If you are doing business with people from other cultures, you need to understand (and accept) that they are different, they behave differently, their values and norms are not the same as yours. And that’s a fact.

Some years ago, a central African country obtained a large cash injection from the EU for a project that was never implemented. A couple of years later they applied to the EU again for aid for a different project.

On that occasion, the rotating Presidency of the EU rested with a certain northern European country, who asked the Africans, “Where is the money we gave you for the last project?” No answer.

The Africans repeated their appeal for aid, but made no reference to the previous grant. In frustration, the EU President said, “We are happy to give you the aid for the new project, but if you didn’t use the last grant, show us the money and we will top it up for the new project.” No answer.

The Europeans then closed down their diplomatic mission and pulled out of the African country. They saw things in black and white and could not understand why the Africans were unable to show them the money or explain where it was.

I was reminded of that incident when I sent a sum of money to India in support of a good cause. Even allowing for variable conversion rates, the sum that arrived was 15-20% lower than I expected. I asked for a paper trail, but nothing happened, but I gather that the money had travelled through two or three banks.

Pandit Nehru once said that cash transactions in India (as in government spending) were like passing a block of ice from hand to hand: it would inevitably be smaller on arrival than when it started out.

It is, of course, easy to condemn. However, I as explained in my book, “Communicating Across Cultures”, different nations have different values and different ways of doing things. In the book I defined culture as “the way we do things around here”. And, of course, each nation has its own way of doing things, which will often be very different from your own.

Accepting that is the way to cross-cultural understanding. It’s the starting point.

Filed under: Marketing, Sales, speaking

Recently I attended the local Toastmasters Area and Evaluation contests. It was a revelation.

Almost all the speeches delivered that day were without purpose. Or, to be more precise, they had little relevance to, or value for, the assembled audience.

This is not intended as a criticism of the speakers, all of whom are at various levels of the learning process. They cannot know unless they are told what a speech is for.

Their speeches were either self-centred or simply narratives.  In the evaluation contest, for example, a speech was delivered by an invited speaker who told a charming tale of her time in Japan. She told it well, and it was interesting, but it was not a speech.

In simple terms, the purpose of a speech should be to bring about Change — in the thinking, attitude or behaviour of the audience. What passes for speeches most often could better be described as an entertainment, a confession, or a declaration. If the audience thinks, “Why do I need to hear this?” or “How is this relevant to me?” it fails as a speech.

When I am training people in public speaking, I sometimes don a surgical mask and tell them how people in Tokyo may be seen in public places wearing similar masks — not to protect themselves from that city’s infamous smog, but because they have head colds or other infectious ailments. They wear the masks to protect others from their germs.

So my question is this: is your speech for your own benefit, or for the sake of others? That’s a good starting place for any speech.  Or presentation.

Filed under: Presentations, public speaking, speaking

Here are 10 tips that will be particularly handy when doing business with people from other countries and cultures.

1. Exchanging business cards should ALWAYS be done with respect and decorum, whichever country you are in. It is so easy to make a cultural gaffe.

read more

Everywhere you look these days there are special offers and incentives to buy more, through BOGOF and 3 for 2 offers. On the face of it, customers are getting good discount offers. But not always.

Two factors are working to shift the balance of power away from the one with the money (aka the customer) towards the one who needs the money (aka the trader).

Both factors are contained within the same retailing practice – pre-packaging. It actually reduces or removes customer choice.

For example, I wanted to buy a packet of cream crackers the other day. The only cream crackers available in the supermarket that day were in twin packets. I had to buy TWO packets, like it or not. It is the same story with a wide range of products. Retailers are seeking to increase the average order value.

Some offer genuine reductions if you buy multiple units, such as 4 six-packs of dog food for £10, but still allow you to buy single units.

Where I take issue with some supermarkets is when a pre-pack includes rubbish. Take large oranges. They are pretty expensive, and come pre-packed 4 in a net.

In my experience, a significantly high percentage of these nets will contain one orange that is past its best, and may even be uneatable. I then end up getting 3 for the price of 4, which is the very opposite of a discount offer.

It has happened so often that I believe the suppliers set aside the ‘bad’ or ‘old’ oranges and arrange for the packers to include one in every net. It gets rid of produce that would otherwise be wasted, and relies on some customers not complaining.

It’s the same principle as production line manufacture, such as cars. By setting a standard that is short of perfect, the manufacturer speeds up output and accepts that a calculated percentage of cars will be returned for repairs under warranty.

But when applied to fresh produce, it is cynical and similar to the sharp practice that got some street traders a bad name. And it removes from customers the right to pick and choose the fruit they want to buy.

On the timeline of one of my social media networks, one person has 30 (almost consecutive) posts, each with that person’s photograph. Another person has 11 such posts on the same page. Scrolling down the page I am faced with seemingly endless exposure to those two people.

My initial two reactions were (a) too much and (b) not the best choice of photos.

I’ve noticed a number of people adopting the strategy of multiple posts to bring themselves to the notice of their contacts. The fundamental weakness in this approach is that each post carries a link to a website elsewhere. Effectively they are saying, “Go somewhere else and read what someone else has written.”

But will that gain them the reputation as a source of interesting material? Hardly. Who has the time or the inclination to explore 30 suggested sites just to find an article of interest?

It actually diminishes the person’s credibility. He or she is seen as someone who is simply spraying out a random collection of links for the sake of attention. He or she has no obvious connection with the recommended articles. The term ‘content farmer’ springs to mind.

Let me now turn to the photographs. I’m not sure how some people choose their profile pics. Do they ever get feedback from trusted friends? Every headshot makes a statement – ask John Cassidy. There’s strong body language in the pose. And we are not always the best judges of our own photographs.

The two in question are OK as single images, which serve merely as identifiers. But when there are 11 or 30 of the same images in a row, you start to form an opinion about the people themselves. That’s when the choice of photo becomes relevant, and when it’s advisable to get feedback from trusted friends.

Once you alienate people through over-exposure of this kind, they will automatically dismiss anything you post in future. It’s overkill.

It amounts to being a nuisance.

Filed under: Blog Category, Marketing

 Depends on how you see it.

The debate in direct marketing circles is a long-standing and on-going one. Which works better – long letters or short ones? The answer may surprise you. It arises out of a significant shift in our reading habits.

I experienced it at first hand this week, when I found myself reading a number of blogs in a hurry.

I read them because they were discussions on topics that interested me, and had attracted quite a few comments from well-informed people. However, I struggled with them

The reason I found them hard going was this: the paragraphs were too long.

And there were too many paragraphs.

In some blogs, for example, the text is set in 10 point, with a line length of about 110 characters. That’s hard to skim read, and you have to move your head as you read each line. Too much work.

Easy on the eye

In contrast, some online sales letters from the USA run to many pages, but the paragraphs usually consist of a single sentence and are almost NEVER more than four lines long. The line length is short too.

Some paragraphs are one-liners like this.

They also have subheads like the one above, to segment the subject matter and break up the grey text.

Why that works

We all suffer from Attention Deficit. It may not be a Disorder (yet!) but it gets in the way when we are at work.

Every day, we are all assailed by huge numbers of messages and calls for our attention: radio, TV, emails, newspapers, magazines, advertisements, posters, tannoy announcements, traffic, phone calls, conversations, meetings …

We cannot cope with more than one thing at a time, so we have developed the ability to switch off. In fact, it’s a reflex that kicks in very quickly.

So what’s the answer?

The answer is to deliver your information in small bites. Like this blog. Make it easy for the reader to take in each new idea or piece of information, and it will increase your chances of being read all the way down the page. Page after page.

Filed under: copywriting, Direct Marketing, Marketing, Writing

It seems to me that the main reason why people get anxious about speaking in public is that they are not sure what is expected of them. If you have a speech or presentation to deliver, here are 15 tips to help dispel that anxiety by making sure you are well prepared.

Filed under: Presentations, public speaking, speaking

A well known triumvirate for success in business is Aptitude, Attitude and Altitude. According to a survey of UK executives from February to March 2013, talent management is far and away the most important corporate strategy. That places Aptitude at the top of the tree.

And yet, the same survey reveals, half the respondents said that their companies did not have a talent management strategy in place.

read more

On Radio 4 this morning, announcing a programme that was to follow, the announcer said, “People are reticent to spend …” I was moved to write this correction, not merely because she and others use the wrong word, but because it was a shibboleth.

First, the correction. She should have said “People are reluctant to spend …” Reticent means being reserved in speech, holding back from saying something, being inclined to silence, not wanting to speak.

In the context of her announcement, she clearly meant that people were unwilling to spend. Reluctance means being unwilling or disinclined. The words are slightly similar, but they mean very different things.

Confusing one with the other is quite common, in both senses of the term. It’s an error that many make, so it’s common in that sense. But it is also an indicator of a down-scale language pattern, suggesting poor education and/or social inferiority – being socially common. That’s why it’s a shibboleth, a social gaffe.

A shibboleth is a test word or principle that marks its user as an outsider. The term derives from the Biblical story of the battle between the Gileadites and Ephraimites, which the latter lost. Anyone trying to cross the Gileadite checkpoints was asked to say “Shibboleth”. The Ephraimites could only say “Sibboleth”, which identified them as the enemy, and they were slain.

Since then the term has been used to mean anything that marks a person as a (usually inferior) non-member. In the context of business, especially in the increasingly competitive job market, shibboleths can disqualify candidates from consideration, no matter how able they may otherwise be.

They could be condemned for saying something similar, but incorrect.

For my part, linguistic shibboleths such as the one on Radio 4 this morning make me set aside my reticence and even my reluctance to criticise.  Silence, after all, would be collusion.

Filed under: copywriting, public speaking, speaking, Writing

This morning I tried to buy some sheet music online. I’ve done it before, and expected it to be straightforward. It wasn’t. This was an outfit I had not used before, and will never use again.

First I was sent to a page that was packed with 24 alternatives that I didn’t want, plus various other distractions that got in the way of my intended purchase. Then, when I found the way to the Checkout, I entered my email address, but was asked to provide my home address and all other contact details. All for the sake of a transaction that was less than 3 quid.

Where was the focus of that website? It certainly wasn’t on the customer.

Why subject a casual customer to such an interrogation? It created an irritation, and I simply exited the site. But it didn’t stop there. I received an email telling me I had not completed the purchase, so I returned to the site, looking for a way to cancel the transaction.

I found myself back on the page requiring me to provide full contact details.

In the olden days, a chap could wander into a shop (remember those?), hand over some cash and walk out with the purchase, without having to provide any information about himself, or waste time trying to disentangle himself from them.

Bring back the shop.