Data: a dirty business?

On its front page, today’s Times wonders: “how a modest business that deals in simple treats for family parties could support the lifestyle of a couple who now feel able to commit themselves to sharing the costs of a royal wedding”.

 

The ‘news’ report ‘reveals’ that the Middletons’ business, Party Pieces, has been “collecting considerable amounts of data from its more than 230,000 customers, apparently for marketing purposes”. In a two page exposé, The Times presents “the largely unseen world of the mail order list trade” as if it were a shadowy underworld of ruthless operators and shady deals. Revelling in the opportunity to scatter emotive language throughout the piece (“reaping names”; “middleman”; “mailboxes choked with unsolicited items”), the report quotes extensively from a promotional article in Precision Marketing magazine from 10 years ago (how hard did they have to dig?).

Buried in the piece is the recognition that “offering lists of customers to direct marketing companies is perfectly legal, providing that businesses comply with the Data Protection Act”. Whilst the report notes that Party Pieces “chooses to let mothers opt out” (noting that “The Information Commissioner’s Office recommends letting customers opt in”), it makes no claim that the business is acting illegally. List broking is a perfectly valid and lawful business. Some people may not like it (the Data Protection Act exists to protect such people), but it is as legitimate a part of the marketing mix as the press advertising from which News International profits. But nothing must get in the way of a juicy story, complete with picture of overflowing letter box.

Would News International Limited ever resort to such allegedly shadowy tactics? Although their data protection notice confirms that they do not sell customer data to other companies, it does admit that “we will work with other companies for promotional purposes where readers may be asked to opt in for future contact from that specific partner. With your permission we will transfer that customer data to the third party at which point it will fall under their own privacy and security controls. Members of the News International group of companies cannot be held liable for subsequent issues arising from third party usage of transferred data.”

Companies working with other companies, sharing data with the consent of the individuals concerned, in order to make a profit: what on earth is wrong with that? Nothing, unless you have space to fill, and nothing better to say.

I have no connection with Party Pieces, nor with any person involved in or benefitting from the activities of that business.

Yes we can, but...

You have a vision. One that's really going to make a difference. You share it. You inspire great expectations. Many people, even your critics, are excited to see what impact you will have. People struggle to remember a time when they felt more hopeful.

Fast forward two years. You're frustrated that you haven't made progress as quickly as you had hoped. But you still believe in your vision. It's just that now you understand better what will be required to deliver it. You acknowledge that, on prime time TV's 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart':

Stewart: "You wouldn't say you would run this time as a pragmatist, you would not, it wouldn't be: 'Yes we can, given certain conditions...'"

Obama: "I think what I would say is: 'Yes we can, but...'[pause]"

Everyone: "Ha ha ha"

Obama: ...but it is not going to happen overnight".

Curse that slow delivery - in both senses. The prayers of commentators and columnists around the world with space to fill answered, with one pause.

Meanwhile, the mid-term jury may have returned its verdict, but we'll have to wait to see whether Obama's record in history will speak of transformation or ideas without substance.

Any successful enterprise achieves a balance of vision and pragmatism. I have just one question for those who delight in the cheap shot: what is wrong with having a vision and acknowledging what it will take to deliver it? 

For God's sake, Sir: make a decision

"For God's sake, Sir: make a decision, right or wrong".

A friend who was a Major in the British Army told me that this is the mantra of the soldier. Indecision means that there are no orders. Without orders there is inertia. And inertia results in the loss of the battle.

In some settings this philosophy is absolutely appropriate. In the face of an advancing enemy or terrorist threat, decision makers have to think and act quickly. But every effective organisation, whether military, commercial or philanthropic, makes decisions in the context of a considered strategy.

Too many business decision makers use the threat of a metaphorical advancing enemy to justify knee-jerk reactions. There is a certain machismo associated with crisis management, packed schedules and conflicting priorities: an implication that leaders and managers simply cannot afford the luxury of reflection. And so they lurch from crisis to crisis, secure in the knowledge that they are indispensable to the survival and 'smooth running' of the operation. 

There is a better way. Once in a while, leave your laptop in your bag and look out of the window on your train journey. When faced with a business dilemma, go for a walk. When you are struggling to decide between two courses of action, talk to a colleague who is not directly involved. Stop attending the least productive meeting of the week and use the time to read an article about a subject that interests you. Stop. Think. Then act: in a considered and purposeful way, consistent with your strategy.

That is the spirit of this blog: a place where I will take time to reflect on issues, choices and approaches, with the aim that my work will be all the more effective and useful as a result. I hope that it will stimulate and add to your thinking also.

STOP.THINK.START