FOR HUNDREDS of years, powerful sales and marketing people have been pushing products and services at customers. Possibly even thousands of years.

Digital Business insights CEO John Sheridan.

Then along came Google. And changed the game.

"Push" moved to "pull".

All those millions and billions and trillions of dollars invested in "push" and suddenly it doesn't work any more. Not in the way it used to.

When I say suddenly, I mean in a major historical revolutionary sense, so I actually mean about two decades in a couple of hundred years worth of revolution - the digital revolution.

But the impact is already plain to see.

Google is the customer's best friend. And Google is the vendor's best friend.

It costs something to be Google's friend if you are a vendor, but the rewards are more than worth the investment and totally justify Google's current share price.

Will anything much come from the effort being poured into other customer relationship tools?

Email marketing is still worth your time and investment.

Email marketing targets your existing customers. And Google picks up anybody new looking for whatever you might sell.

Email for the already engaged and Google for leads generation. What else do you need?

Not a lot. This is the main game at this stage.

But talk to your customers and see if the 20% that generate 80% of your income would prefer anything else, or would like to use any other platforms and channels for engagement with you. They are important to your business bottom line, so listen to what they say.

If so, give them what they want - Blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Podcasts, whatever. But be very clear that in general Google and Email should dominate your ROI.

It is not difficult.

If you run events, expos or workshops, or you are a celebrity, then add Twitter to the mix. But otherwise don't bother.

Remember, 92% of people don't look at online adverts. And only a miniscule number actually click to find out more. If you own one of the very small number of websites that has hundreds of thousands of visitors every day, then you can play the numbers game.

If not, you have to get smart. Use the tools that work. And use the tools that you know work for you and your business. Don't guess. Find out.

Then spend your funds wisely.

- John Sheridan, December 2013.

John Sheridan is CEO of Digital Business insights, an organisation based in Brisbane, Australia, which focuses on helping organisations and communities adapt to, and flourish in, the new digital world. He is the author of Connecting the Dots and getting more out of the digital revolution. Digital Business insights has been researching and analysing the digital revolution for more than 12 years and has surveyed more than 50,000 businesses, conducting in-depth case study analysis on more than 350 organisations and digital entrepreneurs.

http://www.db-insights.com/

ends

IN ANY of our ICT surveys over the last 13 years, when we gathered responses from across Australia, NSW was behind just about everybody else.

Digital Business insights CEO Jphn Sheridan.

Certainly behind Victoria, which tends to come first in Australia. Then ACT, Queensland and WA. Then SA, and then NSW.

At first I didn't think much about it, but the results became consistent. Every time we did a national survey, NSW was behind the others.

So I finally accepted the information and started wondering why.

I looked at the national RDA websites for further insights. There are 55 of these across the country and they reflect the interests of businesses and other organisations in each region. You can look at the projects in each region and when I did, it was clear that ICT wasn't of huge interest in much of NSW with the exception of Newcastle and the Hunter, Northern Rivers and Central Coast.

I asked others if they had noticed the same thing. Interestingly, many vendors in the ICT industry had noticed a similar difference across Australia.

Organisations in NSW and especially Sydney were harder to engage with.

I spoke to CSIRO about its experience with the Innovation Series luncheons. Same again. Melbourne and Brisbane were more interested in innovation, audiences came earlier and stayed later to network and share.

Sydney audiences were smaller, came late and left early.

Interesting.

Sydney of course has a lot of ICT companies headquartered there. Most of the multinationals have national or regional offices with primarily a sales function in Australia. So even though there are a lot of them in NSW, they don't do much innovation in house.

That is done by the small startups in ICT. And Sydney has a lot of those. It's not all bad.

So it isn't lack of innovation and ideas, the problem seems to be at a different level.

Leadership? Victoria has had a focus on ICT for many years, with at one stage an IT Minister and even a government department.

So some state governments take IT and its productivity potential seriously.

That is when I began to wonder if years and years of corruption in NSW State Government was having an impact on the way businesses within the state operated.

Was the insider dealing, and the "jobs for the boys" and "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" and "it's not what you know, it's who you know" culture making people distrustful, secretive and selfish?

If so, that would begin to explain why organisations in NSW were lagging behind organisations in other states in collaboration, sharing and networking.

They simply didn't trust their government and that attitude had rubbed off onto other organisations and everything else.

In our research, NSW was behind other states not just in adoption and use of ICT, but in the more economically valuable territory of collaboration, cooperation and sharing at the local and regional level.

If people don't trust their governments, politicians, political parties, unions and leaders, then they simply refuse to engage. They don't see any point.

Unfortunately, this very reasonable, defensive attitude then becomes a barrier to new opportunity.

Because, the underlying currents of the digital revolution continue to connect things up, and encourage collaboration, cooperation and sharing.

And the currency is trust.

These are the all powerful tools for building economic strength, regional business collaboration and cultural value.

Just not in NSW. And especially not in Sydney.

Newcastle and the Hunter are different. And Northern NSW is much more collaborative.

Maybe when the current set of corruption enquiries is over, and when a few people have been sent to jail, then people might begin to believe things have finally changed.

It doesn't take much either way.

Across the planet we can see a clash of old and new world interests and attitudes promoted by the general thrust towards more access to information and the sharing of information. Google has let the genie out of the bottle. Wikileaks and Edward Snowden have fed it.

There is more transparency than ever before and far easier access to sources of information and insights. It is harder to tell lies and get away with it. Ask Christopher Pyne if that isn't the case.

The NSA has recently been pushed onto centre stage, into a bright spotlight of condemnation and universal concern. A by-product of that attention is a sharp drop in sales across the BRIC nations of Cisco products and services.

Countries and companies are quite reasonably asking questions about privacy and security and wondering who to trust. That concern is now being focused on all American ICT companies and services and inevitably will affect strategies and sales for many years to come. Possibly permanently.

Trust is an ephemeral thing. Hard to built up, easy to destroy. And the current government and judiciary in NSW have a problem on their hands.

Trust has gone. And distrust seems to be impacting the state at a largely hidden, fundamental level, affecting the attitude of businesses and organisations that operate there. Not a good thing. It's actually holding the state back from leveraging many of the benefits of the digital revolution.

Because nearly all of them rely on trust.

And without it there is only so far and so fast one can go.

- John Sheridan, December 2013.

John Sheridan is CEO of Digital Business insights, an organisation based in Brisbane, Australia, which focuses on helping organisations and communities adapt to, and flourish in, the new digital world. He is the author of Connecting the Dots and getting more out of the digital revolution. Digital Business insights has been researching and analysing the digital revolution for more than 12 years and has surveyed more than 50,000 businesses, conducting in-depth case study analysis on more than 350 organisations and digital entrepreneurs.

http://www.db-insights.com/

ends

A MEANS of exchange is simply a promise between two or more parties.

Digital Business insights CEO John Sheridan.

The modern form of exchange began roughly 400 years ago in Europe when banks started issuing notes in return for deposits. This meant that the banknote could be redeemed for gold or coins by anybody presenting it for payment. Over time all banks started issuing fixed denomination promissory notes and that is where we are today. Banknotes.

Typically, a banknote states, "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of whatever the value of the note." Most countries assign the responsibility for issuing banknotes to a central bank.

So the promise of the return for the note is backed by the central bank in each country. And the central bank and the promise in most cases is backed by law.

In countries where there is some distrust in the ability of the central bank to support the note, people tend to rely on US dollars, Swiss francs, Pounds Sterling and so on. These currencies are perceived to have more stable, reliable and intrinsic value than many others.

And if things get really uncertain, people transfer their notes into gold, diamonds or other precious metals.

It's pretty simple really.

Little or no trust = gold and jewels, and at the most catastrophic level, food.

More trust = big, reasonably stable economies and the currencies issued by their central banks.

The key word in all this is exchange. 

I have something that I can exchange without problem for goods and services, and it has a value that I understand.

There is always a risk. But the risk is mitigated when the whole economic system relies on the billions of promises that central banks effectively put on their notes or their electronic equivalents.

It is no longer about the absolute reality of the promise on the note, it is about the backing that central banks give to the notes. This makes them a means of exchange. Banknotes then have an exchange "rate" when they are moved from country to country.

So what is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is a means of exchange if two people or more agree that it is a means of exchange. With this agreement, Bitcoin becomes currency. But only for those people.

How Bitcoins are created, mined, their rarity, their security etc are all red herrings.

Even red herrings are a means of exchange if two or more people agree they are.

That is what barter is. That is what Bitcoin is. It is a Bartercoin.

That is the easy bit.

The hard bit is the universality of exchange and whether or not Bitcoin fits into the system or any system. And whether it needs to.

Exchange agreements are now universal. It has taken a long time for the world to evolve its current exchange system. And cowrie shells are no longer part of it. Not universally.

The risk with Bitcoin is simple. Bitcoin has no universal value. Bitcoin has no value.

The value exists only in a transaction where both parties agree a value and where both parties are in a position to enforce that value. There is no intrinsic value.

The risk to anybody is in acceptance of Bitcoin as a payment for goods and services. And the risk is all yours.

Bitcoin can be potentially useful where both parties already trust each other, are part of a existing collaboration of organisations but in different countries, or where one or both parties are involved in illegal activities, want to avoid scrutiny or taxation and can use muscle or threat to ensure fulfilment at some later stage.

The other factor that clouds the Bitcoin story is the current level of hype.

Here we go again. Yet another sophisticated digital pyramid scheme with a few bells and whistles thrown in. First in, you win. That is always the hook for the unwary.

The hype has arisen largely from the view by certain people that Bitcoin is a useful vehicle for speculation, which confuses the issue even further.

For speculators, it doesn't matter what Bitcoin is. If an investment can be made, value added and an exit completed, who cares? Exit is the key word here.

There is only a problem if the speculator can't get out.

But for the rest of us, normally when there is an exchange of currency for goods or services, there is agreement at the time of exchange, on the value.

Which is even true for Bitcoin of course.

But the value of Bitcoin currently fluctuates hugely and will continue to fluctuate up and down, and possibly even diminish and disappear altogether.

In that case, the promise (which is implicit in the currency, that it has an agreed value) will fall back on the parties using the currency to sort out.

So if Bitcoin is now worth nothing. Or very little. Do we still have an enforceable agreement? Note the word enforceable.

That question will be answered differently, by different players. For some (those with existing trust or muscle), the answer is yes. Nothing has changed.

But for others, it will be hard to enforce agreement in any court in any land.

Though, those with deep pockets will no doubt give it a try. And possibly even succeed, especially in the land of litigation. But for most of us, dream on.

So, as usual buyer beware.

The digital revolution has seen a number of hype driven booms and busts so far. Bitcoin is another. There will be more to come.

- John Sheridan, December 2013.

John Sheridan is CEO of Digital Business insights, an organisation based in Brisbane, Australia, which focuses on helping organisations and communities adapt to, and flourish in, the new digital world. He is the author of Connecting the Dots and getting more out of the digital revolution. Digital Business insights has been researching and analysing the digital revolution for more than 12 years and has surveyed more than 50,000 businesses, conducting in-depth case study analysis on more than 350 organisations and digital entrepreneurs.

http://www.db-insights.com/

ends

IN INDIA there is a proverb "The dogs may bark but the elephant moves on."

Digital Business insights CEO John Sheridan.

In Australia, we have a different version, ‘The Australian  newspaper barks, but the ABC moves on."

And The Australian barks, only because it is prodded by its owner.

"Right, the Labor Government has gone, now let's have a go at the ABC."

Every day we find new articles in The Australian, all questioning the management and leadership of the ABC, which happens to be our most valuable information asset, providing insights and support for Australian business and community services at a time of major digital disruption and radical change. Information that isn't easy to find elsewhere.

The dog barks but the elephant moves on.

The ABC is an unusual organisation and we are lucky to have it.

Like the BBC in the UK, it focuses on the key national and local issues of the day, providing useful insights and support for the many different sectors of our society. It is largely taken for granted, but without it there would be an enormous hole in our ability to grow and prosper meaningfully as a society.

Whereas The Australian is trapped in the past, and dedicated to attack anything that conflicts with the whims of its owner.

The bitterness of old age is apparent. And I don't mean The Australian , or the ABC.

The Australian no longer deserves its name. It should be called the American.

It is a sad outcome for a once great publishing house, as it struggles for readership and revenue, but continues to decline and fall. And I don't mean the ABC.

A newspaper media empire that once was powerful, responds too late to the digital revolution, fires its journalists, retains its commentators and becomes increasingly irrelevant as the internet continues to grow in leverage and power.

And of course I mean The Australian , not the ABC.

The Australian  is dying steadily and with good reason.

It is becoming increasingly irrelevant as the ABC becomes increasingly relevant.

And that is completely to do with the focus and commitment of leadership and management. One has it right and the other has it wrong.

Most of the newspaper commentators just don't have the time or resources to look into any subject in depth, so each weekly column, half page or full page is superficial, a quick opinion or a rewrite of something we've seen before.

Sometimes, the commentators are expected to write one, two or even three pieces for the paper and it shows.

Delivering opinion pieces, day after day, week after week. It is not easy.

Research takes time. Digging out the facts takes time. Talking to sources takes time. Finding good sources can take even longer. Thinking takes time and the commentators in The Australian, each with their handsome portrait in a box by their name, don't have that luxury.

So they just tell us what they think. Or what the owner thinks. And under that constant guidance, they have shifted their targets from Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd to climate change to carbon tax to the Labor Government and now to the ABC.

There are a few lucky staffers not forced to play the game, but most of them are, all at a time, when Australia needs even more and better real journalism, vision and insight, not quick, slick opinion.

Meanwhile the elephant doesn't react. It just moves on.

And delivers the goods. Far and wide. Across all media. By radio, TV, website and podcast.

To farmers, to households, to drivers, to students, to families, to businesses, community services, to the young and the old, overseas and at home. The ABC does a pretty good job really. Given the restrictions it operates under.

And all the while, that constant yapping and yelping in the background.

Jealousy, frustration, resentment, inadequacy, envy, admiration even, but ...

The elephant moves on.

- John Sheridan, December 2013.

John Sheridan is CEO of Digital Business insights, an organisation based in Brisbane, Australia, which focuses on helping organisations and communities adapt to, and flourish in, the new digital world. He is the author of Connecting the Dots and getting more out of the digital revolution. Digital Business insights has been researching and analysing the digital revolution for more than 12 years and has surveyed more than 50,000 businesses, conducting in-depth case study analysis on more than 350 organisations and digital entrepreneurs.

http://www.db-insights.com/

ends