Are we acting in the public interest if we challenge the fairness of the system?

When an individual or a newspaper challenges some element of the system, that is "rocking the boat." It may reduce confidence in the system. Is it better to do that or to let it slide? We can tell ourselves that it is better to live in an imperfect system, than in one in which people have lost confidence.

Recently, The New York Times has two articles casting doubt on two elements of the legal system. It pointed out that in much of New York state, local courts were presided over by people with no legal training or even, it seems, common sense. As a result, there have been the most egregious miscarriages of justice, with innocent people being sent to jail on no evidence at all. Today, the paper pointed out that as judges across the country need larger and larger campaign contributions to win re-election, these campaign contributions are influencing judgements. It used the Ohio Supreme court as an example where judges are apparently siding with their contributors.

We can also doubt the democracy of the "first past the post" electoral system, the democracy of the Senate, where Montana has the same number of Senators as California, and the House of Representatives, where electoral districts have been so gerrymandered that few incumbents face a meaningful challenge. Are we better off being aware of that, or are we happier being in ignorance of the facts?

Are you not responsible if you do not read your emails?

It used to be said that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." I suppose that these days, not reading your email is sufficient reason to escape culpability.

The degree to which GM is out of touch is breathtaking. Is Wal-Mart next?

GM's management is intelligent, well educated, and dedicated. However, it operates in an insular world in which they have lost touch with the consumer. The fact is that GM is dead, but like a rotten tree, it looks solid on the outside. It even sprouts green leaves. They are likely to continue to circle the wagons and cut themselves off even more from outsiders. Bringing in an outsider may not be enough when the outsider has spent 37 years at one company - a company which does not deal with consumers at all.

In a similar fashion Wal-Mart is running in circles. The strengths which made it successful - the ability to bring low prices and wide variety to customers in C and D counties, rural ones, and its incredibly strong supply chain from retail stores back to its suppliers, have reached the point of diminishing returns. It has no skills in cultural sensitivity, so it has failed in Germany, Korea, is struggling in China (vs. Carrefour) and the UK (vs. Tesco). It is having difficulty dealing with market entry into the urban East and West Coast. its new committment to Organic Food and designer clothes may leave its existing customer behind, without winning customers from Target and Whole Foods. Its move from one store format to four is too little, too late. It is hiring 200 new marketing people, most of whom do not understand retail and will under-estimate the difficulty. Right now, they are optmistic, but there will be a culture clash, and the inevitable short-fall will be seized upon by old-timers to push out the newcomers. Just as once, people thought that A&P, and then Sears, were invincible, yet lost their market positions, so will Wal-Mart, which is now where Gm was 10-15 years ago, as it brought in many consumer marketers, and started acquiring luxury brands.

Private Equity and Turnaround Management firms do not often understand Brand Value

Most managers in Private Equity and Turnaround Management firms do not completely understand Brand Equity and how to manage it. Yet, it is an essential part of what they do since in many cases, the brand value can be more than tangible assets.

However, most marketers do not understand finances well enough to help.

"I don't know" - A powerful tool

I have never undertood why saying "I don't know" is such a difficult thing. However much I do know, there is much more which I do not. Admitting that I do not know, or do not know everything about the topic may result in learning something new. "I already know about that" is the phrase which will ensure that you never learn any more about it. So many of us get into trouble because we assume we know something, but do not know it well enough.

Many years ago, a major consulting firm's Brussels office carried out a three month investigation of the European market for hockey equipment. Only when the client arrives in Brussels for the presentation did everyone discover that the firm has investigated the market for field hockey (more common in Europe), whereas the client meant the ice hockey market!

Why would anyone believe what a politician says about an opponent?

I have always treated what any politician says about an opponent. Yet, time after time, we do see that negative advertising seems to work in politics. This is puzzling. If an advertisement says something negative about a competitor, I assume that this is self-serving and likely to be untrue or taken out of context. Politians are even more likely to do this, yet it seems to work. Given the scepticism with which politicians are viewed in general, this is astonishing.