We’ve all probably been at a party or in a pub where someone has said something nasty about another person, something invented in viciousness or through silly speculation, or repeated unthinkingly. Usually it’s harmless gossip and quickly forgotten, but if serious enough it could lead to a charge of defamation.  It’s even more serious if it’s made in a public or permanent medium, such as a letter, memo, email, book or broadcast.  We’ve all probably repeated some juicy bit of gossip ourselves, but we tend to be sensible enough to not do so in a public and recordable way.

Not so in the world of the internet, where outrageous allegations are made in chatrooms, message boards, blogs and comments.  I review every comment before it goes out on this website. I don’t censor critical  comments, but I have had to kill a couple because they were nasty, personal, and possibly libellous, attacks on someone.

Social media sites are notorious for such attacks, so I was pleased to see that an English judge has awarded damages to a victim of a defamatory attack on Facebook.  I’ve been concerned for some time by a common attitude amongst some web users that “anything goes,” using bogus arguments about freedom of speech and democratisation of communication. The laws of defamation exist for good reason, and the easy access to mass audiences afforded by the internet makes them more important than ever.

I’m looking forward to a tightening up on personal privacy rights too. The public does not have a right to know some stuff.

PS. Perhaps every introductory course on email and internet use should include a primer on basic social etiquette and ethics. Many businesses do that, but do schools, for example?

PPS. Don’t think you can hide behind false user names or anonymity.  Unless you’re technically very savvy, you leave your electronic fingerprints behind.  How do you think hackers get caught?

News out yesterday of a $130 laptop with quite reasonable specs (certainly on a par with PCs of a few years ago which we all know were perfectly adequate for most of us).  I can see these becoming the corporate standard desktop device, bought like calculators. Drive these with broadband links, an everyday cheap LCD screen, keyboard and cheap/free SaaS or Opensource applications and storage, and who’d want to be in the hardware business?  (I have no shares in computer hardware businesses, other than Apple and Cisco, which are two very different plays - cult and comms).

Or should that be too much milk in one jug? Fonterra, New Zealand’s leading company, has just announced that its exports now exceed one quarter of New Zealand’s’ total export earnings. I suggested some years ago that Fonterra could be New Zealand’s Nokia, so at first blush, this news seems like a ringing endorsement of Fonterra’s strategy and execution. But I think a strong note of caution is needed.

Fonterra is a cooperative company owned by most of the dairy farmers in New Zealand, and controls more than a third of global cross-border trade in dairy products (eg. butter, cheese, powders, food ingredients and even nutriceuticals). It doesn’t seem that long ago when the entire NZ dairy industry was less than 10% of the country’s exports, and the forerunner to Fonterra controlled only a few percent of cross-border trade.

This might sound churlish, but Fonterra has been in the right place at the right time, with global food demand increasing, especially from countries with new wealth. Credit is due that Fonterra has seized the opportunity to increase its market share and earnings, but its critics have argued that its cooperative structure means that the company has not delivered its full potential (both from capital raising and from tougher scrutiny of management).

From a national policy perspective, I doubt that the NZ government is thrilled to hear the news. The economy is very exposed if there is a serious dairy herd disease outbreak, or a collapse in dairy prices as world grain supplies shift out of ethanol production and back to food use. Successive governments have tried many (too many?) initiatives to stimulate other export industries, and indeed the country is full of small and medium scale innovative companies doing moderately well, even in difficult times. However, the global dairy price boom has meant that the country’s reliance on its primary industries is as strong as ever.

A country is not a company that should stick to a narrow range of competencies. It needs a diversified portfolio of companies onshore and offshore to earn its keep through the ups and downs that beset every country and industry. New Zealand needs to widen its portfolio.

(Created by Neil McAllister, spotted via Miramar Mike).

Update: Since posting this, I’ve been contacted by Neil McAllister who’s politely pointed out his restrictions on reproducing his artwork, so I’ve deleted all but the first panel (formatting may be wonky but keep on scrolling down). If you want to see the rest (and I recommend that you do), just click on this link. Let’s hope someone works with Neil to take Action Item to a wider audience.

I’m a fan of everyman economics writers, so I was all agog when Cactus Kate, an ex-pat investment and tax adviser in Hong Kong with a taste for fine Champagne and who writes a very unapologetic and un-PC weblog, decided to have a rant on “womanomics”. (NB. Don’t follow these links if you’re offended by the occasional four letter word and frank sexual comment).  Some unfortunate Italian Lothario, when after-dinner action was definitely on the cards, incurred her ire by suggesting she split the bill for dinner.  This inspired her to write two further articles: firstly on the economics of being a woman and why the bloke should always pay, and secondly why women should never shack up with men of less earning potential than themselves.

A word of advice to the guys: don’t even try making the argument that spending that much money on shoes isn’t for our benefit, or that most female fashion spending is about out-psyching other women.  You’ll just get (a) the argument that it’s all part of the competitive cost, (b) anyway, what do we we know, and (c) you’re in the dog-house for even debating the issue.  The outcome is the same - shut up and pay. As the girls might say, lie back and think of England.

UPDATE. By coincidence, The Times ran this today: “Do successful women scare men?”

My DON’T PANIC! piece on 14 July prompted some discussion last weekend about the current economic turmoil and the likelihood of companies getting into trouble.  I was asked what’s the most important thing to do once you’ve established that there is a mess and what to do about it. My answer was simple: “restore hope“.  I could have used other words like confidence or faith or belief or trust. The point is that you need to get the support of many people if the turnaround is going to work, and giving people hope is the first step in the journey to recovery.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not talking about pussy-footing around the harsh realities.  You need to be upfront and honest. But you have key constituencies who need to feel hopeful about what you’re doing:

The board: The first people that need to have hope that the business can be turned around. If you can’t convince them, you may need to replace them or give up.

The banks: Need to be certain that you will do an even better job of managing the situation than they could if they sent in the administrators. And they’ll need constant reassurance - setbacks spook them, and there will be setbacks.

Key staff: These are your core team, the ones you need to stick around to make things happen.  They’ll be vitally important in restoring hope in the rest of the organisation and outside.

The rest of the staff: Yes, even if massive redundancies are likely.  This might sound naive, but people respond better when they know what’s going on, why and that they will be treated fairly, that at least the business may survive and some jobs with it.  You also may need to persuade them to stick around because you’ll need some/many to operate the business going forward and you don’t want industrial unrest, personal grievance cases and unsought leavers if you can avoid them. They’ll also be important in keeping customers, suppliers and channels onside. I’ve sometimes had to lay off over half the staff in companies I’m turning around, which is hugely devastating to the organisation’s morale.  You’ve got to rebuild it quickly to get people energised about saving the business. And don’t forget that staff have families and friends both as influences and as informal communication channels to the wider world.  If the staff don’t have hope, then their personal networks will be even more negative.

Customers: This might sound bizarre but customers are often the easiest to restore hope in. They will be unsettled, but if you can assure them that the plan will work and their needs met, then it’s down to performance. (NB. Banks and their ilk are a special case when their customers get spooked).  Staff hope is vital in  restoring customer hope, which is why I mentioned it ahead of customers.

Suppliers and channels: Your suppliers and channels are businesses too.  They’ll want to know about continuity and about getting paid.  It’s a bit like customers - unsettling but performance will assuage their fears. Even if you are in receivership, they usually still want your custom, although payment terms may get somewhat harsher! Again your staff have a key role.

Shareholders:  A straightforward message of decisive action and progress should suffice.  Basically you need them off your back, so you and the team can get on with the job.  Use the board to run interference, although you will need to get involved with the powerful ones, especially if board changes are needed.

Communities: I’ve done a major restructuring of the largest employer in a small town.  You’ll have the local mayor, MP, councillors and media all over you, desperate for news and out to hang you.  They’re a bit like staff.  You can’t give them guarantees (especially if you’re closing down in their patch) but you can actually enlist their help in alleviating the problem. Getting them hopeful that some good can come out of the process (however small) can help keep them off your back.

This isn’t a simple process done once at the start.  It’s a continuous communication exercise, with setbacks and achievements along the way.   Of course the best way to restore hope is to get the tough stuff over and done quickly- preferably cut once and cut deep, if you can. That’s harder to do in a large complex organisatiom, but within each affected unit, you can still apply the principle. Restoring  and maintaining hope is vital - early on and all the way through.

Mike Riversdale, Enterprise 2.0 IT guy, made some common sense points on his website the other day:

... the chatter about “collaboration” one tends to hear now-a-days (and boy, isn’t there a lot) all centres around “on-line collaboration” … the use of the computer as the ultimate collaboration tool.  What a load of plop.

I sat with a fellow “on-line collaboration / community wrangler” a while ago and we both used pen and paper as our collaboration tools of choice. 

… when I talk with organisations about collaboration I always ask if they use whiteboards, meeting spaces or Scrum-type meetings to collaborate as they can be the most cost effective, most efficient and, let’s be honest, the easiest way to collaborate.

Mike ran an Enterprise 2.0 type project for me last year.  Most of his success came not from the technology deployed, but by good old fashioned simplicity and clarity in project management and communication.  Mike’s comments reminded me of Toyota’s production management systems - coloured lights, white boards, marker pens and magnetic buttons.  Yes, they use some sophisticated IT systems, but only when there’s no simpler alternative.

Here’s a good way to illustrate the point to your team (as deployed by one Dave Stringer in another change project I sponsored).  Most families these days grab breakfast on the run, amid the chaos of finding the right clothes, making lunches, and packing the right books and gear for school and work. How does the idea appeal of having enough time in the morning so that you can  sit down with all the family, eating a healthy and unrushed breakfast while talking to each other about the day ahead? What changes would you make to achieve that?

Invariably, people (especially engineers) start talking about home automation (especially in the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen), standardised meals, and other complexities.  The lo-tech answer: prepare stuff for tomorrow before you go to bed and get up a little earlier.  Obvious when you see it like that, but I can tell you that people fall into the technology trap nearly every time. (The one exception was one of my guys who had already made just those changes so he could always start the day talking with his wife and children while having a full English breakfast - he trained for his sport in the early evenings).

The aprocryphal NASA “space pen” vs Russian pencil story , as Mike and Snopes relate it, shows that we can waste much time, effort, and money on complex hi-tech solutions when simple, effective, inexpensive and quick solutions will do at least as well. As Mike says:

… when you next have a software vendor touting their latest and greatest collaboration software (which they may even sell as their “knowledge solution”, *shudder*) think about yellow stick it notes, white boards in prominent places and getting people to talk to each other.

Why pay for a pen when a pencil will do!

We’re going through a series of questions to prepare for selling a privately-owned business.  Okay, it’s time for some serious realism.   How attractive is your business, and, while we’re at it, what’s wrong with it? Tell me about its good and bad points.

We’ve all done SWOT analyses: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.  That’s all this is.  Just a word of caution though.  You need to be specific.  I’m fairly sceptical about many SWOT analyses.  For example, nearly every company lists one of its strengths as something along the lines that “we’ve got great people”.  Actually most companies have great people, because people are mostly great (I’m very uncynical about that) so where’s the strength here? What are we really talking about? Likewise, people can be both over-critical and under-aware about weaknesses (listing every minor thing that could be improved while ignoring big problems like weak people in key roles).

We can explore whether or not opportunities should be addressed before sale,  or promoted as part as part of the sale.

Threats are particularly important (e.g. being unable to renew a major contract or losing key staff). They increase the reasons to sell, but may also need addressing because they could scupper the sale. Say nothing?  I’m not a big fan of the bigger fool solution; i.e. that there’s a bigger fool than you who’ll buy that dog off you. You don’t think a business buyer isn’t as smart as you and not going through exactly the same analysis?  Far better to have fixed or minimised the problem or have identified why it won’t be a problem for the potential buyer if they ask you. Selling a business is no different to any sales process.  You have to plan how to handle the likely objections.

Okay, let’s review this SWOT analysis again.  What’s worth spending time and effort on and what is just normal noise?  We’ll come back to this in question 11 - “What can we do to improve your business attractiveness?”  What shall we do to magnify the strengths and opportunities and eliminate, minimise or ignore the weaknesses and threats.  But I’ve got some other questions we need to answer first. More soon.

In my occasional  series on private business exit, so far I’ve asked you why you want to sell, and what your business offers the world.  Now for a question that should be asked of the owners in any private business strategy exercise, but rarely is.  What are your goals and dreams - inside the business, outside the business and after the business?

I’m not looking for warm fuzzies;  I’m looking for realistic aims that you still want to achieve and for which you are prepared to sweat and sacrifice. They may be purely monetary; they could be associated with status or scale or time or experience; anything really, as long as it’s what motivates you.

These are not things people always admit, so a high degree of honesty and trust is needed for this process. One British guy I know had the dream of achieving a knighthood because it would have made his mother proud (his parents had started married life very poor), and business followed by personal philanthropy was his way to get there. A New Zealander wanted to make enough money that she could afford to be a full-time mother while giving her family a very attractive lifestyle.

You’d be amazed by how many owners have become so mired in the day-to-day that they’ve forgotten why they’re doing what they do.  Re-exploring those dreams and goals can be a way of re-igniting the creativity, passion and drive needed to make decisions and carry them out, to re-invigorate yourselves and/or your business. Or it could firm up a vague desire to quit into a decisive exit plan and implementation.

Of course, sometimes I’m just told to mind my own business! Many private business owners are decisive, confident people.  They’ve made a decision and I’m just there to help them carry it out.  In the context of private business exit, what’s important to understand is whether the private business owners are ready to sell, able to sell, and willing to sell.  It may also set some constraints or freedoms around the business sale process.

Self-proclaimed innovation expert and author Scott Berkun asserts on Harvard Business that innovation is overrated.  I buy his argument up to a point.  We all have those favourite stores, restaurants, pubs, hotels, tradesmen, etc. where the business model hasn’t changed for years, decades or even centuries. It was always good and we don’t want it to change, just like we never want to change Grandma’s Yorkshire pudding cooked around rare roast rib of beef.

Some companies do waste a lot of effort, money and resources on pointless innovation eg. satisfying the noisy 1% of customers demanding expensive extras not valued by their main market, chasing the leader’s outdated pet ideas, flogging dead horses, or simply not innovating enough stuff that can add value. I’ve shut down such wasted efforts on several occasions.

However, Berkun makes a woolly case by citing, as examples of non-innovators, companies like Pixar and Apple, which have to be some of the most respected innovators on the planet.  Sure, Pixar didn’t invent film animation, but it leads the world in new ideas and techniques in that field, which in turn enables new story ideas and presentations to be realised.  Apple didn’t invent personal computing, personal music players or music downloads, but it still comes up with great products which stretch the market’s expectations. And even great traditional businesses keep themselves fresh in some ways in order to remain viable, albeit by minor but continuing improvement.

Berkun may have a very strict definition of innovation, but I suspect he’s really just doing the usual business author huckster trick of trying to drive book sales by making an outrageous statement based on a tiny kernel of reality. I don’t buy those books.

It takes guts to walk away from your biggest customer - and that’s what IT services business Gen-i has done in Australia. It has announced that it will not put in a bid to renew its 8 year-old, $500 million a year contract with CBA Bank. Gen-i says it is focusing on the middle market in the Land of Oz. I surmise that the margins on the CBA contract were razor thin and didn’t justify the effort and capital investment required. Knowing how fiercely parent company Telecom NZ has defended its big customers in the past, this represents a huge mind-shift  (no doubt following a prolonged and intense internal debate). The market announcement is also a smart move - most people will understand, it explains any resultant staff layoffs, and it sends a powerful signal to customers and the sales team.

Many big customers are able to negotiate huge discounts from their suppliers, in part because suppliers are too scared to lose the big accounts, even though the business is unprofitable. I’ve seen it myself at close quarters. Companies put off firing big customers; they don’t want to lose the prestige of having the account, and they don’t want to lay off staff because that’s unpleasant, with real effects on staff morale and market confidence. So they struggle on, captive to their large unprofitable customers.

A business is not a charity (for the customer or the staff). You need to be rational and tough-minded; fire customers if they don’t make enough money for you. Bite the bullet, by setting an exit date and figuring out if and how you can redeploy the people and other resources tied up in the account. And tell the customer what you plan to do - they might surprise you and offer to accept to a decent price rise (but only agree if it really is worthwhile - or you’ll still be stuck in the same mess).

So well done Gen-I.  Maybe now, Telecom shares will start going back up.

PS I own Telecom NZ shares (sigh!)

PPS I’m still alive!

This was going to about two lists published by The Times - 50 reasons not to buy an iPhone and 25 reasons to avoid the latest iPhone.  Unfortunately my train of thought has gone off at a tangent, so at the risk of incurring the wrath of the technorati, here’s a tongue-in-cheek insight about IT people that you may not have known.

Many people think IT folk are super-rational.  IT people like to reinforce this idea.  Well, it ain’t so.  They’re often rabid fanatics when it comes to their preferred personal computing platform.  Forget the rationality - this is about ideology.  If you want to see the nearest thing to a three-way, free-for-all, bare-knuckle boxing match, put a Microsoft fan, an Apple fan and an Open-source/Linux fan into a room and tell them they have to agree on a recommendation for the new company PC standard.  Believe me, it won’t be pretty.  And they won’t agree on anything.

To add to the mayhem, throw in one of those strange illogical hybrids - the Open-source fans who carry around Apple laptops and iPhones.  How they reconcile their passion for non-proprietary standards with their enthusiasm for the most proprietary tech gear on the planet is beyond explanation.

Of course, there are some quite sensible advocates for these various technologies.  I even know some.  But not many.

PS. If I’m not blogging tomorrow, call the police. I may have suffered serious harm.

Owld Grumbleton (also over here in the UK) has posted about why he still buys the print edition of newspapers, even though he gets most of his news online faster. He scans a page of a newpaper and picks up interesting well-written articles he wouldn’t be drawn to if he only relied on the newspaper’s online summaries, but he warns papers that they need to maintain and improve their writing, analysis and commentary if they want to sell print editions in future:

Web-site scanning rarely brings me such gems. So I still buy papers - but sometimes I despair at their paucity. Dominion Post and NZ Herald, take note - you rarely surprise me in print, and I’m no longer a print edition subscriber. Your websites are ok for NZ news but your print editions are fast becoming too little, too late, and too boring.

By implication, online media need to find ways to achieve the equivalent of the quick page scan, since the usual online article summaries don’t achieve that gestalt effect which enables the noticing of something interesting on the page and draws the reader to focus on the article.  If that is achieved, maybe print news will really be done for.

Talking on Friday about the current crises in finance, oil, housing, consumer confidence et al, my companion (someone in the City of London who is very knowledgeable about executive capability) observed that many managers in UK firms today have never had to manage in a major downturn, and their counterparts in their funders (banks and private equity firms) have similar limited experience.  Given the odd up and down, they have enjoyed a dream run for over 20 years. So they’ll take too long to react to the tighter markets, take too long to adjust their business models (yes, I’m talking about staff lay-offs), and they’ll end up having people like me imposed on them - people used to driving restructurings and turnarounds.

On the other hand, my companion thinks that the technology sector is, on the whole, in pretty good shape, having already been through a great deal of stress post-2001. Firm action quickly taken will see most tech firms through. Maintaining this positive tone, entrepreneur Simon Woodroffe and business pundit René Carayol reminded us on this Sunday’s BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House programme  (available for 1 week, fast forward 45 minutes) that recessions come along every now and then, that it’s not the end of the universe, that it’s not as bad as the media would have you think, and that there’s probably no better time to start a business or invest in a good one.  In other words, DON’T PANIC!

As I observed some months ago, Britain is a land of opportunity, despite the downturn.  So too are the other Anglo economies, of Canada, Australia, New Zealand (already used to greater economic variances than most) and yes even the USA. Actually, come to think about it, I’m positive about most economies in the long term. I feel better already.

Just a bit of fun, really. Two Australian ad agencies have developed spoof TV ads to persuade Ozzies that it’s a good idea for Australia to invade the “Shakey Isles”.  Great sibling banter.

(Spotted via David Farrar).

The team at Valuecruncher have posted a useful analysis of Microsoft’s strategic situation:

It created one of the dominant global businesses of the late 20^th century but has struggled to move beyond the core products that drove this success.

The Client (Windows), Server and Tools (enterprise solutions) and MBD (Office) divisions drive 83% of revenues and over 100% of operating profits (the On-line Services and Entertainment divisions are still operating at a loss).

Microsoft has spent a lot of money and resources (especially senior management focus) on the aborted (maybe) attempt to acquire Yahoo (YHOO). We agree with the analysis that the pursuit of Yahoo is an attempt to compete with Google (GOOG) in what has become one of the dominant global businesses of the early 21^st century (on-line advertising driven by search). ….

At Valuecruncher we are not convinced by this strategy of competing with Google - we are not alone. We completely respect Microsoft’s previous successes in following into and then dominating markets. But in the on-line advertising and search market we see some of the same network effects that suggest a “winner takes all” competitive situation. …

Microsoft should be directing their strategic efforts – not competing head-to-head with Google in a market their competitor dominates.

Overall I agree.  I’ve previously opined that Microsoft’s attempt to acquire Yahoo must be driven by something more subtle than a head-on clash with Google.  Despite what the technorati think about instant messaging and collaboration tools, email is still the dominant communication medium especially between people who are not in close work relationships. Microsoft and Yahoo still control the lion’s share of that business. Doing something clever with email could create a whole space where Google may struggle to go.  With the new work collaboration tools and methods, Google is struggling to gain credibility with business users. Not only are their groupware and email applications limited in scope, they aren’t robust.   According to ex-Googler Sergey Solyanik:

Google as an organization is not geared - culturally - to delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications.

All of which gives Microsoft plenty of room to move, based on less risky, more certain development of its strengths in email, groupware and enterprise solutions, while exploring ideas for “the next big thing”.

Valuecruncher finishes with this:

Our analysis gives a valuation of US$33.01 which is 20% above the current share price of US$26.03. The market appears to be placing a negative value on the noise around an acquisition of all or part of Yahoo. Focusing on the harvesting the core business and innovating (by making small bets) beyond that core appears to be the highest value strategy for Microsoft.

As usual, Valuecruncher encourages you to play with their valuation model to perform your own valuation.

Update: You should note that I own Google shares - their money machine is formidable. I’m having a bob (10c) each way.

French lingerie maker Aubade has announced it’s moving production to Tunisia. No, it isn’t just an excuse to post a picture of a scantily clad young woman!  To show you that some of us business types have finer feelings,  Rawdon Adams from Capital Chronicle has marked the news with one of his poetic creations: Aubade for Aubade (aubade translates as serenade).

Sunset, physically fit, long nights, leçons de séduction
and Aubade.

Salute the ladies of Saint Savin, Vienne.
Savoir faire, artists, therapists (even). But now sad.

Many others too. What now of Tigresse, Lotus, Verone
and the model to match?

Laid off, not even your regional president
Madame Ségolène Royale, doubtless quite mad

Could stop the the sun rising at the new factory in Tunisa.
Globalisation is not a fad.

Nor did voluptuousness make the break of day.
The new collections plus skinny are simply not up to scratch.

Lingerie française. Now made in the Maghreb.

PS: Warning to blokes: You follow the links, you explain them to the boss!

In my series of 16 questions to develop a plan to sell your private company, I first asked “Why do you want to sell?” Now I want to know about your business: what exactly does it offer the world?  If you can’t articulate your market offer, how do you expect a potential buyer of your business to understand what it does, and by implication why it is an attractive business for them to buy?

Long-time En Avant readers will be familiar with my market offer concept. It isn’t an advertising jingle.  It’s a statement that you and your team use to sum up just what it is you do, to guide you in developing products and services, promoting them, and fulfilling your market offer:

• What your products and services are, why (and what not and why not).
• Who your customers are, why, and why they should want your offer (and who isn’t and why not).
• How and when you do things and why (and how you won’t do things and why not).
• Where your customers are, where you do things, etc (and of course where not).

You can also get useful insights by asking what is your market offer for staff, suppliers, and business partners as well as customers.

By the way, I’m assuming you want maximum value. Leaving value on the table for the buyer to gain by making improvements you could have made is just giving money away! Understanding your market offer will help you improve your business operation, optimising it to make and fulfil that offer and eliminating anything that doesn’t support or fit in with your market offer.  Actually, you should go through this exercise even if you don’t plan to sell your business at some time.

The Sunday Times (a week ago) published its list of the Top 100 private firms in Britain (as measured by sales).  Here are the Top 10:

1. Ineos - chemicals - 18.8 billion pounds annual sales
2. Alliance Boots * - pharmaceutical retail - 15.3 billion
3. John Lewis Partnership - department stores and supermarkets 6.1 billion
4. Stemcor - steel trader - 4.3 billion
5. Somerfield * - supermarkets - 4.2 billion
6. Palmer & Harvey * grocery wholesaler - 4.0 billion
7. Laing O’Rourke - construction - 3.0 billion
8. John Swire & Sons - conglomerate - 2.5 billion
9.  JCB - construction equipment - 2.3 billion
10. Virgin Atlantic - airline - 2.2 billion

The 100th largest firm comes in at just over 0.5 billion pounds in annual sales.  Reading down the full list list, it’s interesting how many of the Top 100 are in “the world of stuff” (using my admittedly large definition). About half of the Top 100 (marked with * in my list) are  significantly owned or bankrolled by private equity funds , and I expect many will drop out of the list when exit strategies are executed.

Unfortunately the summary table seems to be only  in the print edition, but all the company profiles and articles are available online. (This link should get you started.)

A US court has ruled that Google must hand over to Viacom its log of every person who has ever watched a video clip on YouTube. According to the BBC:

The log …. contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video file details. Viacom, which owns MTV and Paramount Pictures, has alleged that YouTube is guilty of massive copyright infringement. When it initiated legal action in March 2007 the firm said it had identified about 160,000 unauthorised clips of its programmes on the website, which had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

In general, I’m inclined towards Viacom’s side in the case, since Google will earn money from showing these clips, effectively getting a free ride on Viacom’s IP.  However, putting that to one side, this court ruling raises massive issues of personal privacy.  Why does the court or Viacom need to know who watched the clips?  Surely a simple count of video viewings would suffice, for the purposes of the claim?

The US Administration’s ever-greater surveillance and access powers (eg. copying your laptop files if you pass through US airport transit lounges) will be bolstered by this court ruling.  Yet the US risks losing a large part of the expanding global market for services delivered over the internet.  Already various governments insist that their records are only hosted and backed up “at home”.  Corporations and private citizens are likely to do so as well, if this intrusive trend continues.

Software-as-a-Service providers should consider how this might affect their architectures and delivery platforms. Separate data centres in every nation? What about multinational organisations? Tricky stuff to fix after the system goes live. Do you just give up on an international offering? Or will this stifle SaaS and the internet?

Maybe there’s an opportunity for offshore data centres in reputable countries where privacy is guaranteed, say on a similar level to the anti-money laundering  access which even Swiss banks have to concede.  You can’t go on fishing expeditions, you need justifiable cause to inspect the records, with privacy protected by the rule of law.

Or maybe the argument that “if you’ve done nothing to be ashamed of, you’ve got nothing to worry about” will mean most customers won’t worry about it, and this ever-increasing intrusion will just be accepted.

Meantime, here’s the #1 featured video on YouTube today.  Somehow it felt appropriate. Let’s hope it’s legal!