Can you buy happiness?

I have no pretensions about this being a commercial enterprise with a profit motive. 

It is true that it is better to teach a hungry woman how to fish than to feed her a fish. The former teaches independence and the latter teaches dependence.

I recognize that the profit motive is paramount. Think about it. What is the underlying contributing factor for every contribution made to a charitable organization in this world? The profit motive. For instance, Bill Gates or a General Electric make a charitable contribution out of monies obtained from a profit-driven enterprise. The average Jane making a charitable contribution out of her source of income (presumably from an entrepreneurial enterprise or a job). Even the government, perhaps the largest form of "non-profit" organization in the world, gets its funding (taxes) from activities that have a profitable motive. Would an unprofitable company be taxed? In that sense, setting up a profitable operation is of paramount importance as this results in funding charitable organizations. Without the former, the latter cannot exist. This view is not meant to in any way reduce the important role that non-profit and charitable organization play as they are after all a means through with the profitable resources generated in the world economy are channeled to those in need of help. Some non-profits teach to fish, other just provide the fish. I am not going to get into that debate though. 

I think I am belaboring my point. I have personally had to grapple with whether I want to enter social service or set up a commercial, profit motivated organization. With my above belief, I think it makes sense for me personally to get into the latter.

Now the issue is, should I pursue a 100% profitable endeavor, one that after years or decades of work will enable me to set up a charitable foundation to give back to society? This is where I want to differ from the usual model of get rich and then, after a lapse of time, enter the charitable arena, although there is nothing inherently wrong in that approach. But here is my point. I think businesses should be charitable from day one. Profit is good, but perhaps not a 100% profit. For instance, if a company says that 20% of its profits will be earmarked for charity does not mean that this enterprise is deviating from being 100% profitable and only aiming to be 80% profitable. Instead, the way I would look at it is that a company is 100% focused on attaining the 80% profit and 100% focused on making the remaining 20% profit so that this could go towards socially responsible causes. It would be great if all companies view themselves not as instruments of profit but as instruments of social change. After all, a profitable company would enrich employees, motivate employees, and create greater spending power in society. That is social change. But also, the 20% would help the more unfortunate in this world. That is social change too. 

The government, when you think of it, is such a small part of the workforce. Most people work in businesses. It is therefore the businesses and its employees who can bring about even greater social change than the government. I am not advocating that capitalism adapt to socialism. In fact, I don't care about an academic discussion about what capitalism and socialism are. I am saying that a business enterprise needs to be profit driven as well as have a conscience about making the world a better place. What we are seeing in today's world, with all the interconnectedness brought about by the Internet, is a greater awareness of all that happens in various parts of this world. For even a casual follower of the news, it should. hopefully, be obvious that changes in one corner do reverberate across the world. In such a world, the actions of a business in one corner of the world have a big/small/huge/insignificant impact somewhere else in the world. While this may have been true even centuries ago ( say with colonialism, for better or worse), it is just more visible today (Facebook, Starbucks's social responsibility, BP (in a bad way), etc.). 

That is why, I am calling for the setting up of a new type of commercial enterprise. One that has profit as its primary motive, but also has a social agenda and a conscience for doing what is "good". Wall Street (WS), for instance, would be one sector that would be ripe for such a thought process. Of course, I don't want to spend another sentence on WS.

Sure, the rich can get richer and can spend on conspicuous consumption if they so choose to. Nothing wrong about that, particularly if you have worked hard and good to get there. But let not life be about ensconcing one self in the pleasures of life when the going is good. There is a lot of bad stuff that happens in the world, even if it is a "world away". So while one enjoys the fruits of a fortunate existence, one must not forget those who also seek to raise their standard of living, as they see fit. For at the end of the day, the whole world is interconnected and bad actions and practices will come back to bite whereas good actions and practices will create a perpetual cycle of goodness. 

Wikileaks and Terrorism - The New Frontier and what Wikileaks should have said.

This is what Coldblood (Anonymous) is quoted saying: such attacks "may hurt people trying to get to these sites" but that it was "the only effective way to tell these companies that us, the people, are displeased". <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11935539>


Doesn't that sound familiar? The physical collateral damage caused by terrorists (or nation states for that matter) is also justified by them on similar grounds.


I believe the Anonymous attacks are akin to a first world war, albeit a cyber war. And this is just the start, on a small scale. 


I believe that, in the spirit of openness, what Wikileaks is doing is good. And, in fact, it should have taken a very statesman-like stand on the Anonymous attacks. Instead, this is what they say that they neither condemn nor condone these attacks. What! I think the right answer should have been that they condemn such attacks but will encourage peaceful protests (akin to the civil disobedience movement of India). This would be the right thing to say given my take on the issue.


Sure, the nay-sayers would say peaceful "civil disobedience" will not be effective enough. That may have been true in the pre-internet and pre-scocial networking age. Today though, it could have a significant impact. Nobody knows for sure, but time will tell.


Peaceful ways to resolve issues is always the right way. "Force may still be used as a last resort". That last sentence is nebulous and can start endless hypothetical arguments.


Comments are welcome!

HBR Article on the Provenance Paradox

Just read an article in the Dec 2010 HBR by Rohit Deshpande on the Provenance Paradox that is an example of an article lacking a credible suggestion to overcome the PP or a recognition of what the true problem is (IMHO).


He explains what the PP means but his solution....get companies in emerging markets to start Tweeting and increasing their presence on social networks. That will take care of everything. I can't help being cynical at the naivety of the solution. I recognize the possibilities of social media but his is not the solution.


Well, before we get to a solution, lets try to understand what the problem is. IMHO, it comes down to people's perception of a country. Frankly, an India or a China does not measure up to the west. Whether it is democracy, corruption, people's attitude towards civilities and respect of human rights, or just tasteless hedonism (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/12/are_indias_rich_not_philanthropic_enough.html), the emerging markets cannot match up to the west.


This is not to say the west has always been a paragon of virtue (colonialism) or is all that good today (the persecution of Roma's; Madoff). 


Recognize that every country and civilization goes through phases (there was a time when India was a paragon of culture and civilization whereas all of Europe was not (pre-Renaissance). Since we are talking of the present and the future of our lifetimes, I can confidently say that the west is far ahead of the emerging markets.


My point may be lost, so let me try to make it now. The perception you now have of a country affects how you view the brands that come from it. If China had been an USA, and Apple were to be born there, then Apple China would have been a great brand. But the reality is that Apple was born in the USA = silicon vally = freedom of expression and land of immense opportunity = amazing people like Steve Jobs who could thrive in this environment = A great company = A great product. I can't write that equation for the China of today (China = no freedom of speech, agressive, etc.) or the Mexico of today (Mexico= drugs, violent crime, etc) or the India of today (India = rampant corruption, ugly politics, caste system, social discrimination, etc.). Basically there is a coolness factor...that is not there in these countries. I don't deny they have good stuff happening in those countries (take the example of Liu Xiabo) but it takes time to get to the coolness.


The Professor of the HBR article goes to great pains to make the point that Japanese and Korean brands also faced the PP when they tried to enter the western markets. But, they were looked down upon. But eventually, the Sonys, Acuras, Hondas, Samsungs, LGs, etc. became respectable and even "cool" brands. But this proves my point because if you look at these two countries today.... you don't think corruption, inequalities, etc. the way you would for the emerging economies. 


The Professor makes other ridiculous suggestions. One that irks me is where he says "Downplay your country of origin". What a shame. Sure it is a quick fix (for profits). But what does it for a country's pride? A long-term solution is to have a country mature, for the people to wake up to the foolishness of their moral DNA (take the Indian caste and social discrimination for example). If you ask for an example, take the newly born nation of Israel (Start-up nation: the story of Israel's economic miracle by By Dan Senor, Saul Singer). 


The Provenance Paradox is a genuine problem. But it will take more than a few slick tricks to overcome it. It will need a paradigm shift in the way people look at their society and countrymen and, finally, their nation's standing on the world stage, that will automatically reflect well on their nation's brands.


Freestyle.


Conversations welcome.