The French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, you may remember, declared that the Gulf War (the first one) took place only on television. He would not be mystified by today's broadcasting fakes, in which the reality as constituted on TV is the mirror opposite of that experienced by everyone else -- as different as life is from death, in fact. Far from being just an aberration at the BBC, faking is now revealed to be endemic: it's the way TV works.
We should hardly be surprised. Faking it -- hiding one version of reality with another -- is increasingly what management is about; profit is the product of an arbitrage between the company's image of reality and yours. Consider Penelope Cruz's eyelashes, or any number of airbrushed model images. Almost all advertising and much media production is faked in some sense.
We're not talking about honest mistakes here, but the more insidious practice of cutting corners and stretching reality. Articles that don't live up to sensational headlines or stories that are bulked up to justify front-page billing dispel any illusion that the print media are immune to the "embellishing" temptations that broadcasting colleagues have succumbed to.
Many companies practice deception as a part of their business model -- sometimes without even knowing it. In the June issue of Harvard Business Review, Gail McGovern and Youngme Moon describe how companies in a range of industries, from banking and hotels to mobile phones and travel, use a variety of tricks to make you pay more than the service warrants.
EXTRACTING VALUE
All service companies compete in advertising superior customer service. Yet many profit as much by extracting value as creating it. A substantial proportion of retail banking profits, for example, comes from penalizing customers for breaking arbitrary, complicated rules about minimum balances, credit limits and payment deadlines. Mobile phone companies make much of their money out of the minutes we don't use. Hotels and travel operators make it hard to find out about discounts or upgrades; some airlines have computer algorithms that run so often that it is impossible to identify what the "normal" price of a flight ought to be.
Why do companies persist with such pretenses?
First, because they can. In the Photoshop era, any image -- any digital entity -- can be manipulated by the most junior computer user in the company. Which it often is, because, second, there are financial pressures to do so.
Technology and financial pressures have propelled the wave of outsourcing and freelancing, by means of which much of what used to be a company's core work is now performed by contractors and sub-contractors.
This cuts direct costs (although not by as much as managers think), but carries heavy hidden costs. One is that freelancers and outsourcers also work for competitors, reducing differentiation and making it more likely that customers will switch. Another, as the broadcasters have found, is that if the gap between competing realities becomes too large to bridge, cheap is actually dear as trust evaporates and customers turn elsewhere.
VULNERABLE
The BBC, as a public-service broadcaster dependent on a license fee, is particularly vulnerable to charges of trust abuse, and foolhardy for perpetrating it. But the danger for non-publicly supported organizations is just as great. In financial services and mobile phones, churn is so great that a substantial part of company resources is deployed on expensive recruitment of new customers to replace those who leave.
That is called running to stand still. In the case of newspapers, could it be that it is lack of trust that has created such reader keenness to set up their own blogs and Web sites -- that we have created our own competition?
Organizations that want to maintain customer trust have two ways of avoiding broadcasting-style fakes. If they are outsourced, they need robust governance in the shape of explicit rulebooks and contracts (this is one reason why outsourcing turns out to be less cheap than expected -- it needs more formal and visible management, not less).
Old-style unitary companies have better, and often neglected, technology at their disposal. The word "values" has been so overused it is almost meaningless.
But if values are strong and unambiguous enough they are both cheaper and more foolproof than the alternative, since the rules are internalized and organic, rather than external and imposed.
Of course, some companies, pleading the pressure of the capital markets, will claim they have no choice but to fake it. Investors don't care how the numbers are made, only that they are.
This is not so much the Jean Baudrillard as the Groucho Marx school of management. As he put it: "The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made."
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS