-Wong and Adrian Owen, Paolo Vanossi, Ann Fryer, Donna Tulloch, Carolyn Enting, Phillip Johnson, Eddie Uken, Jason Moon, Angie Ruiz and Mark Tarbeek, Portia Holt, Mark Geard, Simone Knol, Megan Tuffery, Ingrid Kennedy, Richard Spiegel, Glenda Wynyard, Daron Curtiss, Merrill Fernando, Dilhan Fernando, Stevie Wilson, Matthew Breen, Andrew Bridge, John Challis, Dave Challis, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, Hilary Rowland, Corinne and Ted Davidov, Hayley Lynch Robinson, Dennis and Robbie Shinn, Benjamin Keith, David Philpott, David Patin, Matthew Carter and Cherie Cone.
   There are many, many others, and please do not take an omission here as significant. These blog posts are not as well thought through as you might think.
   Here’s to the next celebration. Twenty-five?

The fundamentals of our economy are sound

As I call in around the country to different companies, I have noticed a few things. First, the General Election has made no real difference to the way people feel. It’s no surprise: John Key voted the same way as Helen Clark on many of the least popular pieces of legislation, and fewer people trusted him yet wanted him in office. I also wonder if the US presidential election, having had such a grand effect on people around the world, caused our own to be such an anticlimax.
   Secondly, people are still hurting out there economically. Every day the media tell them that things are bad. And as a result consumer confidence gets driven down. Yet I wonder how much of this is real.
   The usual indicators of petrol prices and interest rates are good. Granted, our petrol prices have not fallen as much as in the US: Stanley Moss, CEO of the Medinge Group, notes that it has dropped US$1. Ours have dropped between 50 and 60 cents. So why are we feeling the pinch this badly?
   Our exposure to world markets has been limited. We have been simply lucky that even our banks have not had a tough time relative to the US. The links between them have not been that strong, so their exposure to the sub-prime mortgage mess there has not been that great.
   Even our Australian-owned banks have had relatively minimal exposure. It would have been worse had Lloyds TSB held on to the National Bank, but it didn’t. They only say they’re hurting because they haven’t been able to screw as much out of us as we go to TSB (no relation to the UK one!) and Kiwibank.
   Under Labour, there has been more of an emphasis on culture over the technocracy, at least in its first term. In many respects, we have been shielded, more by accident than design.
   House prices are on the rise again, too.
   The troublesome industries are tourism, which is no surprise and never has been to me, but that will likely readjust as our Australian neighbours might consider New Zealand again; and automotive, as people hang on to their cars for a little longer.
   Exporters are hurting, too, and I am one of them. But I think many of us were prudent, too, about whom we dealt with, and while the Labour government embraced Red China with open arms, hopefully enough of us have held back on depending on a communist nation going through its share of troubles.
   What is hurting consumer confidence is the failure to communicate the positive elements of the economy—because many in the mainstream media are technocrats who are not fans of a strong New Zealand. And bad news makes some people feel important.
   They would rather we be weakened so our companies can continue to be acquired by foreign interests that see New Zealanders as units of production to be exploited.
   So if it’s doom and gloom for their way of life, we are told that it’s doom and gloom for ours.
   Cobblers.
   We’ll pull through this because we haven’t pursued technocratic, monetarist policies with the fervour that we did in the 1980s under the reforms of the Architect of Doom, Roger Douglas.
   The last nine years have not been great under a government that failed to generate real growth in innovation or support small businesses that had potential to create national champions.
   However they have also been less technocratic than the nine years before that.
   National did some things in the 1990–9 term that interestingly paved the way for foreign direct investment that buoyed the start of the 21st century, admittedly going against what I have been saying is healthy for us. Yet the other indicators have been less optimistic, such as our failure to pay for free education, rising crime and a growing gap between rich and poor—things that Labour has failed to repair but at least it was aware of the problems. National was less aware back then.
   Consequently, we have not been as exposed to foreign financial woes as greatly as we could have been.
   All we need to do now is wake up to these basic facts. Among ourselves, we can keep trade moving. And I know we can do it. After all, we haven’t had much support from government for a while anyway, so we’re used to fixing our own problems.