If you can, please forgive the blatantly self-promotional nature of this post. Yes, I have that agenda today (think Search Engine Optimization), but I’m also talking business change.
On Monday, The New York Times’ David Brooks wrote about the different paths government is taking in Britain and the USA. His argument in a nutshell is that in Britain government is changing, and the people are benefiting. Business as usual isn’t working, and is being rejected at the highest levels. Here in the USA, well . . . business as usual rules the day, controls the actions of many of our politicians, and we have serious problems—and aren’t addressing them.
It’s almost impossible to argue with Mr. Brooks on that last point. Clearly, we have problems, and it’s difficult to imagine someone taking the position that we’re doing very much about creating the kind of full-scale business change necessary to address them.
Which brings me back to Britain.
Our former overlords have had their share of problems, too. Things are kind of weird over there, as demonstrated by the amazing popularity of the story about how soccer star Ryan Giggs and Reality TV personality and model Imogen Thomas has conducted an affair. OK, their affair wasn’t the story; the story was that a British court had issued something called a “Super Injunction” that made talking about it in the press illegal. This in the country that launched the entire genre of faux journalism when it gave us The Star.
I told you about the Giggs/Thomas/Twitter story on Monday, the same day David Brooks heaped his praise on the British government’s willingness to adopt business change. And later that day, the Super Injunction was rendered moot when a member of parliament spoke about Ryan, Imogen, and the 75,000 Twitter users who had spoken openly about the subject. And it struck me as silly at the time, because you’d think parliament had better things to discuss.
But by speaking about the issue in parliament, where members are allowed to speak about anything and stay beyond the reach of the legal system, the matter was simply … ended. And presumably that was the point; in business (and government—and what’s the difference, really?) when you have a weapon, it’s OK to use it.
So I’m happy to talk about Monday’s matter again, because it suits my purposes; we’re pretty darned good at long tail marketing, and telling you about Britain, business change, Mr. Brooks, and sex between famous people gives me a chance to leverage that a bit.
Relating government actions, inaction, and the topic of business change lets me talk about business change. Relating that to socialism seems fair, so here’s a link to our story about Bill Maher, Socialism, and The NFL. I even have a chance to talk about AOL, Tim Armstrong, The Huffington Post, and The Business Change of Content Farms. Why? Because I said so.
Sometimes, business change comes down to just that. Be daring. Be stubborn. Be unreasonable. And move forward, regardless of what others tell you.
Self-serving enough? Almost. Don’t forget to visit The Answer Guy’s Search Engine Optimization page.
OK, NOW that’s enough.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks