Picture this. You are at a party. You casually mention a problem you’ve had with your computer. You were probably joking and laughed a little after you described the issue.

Before you know it, someone you barely know creeps up to your ear and whisper the words “you need a server” and then disappears before they ever really showed up… a bit like HD DVDs.

You are left confused and on your own with those words ringing in your ear.

On Monday you commence the week’s work on your small business by calling your computer person. You tell them you need a server. Some of your computer guys will rub their hands with glee and forward you a quote ASAP. Others will ask you why?

Do you know why you want a server?

Don’t feel bad, most people don’t even know what a server is, let alone what they’ll do with it.

And you know what? Neither do I. Of course technically I know what a server is and does, I just don’t know why small businesses would need one these days.

To some degree, this is a symptom of a broader problem — technology for technology’s sake. Look around you and ask yourself what your favourite technology does for you, why and how well.

Chances are you’ll find the things that do the best jobs are specialists, not generalists, and were purchased to solve a problem (as opposed to sitting in the corner to increase the overall shininess of your environment).

Whether a server is a specialist or a generalist tool is up to you and your budget. If you suspect the ghostly server-suggestion appeals as a general solution to a myriad of ills, think again. I mean that literally. Think about it again. Then ask your computer guy the question they should have asked you: “What do I need a server FOR?” If you don’t understand the answer, then chances are it isn’t going to solve any of YOUR problems.

Here’s one example for you. Many people are sold servers on the promise of “better backups”.

However, in the last two years the cost-effectiveness and availability of simple cloud-based data backup and file sharing has dramatically improved.

To extend the example a little further, I am using a $1,200 box to centrally store my data on a RAID (Redundant Array of Independent Disks). I have added to that an offsite backup strategy which incorporates an additional external hard disk to the value of round $300. I have a weekly backup process that I execute religiously. Obviously, I am not paying for technical support so for me this is a cost-effective solution.

However, using a product like SugarSync — one example of many such products — I could store all my data in the cloud for $250 a year. You can weigh up the pros and cons yourself, and beware there are cons. It may even sound expensive for something you can’t touch or ever actually own.

However, when you consider the lifespan of computing hardware, this is actually quite cheap. All hard disks and technology fail sooner or later. Based on the cost of the hardware I have now, the money I’ve spent is equivalent to a six year subscription with SugarSync and we’ve not even factored in Moore’s law yet. That is a good bet. I doubt any of my hardware will last that long. When my hardware does fail, I’ll have nothing tangible left and I’ll have to pay to have it disposed of.

I could go on, but you get the drift.

Server me once, shame on you, server me twice… bugger! I just realised what that guy at the party actually said.

David Moore has 25 years experience in the computer industry and is now Principle PC Hater at ihatemypc.com.au.

Photo: ladyb

I recently had the pleasure of joining a panel on the topic of innovation along with some really smart people such as Ben Crowe (Gemba), Rebecca Scott (Streat) and Ben Rennie (Uncluttered White Spaces). I don’t really think about innovation as much as I do about company culture. Rather than trying to innovate, I try to create an environment where innovation and creativity is a mere by-product of how we operate. However, the discussion got me thinking about innovation and creativity, and specifically the challenges larger organisations face in this area.

From my time working in and with large organisations, much of the thinking seemed to be dominated by protecting downside. Innovation normally means taking a risk, and given large businesses attract greater visibility than smaller companies like mine, the risk associated with going out on a limb is usually higher.

Small companies often have less to lose and hence we can take risks and try new things. This was brought home to me in a recent marketing campaign we tried. We publicised (and at time of writing are still running) a promotion called Undies Monday. The gist of the offer is that if you walk into any of our stores on a Monday in March in just your underwear, you will get any one product up to the value of $50 for free. The campaign has gone viral and generated a lot of buzz and awareness for us.

This post is not meant to debate whether Undies Monday is commercially sound or what benefit we get from it. That would be a marketing post, and regular readers of The Entrepreneurial Truth should know by now that my blog is more like a “dear diary” around lessons I am learning and personal reflections on my entrepreneurial journey. Rather, this experience has got me thinking about why we tend to be more creative and try more new and unusual things while other larger companies often struggle in this regard.

I have realised that there are always a hundred reasons why a company should not try something new. If I had gone to mag nation’s lawyers for sign off prior to starting Undies Monday, I am certain they would have strongly counselled me on all the things that could go wrong and scared me off doing it. After all, that is their job. However, this promotion took two days from conception to implementation. We knew there were risks, but we quickly weighed them up and said “let’s just do it”.

This doesn’t mean that you have to throw caution to the wind. I did run the idea past a bunch of trusted colleagues to get their take, but ultimately I trusted my own judgement on this. When it comes to big corporates, it is not as easy to replicate this single point of responsibility. There are often multiple stakeholders who are affected by the risks involved and, let’s face it, despite the best of planning, we all know that “shit happens”.

So it did with Undies Monday. Prior to launch we quickly added a term to say that you had to be over 18 to participate. The PR train wreck associated with being even remotely connected to promoting underage exhibitionism had me dry retching. We had many more people turn up for the first Monday, indicating that things would get out of hand in subsequent Mondays, so we had an honest dialogue with our fan base and, in a very transparent way, amended the terms and conditions to limit the numbers.

In other words, we responded and adapted to real-time learnings. I have come to realise that innovation and creativity are rarely about killer ideas, but more often connected to a cycle of trying, learning and adapting. Big companies don’t always reward this process. It is often about getting it right, which doesn’t bode well for allowing space to try, fail and try once again. If big companies simply protect downside and don’t “have a go”, they will never be able to gauge the success of those potential game changers.

The beauty of a smaller company is that the failures can often go unnoticed in the market. It allows us to foster a culture of asking for forgiveness rather than permission. How do we encourage this in larger companies?

This will be the subject of my next post — maintaining the magic when growing from small to big (I spend much of my time worrying about how mag nation will manage to maintain its cult following and its cool even if through growth it starts to be seen as a larger evil corporate).

For now, Undies Monday has reinforced for me that having a crack (pardon the pun) at something a little different can work wonders, if you are fully prepared to monitor and react. Most large companies are skilled at managing risk, but I am hard pressed to think of any innovation that has been devoid of risk.

Sahil Merchant is founder of mag nation. Follow him on twitter: @sahilmerchant. His launch post can be found here.

You might remember our post from October last year about the increasingly useless system of star ratings used on online content and shopping sites such as YouTube, eBay and Amazon (“Drowning in high-fives, star ratings used online could soon go under“).

The article identified the somewhat surprising phenomenon that the vast majority of people are too nice when rating things online, rendering aggregated user ratings virtually useless. It also suggested that YouTube was considering dumping the five-star rating system in favour of a straight thumbs up or down.

It seems that that day has almost arrived. In late January, YouTube offered users a sneak peak at what it describes as “one of the biggest redesigns in YouTube history”. In late February, it unveiled more of its new redesign, including a number of new features. While most attention was directed to the reworked playlist and comments organisation, also notable was the thumbs-up/thumbs-down rating system, in place of the old five-star system.

Can’t see the new layout? It’s opt-in only for now. We’ve ben using it for a few weeks and its a vastly improved YouTube experience. Head on over and check it out. You can always opt out and return to the trusty old YouTube layout you’re used to.

Your clients are morons.

For most of you, that’s probably not telling you anything you don’t already know.

But I was reading someone’s blog the other day (I’m not not naming them out of politeness… I just can’t remember who it was… if it was you — well, you’ll probably be pleased I have forgotten!) and they were talking about determining what information products are best for your clients… and therein I read the offending sentence:

“The best way to find out is to ask them.”

What a load of crap.

The reason they’re your clients in the first place is that they know less about your subject matter than you do.

If I surveyed my clients and asked them what kind of Information Product they’d like me to build for them, what are they going to say? They’re limited by how much they already know about the subject.

I once had someone say to me that they knew Information Products and telesales wouldn’t work in their industry because they’d surveyed their clients and their clients said no. On further digging, it turns out the questions went something like this:

“Would you like us to call you up on the phone and sell you some information products?”

Of course they’re going to say they’re not going to buy. What value is there in that statement?

Hey! Do you want me to call you so you can spend $1,000 on a bunch of unspecified stuff that may or may not have any relevance to you? No?? Awwww …. Come on!

People tell me all the time that they hate and will never buy from long copy — and then proceed to spend thousands of dollars with us via, you guessed it, long copy. It’s not that they are dirty rotten liars. It’s just that… well…

Henry Ford once said, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

Fact is, your clients need you. They need your expertise. They need you to lead them. And the only opinion that matters is the opinion they express with their credit cards.

People aren’t very clever. And people en masse are even less clever.

Um, not you guys, of course.

As a group you’re highly intelligent.

And very good looking.

Leela Cosgrove is Managing Director of Business Writers Anonymous, focused on sales, marketing and business development. She is also a firewalker, has a black-belt in Tae Kwon Do, a penchant for tattoos, and enjoys bands such as Rammstein, Li Bach, Marilyn Manson, Pennywise and Bad Religion.

One of the few things that I still miss about Anthill Magazine’s print publishing origins was a regular section that simply featured a large illustration or collage of images used to articulate the unconventional musings of Anthill blogger and serial entrepreneur Steve Sammartino. The section was affectionately called Creative Espresso.

In the online world, it seems there is not much demand for large graphics of this nature, despite their effectiveness at explaining an often complex message or set of principles. We know this because we measure traffic with the obsessive zeal of a quantity surveyor on speed.

That’s why I was pleased to stumble across the following chart from the clever comms minds at ParkYoung, a public relations agency with an obvious penchant for digital media.

The chart is called the ‘Four Models of Communication’, devised to explain communication trends that have emerged largely as a result of new technology and social media.

Firstly, it’s worth magnifying and checking out in detail. Secondly, given Trevor Young’s prescient understanding of new media, I’m hoping that it signals a return to the big graphic!

So, where does your company appear on ParkYoung’s big graphic?

A privately initiated discussion has been gaining some momentum on the Anthill LinkedIn Group over the past week.

The discussion was triggered by an announcement from the Office of Senator Kim Carr, Australia’s Minister for Innovation, pertaining to the selection of Commercialisation Australian board members.

The reason why the appointment is likely to be of interest to Australian entrepreneurs, therefore prompting the discussion, is because it will be the role of these board members to analyse and approve Commercialisation Australia funding applications.

This is something that we have talked about in the past (before the announcement was made). On 8 February, we made the following comments, as part of a post titled, Would you like to be CEO of Commercialisation Australia?

While it is unclear how this board will operate at a functional level, it is obvious that the choice of these ‘decision-makers’ will be critical to the program’s success. We can only assume that it will be populated to reflect a range of industry backgrounds.

But just imagine how hard the job of the ‘biotech guy/gal’ on the board is likely to be – assessing a range of applications from the diverse and complex biotech sector.

We can only hope (once again) that the seven appointees will not purely be extracted from the halls of academia.

In the Anthill offices, we are currently running a ‘book’ on the likely number of private sector appointees. We’ll let you know which lucky Anthill employee picked the ratio of experienced business builders to public sector board members.

Our interest in the matter also prompted a note from the Minister’s Office, which we posted in full on Tuesday of this week, clarifying some points and answering some of our questions. The response and full list of appointees can be found here.

The LinkedIn Discussion

The discussion was triggered by Harold Dimpel, Founder and CEO of mHITs, under the headline No entrepreneurs on new Commercialisation Australia board. His initial comments are below:

Interestingly, from the members, it does not look like any of them are hard core entrepreneurs, experienced in the woes, ups and downs of building a start-up. Funny, I would have thought that start-up experience would be essential for a board position like this. I am concerned that the CA grant approval process will be run by bureaucrats.

The full thread of comments is an interesting one and worth checking out. It highlights the cynicism of many entrepreneurs toward government initiatives:

“Anything with a name as grand and as meaningless as Commercialisation Australia is doomed to fail. The Hitler clip says it all. Commercialisation Australia is intended by Rudd to siphon industry money off to his friends in the academic sector – it has absolutely nothing to do with industry, commercialisation or innovation.”
Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Medicine at Flinders University

It extracts some astute points about why entrepreneurs are rarely appointed to government roles:

“This inititative to me looks like a very good one. I think it has real potential. My observation over the years however is that true entrepreneurs are rarely sought out to assist with such Governement Initiatives. We’re usually in the trenches and too hard to find. Those with academic and larger corporate backgrounds (who schmooze in Government circles moore than we do) tend to look better on paper. Works better for the spin. Where it can fall down, as Harold points out, is that the real and practical entrepreneurial experience and skills of the board members looks rather lightweight…but good on paper!”
Peter J Cahill, Managing Director at Domain Hill Property Group Pty Ltd

It features some helpful reports from entrepreneurs engaged in the CA process:

“As a post DIISR meeting comment to my entry above, not considering myself a lightweight in the entrepreneurial field and then combined with a low expectation of the outcome of the meeting – saying i was pleasantly surprised by the calibre, capability and attitude of the ‘government’ people around the table would be a gross understatement. It was wonderfully engaging – with results to come.”
Jeff Swingler, Director at Infracap & Managing Director at Sondei

And, of courses, it raises that old chestnut about whether government should be involved in innovation in the first place:

“Their job is/should be GOOD progressive legislation to support the efficient allocation of capital, (ie private investment gets the same tax breaks/incentives as corporate investment, how radical?!), good laws and ’safety nets’ to support entrepreneurs who fail, and support for commercialisation and entrepreneurship education.”
Peter Christo, Managing Director at Global Reviews Services Pty Ltd.

However, the comment I found most intriguing was presented by Steven Howard, a strategist and author. He says…

Another point — not a marketing person amongst the lot!

Does the government not understand that true commercialisation requires astute marketing, not just IP licensing, fund managment, and ivory tower experience in throwing other people’s money at new ventures?

There is a dire lack of marketing expertise in our corporate boardrooms. Now this is being mirrored in the government’s Commercialisation Board. I guess it was too much to hope that the government would get right what our businesses don’t.

It’s a strident declaration of perhaps the obvious. But one worth some real consideration.

And here’s why

In June 2008, I attended a book launch for Measured Success, edited by Peter Cebon of the Melbourne Business School.

The book itself is very informed and successfully highlights the main problems associated with innovation in Australia through case studies and commentary from experts.

In particular (pay close attention now), it makes the critical observation that innovative companies tend to focus either on the technology (the solution to the problem they’re trying to solve) or the market (what the market actually wants and how to reach that market).

It won’t come as a surprise that of the companies profiled those that focused on the market were more likely to be successful than those fixated on the technology.

According to the clarifying note we recieved from the Office of Senator Carr:

“The six members were chosen for their extensive skills, experience, knowledge and grasp of Commercialisation Australia’s goals. Three of the six board members are women. Three are from NSW, two from Victoria and one (the chair) is from Queensland. This reflects the general geographical spread of the expressions of interest received.”

And, indeed, they are an impressive lot. But here’s my question:

Does it take a great technologist or a great marketer to make a successful business?

After reading Matthew da Silva’s post yesteday on last month’s Media 2010 conference, I spent the evening thinking about the challenges facing old media. As I pondered, I was struck by a radical (yet logical) series of thoughts, leading to the following question. Could small business owners soon become the new media barons? Let me explain.

If there is one thing that the media industry has taught us over the past century it’s that it pays to ‘own’ the audience.

Many of our modern newspapers once held nothing other than advertisements. Of course, clever proprietors began to realise that an interesting story or two might entice more readers… to look at the ads.

As a consequence, modern journalism was born:

A device to get more people to look at the ads.

This is a slightly cynical observation and, of course, the model has never been that simple. Some media products do exist on a pure subscription, user-pays model. There are also vanity publishers, who are happy to publish media at a loss, to pursue a social cause or personal agenda.

But these are usually the exceptions to the rule and most definitely not the case with contemporary newspapers, which are largely built on classified advertising sales (one of the first types of advertising to make the exodus to online).

This begs the following extended question:

If journalism exists to support advertisers, what happens when these advertisers find more cost effective alternatives to reach their markets? What is the purpose of a journalist then?

The conventional wisdom (usually the least accurate type of wisdom) is that the purpose of the journalist is to inform and educate and ask hard questions that need to be asked.

Sadly, no. Without undermining the important role of journalists, what I have described above is a ‘job description’. (And it’s a bloody important job, at that.)

However, the commercial purpose of journalism has not changed.

It’s still to sell ads (i.e. attract the attention of consumers), even if this answer might leave your average journalist turning slightly pale before reaching for the job section of the newspaper – or, more likely, switching on their laptop to start browsing the job sites online.

To me, the future of journalism can be found within the answer of another question:

Who profits most from owning the news?

In the media and marketing landscape we are now familiar with (and have grown accustomed to over decades), the media industry obviously has the most to gain from owning the news and, therefore, the eyeballs of consumers.

This is because, for the last hundred years, extraordinarily large amounts of profit could be made from selling advertising space due to the limited number of ways that were available for advertisers to reach their audiences.

The model was simple:

Acquire the attention of consumers. Then rent it.

In the 21^st century, however, a seemingly limitless number of ways have evolved to reach a prospective customer or communicate a specific message to a pre-defined audience.

The money to be made by media companies from owning the news and renting the attention of consumers has just about dried up. It’s no longer the cash cow it once was.

So, if media companies no longer have so much to gain from owning the news, who does?

Advertisers as Renters

The answer reverts back to the concept of advertisers as ‘renters’.

In the past, a marketer could prepare an advertising campaign and be quite confident of reaching possibly millions of largely undistracted eyeballs.

The shot-gun marketing approach was an efficient marketing mechanism for many years because the value generated would exceed the cost of the exercise (we can only assume).

Nowadays, the same sort of blanket approach is, firstly, not going to reach as many undistracted eyeballs but, secondly, the target market may in fact resent the advertiser for employing a style of advertising often now referred to as ‘interruption’ marketing (thanks to the wit and wisdom of Seth Godin and others).

Further, the ‘renter’ mindset can often undermine the quality of marketing, in terms of the message and approach.

If you rent a car, you often don’t worry too much about its re-sale value. If you rent an apartment, the same type of thinking usually also applies.

If you ‘rent’ access to another organisation’s audience, you might not think too deeply about the repercussions of the exercise on the audience’s perception of you or the media outlet – you might not mind playing the same advertisement ad nauseam during every end change of a televised tennis match, even if your commercial drives most viewers to tears.

You’re probably just happy to get your message across (again and again).

But what happens when you buy that car or that house? Suddenly, you’re likely to apply a great deal more thought to your actions, to the future value of your ‘asset’.

We all know it’s better to own. So, why rent?

Advertisers as Owners

The cost of establishing a media outlet is diminishing.

In fact, all you need these days to launch an online news site is a server and an open source blog platform, likely to set you back a couple thousand dollars. (Plus, an opinion, of course.)

But what if you are a medium or large organisation, accustomed to spending $500,000 (or more) a year on advertising?

For example, what if you were responsible for running a hypothetical company created to sell solar panels and you already have a budget like this to spend?

You could consider these two options:

1. Place advertising in targeted magazines, on television, billboards and radio.
2. Employ and place one journalist in Canberra, one in Copenhagen, one at your HQ and become Australia’s most engaged and heavily resourced media outlet for news on the environment and clean technology.

No other Australian media outlet invests this much talent to cover either of these topics over the course of a year.

If you play your cards right, who is not to say that your news outlet will not dominate its target market – be cited, quoted, aggregated – and attract far more goodwill and customers to your website (or business the outlet was created to support in the first place) than an obvious spend on TV, radio, print media?

Of course, I know what you’re thinking.

This raises questions about journalistic independence and bias.

Bias in Demand Media

Can a privately owned company really be expected to present news without interference from management? Will the news organisation report information likely to have a negative effect on the parent company’s products or services?

Firstly, you’d be a mug to think that this sort of interference doesn’t already happen now – that company policies and the views of management don’t already influence reporting (even in the context of public broadcasters such as the ABC).

Secondly, I’d like to make the bold claim that news outlets hosted on the internet are held to an even higher level of accountability than traditional media outlets, simply due to the low tolerance for poorly reported or overly biased opinion on the web combined with the mechanisms available to quickly unearth a lie or hidden motive and then share the discovery. It’s often said:

Online… nothing is wrong for long.

A private company seeking to present itself as a ‘new media’ news outlet has a vested interest in providing news that aspires to the standards set by ‘old media’ or risk losing the goodwill and the audience that it created the news outlet to attract in the first place.

An abuse of trust on the internet has far greater reach and longevity than on any other medium – now, in the future and at any other time in the history of news and marketing.

And, of course, channels that ‘own’ an audience (rather than ‘rent’) are far more likely to treat that audience with respect, when it comes to marketing to that audience and keeping the boundaries between editorial and advertising clear.

So, who will own the media?

Media will always be run by the organisations with the greatest amount to gain. Traditional media organisations are losing their reason for being, as advertisers find other ways to engage with their target audiences.

The likely next evolution in media ownership will occur when marketers realise that audience attention is not just for renting – when a shift in thinking takes place that compels marketers to aspire to ‘own’ access to their target audiences.

The commercial purpose of journalists will still be the same (to get people to look at ads). Their job description will, thankfully, also not change (to ask the hard questions that need to be asked). The same high standards will be pursued, poor journalism will be challenged and abuses of trust will be punished.

But a greater level of respect will emerge, for the reader and for the marketer. Because renters might be content to treat their ‘rentals’ with disrespect. Owners aren’t.

In my previous post I explored the crucial business need for supplier and support provider transparency and began the tale of a small business owner I had met, for whom this certainly wasn’t the case…

So as I had promised, I drove out to George’s offices near Parramatta in Sydney.

He asked me to come out about an hour before the others were due so that I could look around and ask any questions I needed to ask.

The business was an import/distribution operation with a reasonable turnover and after a look around I sat down with him and asked what he’d spent on technology during the past twelve months: I kind of expected the answer I got which was, “We think it’s around $450,000, give or take a little.”

So I asked, “What comprises this number? To be honest, this sounds a little light based on what I’ve seen around the place.”

George called in one of his beanies and got him to go through the details.

As he worked his way through the figures, I could see that a lot of the costs that I would consider to be technology related were seen as operating or finance costs and weren’t being included. Once we added all of them back, even allowing for the fact that the beanie didn’t agree with the reclassification of the expenses, we came up with a total of nearly $800,000.

George nearly fell off his chair. And the beanie began to turn an unexpected, if improbable, fire engine red — with gloss finish!

He coughed, spluttered, back-pedalled and delivered amazing excuses: Credit this, debit that, liability something else, below the EBIT line over there, management fees somewhere else, intercompany loans and so on.

I could see George starting to waver so I asked a very simple question to by-pass the jargon and drivel and get us back to the point of the discussion:

“How much did overall, aggregated technology expenses affect your Profit and Loss for the last twelve months.”

George turned to the beanie and just looked at him, waiting. Finally, the answer came back. “About eight hundred thousand.”

I turned to George and said, “That’s the number you need to reduce and if your support guy and your vendor don’t want to help you achieve that, then get rid of them and get someone who will.”

George was pretty shocked at this point. Technology costs were buried in various operational and sales budgets, and lumped into categories that (strictly speaking) were correct, but, didn’t help the business see clearly what it was spending.

I said to George, “You need to get that number down by about $350,000 over the next twelve months. Now you might not get there, but you need to have a budgetary target that you’re all working towards. So who manages technology for you internally?”

George turned and looked at the beanie again.

I nodded slowly and asked, “Did you hire him to be a finance guy or a technology guy?”

“Finance, why?” he replied.

“You wouldn’t hire a blacksmith to do joinery, so why hire an accountant to do technology?”

Just then George’s phone rang. It was the support guy and the reseller. The preliminaries were over, it was time for the main event.

George said, “We’ll meet with them in the Board Room.”

The 1% Spend is written by a prominent Australian I.T. consultant who is choosing to remain anonymous (and candid).

Illustration: Mike “Dakinewavamon” Kline

Following our recent series of articles on innovation in Australia (our Australia Day series) and namely my post Would you like to be CEO of Commercialisation Australia?, I recently received the following note from the Office of Senator Kim Carr, Australia’s Innovation Minister, featuring some clarifications and updates. With permission, we have republished the note below.

Commercialisation Australia CEO appointment process

The position of Chief Executive Officer was advertised nationally in the following publications:

• Australian Public Service Gazette on Thursday, 10 December 2009
• Australian Financial Review on Friday, 11 December 2009
• The Australian on Saturday, 12 December 2009
• DIISR website 9 December 2009 to 8 January 2010.

Applications closed on 8 January 2010 and 51 applications were received. The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research is currently finalising the selection process.

Commercialisation Australia Board Composition and Appointment Process

On 21 October 2009, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research issued a media release announcing details of Commercialisation Australia’s funding elements and calling for nominations to the Commercialisation Australia board.

This was also advertised in the national press and on the department’s website. Nominees were invited to submit an expression of interest and their CV.

Nominations closed on 3 November 2009, and a total 234 expressions of interest were received.

On 9 February 2009 the Minister announced the membership of the board. The six members were chosen for their extensive skills, experience, knowledge and grasp of Commercialisation Australia’s goals.

Three of the six board members are women.

Three are from NSW, two from Victoria and one (the chair) is from Queensland. This reflects the general geographical spread of the expressions of interest received.

Members bring a breadth of commercialisation experience and industry knowledge to the board:

• The biotechnology and pharmaceuticals industries are well represented. Dr Susan Pond is the chairman and managing director of Johnson and Johnson Research Pty Ltd. Dr Pond has a distinguished medical and research career.
• The board’s chair, Dr Laurie Hammond has a background in ICT and is actively involved in investing in new ideas and technology through his incubator and investment companies.
• Bruce Whan has a background in engineering and technology innovation and is currently the director of Swinburne Knowledge and the chair of INNOVIC.
• Ms Jan Bingley has a finance and accounting background and has strong experience in research commercialisation as the head of CSIRO’s Commercialisation and Equity Portfolio.
• Dr Katherine Woodthorpe is highly experienced in the venture capital industry and is the chief executive of AVCAL.
• Mr Nixon Apple has 25 years’ experience in investment, manufacturing and innovation through his membership of various boards, including those of Austrade (to which he was reappointed by both Coalition and Labor governments), AusIndustry, the Develop Australia Fund, the Superannuation Trust of Australia and Australian Super.

Functions of the Board

Board members will review funding applications, provide advice to the department, and monitor the progress and efficiency of the Commercialisation Australia program.

The board will meet for the first time on 4 March 2010 to asses applications and as required thereafter.

The COMET Program

Funding for the COMET program is due to end on 30 June 2011 in accordance with provisions put in place by the previous Government.

Applications for assistance under the COMET program closed on 1 January 2010.

People seeking COMET-type support are now be able to apply for the Skills and Knowledge component of Commercialisation Australia.

In addition, they will have access to increased levels of funding for proof of concept and early stage commercialisation activities as well as being partnered with case managers who will guide applicants through the commercialisation process and link them with appropriate volunteer business mentors and specialist advice.

As COMET funding continues until 30 June 2011, there will be no change to entitlements to approved businesses already receiving COMET assistance, including requests for funding variations available under Tier 2 of the program.

Applications for COMET assistance received up until 31 December 2009 and subsequently approved for support will be funded through until 30 June 2011.

This means all COMET customers will receive assistance for activities completed before 30 June 2011.

All COMET customers will continue to receive the support and guidance of a business advisor.

We encourage Anthill readers to visit www.commercialisationaustralia.gov.au or call 13 22 56 for further information.

“My product is brand new! No one has ever done it quite like this before!”

Yeah riiiiiight. That would be total bullshit. Excuse me for being so blunt, but you see I’m allergic to crap!

Just like a bird regurgitates food to nourish its young, so businesses often try to synthesise and regurgitate what’s working about their competitors in order to replicate financial success. Instead, all they often do is miss the mark. The question is: why?

Yes, yes I hear you… you’re adamant that your business model is different. But is it really? Take a moment now to jump online and Google the products and services you sell. Does your offering still feel so unique, or is it starting to look suspiciously similar to others in the marketplace? (Denial isn’t a river in Egypt, by the way. That’s in up-state California, I believe).

The more crowded and accessible the global marketplace becomes, the more challenging it can be to uphold the unique selling points (USPs) responsible for your initial success. Once the USP of any business has been ‘cloned’ enough times, it becomes the norm. And once something is normal it fails to stand out, resulting in boundaries being pushed further and further in order to create any significant impact.

Whether knowingly or not, most businesses out there are spruiking the same messages over and over again and it’s because of this that consumers are disengaging and becoming harder to influence and connect with. In short, they’ve heard it all before. Hell, some of them feel like they’ve already been screwed over by someone just like you before. When this happens, even your most seductively-worded marketing materials are unlikely to sway them.

Simply put, it’s going to take more than ever before to capture the hearts and minds of your customers. If your business isn’t as unique as it could or even should be, there are ways around it. One of them is being more innovative in how you communicate your company’s intelligence to the larger market.

Included in your Modern Guide to Marketing should be market penetration via as various means as possible, including but not limited to one of my personal favourites, YouTube. Hell, it may even be your saviour in standing out from your competitors. I warn you, however, it does take time, energy and effort — and that’s precisely why most of your competitors haven’t bothered with it yet or utilised it to its full potential.

YouTube – Is it your saviour?

Post short, succinct videos that educate your target market about ways in which they can solve their problems. If you’re a consultant, teach them how they can boost their profit margins and improve their marketing. If you’re selling a product, educate them on how to use it (without directly selling it).

However, be careful to leave the self-promotion out (or keep it to a bare minimum) or they’ll click off and start watching some manic kid scream, “Leave Britney Alone!”

My YouTube videos have helped me convert many a client, from a $25 purchase of a book to speaking engagements worth thousands through to personal branding packages worth well over $4,000 each. It works when done well.

It is worth investing the time in a comprehensive online campaign, including video communications to tickle all of the senses. Just ensure that the spokesperson you put in front of the camera doesn’t look like a dog’s breakfast. YouTube is a visual medium and it’s important to understand that 55 percent of all communication is in fact visual. Screw this up and you’re more likely to do more damage than good.

The great news with video is that you can leverage it via your various online mediums. Add links from your personal signature and your email campaigns, embed the videos on your website, add them to your blog, post them on your Facebook page / group and of course promote them via your Twitter account.

145,000+ views and counting

It isn’t important how many people see your videos, but who sees it. One of my viral videos posted on YouTube some years ago now has been viewed over 145,000 times (click here to watch it). It did assist in converting some clients at its peak, however, there is nothing more powerful than having your prospects see it and potentially convert to clients as a result. Views can be a great ego boost, but sometimes that’s all they are.

Make it your goal to innovatively educate your prospects on a weekly basis, either via video tutorials, tips on Twitter and Facebook or through regular newsletter distribution.

This will not only demonstrate your businesses intellectual ability, it will help your prospects see how they could potentially employ the services of your organisation.

You never know, it may just be the one thing that prevents you looking like a regurgitation of your competitors.

Ben Angel’s book “Sleeping Your Way to The Top in Business” is available exclusively through his website www.benangel.com.au. For media, consulting and speaking enquiries, contact Ben directly at ben [at] benangel.com.au.

Last week, I was fortunate to be among a small group of people who attended Anthill’s Grant Funding by Design Masterclass, in partnership with Design Victoria. Indeed, my job was MC.

The half day workshop was largely coordinated by Adrian Spencer, occasional Anthill contributor and CEO of Grant Ready, and Mark Hull, Executive of KPMG’s R&D Incentives division.

The pair worked attendees through the complexities of grant raising – from grant identification to servicing the grant.

One aspect of the morning that I found particularly compelling was a 20 minute presentation by AusIndustry’s Samara Fitzgerald-Gelnay.

In addition to providing an extremely candid explanation of what grant assessors are looking for, she provided an extremely helpful document on the programs and grants available to growing, innovative Australian businesses through AusIndustry.

With some direction from Samara, that information is now available to Anthill readers (below).

Governments around the world have long regarded toxic products such as alcohol and tobacco as item on which they can raise taxes at regular intervals without being run out of office by an angry mob.

The argument is simple: these products are bad for your health and sustained abused places a costly burden on the public health system. So if you’re going to indulge in them, you will pay for the privilege.

Now, the Romanian government has extended that argument to include the consumption of fatty foods. Next month the Romanian Parliament will consider legislation that would place new taxes on many foods that contain high levels of fat and sugar.

Thomas Jefferson once said that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. However, in the case of Romania’s post-communist population, the price is also size 52 trousers. In stark contrast to the lean Eastern Bloc days, half of Romania’s population is now overweight. Apparently, a burger, fries and jumbo soda became the cherished trophies of Cold War liberation.

The ‘fat tax’ has been criticised as a “McFat Tax” by some commentators who point out that many traditional Romanian foods that are high in sugar and/or fat, such as kebabs, are exempt from the proposed tax. They were evidently deemed too politically ‘difficult’ to target.

With similar moves to tax fatty foods sweeping Europe, it may be just a matter of time before we all take annual federal and state government tax hikes on stodgy grub for granted.

Photo: alexik

In an Australian government first, the Victorian parliament has adopted Creative Commons (CC) licensing as its default licensing system for access to public sector information (PSI).

Not all information will be covered by CC licensing and the government has been advised by the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee to implement a hybrid scheme where restricted data will be covered by other licenses.  However, based upon evidence by provided by the GILF project, the Committee has proposed that around 85 percent of material could be appropriate for CC licensing.

Creative Commons Australia believes the most salient recommendations were:

• Recommendation 11: That the Victorian Government develop a consistent copyright licensing system for use across all government departments
• Recommendation 14: That the Victorian Government adopt the Creative Commons licensing model as the default licensing system for the Information Management Framework.
• Recommendation 15: That the Victorian Government adopt a hybrid public sector information licensing model comprising Creative Commons and a tailored suite of licences for restricted materials.

In a further move to showcase and endorse the Government’s dedication to information access and innovation, the Minister for Information and Communications Technology John Lenders has invited Victorian Innovators to compete for $100,000 and develop applications that make use of the new licensing system.

The online competition, entitled ‘App My State‘, is designed to encourage innovators to create applications that will benefit residents, visitors, businesses and government. Website, social networking and smart phone applications will be judged on “their innovation, design and development, usefulness, accessibility and general excellence.”

Just over one year ago, we wrote a post dedicated to our then new website.

We quoted TrickyTix CEO Scott Handsaker, which I’ve paraphrased below:

“If you’re not slightly embarrassed about your new web product when you launch, you’re too late.”

This week, we launched our 2010 website.

You’re seeing it now.

So, ok, it doesn’t have all the bells and whistles quite yet (and we’re pretty confident we haven’t ironed out all the bugs either). But we do promise, dear Anthillians, that you will be the first to notice its evolution over coming weeks and months.

For now, I’d like to point out the new links on our two-tiered navigation bar (above).

After watching and monitoring your interests for 12-months, we have settled on seven main categories, including the addition of ‘Anty-Climax‘ (dedicated to quirky and fun news stories). Depending the area of the site you’re in, you’ll also find popular ‘tags’, leading to highly specific topic areas, such as ‘Commercialisation Policy‘ or ‘Mobile Technology‘.

We’ve also made it far easier to meander and stumble across hidden treasures from the archive, entertaining and thought provoking videos and, of course, leave your views and converse with other readers.

We’ve added a number of social networking tools (and still have a few more up our sleeve). If you want to ‘Share’ Anthill or ‘Digg’ Anthill, you now can. In fact, please spread the word, perhaps by tweeting this post.

In coming weeks you can expect to see the launch of antMART (what’s a community without a general store, right?) and a range of developments to help our readers ‘Get Involved‘ and ‘Feed the Hill‘.

Plus, we’ll be adding many more new, Anthill-made videos for Anthill TV and our ever popular Beer O’Clock email. If you want us to keep you informed of our developments, we invite to subscribe to our email newsletter (if you haven’t already).

The site might not be the polished pearl just yet and some of the links might initially seem underpopulated. But don’t bother asking, “When will the site be finished?”

Because the simple answer is, “Never!”

Instead, keep the suggestions coming in. If you find a dead link or something just plain weird, let us know. For example, if you are the first to discover some hidden glitch and tell us below, we’ll even reward you with a free DVD – Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.

Earlier this week one of my clients exposed to me that she felt like a fraud as a business consultant. She can’t be the only one. Right?!

If you’ve never felt like a fraud then don’t even bother reading the rest of this article.

However, if you’re trying to fight off the fraud demon in your head with a stick, then you’ll probably want to read on.

Why?

Feeling like a fraud may be one of the reasons why you’re not attracting enough clients at the moment.

Right now, you’re deep in thought with the formidable picture I’m painting. Just for the hell of it, let’s see if I’m close at all to the way you feel from time to time when dealing with clients.

Ask yourself the following questions:

• Do you doubt your own abilities before going into a prospective client meeting?
• Do you sit and wonder as to whether or not you have what it really takes to get the results for your client?
• Do you cringe at the thought of people finding out who you really are? (Oh god, I hope you’re not Elvis!)

If the answer to any of the above is “yes”, then you’re suffering from a lack of self-confidence and ‘fake fraud syndrome’.

Ok, so I made the fraud syndrome up, but you have an unenviable task ahead of you.

Why? Because if you keep ‘deciding’ to feel the way that you do about your own skill set, then you’ll keep attracting mediocre clients that whinge and complain about paying their fees.

Anatomy of building your self-confidence as a business consultant

We are each energetic creatures. The moment you walk into a room you can tell if someone has been talking about you. It just feels different.

Right now you’re being whacked around by your own self-doubts and those self-doubts are being expressed energetically in each interaction you have with a prospect or an existing client.

Call it gut instinct. Call it intuition. Call it whatever you want, but your clients will pick up on it and start to question your abilities and there is no one else to blame but you.

How do you move on from this? Try these tips on for size:

1. Understand that timing is always perfect

We each attract particular individuals and clients into our lives when we most need them. I have found that a lot of my own clients have brought about realisations in my own life simply via the interactions I’ve had with them. They teach us as much as we teach them.

Simply put, you won’t convert clients that you aren’t ready to handle. Trust yourself, trust your ability and give it 110 percent all of the time.

2. Let Be and Let Go

I don’t believe that there is anyone in this world who has truly made it. I think that is completely unobtainable. We can all be better in various ways, but does that mean that we beat ourselves up if we aren’t where we want to be yet?

Absolutely not! If you were meant to be further ahead in your business or career than you are right now, you would be.

You’ve still got more to learn my little grasshopper before you move to the next step. Enjoy where you are right now and stop trying to fight against a natural progression in your careers journey.

3. Recognise where you’ve come from

A lot of people dismiss previous successes they’ve had in their careers. Make a list of all of your achievements to date — personal and work — and take stock of what you’ve achieved.

Look at the list and ask yourself honestly if you do or do not have what it truly takes to work with clients and feel good about yourself. If you still say that you don’t, then what is it going to take for you to feel better? Does it mean extra study, work experience or reading or research on the internet? Do whatever it takes.

Moving beyond

I’ve also felt like a fraud in different parts of my life. It hurts at the time and is distressing not only to you but to those around you who see your real potential.

Dive in the deep end when it comes to working with each of your clients. Worst case scenario, you won’t have an answer to one of their questions.

Here’s a thought: simply say to them, “Instead of giving you an answer I’m unsure of, let me do some research and I’ll get back to you and we can go from there.”

People would much prefer that you be honest than be a spin doctor. This approach will not only buy you extra time but you will have also earned the respect from your client.

Without truly addressing the way that you feel in relation to your work, limbo land is going to be your permanent residence. (I hear it’s cold there this time of year, oh and quite lonely!)

So, to answer my question, are business consultants a bunch of frauds? Hell yes and hell no. Which one are you?

As for my client, after much hard work she no longer feels like she did and clients have started chasing her instead of her chasing them.

Ben Angel is the author of the brand new controversial book, ‘Sleeping Your Way to The Top in Business — The Ultimate Guide to Attracting & Seducing More Customers’. Grab your copy today by visiting www.benangel.com.au