Kate Phizackerley Means Business

I spoke too soon. Implementation is coming it has been announced!

The Equality Act 2010 was scheduled to come into force in October 2010. It needs enabling regulations and there are increasing rumours that those are delayed, perhaps indefinitely. Whatever one feels about the act, uncertainty is unhelpful. Personally I welcome the consolidation that makes it easier to follow and removes the irritating differences between equality heads. I dislike some of the detail.

Hopefully we will get a clear announcement before Parliament rises for the summer.

I keep saying I will read the new Equality Act in full but haven't yet found time.  Last week I did a pro bono paper for a pension scheme and had occasion to review the pensions clauses in the Equality Act 2010, sections 61 thru' 63.  I knew there was a non-discrimination rule and had assumed it was drafted in terms of benefits.  It's not.  Section 61(2) reads:

A non-discrimination rule is a provision by virtue of which a responsible person (A)—
(a) must not discriminate against another person (B) in carrying out any of A’s functions in relation to the scheme;
(b) must not, in relation to the scheme, harass B;
(c) must not, in relation to the scheme, victimise B.

That means the obligation not to discriminate applies to the whole management of the scheme.  The drafting of a) is slightly less clear than I would have liked as it may only refer to direct discrimination, although one would have expected it to refer to indirect discrimination as well.  I suspect it may take time for Trustees to understand how it might impact on, for instance, their communication strategies.  In large schemes, should there be recorded versions of the booklet for deaf members for instance rather than just relying on printed material? 
 

Not sure how I missed it before, but there's a new acronym people are using:

GRC = Governance, Risk management and Compliance

It may come in handy here too since I discuss all of those topics.

I'm quiet here because most of my efforts are directed at building an online Ancient Egypt magazine, which we are calling Egyptological Online. As part of the project, I have included an "how we built Egyptological" blog. There are four reasons for that:

1. As part of our project governance we have identified the need for strong supporting documentation.  Publication encourages documentation which is written to a high standard.
   
2. Our project is a community magazine and is written on open source software (WordPress).  Publication is consistent with that philosophy.
   
3. Despite the proliferation of magazine-style themes for WordPress, most are designed only to support a river of posts more like a blog.  Support for editions isn't available in most themes.  We suspect that we will be approached and asked how we have built the magazine and whether we could help somebody launch a magazine on another topic.  Publication of or development notes means we can direct people to the blog rather than answer dozens of questions.
   
4. Content equals traffic.  Search engines love links and traffic.  Unless a matter is confidential, it makes sense to publish it.

The latest post is a practical example of how we have approached risk assessment.  (A warning though.  As this post was written (February 15th, 2010), Egyptological is still very much under development.  There are still a lot of test posts rather than final content and the design is still only 60% complete.  That shouldn't detract you from reading a good example of risk assessment in practice, but please don't expect to see a finished site.  If you are reading this sometime later, then the site should hopefully be finished!)

10 years ago I said the skill people needed when entering the business market was design ability. The new PC publishing packages had placed content publication into the hands of all but most lacked the design skills to differentiate their message.

That remains the case. Those instinctively capable of putting together the best visual presentation or advert are natural winners. It's something seen every week on TV's Apprentice.

I was wrong in part, however. Since few people possess great design skills, incumbents protected themselves by making design a specialist, backroom activity. In that way assistance could be hired but bounds set so those assistants couldn't out-compete existing leaders. The change I predicted will happen and is continuing to happen, but more slowly As the next generation takes over, I believe that those with superior design and presentation skills will have a material advantage.

Since the 50's the marketing psychologists have dominated. It perhaps reached it's zenith in the 90's in a world of spin, house-staging by realtors, and supermarkets using the choice of background music and even olfactory clues to influence buying behaviour.

I see a new skill set coming to the fore and supplanting marketing psychology. It's the skill right now I'd recommend to those entering business in the way I recommended design skills a decade ago. What is that skill? Anthropology.

There's been talk of tribes, or more properly neo-tribes, within marketing for a couple of years now It was popularised by Seth Godin but the ideas had been circulating well before Seth's book, Tribes. I've instinctively been using those skills. My News from the Valley of the Kings blog has encouraged reader contributions and comment and, rather than merely being a single voice (mine), has taken on some attributes of a neo-tribe. A friend and I are intending to take the concept further and build a whole online magazine supported by a tribe.  (See http://egyptological.wordpress.com/)  It seems totally natural. As editors we'll set some boundaries (essentially defining quality threshold s) to maintain community cohesion and enrol volunteer support. Within that platform it'll evolve flexibly around the dynamics of the tribe.

In a business sense, flexible evolution of products, brands and projects is the stuff of nightmares in cultures where the emphasis has been on control. Allowing the customer base to participate in, and even direct, the evolution of commercial offerings is challenging. It appears to be unwanted, and hard to control, democratisation.

In a commercial setting it cannot be, of course. That evolution must be shaped. Understanding and controlling, or at least influencing, the evolution requires the application of anthropological principles and theories, what I would dub neo-anthropology.

There is more, of course. Right now the hot new thinking is about creating and unleashing the power of tribes. But what happens once your competitors have built tribes? How should your tribe compete with them?

America will be seeing such a battle on TV in the next year when Simon Cowell brings X Factor to American screens to compete against the incumbent American Idol. I predict the winner is clear. Reality TV competitions succeed by fostering viewer engagement in a tribal effect. Simply put, X Factor deepens that level of engagement. In the UK, X Factor has become that must-know show for social engagement. While screened, a very common opening social gambit when networking were questions like, "Do you hate Jedward?" (Jedward referred to twins taking part in the 2009 season.)

More controversially, is it possible to subvert your competitors' tribes? Suppose a radio station has built itself around a tribal following - as many radio stations have. The tribe may have an expected style of both music and commentary. In traditional marketing, a competing radio station would attempt to offer something alternative. But what if a competitor's tribe could be manipulated, maybe to change the socio-economic background of the tribe to emphasise a less affluent membership? For instance could the base be manipulated towards school students and away from young wage earners?

I believe unleashing and manipulating the power of tribes will be the differentiator in marketing over the next couple of decades.